How to Write a Misleading Article: Headlines

Part 1 of My New Series on Media Literacy

Apr 05, 2024

Remember weeks ago when I introduced my new media literacy series?

Yeah me neither.

Because shortly after Catherine, the Princess of Wales’s medical absence broke through the U.K. and royal circles and all hell broke loose. It was unrelenting for weeks.

I’m ready to dive back in, because if nothing else, this entire Catherine, Princess of Wales situation has reiterated the importance of digital media literacy skills if we want anything to change.

Without further adieu, here is the first part of my How to Make a Misleading Article Sandwich series: Headlines.

Step One: Sensationalized or Misleading Headlines

In an age where Twitter (ugh, X) asks you if you want to actually, you know, read the article you’re about to share, headlines are extremely important. In the case of the Daily Mail this means a paragraph long headline with no punctuation. Our attention spans have been reduced to that of a gnat (sorry gnats). Rarely do people stop to read the entire piece, go back, and see if the headline was truly representative of the piece. But so much of consuming media has turned into how fast someone can regurgitate news online and share their own hot take, that actual literacy—comprehending the article—is becoming a lost art. Media outlets know that, which is why

headlines are created with an eye towards a viral moment driven by SEO, rather than an accurate representation of what the reader can expect in the article. (Search Engine Optimization —a manner of writing that appeals to search engines in an effort to rank higher on the Search Engine Results Page.) Let’s look at two examples of misleading, or flat out dishonest, headlines.

Example 1: Politics and the Royals Collide

Shortly after Catherine, the Princess of Wales announced via video that she had cancer, stories started bubbling up that foreign adversaries like China and Russia might be behind the online mayhem. Most of the coverage pointed back to this article in The Telegraph:

The headline reads: "China and Russia ‘spreading slurs against Princess of Wales’”. We know that part of this is a quote attributed to someone else. Let’s get into the proof that China and Russia were behind it.

First of all, there are a lot of unnamed government officials used as sources. There’s discussion of fears that these were state-backed cyber attacks, but no definitive statements. Then there’s this:

It comes as Downing Street is preparing to announce fresh sanctions on China as soon as Monday, after a wave of state-backed cyber attacks against a group of senior MPs and peers.

The hyperlink brings the reader to Feb. 2024 article that reads:

Whether any of the British institutions were hacked has not been confirmed, but the documents claim the company was successful in many other cases, including their retrieval of a large database of the road network of Taiwan, which China threatens to invade.

So, it appears that maybe possibly China wanted to hack MPs and government officials, but nothing’s been confirmed. Let’s pull this thread further. A lot of people probably don’t care if MPs are being hacked—confidence in government and all of that. But the beloved Princess of Wales who is a part of the British Royal Family, the national identity, the intrinsic fiber of the nation? That will get people’s attention. And just in time to submit a fresh round of sanctions on—you guessed it—China.

It’s not just a misleading headline, it’s borderline assisting the Tory-led government in their larger goals concerning China and other foreign adversaries. It’s not a check on power as much as doing the bidding of the ones in power. Similar to how the British Royal Family is covered.

Example 2: Inflammatory Statements & Unnamed Sources

The only thing I love more than a body language expert is an unnamed source on very shaky ground. This headline is from The Wrap published on Yahoo! reads:

NYPD Dismisses Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Account of Paparazzi Chase: ‘Nothing Happened, It’s a Bogus Story’ (Exclusive)

Is the cop Joe Pesci in Home Alone? It sounds pretty damning to have The NYPD completely dismiss Prince Harry and Meghan’s claims of a paparazzi chase lasting around 2 hours in NYC after Meghan picked up a “Woman of Vision” award in May of 2023.

Are you ready for the exclusive? (you’re not but, you’re probably curious nonetheless.):

“However, a duty officer at NYPD’s 18th precinct, who declined to be named, told TheWrap, ‘Nothing happened. It’s a bogus story. Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers.’ The 18th precinct is at 306 West 54th Street, the closest to where the chase took place.”

According to the headline, this one unnamed duty officer at NYPD’s 18th precinct speaks for the entire NYPD. Not to mention the 18th precinct isn’t where they eventually stopped (that would be the 19th precinct, which makes sense since they were on the FDR Parkway for part of the pursuit).

(MapQuest layout of the location of the event (A), the 18th precinct where the unnamed duty officer works (B), and the 19th precinct where they stop to try a new tactic to divert paparazzi (C). You can also see FDR Dr. N on the right hand side.)

The headline leads you to believe the entire NYPD dismissed their account, but the proof is one quote by a duty officer who - as far as we know - was not witness to the event. But that isn’t spelled out because this article is designed to be shared by people who already distrust or dislike The Sussexes and excitedly see their biases confirmed.

The NYPD do appear to have cared, insomuch that in the decision of Prince Harry’s U.K. case against RAVEC over security, the presiding judge wrote that the NYPD had reviewed the events of that May 2023 evening and had enough evidence to arrest at least two paparazzi and that they were changing security protocols for added protection the next time Harry and Meghan are in town. It negates the entire story presented by The Wrap and numerous other outlets at the time. But consistency doesn’t matter when outlets are churning out the dozens of stories a day.

Conclusion: Misleading or Flat Out Lies?

Misleading headlines have become such a problem that in the British Press Photographers’ Association’s press release over the Mother’s Day fake photo, they made a pointed remark in bold AND italic font (it’s the equivalent of your mother using your full name) pointed directly at the British media:

“The press must take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.”

Kind of feels like if this was simply an aberration, this statement wouldn’t be necessary. But it’s not. It’s an on-going problem and deeply unfair to the public. One way we can fight back on an individual level is with increased media literacy tools in our tool box.

(stay tuned for part 2)

-Meredith