It was accurate, short and to the point. Yet, it made some readers angry.
They were upset because last Monday’s front-page headline, “Bomb kills four
Palestinians,” did not say who was responsible for the bomb.
Reader Max Ashkenasi called the headline technically correct but “also
blatantly misleading.” Ashkenasi and others who complained feared that
readers would stop at the headline and assume that the Israelis killed the
Palestinians. It’s not the first time I’ve heard criticism from readers who
contend most people don’t read beyond a headline they consider misleading.
In fact, the first paragraph of The Associated Press story said: “Four
Palestinian militants died late yesterday apparently when a bomb they were
planting went off in northern Gaza.”
While the story itself was clear, the information in the headline was
limited. A secondary headline did nothing to clarify the main headline. It
said: “Sharon claims Jewish settlements can still be built.” Also, a
summary of developments to the right of the story included four items. The
first said: “Four Palestinian militants die in a Gaza bomb blast.” While it
identified the Palestinians as militants and said where they died, the item
did not specify who was responsible.
And that’s what critics of the headline wanted to be made immediately
plain.
Headlines cannot, because of limits on words and space, tell the full
story. But, it would have been better had the secondary headline explained
what the main headline did not — that the Palestinians did not die as a
result of Israeli action.
Mike Sappington, who runs the copy desk where headlines are written, said
the two headlines and the summary tried to cover several elements of the
story and “pull readers deeper into it for details.” He said the
combination of two headlines wasn’t the best and the list of developments
was not as complete as it should have been.
“A few readers might have been thrown off track by these introductions to
the story. But typically, readers go past headlines and other brief
material to sort out for themselves facts in a story. This is how readers
complete the picture,” Sappington said.
“While I, too, wish the headline had been more precise, some of the
criticisms seem to be based on faulty assumptions,” said Todd Merriman,
senior editor for news. “The first is the notion that relatively few people
who read the headline took the time to read the first few paragraphs of the
story. Our market studies consistently show that 50 to 60 percent of
readers say they read the front page thoroughly, with an additional 15 to
20 percent saying they browse A-1 stories.
“Second,” Merriman said, “is the assumption that we can write headlines
that are 100 percent idiot-proof. The newspaper is like most consumer
products in that its appropriate use requires some critical thinking and
effort. It’s impossible to create a newspaper that cannot be misinterpreted
or misunderstood by someone, particularly if the someone is willing to draw
conclusions from incomplete information or is only looking for information
that supports his or her biases.”
[] [] []
Readers Ted and Catherine Kornweibel were repulsed by the vivid color
photograph of bloodied boxer Vitali Klitschko that appeared on the front
page of Sports June 22. It was taken during the fourth round of the fight
against heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis. Officials stopped the fight
after the sixth of the scheduled 12 rounds. The headline below the photo
said: “Bloody good show.”
Together, the photograph and the headline made me queasy. The Kornweibels
said the photo and headline glorified violence “and needless violence, at
that.” They questioned the newspaper’s duty to responsible journalism,
especially in view of young readers. “The paper has consistently
editorialized against gang violence, yet it is approving such violence
here,” the said.
While I’m not a fan of boxing, I don’t think the newspaper was glorifying
violence. The photo may have been too graphic for some (me, included), but
I don’t think showing what happens in a fight is an endorsement of it. The
photo was defended by some on staff who said it showed exactly what
happened in that fight. The photo used by the Los Angeles Times also showed
the blood, but it was not a close-up and didn’t show the detail of the eye
injury that was apparent in The Associated Press photo used by the
Union-Tribune.
Both the Union-Tribune and the Times used “bloody good” in the headline to
describe the fight. It was a play on words based on Lewis’ English roots,
but taken with the photo used by the Union-Tribune, I thought it was over
the top.
Editors discussed the headline in connection with the photo before it was
published and decided to go with it, said Doug Williams, deputy sports
editor. Fights and fighters are known for their bloodiness, Williams said.
“In a sport as brutal as boxing, where the intent is to beat the other guy
up, photos and stories of bloody boxers have been common.”
[] [] []
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the
policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss
accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers
representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619)
293-1525. Send e-mail to: readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
End-of-Story
