Usually two letters won’t throw a headline off. Sometimes they will. What’s more troublesome is when the word order matters. This might occur when you have a two-line headline in one or two columns:
“Two Men Murdered” might fit, with “Two Men” on the first line and “Murdered” on the second. Likewise, “Killed Two Men” would fit, same deal. However, the short-long-short pattern would NOT fit over two lines, even if the letter count was the same.
Most amateur headline writers use too many words. As an editor myself, if space were a premium, I would say “Two Murdered”. The fact that they were men is less important than the fact that more than one was murdered (men are murdered all the time, but two at once is a bigger news story). Or, if you disagree, use “Men Murdered” or even “Murdered”. That’s enough to catch an eye.
I can’t make any sense out of those strange examples in the Daily News.
And I’m still scratching my head over “SLAY RAP IN 1974 SHOOTING”. What does that mean???
Anyhow, a headline’s job is to capture attention and convey info. If I’m still hear scratching my head over what in the heck a headline is trying to convey, it’s obviously not doing its job.
“Slay rap” would be the murder charge [brought] as a result of the 1974 shooting. I think.
Correct. Slay in tabloidese often means murder as a noun. Thus slay rap=murder rap=murder charge.
“Only in New York” headline here:
I don’t think it fits OP’s grammar. In this case the headline is lacking a verb with “Slay rap” being a noun and the verb “is” is implied. In the OP’s case even if you take “arrest” as a noun there’s no implied verb that makes it make any sort of sense unless “Three men at airport made an arrest” was the intended meaning.
If I saw something like the OP describes in an actual newspaper I would assume it was a typographical error – because it is not a shorthand, it’s actually wrong.
I would actually **expect ** information on how I can discover new species of snakes if I saw an article entitled “Discover new species of snake”. Much like if you see something entitled “Make money in bed” you would not assume it meant “Money made in bed” you would assume “How to make money in bed” as implied meaning.
I am not sure if you are giving this as an example of OP-style headline or an example of using “slay” as a noun. However if the former, that is correct usage, unlike OP’s examples which are not correct usage. The intended meaning (I really hope) is not “Slay sparked by spay falafelled”
That’s obvious, but sometimes it’s just a question of layout. If there’s space on a particular line (once the font, etc. have been determined), you can say “President is Impeached,” rather than “President Impeached.”
Ah, I get it now. “Slay rap” = “murder rap.” However, Ellis did indeed, much to my surprise, pull out two contemporary New York Daily News headlines that do follow the OP’s grammar, so shrug, I guess it is an isolated New York thang.
Oh, I understand. Like I said, I used to do this to quite rigid constraints. However, there is no confusion in meaning in “President Impeached” v. “President Is Impeached” (although I would avoid the “is” personally). If a particular headline wasn’t working based on the specs we were given, we’d start from scratch with a new headline rather than try forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Neither have I. You can ask your reader to assume the police did the arresting, but why? You can say “three arrested at airport” without confusing anyone.
Martha, whoever this is that you’re working with, he’s wrong, because these headlines are incorrect regarding agency. And not only is he wrong, but he’s an idiot for saying that these were “US-style” constuctions. First of all, this isn’t a matter of construction. Secondly, good English uses the passive voice whenever it’s necessary or advisable.
If an unidentified person attacks the mayor in a deli, you say: “Mayor Attacked in Delicatessen.” You DON’T say: “Someone Attacked the Mayor in a Delicatessen,” at least not for a headline. The reason is obvious: the mayor is presumably more important/more well-known than the anonymous attacker.
OTOH, if George W. Bush attacked a member of the press corps in a deli, you might say: “Bush Attacks Foreign Correpesponent in Delicatessen,” or something like that.
You are not being too cocky, Martha, not at all. This guy should be fired. His headlines are not just bad jouralism; they’re simply not English–they’re not grammatical. And if they do fire him, I’d gladly take his place. Consider me a candidate for his position.
This headline style does appear to be a convention in the national Spanish language press, so that goes some way to explain it, especially as this editor advocates the use of online translators to produce English versions of local Spanish news items, which is a problem in itself.
“Insisten en parar transporte” for example, is a headline in one of today’s national newspapers. “(Unions) insist on stopping transport” is the literal translation. I don’t think this is as bad in Spanish as it is in English, because Spanish drops the subject noun or pronoun which is implied in the verb: “Voy al parque” = “(I) go to the park” without it sounding like an imperative.
I’ve just dug up the posting on this topic I made to Word Origins forum a couple of years ago which gives examples of the headline style in Chicago newspapers of the 1920s.
An excerpt from St Valentine’s Day Massacre by Helmer & Bilek, a particularly well-researched account:
"(Dean (or Dion) O’Banion, North Side leader, has been gunned down in his flower-shop by imported NY hood Frankie Yale and a couple of other gunsels).
The next morning’s Tribune banner blared in the declarative style of the day: KILL O’BANION, GANG LEADER."
There’s also a photographic reproduction of that particular edition’s front page, which makes it clear that there is no text, small or otherwise, above the banner, or previous banner which might have provided a subject, such as GUNMEN STRIKE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT or something.
