nsentv Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Did I not explain myself here?I certainly wasn't disappointed. Believe me, as an NBA fan, the one thing I've been dreading has been another brawl. Also, after thinking about it, the original ESPNews headline wasn't necessarily horrible. Yes, it didn't tell the whole story. That being said, they did report exactly what happened (Davis was in the stands), even though they didn't say anything about the circumstances surrounding it (he was trying to help his wife). Vagueness is irresponsible, but then again it's nothing like CNN reporting "Williams sister dies" when one of Venus and Serena's sisters died. (Yes, a Williams sister did die, but it wasn't one of the two sisters who are so well-known in America). It's an interesting line between being vague or telling half-truths and lying.Like I said, the headline wasn't necessarily misleading. It just wasn't the whole story. And I'm not talking about how ESPN covered it, I'm talking about how ESPN gets people to tune into the story. I think they did a pretty good job of representing the facts when the actually covered the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The job of a headline isn't to tell the whole story--that's what the story's for. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosioux76 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The job of a headline isn't to tell the whole story--that's what the story's for. Similarily, if headlines told the whole story, they wouldn't be headlines. They'd be stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsentv Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Here are a few headlines from Google:"Antonio Davis confronts fan in stands""Davis ejected for going into stands""Hoops: Knick Ejected For Defending Wife""Knicks' Davis goes to wife's aid, is ejected"All four of those headlines leave out at least one part of the story. I think the right headline would be:"Davis goes into stands to defend wife, is ejected"Whereas MSNBC's "Knicks Antonio Davis charges into stands" implies something completely different. ESPN, meanwhile, left out the 'why' part of the 'who, when and what'. You can have a headline without leaving out an important part of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Here are a few headlines from Google:"Antonio Davis confronts fan in stands""Davis ejected for going into stands""Hoops: Knick Ejected For Defending Wife""Knicks' Davis goes to wife's aid, is ejected"All four of those headlines leave out at least one part of the story. I think the right headline would be:"Davis goes into stands to defend wife, is ejected"Whereas MSNBC's "Knicks Antonio Davis charges into stands" implies something completely different. ESPN, meanwhile, left out the 'why' part of the 'who, when and what'. You can have a headline without leaving out an important part of the article. They leave out part of the story in the headline so you click and read the story to learn what really happened. It's not rocket science. Headlines and teasers are designed to keep you tuned in for more of the story. It's marketing at its finest.If all the information was in the headlines, there would be no point to reading the actual stories.What irks me is that you called them irresponsible despite admitting that the headline was not misleading and the story was complete. What is irresponsible about that? Why don't you take some responsibility and admit that you read way too much into that headline, and ended up being wrong because of it. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsentv Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Okay. Here's my point.ESPN reported one half of the story. Davis is in the stands. They did not lie, they left out part of the story. Had they put "Davis goes into stands to defend wife, is ejected" then I'd be okay.I have a problem with news organizations manipulating stories (leaving part of the story out is manipulating the story) so they can get clicks and ratings. I think it's wrong and just another step in the wrong direction for journalism. I don't care if it's protocol, or the thing to do. This isn't the Enquirer, and it shouldn't be. I'm sick and tired of ESPN, FOX, FNC, CNN, MSNBC and the like slipping further and further into the abyss all for the sake of a few curious eyeballs. Let the story stand on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashouser27 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think this is overblown..i don't think it was enquirer like at all..then it would be "davis goes crazy and charges into crowd" or "davis attacks defenseless spectator"..the purpose of any headline is to get you to read the story..simple journalism..not to interpret intentions good or bad..i don't see where there is any spin on this..it is of interest because of last year ..it calls into question fan and player conduct..should the headline last year have been "o'neal goes into stands to defend artest, is ejected"would that have been a better headline or someone's view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Eh. I don't care if they leave out part of the story in the headline - it's expected. Any sports section will leave out one detail or two of a big story. I'm not misled, I don't find it manipulation of the facts, because the headline shouldn't be the featured part of the article or story anyway. What I do care is if they leave out part of the story, in, you know, the actual story part. As long as they present headlines and stories to you factually and without bias, it's not irresponsible. I'm pretty sure this whole capitalism thing is about attracting curious eyeballs. Journalism, broadcasting, and other forms of media are big business. Like I said before...welcome...to the real world. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantum Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The criticism of this particular headline is unwarranted. "One of my concerns is shysters show up and take advantage of people's good will and generosity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsentv Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Eh. I don't care if they leave out part of the story in the headline - it's expected. Any sports section will leave out one detail or two of a big story. I'm not misled, I don't find it manipulation of the facts, because the headline shouldn't be the featured part of the article or story anyway.What I do care is if they leave out part of the story, in, you know, the actual story part. As long as they present headlines and stories to you factually and without bias, it's not irresponsible.I'm pretty sure this whole capitalism thing is about attracting curious eyeballs. Journalism, broadcasting, and other forms of media are big business. Like I said before...welcome...to the real world.I'm in the real world. I'm not naive or shocked by any of this. I'm just sick of it. In general, I think that honest journalism isn't leaving out part of a story in your headline. I think that honest journalism is reporting what happened. That includes in the story and in the headline. If someone reads the headline and isn't interested in the story, okay. But don't manipulate things in order to get them to read it. You don't have to tell the whole story in the headline, either. Like I said before, "Davis goes into stands to defend wife, is ejected" would have been appropriate. It would not have been appropriate in the NBA brawl situation, gashouser27, because Jermaine O'Neal didn't go into the stands, and he wasn't defending Artest. A good headline for that situation might been along the lines of "Fight turns to brawl when Artest runs into stands after cup-throwing fan"All in all, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's really not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 A good headline for that situation might been along the lines of "Fight turns to brawl when Artest runs into stands after cup-throwing fan" That's way too long of a headline. Maybe as a sub-headline it would work, underneath the top headline of "Melee erupts in Pacers-Pistons game" or "Fight with fans ends Pacers-Pistons contest". Headlines are short and catchy...it's just journalism man. I take it you've never worked in any sort of journalistic field. