Better read beyond the headlines, if you want all the facts
by George Jonas
CanWest Publications
November 24, 2005
Did you read the papers today? Or did you read only the headlines?
If you read only the headlines, you're like two-thirds of all newspaper readers, some authorities say. This was certainly what street-savvy old-timers believed. "I don't care about the stories as long as I get to write the headlines," was a remark attributed to William Randolph Hearst, one of the legendary press barons of America.
But here's the interesting question. If you're a headline reader only, as roughly six out of ten people are alleged to be, are you better or worse informed than the remaining four who read some or all of the stories? The answer isn't as straightforward as you'd think.
Some headline-writers are meticulous and gifted. They've an uncanny ability for expressing the essence of a story in the fewest possible words. Their headlines reflect, if not the truth, at least the intended conclusions of the reporters.
Other headline-writers aren't as gifted or as meticulous. If they can't figure out a way to be both punchy and accurate in six words or less, they don't always opt for accuracy. It's not rare for a headline to say the exact opposite of the story below.
You can't believe everything you read in the paper, but especially can't believe everything you read in the headlines. Reporters of news items seldom write (or even suggest) headlines for their stories. Headlines are almost invariably composed by the editorial staff. It's not so much that editors are careless or dim, but a headline may be deliberately slanted to coincide with a paper's editorial policy or an individual editor's bias. While few publications stoop to monkeying with facts, even fewer publications are above monkeying with slants.
If a quick fix of headlines provides more than half of the average newspaper reader's information quotient, a significant percentage of the average newspaper reader's information is wrong. An exclusive headline-reader may be better off if he never picks up a paper. Such a person may stay less informed (many headlines are accurate, after all) but he'd also be less misinformed. On the whole it's better to have no idea what the moon is made of than to believe that it's made of green cheese.
Here's an example from 1988. In that year the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and The Lawyers Weekly reported that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (a former lawyer) was made an honorary Bencher of the Law Society. The honour was bestowed on Mrs. Thatcher just before she came to Toronto for the economic summit in June.
All three papers reported, accurately, that some lawyers opposed the Law Society's decision to make Mrs. Thatcher a Bencher. They didn't like her politics. Lawyer and Bencher Clayton Ruby was quoted as saying that if an active politician was to be honoured, he would have picked the Black South African leader Nelson Mandela.
The stories reported that Ruby's view was shared by four Benchers out of 44. (Perhaps only by two, because the other two Benchers appeared to object to a procedural problem in the voting.) In any event, 40 Benchers liked the idea when polled on the phone, and the 30 Benchers present at the voting elected Mrs. Thatcher unanimously.
These were the facts as contained in all three news reports. What were the headlines?
"Ontario Lawyers Angry When Mrs. Thatcher Made Bencher" shouted The Lawyers Weekly. The Star echoed it almost word for word. So did the Globe.
The headlines didn't say: "Clayton Ruby Upset With Thatcher Appointment." They didn't say: "A Few Ontario Lawyers Angry." And they certainly didn't say: "90% of Benchers Happy."
Is this example evidence of a left-wing bias in the media? Perhaps, but there's better evidence for that. I'm offering this only to illustrate the tenuous relationship between headlines and the stories they herald.
The headline writer's quest is for punch, not truth. Still, don't be too concerned about headline readers being misinformed. Truth pops up in unexpected ways. Consider this headline from a 19th century British paper:
"Science Believes Powered Flight Possible"
The story quotes several contemporary scientists who say that powered flight is impossible. The solitary exception is one scientist his colleagues regard as a crank.
Clearly the accurate headline would have been "Science Believes Powered Flight A Dream." The crank's dissenting belief, however, packed more punch for the headline-writer. It's one of life's ironies that in the end it turned out to be more accurate as well.