Of Adding Troops, Mapping an Exit Plan, and Writing Headlines.
Dec 3rd, 2009 | 13 responses
I don’t know anything about the intricacies of publishing a newspaper, or about the relationships or sequence and timing between the on-line and printed versions of a major newspaper such as the New York Times.
Although I am not a journalist, I remember from my Journalism 101 class that newspapers pay a lot of attention to their headlines—to every word and every punctuation mark.
I am mentioning this because a funny thing happened on my way to reacting to a recent New York Times article and headlines—plural.
Early in the morning of December 2, after president Obama’s West Point address on Afghanistan, I visited the New York Times on-line edition to read their top story, “Obama Adds Troops, but Maps Exit Plan.”
I found the Times report on Obama’s speech quite objective, but I had problems with their headline.
So, I quickly fired a letter to the Editors expressing my objections:
To the Editor:
Re: “Obama Adds Troops, but Maps Exit Plan,” December 2, 2009
Kudos for an objective initial report on the president’s address to the nation on Afghanistan, but for one thing: The “but” in your title, “Obama Adds Troops, but Maps Exit Plan.”
What is wrong with an exit strategy?
You are beginning to sound like Mr. Cheney who never had one for Iraq, or like Senator McCain who never met an exit strategy he liked.
Hopefully, we have learned from Iraq that open-ended, endless, unconditional commitments to military operations abroad are just that: bottomless pits that will consume our resources—blood and treasure— and sap our national psyche, confidence and unity.
What is wrong with sending the enemy the unmistakable message that we intend to “finish the job” victoriously—and quickly.
My letter was not published. However, there were several letters published today that referred to “Obama Speeds Troops and Vows to Start Pullout in 2011,” the headline in the December 2 printed version of the Times story.
Perhaps I am too nitpicky, oversensitive, or semantically challenged, but I feel there is a big difference in tone—and perhaps even in substance—between the two headlines.
First, the “but Maps Exit Plan” was changed to “and vows to Start Pullout in 2011,” or vice-versa, depending on the schedules of the on-line and printed versions.
The “but” in the “but Maps Exit Plan” part of the on-line headline connotes, in my opinion, a certain sense of discord with the “Obama Adds troops” part.
Then there is the difference between “Obama Adds troops” and “Obama Speeds Troops.” But as it turned out, Obama is doing both.
Perhaps there is no dark significance at all in any of the headline changes.
Perhaps newspapers do that routinely.
Perhaps I am just paranoid because the Times did not print my letter.
However, if the Times did intend to imply some kind of nuanced disapproval of the president’s “mapping an exit plan,” I stand by my unpublished letter.
13 Responses to “Of Adding Troops, Mapping an Exit Plan, and Writing Headlines.”
I believe that Pres. Obama Deserves the Benefit of our Doubt…, Here's why!
After great Deliberation and personal Agony (travelled in the dead of night to meet the draped casket of a fallen soldier), Pres. Obama did allow for the Escalation of the “struggle” but Coupled it with an end date to this Struggle by military might and because of that (end date), I have Hope that the Long Nightmare of the twin wars, ignited by the twin towers will soon be over.
I saw in Pres. Obama a heart that bleeds for this decision for anyone whose heart center is open and active feels the pain of this task, yet, speaking with a Heavy Heart, I also heard in that speech the unspoken wish or Intent that he was going to also bring Bin Laden to justice ( the great Prize and Symbol)! I also heard the great Urgency he feels to bind up all loose nuclear threats and to prevent them from getting into those hands within Afghanistan and Pakistan which might annihilate the world as we know it. He has not made this this “call to arms” for Oil or for profit based upon a lie but a heartfelt desire to keep safe the people in the world, in the binding up of these nuclear threats to the world by this faction which he knows is still out there plotting to do harm! That in this way we are Standing up for Peace and that somehow we must go into Hell for a Heavenly cause.
I heard him also say to the Military Industrial Complex Machine that there will be an end date, and that it will not be open-ended, but that the battle for peace might call for other strategic ways to get to this goal — that giving the benefit of the doubt to his generals — he will try their way (since they are so much more knowledgeable about military than him).
As, he spoke about true security from a world without nuclear weapons (his real true goal), he also spoke about the need to unite with the world to accomplish this task because in truth, terror and nuclear weapons is a world problem! And finally, he called us to the time after 9/11, when we were all united but got deviated from the course, but to return to that Unity of purpose, one more time…. and that if he is lucky, he will bring home the Prize, Bin Ladin, break the back of this threat, and then for the weary and battle scarred-soldiers they can look onward and say, well done — yet, there's no place like home, there's no place like home!
Let us trust ” that there is a goodness in all of life that cannot even be eliminated by thoughts that temporarily cause you to believe that negativity is the underlying reality of human life on earth… ” (1) Let us call on that goodness to illuminate our way forward towards that peace and goodwill and seal the door where evil dwells.
