Headline Grammar

[Liar]

A recent news headline that caught my eye. Not because of the content, but because of the language.

-----

Police use of Tasers causes few injuries: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The use of Taser stun weapons by U.S. police forces inflicts very few serious injuries, researchers said on Monday, but a leading human rights group was unswayed, pressing its call for a moratorium on them.

[...]

-----

What the heck is the ": study" about? It looks like a sloppy mistake of cut n paste. Is that really a gramatically correct line?

Why not ", study says"? I could even buy "Study: police use...". But this?

Someone better versed in the English language please explain.

 

[Guest]

It makes it sound like an order. Study it or else you get the taser. ha..

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

Lately I've noticed an increase of errors in the newspapers.

 

[neonlyte]

A colon in a sentence normally heralds a list of related items: study, tables, photographs, scorch marks.

It's a bad sentence. Few Police injuries in study of Tasers, works better.

 

[R. Richard]

A colon in a sentence normally heralds a list of related items: study, tables, photographs, scorch marks.

It's a bad sentence. Few Police injuries in study of Tasers, works better.

However, your version is not correct.

Study shows fuzz use of Tasers causes few injuries.

 

[Belegon]

Grammar & headlines mix only where space/time allows... While I try to follow grammatical rules, I ignore them just as often, based on space available and impact desired. The only real rule for a headline? Get the person to read the lead. Nothing else matters.

 

[The_Fool]

Grammar & headlines mix only where space/time allows... While I try to follow grammatical rules, I ignore them just as often, based on space available and impact desired. The only real rule for a headline? Get the person to read the lead. Nothing else matters.

Was gonna call you a journalist whore, but thought you might take me serious and start to charge....

 

[Carnevil9]

I don't know if it's approved by Strunk & White, but the colon is commonly used as a headline shortcut for "according to." The shorter the headline, the better, because then the type can be larger.......Carney

 

[Stella_Omega]

I miss Harold Ross.

 

[Belegon]

Was gonna call you a journalist whore, but thought you might take me serious and start to charge....

I'll take the query/comment seriously, if you don't mind...

I try to write responsibly and with appropriate grammar, etc. even on my blogs. But I am turning more whorelike in a way... I have always been somewhat aware that I am a columnist, not a reporter. As such, I can express opinion and root for my team without compromising "journalistic objectivity."

But more and more I find that I get the more interesting discussions, and not coincidentally the most new pageloads, when I write purely from emotion. And I am beginning to understand the appeal from this side of the desk. Controversy is fun.

That is not to say I will ever express an opinion I don't believe just to drum up readership. But I have decided to use my emotion, rather than telling myself to calm down before I write to maintain objectivity.

 

[ishtat]

. The only real rule for a headline? Get the person to read the lead. Nothing else matters.

What real evidence do you have to support the assertion that non-grammatical, perhaps smartass headlines are more effective in achieving your objective?

Or is your assessment merely another occasion to use your emotion rather than your intellect?

I am not sure that journalists are their own best judges.

 

[gauchecritic]

I've never really understood the point of the gigantic size headline.

I may not be of the 'unwashed' but large lettering does nothing for me in terms of grabbing interest.

And JBJ's habit of capitalising people's handles to headline his replies really irks me.

 

[Grushenka]

I miss Harold Ross.

Yeah, boo hoo from me too.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm with Bel. When I managed a collegiate newspaper, our advisor was a thirty-year veteran of local news. The important thing, she said, was to write a headline that was 'bold, crafty, and concise.' Grammar could be bent liberally toward this end, even abused.

Don't know of any studies that backed it up; the claim was based more upon 'what had always been done.'

But of several collegiate newspapers in the city, ours was the only one with a rather sizeable following outside the state. We must have been doing something right

 

[starrkers]

A recent news headline that caught my eye. Not because of the content, but because of the language.

-----

Police use of Tasers causes few injuries: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The use of Taser stun weapons by U.S. police forces inflicts very few serious injuries, researchers said on Monday, but a leading human rights group was unswayed, pressing its call for a moratorium on them.

[...]

-----

What the heck is the ": study" about? It looks like a sloppy mistake of cut n paste. Is that really a gramatically correct line?

Why not ", study says"? I could even buy "Study: police use...". But this?

Someone better versed in the English language please explain.

"Study says" is too long to fit the headline count given.
"Study: police..." puts the attribution first, rather than the information. That is poor headline form.

The type size of a headline is typically set by someone other than the poor sap who has to write it. It is up to the person writing the headline to come up with an accurate wording to fit the size and space given.

 

[cantdog]

ishtat!

I am not sure that journalists are their own best judges.

Hey, kid! Long time no see.

 

[Belegon]

What real evidence do you have to support the assertion that non-grammatical, perhaps smartass headlines are more effective in achieving your objective?

Or is your assessment merely another occasion to use your emotion rather than your intellect?

I am not sure that journalists are their own best judges.

You are saying something I did not say.

I never said that I TRY to be grammatically incorrect. And I never mentioned "smartass" headlines at all.

Actually, "smartass" headlines usually HURT, in my experience. That's because most "smartass" references are "inside jokes." Unless something is so obvious that every reader is going to get it. So that headline only attracts readers you already have.

Example:

No more listening to Sinatra this year!

vs.

Cleveland overcomes Yankees 6-4 to advance to ALCS

Unless you are writing for the Cleveland Plains Dealer, headline #2 is going to be more likely to get your story read. And if you are writing for the Cleveland paper, your story is going to get read by Indians fans regardless.

As to the evidence I have? I write for a website, not a paper. My page stats change every day. How much is due to headlines? Hard to say. But I need things that cause people googling game results to click on my link. That's my goal with a headline.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There is an article in Sunday's paper that is remarkable. A local reporter went to Jena, Louisiana, with a bus-load of do-gooders, to protest. She intended to write a story about Civil Rights. She wrote a story about a bus full of drunks and bullies and ass-grabbers. There were plenty of grammar and punctuation errors in the story. I think the errors seasoned her tale about a cluster-fuck.

 

[gauchecritic]

Police use of Tasers causes few injuries: study

And anyway the headline is ambiguous. Is the fact of a few injuries a large matter or a small one. It's not indicated in the headline. Were the injuries unexpected or are they negligible in the total count?
Did they actually cause injury (burns, heart attacks etc) or did they lead to injury (smacking of heads on pavement)?

Police taser use: Injury Study More grammatical. Less words - bigger headline.

And the bonus of being slightly more dramatic without revealing anything.

 

[starrkers]

Problem with your version, Gauche, is that it'd get thrown back to the sub for being too short. As I said before, the sub writing the headline is given the headline size and length and must work to that.

Headline size is used to denote the relative importance of a story on the page.

 

[S-Des]

Problem with your version, Gauche, is that it'd get thrown back to the sub for being too short. As I said before, the sub writing the headline is given the headline size and length and must work to that.

Headline size is used to denote the relative importance of a story on the page.

Plus I want to know what the story is about. When I'm passing by Yahoo, I often glance at the headlines to see if anything strikes me as interesting. A headline that reads Police taser use: Injury Study sounds boring and I have no idea if there's any reason for me to read it. If the headline implies that injuries from tasers are less than you'd expect, it is something I might take a look at. It would be interesting to see the difference between the techniques that used to be used versus the ones used today. Although a taser seems cruel, it's actually far less dangerous to a suspect, especially one that won't cooperate. It's also a hell of a lot safer for the cop. The downside is that it would be easy to misuse and they have to be trained to apply it without causing unintended injuries (such as people hitting their heads after being tased). All of these things could be discussed in the article, making it something I'm interested in enough to pause my surfing to read.