Freedman out!

[Dr Hotdog]

Some f*cking clagnut at SSN has copied the BN's headline as well as its quotes

Dear me

Journo question DSB, why is it still the case that journalists seemingly don't have input into their headlines? Even in broadsheets I so often see on Twitter etc. "Not me pal, I just wrote the article and some 20-something on the nightshift made up a snazzy headline which didn't reflect what I wrote."

Why can't the author be allowed to suggest their own title with the understanding it has to be just a wee bit provocative?

Depends on the set-up. Particularly on news"papers" (who are mostly now spending more money online than in print, and some are even making that money back), the writer will send in copy which someone else then prepares for publication.

You could argue that this was (and is) a good thing as it goes through more gatekeepers who should be able to see errors, but it depends on the quality of the gatekeeper. In ye olde days this was a copy-taker (very efficient secretary types) and a sub-editor (highly-trained grammar pedants with vast general knowledge), but now it's normally a poorly-paid tyro journo who wants to be Henry Winter but is actually one of many thousands spat out by an education system which for decades has deprioritised correctness for creativity and then attempted to give everyone in the country a degree. I don't blame the graduates, some of whom are fine wordsmiths, but diminishing finances from online being largely free often means that news organisations are relying upon the notably undertrained to present their news to the world.

As for headlines: because it's no longer really a page-layout business (Turnip-head, etc), particularly in news/onlinefeatures, writers should normally suggest a headline and standfirst - the bit below the headline that explains it and leads in. (In fact, for FFT feature pitches, I ask writers for the headline and standfirst before I ask for the full copy, to see whether it interests me: if you can't make me listen in 15 seconds, I doubt I'll spend five minutes on you.) But editors and uploaders should always reserve the write to make these stronger, whether with a better point, a wittier pun or, increasingly, an eye-catching combination of search-friendly click-triggering terms ("Arsenal and Spurs target open to move", etc).

Remember that headlines are now not page furniture, but often all you'll see of a story (say in a reader list or on NewsNow). In cynical get-clicks land, you can make headlines more controversial than the story - hence the hacks' complaint you mention. Strangely I don't think the BN did that, as "Freedman still interested in Dawson" might have got more reads - although maybe it's a double-bluff, or they're cleverer than me and are relying on the "WHAT THE FRIG ARE YOU DOING DOUGIE?" clickers-in-a-twist.

But you do still get post-rationalisation of headlines - notably tabloids making a headline pun then "explaining" it in about the fourth paragraph, like the time The Sun referred to The Beatles as "The Hey Jude hit-makers". Oh, those Beatles...

Not wishing to tread on Mr barnet's toes, but if you employ a journalist because he's good at his job, researching and writing articles, it doesn't follow that he will have a clue how to drive circulation. Two very different areas of expertise I would imagine.

A good editor will combine both, and not resort to clickbait. It only cheapens yer brand, although the Mail appear to have done very well with it.

Aye, we can only assume DSB is good at headlines

I see what you did there

Succinctly sums me up. (Alliteration is my favourite headline tool)

[Athers]

Haven't read it in years (see also The Fiver) but nobody minds such watchmen - Pseuds Corner and the like - they keep people on their toes.

In truth it's hard to avoid the laboured match-report intro without being either dull or clichéd. There have been very very many match reports, and there's only so many ways to say Team A won because Player X done good. That said, the longer the labour goes on, the more the reader groans.

Sure, check out this one for a larf

Laboured Intro Of The Day
Writes Louise Taylor in the Guardian: 'It is approaching four years since the afternoon Manchester United left Sunderland without their expensive match-day suits after a burst sewage pipe in the away dressing room season caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage.

'That spill prompted the incineration of treasured personal possessions as well as clothes but at least United were well insured. David Moyes was protected by no such reassuring insulation on Tuesday night as any restorative properties contained in the wind whipping in from Wearside's North Sea beaches were thoroughly lost on his players.'

[Dartisan]

Some f*cking clagnut at SSN has copied the BN's headline as well as its quotes

Dear me

Journo question DSB, why is it still the case that journalists seemingly don't have input into their headlines? Even in broadsheets I so often see on Twitter etc. "Not me pal, I just wrote the article and some 20-something on the nightshift made up a snazzy headline which didn't reflect what I wrote."

Why can't the author be allowed to suggest their own title with the understanding it has to be just a wee bit provocative?

Depends on the set-up. Particularly on news"papers" (who are mostly now spending more money online than in print, and some are even making that money back), the writer will send in copy which someone else then prepares for publication.

