Headlines are so great in a sense that they can take a little bit from an article completely out of context and blow it into something it's not. Some people really only read headlines.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I, perhaps wrongly, assume that people actually read articles that interest them rather than just headlines.
Writing headlines is a specialty - there are outstanding writers who will tell you they couldn't write a headline to save their lives.
Headlines, in a way, are what mislead you because bad news is a headline, and gradual improvement is not.
It's no longer just reporting the headlines of the day, but trying to put the headlines into some context and to add some perspective into what they mean.
These days, headlines are trying to get you to click.
If you only have one shot at writing a headline, there's a lot of pressure.
People often think that reporters write their own headlines. In fact, they almost never do. The people who do write headlines are the copy editors who are the front and last lines of quality-checking in a newspaper before it goes to print.
There's still a place for someone to come up with a strong headline, some copy in a commercial that's well written. I'm not saying it was better in the old days; it's just a totally different way of communicating.
It is grievous to read the papers in most respects, I agree. More and more I skim the headlines only, for one can be sure what is carried beneath them quite automatically, if one has long been a reader of the press journalism.
The worst headline is one that contains a factual error. Bad headlines are ones that are bland, and don't tell the reader anything specific, like 'Democrats at it Again.'