Elisberg Industries
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like
Decent Quality Since 1847

The Greatest Story You Will Ever Read in Your Life!!!

4/28/2015

4 Comments

 
This is one of those tales that is about a small matter, but got me thinking about how it relates to a larger one.  I know I write about such things from time to time.  An occasion that bugs me personally and, perhaps few others, that might even be seen as commonplace and is nothing more than that, yet once in a while you step back (or at least I do...)  and see it in a different context.  And think, c'mon, guys we can aspire to better than this. 

Real Clear Politics had an interesting in-depth article here by statistician David Byler, which I read after seeing it linked to on the Huffington Post homepage yesterday.  Mr. Byler's article asked the question in its headline, "Will 'Proven Losers' Cost Democrats Senate Races in '16"?  The question came about since Democrats have a number of potential candidates who might be running who have run before and lost -- indeed who were former senators, but got voted out of office (and now might run again).

After describing all the methodology and analyzing its resultant research, the conclusion that Mr. Byler came up with it in his last sentence was --

"And our analysis shows that, unlike presidential candidates, Senate candidates who lost once are typically not 'losers for life'"

In other words -- no.  No, just because someone is a former candidate for the U.S. Senate who had previously lost, that doesn't mean that person will lose again.  Fine, that makes sense.  A reasonable question, a well-researched answer.  The answer is No.

Although it makes sense, however, something was nagging at me.  I was still a bit surprised by this result, yet didn't quite know why.  Mind you, the opposite conclusion hadn't necessarily been my personal presumption before reading the article -- so, why did I have that nagging concern when reading it??  I went back and checked the Huffington Post headline that I'd originally clicked on, that took me to the Real Clear Politics story.  It turns out...that was the reason for my nagging concern, and why I felt it important to read the article.

While the actual Real Clear Politics article raised the question to study -- "Will 'Proven Losers' Cost Democrats Senate Races in '16"? (to which it then answered, "no") -- the HuffPo link instead stated its headline and did so as a concerning, declarative sentence:  "Proven Losers Could Cost Democrats in 2016."

To be fair, the headline is accurate.  There's nothing in the actual story that suggests otherwise.  A former loser could lose again.  Absolutely.  Then again, as the article makes clear, they could also win.

Ultimately, the headline did just what it set out to do.  It piqued my interest.  So, hat's off.  Mind you, it did so in a deceptive way -- in fact, not just in making it seem the conclusions of the article were different than they were, but also in suggesting that the way such Proven Losers could cost Democrats was in the presidential race, but that wasn't the case either.

As a former publicist, I certainly understand a publication trying to grab its readers interest.  And I also well-know by now that headlines can by hyperbolic and do want readers to check them out.  This is my first -- or thousandth hyperbolic headline.  So, this is hardly an earth-shattering issue.  It happens, and it will continue to happen.  But -- and this is the issue here -- there are smart ways to do that and ways that can be counter-productive.  There are hyperbolic headlines that still remain true to the article, and ones that tell a near-totally different story.  And there are publications that we know do it more than others, and those that do it much less.  I just think that when you're hoping to be seen as a good, trustworthy news source, deceiving your readers isn't  the best way to fly.  It raises too many questions of trust that are the lifeblood of news coverage.  (I include "Fox News" -- whatever you think of its coverage, its viewers trust what they're being told.)  That's another thing I learned as a publicist and did my best to avoid:  I knew I could fool a journalist and get a story -- but lose any chance of working with them again, or I could be a straight-forward, risk not getting the story, but try to find some other way to make the story valuable...or find some other story that would interest them and build a good working relationship.  (Side note:  this is a rule I learned, as I said, doing PR.  I think we hold journalism to a higher standard of truth than we do movie study publicity...)  As a result, this rule not only holds, but holds to an even far-greater extent with a deceptive news headline:  You might get those initial click-throughs, but eventually you start eroding that patina of trust.  Which can take a far longer time to win back, as opposed to the blink it takes to lose it.

Ultimately, you have to decide: is the story good enough to stand on its own without a razzle-dazzle, deceptive headline?  If so, you have a great story.  If not, well then perhaps it shouldn't go on your home page.

No, this was not an egregious action.  It just wasn't a smart one. 
4 Comments
Carolyn
4/28/2015 07:40:59 am

Betteridge's law of headlines (from Wikipedia)

>>Betteridge explained the concept in a February 2009 article, regarding a TechCrunch article with the headline "Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?":

"This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."

Reply
Robert Elisberg
4/28/2015 09:20:38 am

Dear Caroyln -- ha, thanks for the note. There's clearly truth to that. (Though of course a bit of humorous exaggeration.) The reality in this case is that the article *did& have sources and facts. It just backed up a different conclusion that the "scary" one the headline suggested.

Reply
Paul link
7/7/2015 12:52:26 am

So, if I wanted to pique your interest, I would state the following... Sorry, don't think I'm capable of piquing your interest!

Reply
Robert Elisberg
7/7/2015 10:28:28 am

Ha...!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
    Picture
    Follow @relisberg

    Author

    Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. 

    Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, and two best-selling novels, is a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and was for
    the Huffington Post.  Among his other writing, he has a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel.  As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.



    Picture
           Feedspot Badge of Honor

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Animals
    Audio
    Audio Land
    Books
    Busienss
    Business
    Chicago
    Consumer Product
    Education
    Email Interview
    Entertainment
    Environment
    Fine Art
    Food
    From The Management
    Health
    History
    Huffery
    Humor
    International
    Internet
    Journalism
    Law
    Los Angeles
    Media
    Morning News Round Up
    Movies
    Music
    Musical
    Personal
    Photograph
    Piano Puzzler
    Politics
    Popular Culture
    Profiles
    Quote Of The Day
    Radio
    Religion
    Restaurants
    Science
    Sports
    Technology
    Tech Tip
    Theater
    The Writers Workbench
    Tidbits
    Travel
    Tv
    Twitter
    Video
    Videology
    Well Worth Reading
    Words-o-wisdom
    Writing

    RSS Feed

© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2023
Contact Us    About EI    Chicago Cubs
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like