Let’s not scream
I end my Ombudsman column this year by inviting the editors of our prestigious titles to take a look at two things they do that are fundamentally critical to the professional prestige of the titles. Because they are unprofessional. Since I began writing this column I have noticed the occasional screaming or howling banner headlines […]
I end my Ombudsman column this year by inviting the editors of our prestigious titles to take a look at two things they do that are fundamentally critical to the professional prestige of the titles. Because they are unprofessional.
Since I began writing this column I have noticed the occasional screaming or howling banner headlines that occupied almost the entire front page of the Trust titles. On the face of it, there appears to be nothing wrong with this. Newspapers are not strange to the screaming banner headline. It is an attention getter. It gets the attention of the non-committed readers. And they rush to buy the paper. The screaming banner headline is a marketing gimmick intended to upstage other publications for the day.
Should the headlines of the Trust titles scream in 116pt size? I did not think so. In newspapering, as in other areas of life, there are class divisions or distinctions. Newspapers are broadly divided into two – prestige newspapers, also known as quality newspapers, and what the British call shop floor newspapers. We know them as tabloid. Each class of newspaper has its own personality. In simple terms the two classes of newspapers are distinguished by their headlines. You might say that by their headlines ye shall know them.
The screaming banner headline is the traditional fair of the tabloid newspaper. It is its attention getter. It has defined its personality. No one should try to take that away from the shop floor newspaper, beloved for its robust screaming headlines that promise much but deliver ever so poorly in terms of facts and credibility.
On the other hand, the banner headline is traditionally blasé in prestige newspapers. The logic is that gentlemen don’t scream. The prestige newspaper has a staid personality and is therefore restrained in its headlines. Its headlines are thus sober and speak to the quiet but powerful decision-makers. Some prestige newspapers even cast their headlines entirely in lower case. Screaming at the reader is thus forbidden by this category of newspapers. There is a gulf between the two classes of newspapers. I think those wish to bridge it labour in vain.
The Trust newspapers are regarded as prestige newspapers. They cannot play it both ways by being prestige newspapers always and tabloid newspapers some of the time. The editors should not be confused about where their titles stand. The banner headline, even if used occasionally, by these titles, takes something away from the professional character and the personality of the particular title in the stable. The editors must resist the temptation to make their newspapers cross to the other side of the divide. No newspaper can have two personalities.
Under the banner headline in the Trust titles, readers are directed to an inside page where they can then read the story. This is professionally wrong. When a reader picks up a newspaper, he expects to start reading the story from below the headline. He ought not to be directed to hunt for it in an inside page. The lurking danger is that on his way to where he is directed, the reader might stumble on a more interesting inside page story and forget the very important front page lead.
Some newspapers in both the UK and the US tried this sort of page planning in the eighties. Some of them quickly abandoned it; others tried it a few more times before realising that in our frenetic world few people have the patience to chase stories from the front page to say page 5 – unless it is a continuation from the front page.
My second beef, if that, is something unique to the Trust titles. The newspapers promote what they call Editor’s Choice which direct the readers to particular stories. I like the planning. This may be a marketing gimmick. I still have problems with this promo. It is professionally wrong. An editor ought not make a choice of stories he believes readers should pay particular attention to and promote them as his choices. All stories in a given issue of a newspaper are the choice of the editor. Those he disapproved of can be found in either his waste paper basket or paled in the spike. His choice is what the public reads. He cannot tell us that some stories are his choice, others are not. Should we read just the editor’s choice and forget the rest of the story? I think it is a spoiler. I suggest it be abandoned in the new year.
I cannot give kudos to our editors for stealing the idea of this promo from book publishers and sellers who employ the services of a panel of readers to pick books of their choice from various book publishers. These, then, are labelled Editor’s Choice. The New York Times usually publishes this list along with how each new book fares in the market. This is where editor’s choice belongs.