Again, I would like to point out the good points of the book Modern News Editing by Ludwig and Gilmore. First off, the book is a quick read, supplemented by pictures and graphics that illustrated points. Along with those graphics and illustrations, the book also gives ample examples for different topics discussed in each chapter. This helpful and useful technique the writers employed was no different in chapter 7, “Writing Headlines.”
(I supposed I should follow the writing rules and write chapter seven as numbers fewer than ten are written out).
Either way, this chapter was interesting for a variety of reasons. One thing that I found interesting (yet complicated) was the numerical aspect of setting the headlines and picas and points sizes, etc. While it was a different aspect of headline writing to learn about, I am not completely sure I understand it. Okay, I don’t understand it, but I understand its value. (I like writing and English because of its general lack of numbers.)
One quote from the chapter that stuck in my mind was: “If the heads do their most important job – rapid summary – the careful skimmer will get the general drift of events and slow down for a story that may be worth careful reading” (107).
I see this in two ways. One: We are living in a fast paced, mobile society where people want information, and they want it now. People today need to get information quickly and can then make the decision – based on what they read in the headlines – whether or not the story is worth their time. However, this brings us to side number two: How many people in our society will actually take the time to read an article once they have read the headline? If the headline summarizes information, why would the readers think they need to read the article further?
This is where the problem lies because, I believe, that many people may not choose to read the article for more information, or they may not read the article carefully. This relates back to one of Neil Postman’s theories in Amusing Ourselves to Death. In his book, he thought that we, as Americans, knew lots of little bits of information, but were really uneducated on the hearts of the matters. We could tell you what we knew about an issue but it would usually have no depth. I agree with this in that the majority of Americans can regurgitate what they hear on a 30-second radio broadcast or read in a newspaper headline, but they can’t tell you anything in depth about the event or situation. In that respect, we are a very uninformed society that pretends otherwise.
A final aspect of this chapter that I found interesting was that they mentioned a few different times that a specific publication’s style lends to its personality and identity. And often, “a sudden, drastic change in heads may make a reader feel that a familiar friend has moved away” (108). Similarly, Ludwig and Gilmore stated that “readers become accustomed to these appearances and often express alarm when they are changed” (117). I think this all has to do with forming niches and brand loyalty. A reader will come back to a certain publication day after day because of how they do things (i.e. types of stories they cover, variety, aesthetic style, etc). Those are the specific things that draw those readers to that publication; therefore, editors should not change them unless readers express concern or their audience changes. In that way, editors need to know and understand the demographics of their audience and produce what appeals to those persons, while still serving the best interest of their publics by providing them with accurate, needed information.
Those are my thoughts on this chapter. Chapter seven did a very nice job of going over the basics of headline writing with relevant examples and supplemental graphics without getting overly technical with journalistic jargon.
And, the example they used of a clever headline, “Gift Wrap Goes Over the Top”, made me smile. Well done.
(I supposed I should follow the writing rules and write chapter seven as numbers fewer than ten are written out).
Either way, this chapter was interesting for a variety of reasons. One thing that I found interesting (yet complicated) was the numerical aspect of setting the headlines and picas and points sizes, etc. While it was a different aspect of headline writing to learn about, I am not completely sure I understand it. Okay, I don’t understand it, but I understand its value. (I like writing and English because of its general lack of numbers.)
One quote from the chapter that stuck in my mind was: “If the heads do their most important job – rapid summary – the careful skimmer will get the general drift of events and slow down for a story that may be worth careful reading” (107).
I see this in two ways. One: We are living in a fast paced, mobile society where people want information, and they want it now. People today need to get information quickly and can then make the decision – based on what they read in the headlines – whether or not the story is worth their time. However, this brings us to side number two: How many people in our society will actually take the time to read an article once they have read the headline? If the headline summarizes information, why would the readers think they need to read the article further?
This is where the problem lies because, I believe, that many people may not choose to read the article for more information, or they may not read the article carefully. This relates back to one of Neil Postman’s theories in Amusing Ourselves to Death. In his book, he thought that we, as Americans, knew lots of little bits of information, but were really uneducated on the hearts of the matters. We could tell you what we knew about an issue but it would usually have no depth. I agree with this in that the majority of Americans can regurgitate what they hear on a 30-second radio broadcast or read in a newspaper headline, but they can’t tell you anything in depth about the event or situation. In that respect, we are a very uninformed society that pretends otherwise.
A final aspect of this chapter that I found interesting was that they mentioned a few different times that a specific publication’s style lends to its personality and identity. And often, “a sudden, drastic change in heads may make a reader feel that a familiar friend has moved away” (108). Similarly, Ludwig and Gilmore stated that “readers become accustomed to these appearances and often express alarm when they are changed” (117). I think this all has to do with forming niches and brand loyalty. A reader will come back to a certain publication day after day because of how they do things (i.e. types of stories they cover, variety, aesthetic style, etc). Those are the specific things that draw those readers to that publication; therefore, editors should not change them unless readers express concern or their audience changes. In that way, editors need to know and understand the demographics of their audience and produce what appeals to those persons, while still serving the best interest of their publics by providing them with accurate, needed information.
Those are my thoughts on this chapter. Chapter seven did a very nice job of going over the basics of headline writing with relevant examples and supplemental graphics without getting overly technical with journalistic jargon.
And, the example they used of a clever headline, “Gift Wrap Goes Over the Top”, made me smile. Well done.
No comments:
Post a Comment