Also, there are other photographic reproductions in the book which show that the former was not an isolated eccentricity of grammar:
KILL LOMBARDO, MAFIA CHIEF
SEIZE McGURN FOR MASSACRE
I’ll add two relevant replies to my WordOrigins query mentioned above.
From language hat:
“Nothing to decipher; KILL O’BANION, GANG LEADER is the precise equivalent of O’BANION, GANG LEADER, KILLED but two letters shorter, which is the equivalent of two bags of gold in the eternally straitened economy of headline space. The active-for-passive style has gone out of fashion for reasons unclear to me, which is why it looks strange to you, but it was once perfectly normal.”
From Dr Techie:
"I’ve seen it in contemporary use in a minor midwestern newspaper, as recently as–well, actually, that was about 20 years ago. As LH says, it’s gone out of fashion, I would guess because the false imperative sense that it created led to too much unintentional hilarity. I still recall one along the lines of “FONDLE CHEERLEADERS ON BUS”.
I always took it that there was an implied subject consisting of ‘Some person or persons…’."
You will sometimes see this kind of structure as a sub-head. The noun is implied from the headline, so they leave it out of the second, smaller line.
For those of you who still insist this construction is “wrong,” “bad grammar,” “not U.S. usage,” or unknown since the 1950s, here are three more from the Daily News…
None of these are subheadings - these are the headlines. If the editor mentioned in the OP should happen to get fired he may want to try for a job at the Daily News.
This, folks, is how “counting” a headline works, or worked. The points in question were not the printer’s unit of measure (one point=1/72 of an inch) but “points” assigned to characters on the basis of their width (skinny letters and spaces were 1/2, most lowercase letter were 1, wide lowercase letters like m and w and most uppercase were 1 1/2, cap M and W 2; or something like that). The editor would say something like “Gimme me a 30-point head” and you’d have to come up with some combination of letters that added up to 29 or 30 (“short” headlines were verboten).
Thus (to use a previous example) the reason for using the head “Two Men Murdered” instead of “Two Murdered” might be that the copyeditor need the 4 1/2 points provided by “Men” to fill out the line. Headline writing is the perfect occupation for the chronically anal.
Some papers used to use multi-line heads with different stylistic rules governing them; all lines had to be exactly the right length for the styles to work. In my college editing class we presumed that the poor slobs who had to crank out a dozen of those suckers every day probably committed suicide after a couple of years. . . .
Well I believe you now on US usage and not being technically wrong, but I will stand by it being bad grammar.
Consider
“COLLAR DRIVER IN FATAL HIT-RUN” (To me this is a shortened version of “Now you can collar your own driver in fatal hit’n’run accidents”)
vs.
“FATAL HIT-RUN DRIVER COLLARED”
“MAN ARRESTED IN FATAL HIT-RUN”
“ARREST GIRL IN SLAYING” (To me this is a shortened version of “Now you can arrest your own girls in slayings”)
vs.
“ARREST MADE IN SLAYING”
“SLAYING: GIRL ARRESTED” (meh)
“NEW ARREST IN SLAYING”
“FINGERS PTA BOARD IN NAIL RAP” (Note I don’t even understand what this means, as in, the PTA BOARD either got nailed or fingered, but not both in the same headline using that structure)
“PTA BOARD IMPLICATED”
“PTA BOARD NAILED”
or if it means what I think it doesn’t mean:
“PTA BOARD IMPLICATES MEMBER”
“PTA BOARD NAILS MEMBER”
“DEBIT CARD FRAUDSTER SQUEALS”
There is simply no excuse for using a headline that uses the imperative without providing the means for acting out said imperative. Of course if this structure was not already used for something more mainstream, it would be OK because it would not ever result in ambiguity. However, this same grammatical form is already used in magazine headlines with a completely different meaning:
Old Cosmo
GET ANY MAN YOU WANT
SWEEP MESS AND STRESS OUT OF YOUR LIFE
MUSCLE UP, PRONTO!
LOSE FAT WITH GREEN TEA!
Now 99 out of 100 times there is no ambiguity but that doesn’t make it an acceptable practice anymore for newspapers to use it imperative that way.
groman,
It’s strange to end up in a position of defending a form of usage I already consider weird, but I don’t think this… shall we call it tabloid form?.. is as bad as you say.
Mind you I’m no grammarian, but the verb forms from those headlines are not imperatives simply because they sometimes coincide with the imperative form. Context makes clear that they are third-person verb forms with their subject omitted.
In the case of FINGERS PTA BOARD IN NAIL RAP, “fingers” doesn’t even coincide with any imperative form. Why any reader would be confused by any of these headlines I can’t see - after all tabloid newspapers are not in the business of using their headlines to tell people things to do (except maybe to buy lotto tickets).
Why would the Post or the Daily News follow the style of Cosmopolitan or Men’s Fitness? The Post & the Daily News are many years older than those magazines. I’m sure circulation figures within the city greatly favor the newspapers as well.
Just to take one of your rewritten headlines…
the Daily News says: COLLARS DRIVER IN FATAL HIT-RUN
you say: FATAL HIT-RUN DRIVER COLLARED
I don’t see the first one as inferior. “Fatal Hit-Run Driver” reads slightly awkward to me. I realize this is all subjective, but I would assume that tabloid readers are used to what they’re used to and none of this bothers them.
