First in what we expect will be a long series
This piece by Vivian Yee ran in Thursday’s New York Times.
Except . . .
Here’s the headline that appeared in the New England (and early?) edition:
Marijuana Farm Found
At a Cherry Business
The text of the two versions is identical. So both pieces bury the lede. But one cremates it in the headline.
Not to get technical about it.
Contrast that with Wednesday’s New York Daily News front page.
So, to recap: The New York Times is once again a day late and a dolor short.
The NY Times seems to love dull and uninformative headlines (certainly not web-search friendly) that are holdover from the good old days of print, when people had the time, apparently, to go page-by-page through the print version (the only option) looking serendipitously for items that caught their fancy. Also, the NYT mindset then and still now is that if they think it is interesting, that should be good-enough for you, and you should stop and read it.
They still don’t get how people look at articles today at a website, or that you need to be keyword heavy for search. A representative NYT headline might be “A Dull House on Long Island is Anything But.” That’s supposed to tinkle your interest and then you’ll read it, of course. (If I didn’t know better, I would say their headlines are so opaque, dull, and uninformative that they are secretly written by The Onion as part of some sort of big joke on the audience, much like so much of modern art seems to be.)
It’s like the New Yorker many decades ago (I am showing my age)—the issues didn’t have a Table of Contents, as you were expected to go through every page seeing what they had to say. The NYTimes headlines have that same mindset.
And yet in so many ways, Bill, the NYT website content is fabulous.
It’s amazing, isn’t it, just how many of us read The New Yorker in just that way.
And as for the cherry business…So, THAT’s why I’m so adicted to maraschino cherries?