The Washington Post has an article this morning headlined Navy Wins Exemption From Bush to Continue Sonar Exercises in Calif.:
The White House has exempted the Navy from two major environmental laws in an effort to free the service from a federal court's decision limiting the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises.
Environmentalists who had sued successfully to limit the Navy's use of loud, mid-frequency sonar -- which can be harmful to whales and other marine mammals -- said yesterday that the exemptions were unprecedented and could lead to a larger legal battle over the extent to which the military has to obey environmental laws.
Note to Washington Post headline writers: The word "wins" describing some achievement, in headlines like "Knight Wins 900th Game" or "Innocent Man Wins Stay of Execution," generally suggests some element of struggle leading up to the event in question. It implies that the achievement in question was earned, and possibly even deserved.
This would not seem to be an appropriate word for a situation in which George Bush issued an executive order exempting the military from environmental execution. "Environmental Group Wins Injunction Against Whale-Killing Sonar" is a reasonable headline for a news story, as is "Navy Is Granted Exemption From Environmental Laws," but "Navy Wins Exemption from Bush" creates a false impression among native speakers of English.
Environment
Politics
Comments
but "Navy Wins Exemption from Bush" creates a false impression among native speakers of English.
I believe that you are absolutely correct about this. But having had a stint in PR work for a couple of years I also know that they are always trying to choose the words that will sell more newspapers or improve the ratings. As long as once you have read or heard what they have to say your first thought is not that it was a bunch of hype or hyperbole, you don't get overly upset and they figure they "won" so they can do it again!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 17, 2008 10:51 AM
""Environmental Group Wins Injunction Against Whale-Killing Sonar" is a reasonable headline for a news story,"
The word you're looking for is "obtains." Your example just makes a hash of your entire argument and reveals a contrary bias.
You need to learn that in making and promoting propaganda you need to hide your bias behind an "I am a good person" t-shirt. That is if you wish to continue to lie effectively in the service of a greater truth.
Posted by: vanderleun | January 17, 2008 11:38 AM
While you are technically correct (often the best kind of correct), there are other considerations headline writers have to take into account: character count, simplicity, and SEO keywords, to name a few.
Wildly inaccurate or misleading headlines can be damaging to all involved and should be fixed. But this is pure semantics and not something worth getting one's knickers in a twist over, imho.
And no, I do not work for the WaPo, but yes, I do write headlines for a living!
Posted by: koffeekat | January 17, 2008 12:17 PM
Koffeekat:
While I don't doubt that those are important considerations, but as far as SEO is concerned, I'd think that people interested in whales or the environment would be interested in the article. Those searches aren't helped by this headline.
Regarding word count, the headline on the article is an incredibly awkward length, with a lone orphan on the second line.
It's clear that WaPo made at least two different versions, one for the front page ("Navy Wins Exemption From President for Sonar") and the one Chad cites. Neither is particularly effective at conveying what the story is about.
Posted by: Dave Munger | January 17, 2008 12:24 PM
Dave M.:
I hear you. It's not a great headline at all, and is surely informed more by the Post's political angle than anything else. Where I come from we have a 55-character limit, and I might have gone with something more like:
U.S. Navy Exempted From Sonar Law Protecting Whales
Probably also not great. But what's cited above is not an atrocious head as these things go, and the primary argument about the word "win" is what I was really responding to. That's just nitpicking.
Posted by: koffeekat | January 17, 2008 1:35 PM
While you are technically correct (often the best kind of correct), there are other considerations headline writers have to take into account: character count, simplicity, and SEO keywords, to name a few.
I'm not sure what SEO keywords are, but I'll note that "Gets" has the same number of characters as "Wins."
Yeah, this is all a piddling semantic argument, but it just struck me that, in this context, "Navy Wins Exemption from Bush" is roughly equivalent to "Veruca Salt Wins Golden Ticket from Doting Father." And I'm a litle cranky today.
Posted by: Chad Orzel | January 17, 2008 1:41 PM
Personally I thought the right headline would be "Bush Allows Navy to Ignore Law," but maybe I missed something in his ability to summarily ignore court decrees.
Ah, who am I kidding, it happens all the time.
Posted by: cisko | January 17, 2008 2:27 PM