You could argue that this was (and is) a good thing as it goes through more gatekeepers who should be able to see errors, but it depends on the quality of the gatekeeper. In ye olde days this was a copy-taker (very efficient secretary types) and a sub-editor (highly-trained grammar pedants with vast general knowledge), but now it's normally a poorly-paid tyro journo who wants to be Henry Winter but is actually one of many thousands spat out by an education system which for decades has deprioritised correctness for creativity and then attempted to give everyone in the country a degree. I don't blame the graduates, some of whom are fine wordsmiths, but diminishing finances from online being largely free often means that news organisations are relying upon the notably undertrained to present their news to the world.

As for headlines: because it's no longer really a page-layout business (Turnip-head, etc), particularly in news/onlinefeatures, writers should normally suggest a headline and standfirst - the bit below the headline that explains it and leads in. (In fact, for FFT feature pitches, I ask writers for the headline and standfirst before I ask for the full copy, to see whether it interests me: if you can't make me listen in 15 seconds, I doubt I'll spend five minutes on you.) But editors and uploaders should always reserve the write to make these stronger, whether with a better point, a wittier pun or, increasingly, an eye-catching combination of search-friendly click-triggering terms ("Arsenal and Spurs target open to move", etc).

Remember that headlines are now not page furniture, but often all you'll see of a story (say in a reader list or on NewsNow). In cynical get-clicks land, you can make headlines more controversial than the story - hence the hacks' complaint you mention. Strangely I don't think the BN did that, as "Freedman still interested in Dawson" might have got more reads - although maybe it's a double-bluff, or they're cleverer than me and are relying on the "WHAT THE FRIG ARE YOU DOING DOUGIE?" clickers-in-a-twist.

But you do still get post-rationalisation of headlines - notably tabloids making a headline pun then "explaining" it in about the fourth paragraph, like the time The Sun referred to The Beatles as "The Hey Jude hit-makers". Oh, those Beatles...

Not wishing to tread on Mr barnet's toes, but if you employ a journalist because he's good at his job, researching and writing articles, it doesn't follow that he will have a clue how to drive circulation. Two very different areas of expertise I would imagine.

A good editor will combine both, and not resort to clickbait. It only cheapens yer brand, although the Mail appear to have done very well with it.

Aye, we can only assume DSB is good at headlines

I see what you did there

I'd suggest you might be right DSB on the BN headline, whether they intended it or not I suspect a 'Dougie doing something stupid' would get more clicks than one saying 'Dougie shows interest in player who was great for us' as there are more who'd like to reinforce the belief of the former. But you're right you could probably get away with either approach as both are sufficiently associated with the content and it's theme (in particular the facts of the quotes). Too much of a disconnect and of course the click-bait should typically eventually start to backfire.

Oh, but on topic: I would have expected DF to tap them up again at the start of this window to at least say 'so, erm, any change? No change our end, we're still interested'.

[Enoch]

I would have expected DF to tap them up again at the start of this window to at least say 'so, erm, any change? No change our end, we're still interested'.

I might go so far as to concur, I wouldn't however expect him to share that information with anyone.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

a poorly-paid tyro journo who wants to be Henry Winter but is actually one of many thousands spat out by an education system which for decades has deprioritised correctness for creativity and then attempted to give everyone in the country a degree.

Succinctly sums me up. (Alliteration is my favourite headline tool)

You write well, chum. Keep going.

Laboured Intro Of The Day
Writes Louise Taylor in the Guardian: 'It is approaching four years since the afternoon Manchester United left Sunderland without their expensive match-day suits after a burst sewage pipe in the away dressing room season caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage.

'That spill prompted the incineration of treasured personal possessions as well as clothes but at least United were well insured. David Moyes was protected by no such reassuring insulation on Tuesday night as any restorative properties contained in the wind whipping in from Wearside's North Sea beaches were thoroughly lost on his players.'

Ah, Louise, who so hated Bolton under Allardyce... then watched him roll into her patch as Mags manager...

[bobo the clown]

I would have expected DF to tap them up again at the start of this window to at least say 'so, erm, any change? No change our end, we're still interested'.

I might go so far as to concur, I wouldn't however expect him to share that information with anyone.

Well, it would hardly be a surprise. I doubt it would alert anyone to some sort of state secret.

Why I was 'confused' is his suggestion that he was told "no" and his explanation that he's accepted that. OK, if WBA refuse, but imagine the egg on face if he got swept up from under our feet by Wigan, or Blackburn.

"We had a great relationship with him last season and we've been told he isn't available. We will keep our contacts open and if things change we'd be very interested". What's wrong with that sort of statement ?

If he started getting games, or if a Premiership club came in and offered him first team footy we've no chance, but otherwise we should keep pressing.

