Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Almost beheaded, but at least killed

On there was a headline that said "teenager almost decapitates woman". At first you think of an accident that no one was injured in.

The article itself then starts off with the headline "16 year old kills woman for 6 dollars". Shouldn't that have been the headline? Or what about "teenager kills for a fistful of dollars", that would have been a nice movie reference, right? At least that's a very sensational headline that may at least get a lot of views.

Instead they chose the headline I mentioned at the beginning. Why is it not enough to say right from the beginning that a teenager killed a woman? Why do they have to mention the goriest fact first before they bring up her death? Because it's not enough that a teenager killed a woman for money. That is something nobody cares to read any more. It's better to say how badly she was injured before you even say what exactly the result was - that it was fatal.

Headlines have to be short. And in the future, it will probably have to sound worse and worse. They will not talk about the number of deaths in a massacre, because that will wear off. Since September 11th it can't be topped anyway. So you just mention the number of limbs flying through the air, the amount of blood that's everywhere, and the immense torture that people go through. Only later you reveal what actually happened.

No comments: