![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It makes my head hurt, it really does. Trying to understand exactly what the news article will be about by reading the link name and one sentence tag. Didn't any of the people writing news today take journalism class? You are supposed to put the 5 w's right up front so the reader understands. I knew that in seventh grade. But I swear most writers have never heard of it. They think of it as some sort of puzzle -- give confusing, even contradictory "teases" to draw the bewildered reader in and then through down the challenge: Think you can guess what we're going to be talking about? Well, you can't! So there.
I was reading this very interesting article on China and North Korea when a sidebar headline caught my eye:
Link name: British 'nowhere near' capturing Basra
Summary: Commander says resolve of paramilitary forces underestimated, but general denies reports allies are 'bogged down'
Am I the only one that looks at the and goes, "Huh"? The way it reads, the second part almost negates the first. Not only that, but they use annoying non-contextual, non-attributed 'quotes' in the headline and the generic terms "commander" and "general" so the reader has no real idea of who the people are or which as more knowledge and authority. While the article itself if, thankfully, not as annoying as the headlines (although I have read some that had been), it's really not that much better.
What I really hate is when the press asks a question and then uses the terminology they chose in the quote from the official, thereby giving that term an authority that it didn't have before:
Hypothetical example (because I didn't tape the news conference this morning)--
Reporter: "Do you believe our rush to Baghdad has unintentionally put our young men and woman at greater risk for attack from the unexpectedly fierce Iraqi resistance? And do you feel that you greatly underestimated the resistance that we are encountering from the Iraqi military."
Answer: "While our movement toward Baghdad has advanced quickly, it is not putting our forces at any more risk than war already presents. As for the resistance we've been encountering, I do not feel that we greatly underestimated the resistance although we didn't expect the level of brutality that we see in that resistance."
Headline: 'Rush' toward Baghdad not putting forces at 'more risk'.
Lead Sentence: The army 'didn't expect' the resistance that they encountering in Iraq, but the general denies having 'greatly underestimated' it.
*sigh* I realize that the responses that the pentagon gives are circumspect (at best) or non sequitur (at worst), I find that the manipulation of words and phrases to make a more provocative headline annoying (at best) and disingenuous (at worst).
I was reading this very interesting article on China and North Korea when a sidebar headline caught my eye:
Link name: British 'nowhere near' capturing Basra
Summary: Commander says resolve of paramilitary forces underestimated, but general denies reports allies are 'bogged down'
Am I the only one that looks at the and goes, "Huh"? The way it reads, the second part almost negates the first. Not only that, but they use annoying non-contextual, non-attributed 'quotes' in the headline and the generic terms "commander" and "general" so the reader has no real idea of who the people are or which as more knowledge and authority. While the article itself if, thankfully, not as annoying as the headlines (although I have read some that had been), it's really not that much better.
What I really hate is when the press asks a question and then uses the terminology they chose in the quote from the official, thereby giving that term an authority that it didn't have before:
Hypothetical example (because I didn't tape the news conference this morning)--
Reporter: "Do you believe our rush to Baghdad has unintentionally put our young men and woman at greater risk for attack from the unexpectedly fierce Iraqi resistance? And do you feel that you greatly underestimated the resistance that we are encountering from the Iraqi military."
Answer: "While our movement toward Baghdad has advanced quickly, it is not putting our forces at any more risk than war already presents. As for the resistance we've been encountering, I do not feel that we greatly underestimated the resistance although we didn't expect the level of brutality that we see in that resistance."
Headline: 'Rush' toward Baghdad not putting forces at 'more risk'.
Lead Sentence: The army 'didn't expect' the resistance that they encountering in Iraq, but the general denies having 'greatly underestimated' it.
*sigh* I realize that the responses that the pentagon gives are circumspect (at best) or non sequitur (at worst), I find that the manipulation of words and phrases to make a more provocative headline annoying (at best) and disingenuous (at worst).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 05:48 pm (UTC)From:Summary: After dropping nearly as many tons of ordinance as was used to obliterate Dresden, some 35 poor souls have been killed and 200 injured, none of which is Saddam.
Implication: Western military forces can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Nice writing hon. I agree...and then some. I'm thinkin' about writing about it as well, but it'd be long and God knows people hate length lol.