[bobo the clown]

a poorly-paid tyro journo who wants to be Henry Winter but is actually one of many thousands spat out by an education system which for decades has deprioritised correctness for creativity and then attempted to give everyone in the country a degree.

Succinctly sums me up. (Alliteration is my favourite headline tool)

You write well, chum. Keep going.

Laboured Intro Of The Day
Writes Louise Taylor in the Guardian: 'It is approaching four years since the afternoon Manchester United left Sunderland without their expensive match-day suits after a burst sewage pipe in the away dressing room season caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage.

'That spill prompted the incineration of treasured personal possessions as well as clothes but at least United were well insured. David Moyes was protected by no such reassuring insulation on Tuesday night as any restorative properties contained in the wind whipping in from Wearside's North Sea beaches were thoroughly lost on his players.'

Ah, Louise, who so hated Bolton under Allardyce... then watched him roll into her patch as Mags manager...

What a crock of shit. Who's she shagging that she should remain in employment as a journo with a national ?

[Prufrock]

Haven't read it in years (see also The Fiver) but nobody minds such watchmen - Pseuds Corner and the like - they keep people on their toes.

In truth it's hard to avoid the laboured match-report intro without being either dull or clichéd. There have been very very many match reports, and there's only so many ways to say Team A won because Player X done good. That said, the longer the labour goes on, the more the reader groans.

Is whoateallthepies still going? And where's mof?!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Is whoateallthepies still going? And where's mof?!

Pies is still going, although it's no longer edited by Ollie Irish. Mof's busy on various music activities, traceable on Twitter.

[Hoboh]

a poorly-paid tyro journo who wants to be Henry Winter but is actually one of many thousands spat out by an education system which for decades has deprioritised correctness for creativity and then attempted to give everyone in the country a degree.

Succinctly sums me up. (Alliteration is my favourite headline tool)

You write well, chum. Keep going.

Laboured Intro Of The Day
Writes Louise Taylor in the Guardian: 'It is approaching four years since the afternoon Manchester United left Sunderland without their expensive match-day suits after a burst sewage pipe in the away dressing room season caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage.

'That spill prompted the incineration of treasured personal possessions as well as clothes but at least United were well insured. David Moyes was protected by no such reassuring insulation on Tuesday night as any restorative properties contained in the wind whipping in from Wearside's North Sea beaches were thoroughly lost on his players.'

Ah, Louise, who so hated Bolton under Allardyce... then watched him roll into her patch as Mags manager...

What a crock of shit. Who's she shagging that she should remain in employment as a journo with a national ?

Jesus H just seen her mug shot, wouldn't be me!

[bobo the clown]

mmmm ... it would be sexist to comment, so I'll simply post and leave the commentary to yourselves.

[thebish]

mmmm ... it would be sexist to comment, so I'll simply post and leave the commentary to yourselves.

i reckon hoboh would be bloody lucky if she looked twice at him!

[boltonboris]

Looking at those eyes, she look twice at him facing a different direction!! She's a horror

[LeverEnd]

Looking at those eyes, she look twice at him facing a different direction!! She's a horror

I would. It's been a while.

[Harry Genshaw]

Looking at those eyes, she look twice at him facing a different direction!! She's a horror

I would. It's been a while.

[Annoyed Grunt]

Looking at those eyes, she look twice at him facing a different direction!! She's a horror

I would. It's been a while.

I'd rather get a couple of bits of liver.......

[LeverEnd]

Looking at those eyes, she look twice at him facing a different direction!! She's a horror

I would. It's been a while.

I'd rather get a couple of bits of liver.......

Shouldn't this be on the food threa.... oh hang on!!!
Brilliant idea. Night boys.

[Dartisan]

I would have expected DF to tap them up again at the start of this window to at least say 'so, erm, any change? No change our end, we're still interested'.

I might go so far as to concur, I wouldn't however expect him to share that information with anyone.

Fair enough, but I still think saying 'I've spoken to nobody' was a daft thing to say as it just makes him sound ill-prepared. Dodge the question or cloud it with a 'the back room will be making enquiries around players we have interest in I'm sure' or something, but that was a bit silly. Anyway, I don't want to add any more soil to this molehill so I'll leave this thread to get back to the theme of... well wherever it's going now

[Annoyed Grunt]

Looking at those eyes, she look twice at him facing a different direction!! She's a horror

I would. It's been a while.

I'd rather get a couple of bits of liver.......

Shouldn't this be on the food threa.... oh hang on!!!
Brilliant idea. Night boys.

[89bwfc89]

Gartside was on GMR yesterday and basically said he thinks Dougie's got a hard job to do and he's staying put for the foreseeable, so you may as well close this thread