Headlines on news from the Fed and Hunter Biden
Resolve Philly
Developing and advancing journalism based on equity, collaboration, and the elevation of community voices and solutions
Hello friends,
I’m thrilled to share I’ll be leading a webinar hosted by the National Press Club Journalism Institute next week. You can register for the free session, “Election 2024: Crafting sharp & responsible headlines for your political stories” right now! I hope to see you there for a rousing discussion.
Talk soon,
Aubrey Nagle
Are you reading this newsletter on LinkedIn? Sign up to receive Revisions weekly and to your inbox!
Headline Check ?
Here we analyze and reframe a news headline to demonstrate how this important real estate can be optimized for user experience.
I’ve got a two-parter for you all today. The first pair of headlines below — from CNN and The New York Times, respectively — are about the same announcement from the Federal Reserve. They provide a striking juxtaposition of how syntax and adjectives can create completely different tones for the same set of facts.
CNN notes that unchanged interest rates are at a “23-year-high” and that this has remained so through the Fed’s last seven meetings. Phrases that emphasize record heights and stagnation are meant to telegraph that this is bad news, whether you know much about interest rates or not.
On the other hand, the Times uses “steady” to describe that same length of time and lack of change. One could be forgiven for assuming the positive denotation of the word “steady,” which is often a pleasing attribute in a person or thing. If the reader was less financially savvy about the “rates” noted here and the Fed’s previous promise of several cuts, “steady” paired with “only one cut” may sound like good news.
Who is to say what the headline writers intended for these stories? Either way, it’s always interesting to see how small choices create different experiences for the reader.
Today’s brief “part two” provides another fun juxtaposition: the case of the “experts!” As you may remember from previous newsletters, I abhor horse-race reporting which focuses more on who may win an election than what they would do once in power. So, I was amused by the two headlines below from The Guardian and ABC News, respectively, predicting — for no real reason than to entertain an audience, as they provide no truly actionable information — how Hunter Biden’s conviction will impact the 2024 presidential election. Their “experts” clearly disagree, reminding us that “experts” and “analysts” can help translate and contextualize facts, but they cannot accurately predict the future.
领英推荐
Quote of the Week ???
It’s just what it sounds like: some words we think everyone should see!
Dr. Ryan Marino spends a lot of online time talking about medical toxicology and addiction medicine. His point above isn’t a new one — CNN reported two years ago that media outlets often repeat similar police claims despite doctors and data suggesting such exposures aren’t possible — but it is apparently one that needs repeating. Journalists have access to medical experts who can explain the facts. We needn’t mindlessly repeat police reports that increase the stigma and fear around drug users in need of help. ?
A Link to Make You Think ??
Our must-read of the week.
Elon Musk Tweeted a Thing
Don’t be fooled by the simple headline. This article from 404 Media traces the news cycle that crops up anytime someone like Musk (or Donald Trump) makes a statement, regardless of its import or accuracy. This type of SEO cottage industry is an all-too-familiar feature of modern media, and one that wastes valuable journalism resources.
For additional context on the state of search engine optimization, check out this New Yorker piece on what Google says it uses to determine search rankings, and what people actually experience.
Resource Spotlight ??
Each week we’ll highlight relevant resources and guidance on language and framing.
Stop what you’re doing and read Poynter’s report on updates to the AP Stylebook’s chapter on crime. (Or, if you’re lucky enough to have an online subscription, simply dive into the new chapter yourself!) The welcome changes include eliminating stigmatizing labels and encouraging reporters to be wary of early police reports.
I’ll also offer a companion piece: The Marshall Project’s Carroll Bogert wrote a compelling op-ed for The Washington Post on why Donald Trump shouldn’t be called a “felon” despite his convictions. It’s an instructive read.
Finally, another hat-tip to Poynter: they went behind the scenes on a ProPublica investigation, “Albuquerque Is Throwing Out the Belongings of Homeless People, Violating City Policy.” They talked to reporters and editors about how they kept humanity at the forefront of their story. Make time for this one.
This newsletter is brought to you by Modifier, Resolve’s home for practice change and professional development. Visit https://modifier.resolvephilly.org/ for more resources and information on how to enhance your work as a journalist, newsroom or business leader.