Headline writing is an art, as I was reminded the other day by this superb example: "Shroud of Turin Formed by an Earthquake? Scientists Say Face of Jesus Image Caused By Neutron Emissions."
Admittedly, it doesn't make much sense. Still, you have to admire the headline writers at The Huffington Post who wrote this.
I'm not the only one who succumbed and clicked. Joel Achenbach, a science writer and blogger at The Washington Post, was also sucked "down the rabbit hole of pseudoscience and bunk" when he saw this hed.
He used the occasion to reflect on the state of science journalism, which, like the shroud itself, has seen its fortunes rise and fall. He began by attacking the headline:
(Be wary, always, when you see the “scientists say” formulation. They rarely speak in unison like that.) (Also I find myself wary when I hear the term “neutron emissions,” though this may be a sign of irrational anxiety.)
The story itself, it turns out, is not really a story, but "a parasitic reformulation of a story produced by LiveScience. LiveScience produces syndicated science material that runs in a variety of publications, including, sometimes, my newspaper," he wrote. The LiveScience story also appeared in various other news outlets.
Achenbach tracked the story to a short press release on Eurekalert, apparently put there by the publishers of a journal that published the "study" on the shroud and an earthquake. The study, Achenbach reported, "is, to put it delicately, unpersuasive." I'll take his word for it; I couldn't bear to read the thing.
Then Achenbach made some important observations about journalism and science journalism that could have come only from an experienced and skillful commentator such as Achenbach himself. He wrote:
Good journalism has a subtle feature of reticence. We don’t publish everything we hear. We filter. We curate. The goal of the traditional journalist is to create a reputation for accuracy, fairness, relevance and timeliness, and this requires the willingness to not publish things that are unlikely to be true.
The Shroud of Turin story brings up all the usual issues about click-bait journalism and our current struggle for survival in a highly disrupted news industry. Here’s a basic rule I’d suggest:
The clicks don’t count if the story is wrong.
An excellent point. At the AP, in the offline era, the mantra was "get it first, but first get it right."
And why is this so important? Is it because we want to serve our readers, to educate the public, and to nurture the kind of responsible free press that is a linchpin of democracy?
No, it isn't any of that high-minded stuff. It's simple, and selfish: If readers don't believe us, they'll leave us. (You may chant that quietly.)
"The audience will reward accuracy and intelligence. At least that’s what I believe — perhaps as matter of faith more than anything else," Achenbach writes.
I believe it, too.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply