Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Forecast: Cloudy, No Brain
The header is from a comment on this article about the final refutation of the climate deniers' lead scientist...
Bad Headline Mars Good NY Times Story Debunking Lindzen’s ‘Discredited’ Cloud Theory. Can You Do Better?
By Joe Romm on May 1, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Your not-so-impossible mission, should you choose to accept it, is to write a headline that better reflects the actual content of today’s NY Times article, which redebunks long-debunked disinformer Richard Lindzen.
Headlines are important because research shows that most newspaper readers don’t get much beyond them. And NY Times headlines sweep across the internet through twitter, facebook, news aggregators and search engines. Probably 10 to 50 times as many people see the headlines as read any substantial portion of the story.
So when the New York Times publishes a front-page piece eviscerating Dr. Richard Lindzen and his “discredited” theory — the NYT’s word — that the cloud feedback could somehow save us from catastrophic global warming, it ought to have a better headline than “Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters.”
Even worse, the heavily-trafficked front page of the NY Times website has this teaser for the piece:
By Joe Romm on May 1, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Your not-so-impossible mission, should you choose to accept it, is to write a headline that better reflects the actual content of today’s NY Times article, which redebunks long-debunked disinformer Richard Lindzen.
Headlines are important because research shows that most newspaper readers don’t get much beyond them. And NY Times headlines sweep across the internet through twitter, facebook, news aggregators and search engines. Probably 10 to 50 times as many people see the headlines as read any substantial portion of the story.
So when the New York Times publishes a front-page piece eviscerating Dr. Richard Lindzen and his “discredited” theory — the NYT’s word — that the cloud feedback could somehow save us from catastrophic global warming, it ought to have a better headline than “Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters.”
Even worse, the heavily-trafficked front page of the NY Times website has this teaser for the piece:
More at:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/01/474473/bad-headline-mars-good-ny-times-story-debunking-lindzens-discredited-cloud-theory-can-you-do-better/
