November 10, 2009

The Shadow Editors: Wordplay Most Fouled: How Not to Write a Headline

MM HMMTom Scocca: Here is a headline from Sunday's Washington Post:
Tom Scocca: In art we lust
Tom Scocca: "At second blush, classic works are allowed to rise to their full erotic potential."
Tom Scocca: The Post is plagued by bad, amateurish, would-be-snappy headlines these days, and this one epitomizes the problem.
Tom Scocca: If you have to change two parts of a stock phrase to make your headline, you are making a dumb and clunky headline.
Tom Scocca: "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with the permeability of the barrier between "nude" and "naked" (aka "art" and "pornography").
Tom Scocca: So it's "In [WHOLLY UNRELATED WORD] we [SEMANTICALLY UNRELATED, BUT RHYMING WORD]." Half the phrase is swapped out.
Tom Scocca: If you can't do it in one step, don't do it.
Choire Sicha: Ha.

 
Share
DiggThis
 

12 Comments / Post a new comment

  1. mathnet [#27]

    It's starting to make me sad that you guys leave Balk out of everything. :(

    One Is Scocca And The Other's Old

  2. Tulletilsynet [#333]

    This is so true, carve it on your doorposts.

    However, this kind of fall-on-your-face dumbness is still not as bad as those NY Times heads that are too long to say without stopping to take a breath and still don't manage to get the point across.

  3. barnhouse [#1326]

    The real problem with it is that you don't lust "in," you lust "for" or "after."

  4. Eureka Street [#1349]

    My favorites are when the replacement words get a laugh for rhyming and everything, but make the new phrase meaningless. Like someone in a review a seafood festival writing something like, "Here's cooking at you, squid."

    Well, okay, I made that one up. But they do exist.

  5. Matt [#26]

    I see what you did there?

 

Leave a Comment

Login Using:

Login to your account:

E-mail:
Password:

Register | Lost password?