1. Ron Scolastico. Doorway to the Soul
—[---we intend to “finish the job” victoriously—and quickly]–
I don't think this is in anyway assured within the Presidents plan Dorian. That is where the “but” came from. It's a mighty big “but”, meaning; are we really at war or just dicking around? The contention aside, I say leave and let these backward people do their own dicking around.
The “Exit Plan” will change according to the situation if necessary. The question will be in what way it will change.
angellight:
I don't think I have seen you comment on TMV recently.
If you have welcome back; if you haven't commented here before, welcome and thank you for sharing your views with us
Dorian
I agree there was a big difference in tone between the two headlines. Words are important and a headline is no place to be lazy (if indeed it was laziness). I've often seen in forums how the careless use of words can easily lead to misunderstanding, afterall, we don't have the benefit of seeing facial expressions or hearing inflection. If however the “but” was intentional and meant to suggest there was necessarily a downside in having a tentative beginning exit date, then I adamantly disagree.
We've had wars in recent history without any exit plan, even a flexible one like this, and they didn't fare so well. Frankly I'm not thrilled with the idea of increasing our presence in Afghanistan, but I find those who take issue with it because of the “exit plan” to be disingenuous. I believe Obama is sincere in his desire to make this work and not to let it turn into the sort of botched actions we've seen in the past. I hope he and his advisors know more about what they are doing than the Rumsfeld bunch did.
Some of us can, and still prefer to, read. Many simply want fast stimuli, especially visual, and appeals to their emotions. Obama's continued “campaign” staged appearances achieve this. They are modern headlines. His appearances are meant to be the headlines. His sound bites as well as smiles supply the other headlines.
“The question will be in what way [the exit plan] will change.”
Much will now depend on what the Taliban does as well as what we choose to do (not all of which, no doubt, was revealed or explained to us and the enemy who also would be listening and watching the address, or expecting to be briefed on it later).
You mean like when Dubya spoke stupid crap he was just playing to the dumbarse vote? So cleaver.
We should probably start comparing Obama to more successful presidencies than doofus's. Do not get me wrong, it makes for a much easier win but it really does not help him nor his policies look good to just not be as bad as one of our most catastrophic presidencies.
Good point. Comparisons to GWB, while necessary and relevant because of the historical timeline, cause and effect, etc. do run the risk of setting a very, very low bar.
I openly admit that if I feel it necessary in 2012 I will pull him out of the closet to scare everyone with but that is election politics. If those that support Obama want others to support him we need to compare him to successful presidents, during the Bush years they always compared him to Clinton to win debates(which merely sounds partisan). Clinton and Bush opinions are divisive and generally partisan but other presidents tend to not be nearly as much. Part of this is a personal bias though, I consider Obama an actual statesman by how he has acted so far and therefore prefer to compare him to those.
Could I please derail the paranoia train here? The greatest error that non-journalists make in judging stories by their headlines is in judging stories by their headlines. Here's what I mean: Because of the vaguaries of print, HEALINE writing is a graphically dictated part of the newspaper. In other words, we have THIS much space for a headline. A subeditor (generally not a feature writer or reporter) is usually given the job of coming up with headlines based on 1) quick reading of the story and 2) graphics dept specs.
I used to do this at several magazines, and even took the test at the Orange County Register long ago.
You get a story and then THIS haiku: 2 LINES 42 CPL.
Or, the headline has to fit onto two lines (there may even be a point size listed, but the headline writer don't pay that no nevermind). Depending on the paper that may mean 42 Characters Per Line OR UP TO 42 Characters Per Line (a lot more flexible). Still, most papers used to be PRECISE about it. Not 41 or 43, but 42, and a SPACE is considered a character.
So, first you have to be able to quickly scan the story for its gist, and THEN, in a crossword puzzle fashion, have to figure out to write that summary in an exacting form dictated by the size of headline type the graphics department has picked. Ofttimes, the writers and editors are already in bed, and the headline writer plows through, trying to come up with a headline that will pique your interest and get you to read the story. The writer has NO PART in this almost universally. As for editorial control? Not generally. There are too many stories to engage in byzantine cabals, or whatever. Online, headlines are often changed for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the inadvertent double entendre or complaints. Remember they have to get that edition out every day. So, critiquing headlines is about as useful as reviewing haiku, at least as compares to actually commenting on the story itself, which has only a tenuous connection to what a deadline-pressed junior editor comes u-p with.
Occasionally, the BIG headline will be discussed in the daily editorial meeting, but generally, headline writers do their job with a minimal amount of editorial input. It's just there to get you to read the story. And, a great headline writer is a rare and precious commodity, beloved of editors everywhere.
Hartwilliams:
Thank you for shedding some interesting light on the “science” of headline writing
Dorin de Wind