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitaminD Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Okay. Here's my point.ESPN reported one half of the story. Davis is in the stands. They did not lie, they left out part of the story. Had they put "Davis goes into stands to defend wife, is ejected" then I'd be okay. You may not like it, but look at what it did.You saw a headline. It grabbed your attention. Expecting possibly bloody drunken mayhem, you clicked on the headline to read more about the backstory that ESPN chose to summarize (albeit not thoroughly) in a few words, just enough to make sense and leave you wanting more.It's the same reason that headlines are in 1" or 2" type in your local daily newspaper - they want to get your attention. Should you want to read more, the information is there at your disposal. But if you don't, you at least know something of import happened.It's no different than movie trailers - they give you just enough of the plot to pique your interest, maybe a funny line or two, a car chase. If you want to know the rest of the story, fork over some cash, buy a ticket and watch the movie. If the trailer told the entire story, what incentive would there be to sit through the other 2 hours of the film?Headlines sell papers to readers who want to know the rest of the story. Trailers sell tickets to movies. Teasers on your nightly newscast keep you riveted through the commercial break. Such is life. "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmee Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Would you like novels to be renamed as well, so you don't have to read through the whole thing?The Great Gatsby, by this logic, should be renamed The Great Gatsby: A Wildly Mysterious Man Living in a World of Phonies Who Dies at the End of the Book. The world's foremost practitioners of professional tag-team wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashouser27 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 and now from the other side....the fan is saying Mrs. Davis scratched him in the face and he might sue (of course)..so there is too sides to every story..maybe this would have warrented a different headline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeytonManningRocks Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Would you like novels to be renamed as well, so you don't have to read through the whole thing?The Great Gatsby, by this logic, should be renamed The Great Gatsby: A Wildly Mysterious Man Living in a World of Phonies Who Dies at the End of the Book. sssssshhhhhh...... you're spoiling the ending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brinkeguthrie Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I go to ESPNews, and it says "Breaking News: Knicks' Davis into crowd at Chi".Here I am, thinking there's been another brawl. They show the highlight, and it's Antonio Davis calmly walking into the stands to confront a person who'd been harassing his wife. No fighting, no punching, nothing serious. Granted, Davis gets ejected (automatic ejection for just going into the stands) and the fan gets ejected, but it's not at all what it is implied by the headline.That's pretty irresponsible of ESPN. i dont think there's anything wrong with the headline." Knicks' Davis into crowd at Chi".Is his name Davis? check.Is he a Knick? check.Did he go into the crowd? check.Was it in Chicago? check.Nothing more to it. I think in the afterglow of Artest and Co, you interpreted the headline thnking about past events. A totally valid and non-sensational headline.I have written for radio news for 25 years: no way is this a hyped head.If it said "Knicks' Davis goes berserk in stands"....that's a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ Sands Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Would you like novels to be renamed as well, so you don't have to read through the whole thing?The Great Gatsby, by this logic, should be renamed The Great Gatsby: A Wildly Mysterious Man Living in a World of Phonies Who Dies at the End of the Book. Um, who said that Gatsby was a piece meant to be taken as fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaytonBlue Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 ESPN hasn't had credibility in a long time...-concerts during SportsCenter-fake press conferences-Heresay...or whatever that dumb word game was called.-Budweiser Hot Seat-Berman's 10 plays of the week where one of them is an entire team's defensive dominance of a game (there plays not trends)-PTI finishing during SportsCenter-Stewart Scott (let's say booya again)-Dan Patrick harassing everyone he interviews (and I go to school where he did, almost embarassing)-Dream Job-what's the NHL?-you must be an insider to access this material-you mean there's MLB teams outside of Boston and the Bronx-let's make some really bad movies!you get the point. the guy should be suspended for entering the stands. but no punches or anything, 5 games is a bit harsh. maybe the nba should hire security guards for their arenas. hmmm. "I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be." -Peter Gibbons RIP Demitra #38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 ESPN hasn't had credibility in a long time...-concerts during SportsCenter-fake press conferences-Heresay...or whatever that dumb word game was called.-Budweiser Hot Seat-Berman's 10 plays of the week where one of them is an entire team's defensive dominance of a game (there plays not trends)-PTI finishing during SportsCenter-Stewart Scott (let's say booya again)-Dan Patrick harassing everyone he interviews (and I go to school where he did, almost embarassing)-Dream Job-what's the NHL?-you must be an insider to access this material-you mean there's MLB teams outside of Boston and the Bronx-let's make some really bad movies!you get the point. the guy should be suspended for entering the stands. but no punches or anything, 5 games is a bit harsh. maybe the nba should hire security guards for their arenas. hmmm.Amen!!Let's not forget "eoe" such as Beg Borrow & Deal, Stump the Schwab, and Tilt. All total crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashouser27 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 and what about the self-glorifying ESPY's maybe the worst of all..naming an award show after your network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.