The Power of a Misleading Headline

Meow, I'm going to get catty here.

You'd think that yesterday was a slow news day or something. I guess the report on how the H1N1 (swine) flu virus resembles the 1918 Spanish flu virus wasn't significant enough to warrant much coverage or analysis (that may be the topic of another blog post!). You see, this headline hit the top of Yahoo's Most Popular page, and prompted more than 20,000 people to e-mail it to a friend:

Cats Do Control Humans, Study Finds

Twenty thousand people--a small town's worth!--were intrigued enough by this story to pass it on. The header sure makes it sound like the basis for a sci-fi movie, doesn't it? Personally, it made me envision a bunch of zombie-like people under a spell, shuffling to the grocery store for fresh salmon, per the request of their anthropomorphic felines, who greeted them upon their return with a "Mrrrow. What took you so long?" (Ok, watching Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video may have influenced my imagination a bit. But still.)

The headline nagged at me. The story sounded vaguely familiar. Hmm, I thought, thinking of how I had noticed at work just the day before that another study had come out about cat/human interactions. But that one had the much more mundane headline of "How Cats Get Food Bowl Filled." Zzzzz.

Could it be a coincidence that there was yet another story out on cat research so soon? Or, were they the same story, but with dramatically different headlines--one of which that was written to "pimp for clicks," or grab the attention of readers, despite not being very newsworthy?

Sadly, the latter was the case. The Yahoo headline sure souped up the story to sound more interesting than it really was. The research, published in Current Biology, essentially stated that cats change the tone of their purrs or meows to communicate different needs.

In a purr-fect world, news outlets would pay more attention to news that truly affects people, and not waste the public's time with overwrought headlines for stories on inconsequential topics.

Photo of kitten by Ian Britton, courtesy of freefoto.com.

Psst, Hey, Buddy, How Much for a Blog Post?

The New York Times reports this week on payola and product reviews on blog posts. While not entirely shocking, it discusses how some more popular bloggers, such as Colleen Padilla of classhymommy.com, are sent free products from companies hoping for positive reviews. "If she does not like a product, she simply doesn't post anything about it," the times writes of Padilla, whose site receives 60,000 visitors a month.

So... ClassyMommy doesn't give its readers the full picture. Sure, the Web site is helpful to parents, but it's sort of lying by omission, no? If a product doesn't pass muster, why is that so? What about products that aren't safe, and therefore get panned? And do its readers know that Padilla's reviews of Healthy Choice TV dinners are essentially sponsorships?

The NYT goes on to explain that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating this pay-for-play arrangement in blogs nationally, citing that consumers have a write to know.

I agree; I'm of the school that says free food always tastes better. And I admit to reluctantly, if briefly, engaging in undisclosed pay-for-play myself, when I was a staff book reviewer for Amazon. The company was under enormous pressure to become profitable in those days, and a book publisher had the bright idea of asking to pay Amazon to prominently feature certain titles for a certain length of time--known as "cooperative marketing" in the book business.

We soon learned that just about EVERY book publisher was willing to fork over cash in exchange for a review and a placement on the site, with homepage placements at a premium, and spots on other book sections--such as health, which I covered--going for a few thousand less.

Amazon's marketing managers went along with the offer, but not without an uproar from the book reviewers. We countered that our readers' trust would be tarnished, that it was a penny wise and pound foolish approach to revenue generation.

In fact, one editor was so peeved, she faxed a reporter friend at the New York Times, who promptly wrote a page-1 story about the situation. The PR emergency that followed was a low point for many of us, career-wise, but the upshot was that management agreed to designate paid placements as such.

But one of the marketers who disagreed with this disclosure countered with this: The books that are so attractively arranged on tables in the aisles of Barnes & Noble are placed there through co-op marketing money as well. Same with the cereal that's on sale at the end of the grocery-store aisles. Shouldn't ALL stores disclose this to their customers? Or are the customers too happy to stumble upon titles and products that they like to care that they're essentially being advertised to, without their knowledge?

Photo of falling coins by Ian Britton, courtesy of freefoto.com.

Now, Now, Don't Cry: Foolishness and the Onion's TV "Segments"

Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg

I think the wry folks at The Onion will certainly win more Webbies for this: The "Today! Now!" TV-news spoofs. Some of the gut-bustingly funny segments include "Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put to Sleep After Breaking Leg" and "FDA Approves Depressant Drug for the Annoyingly Cheerful." These are not appropriate to watch anywhere where you shouldn't snort. Consider yourself warned: Hiccups are a distinct possibility.

From the just-so-slightly overdone makeup of the show's hostess to the potted dark-red orchids, to the overwrought music, a-bit-too-loud chuckling and dramatic zoom-out camera effects, the resemblances to real TV news coverage are many. So much so that, if you watch these clips on YouTube and venture to read the reader comments, you'll almost feel bad for the viewers who think the clips are real.

For the Shawn Johnson "story," one hapless reader wrote, "is this real? can anyone confirm this? if it is, it really p***** me off!" (sic). The back-and-forth that commenters get into are sometimes entertaining in and of themselves. But all in all, they reveal the pathetic state of media literacy in our country. C'mon people. The extraneous punctuation on "Today! Now!" wasn't a big-enough tip-off?

The amazing use of ex-CNN anchor Bobbie Battista in some of The Onion News Network's breaking-news segments might be one factor adding to the confusion, but overall, the percentage of watchers who get fooled is downright scary. For the sake of our country's future, let's just hope that a lot of those who are fooled are actually trying to fool us into believing they've been duped. One can hope, at least.

Don't Have a Cow: New York Times Art Critic Awestruck by Simpsons Stamps

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for "The Simpsons," and not just because watching it is one of the best ways to improve a crummy day. Likenesses of several landmarks in my Massachusetts hometown have wormed their way into the fabric of Springfield, thanks to Lance Wilder, one of the show's background designers, who grew up a few blocks away from me, and whose mother was our elementary-school music teacher.

Bart's prison-like school on the show is based on my even more suffocating middle school, and the town hall is modeled on the library where I spent so many hours as a kid (because we had no internet in ye olden days). Hometown lore says that Lance pulled three all-nighters in a row during finals week his senior year at the Rhode Island School of Design to create an audition tape that won over "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening, and has been working there ever since.

This May, the Simpsons family was immortalized on 44-cent stamps, and their simple yet evocative artistry have sent New York Times art critic Roberta Smith rhapsodizing over their perfection. While it took three months for her to need stamps badly enough to run to her nearest P.O. and take notice of them, the ordinarily restrained Smith comes close to gushing about these beauts.

You can tell she had a hard time restraining herself, but her prose glows. Among her compliments: Their "peerless expressions" "[project] maximum psychic and visual power" with their "succinct encapsulations of each character" and "extraordinary chromatic wattage." She even compares their artistry to that of Andy Warhol and sculptor Richard Serra (!), and asks, guilelessly, "Really, are these not among the best American stamps ever?"

While I shudder at how the hapless quintet of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie reflects upon our country, I have to say Smith's criticism dignifies the show and further elevates Mr. Groening's status of cultural genius. Bravo to the show, to Smith, and to the U.S. Postal Service!