You’re right, the headline should clearly have read:
“Based on a DNA study conducted by Dr. Laura Cassidy of Trinity College Dublin and others, assumptions that most iron age Celtic societies were patrilocal have not borne out genetically, which shows that potentially there are time periods where matrilocality is more common, changing views of how women in ancient societies are viewed by modern people studying them, but this is all still early days as the paper has just been published in the science journal known as Nature and the peer review process still has to run its course. And even then, sometimes peer-reviewed science gets overturned, so we can’t actually be sure any of this is true until a time machine is invented, which physicists currently think is not a practical possibility (although we haven’t surveyed 100% of them on this).”
There. Accurate. Hmm… not all that succinct though.
I guess they should have gone with the title of the paper in Nature: “Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain”
I’m not going to lambast you, but I will point out that reading only headlines is why Alex Jones still has a job and has been able to effectively lie for 30 years.
The article is really easy to understand, and it has details that wouldn’t fit or would otherwise be missing context in a headline. I really do recommend reading it. Plus, learning is fun!
Stay curious, and never stop learning. —Forrest Valkai
Journalists don’t write headlines for the most part, editors do. If you think the headline is bad you should email the newspaper, not the journalist, because they probably have no control over it.
And expecting a headline to be both succinct and completely explain the story is an unreasonable expectation. That’s why the article is there, to explain what the headline doesn’t. Despite what reddit and Twitter would have you believe, browsing a bunch of headlines is not reading the news.
“Summarize all the details of the article in the headline so that reading the article is unnecessary” is not an editorial standard held by any newspapers, to my knowledge.
Your use of quotation marks implies that you’re quoting me. Please point to where I said, "Summarize all the details of the article in the headline so that reading the article is unnecessary”
Or perhaps you’re acting in bad faith? I believe that may have been a strawman dark pattern you’ve just used.
Oh, you’re a debate pervert, not someone having a conversation. Kind of on me for not seeing that before now. Don’t worry about it, man. We’re done now.
You should read the article. It’s not that long, and how they figured this out is interesting.
I would but I believe journalists should be accountable to write accurate and succinct headlines, anything less would be condoning clickbait
You’re right, the headline should clearly have read:
“Based on a DNA study conducted by Dr. Laura Cassidy of Trinity College Dublin and others, assumptions that most iron age Celtic societies were patrilocal have not borne out genetically, which shows that potentially there are time periods where matrilocality is more common, changing views of how women in ancient societies are viewed by modern people studying them, but this is all still early days as the paper has just been published in the science journal known as Nature and the peer review process still has to run its course. And even then, sometimes peer-reviewed science gets overturned, so we can’t actually be sure any of this is true until a time machine is invented, which physicists currently think is not a practical possibility (although we haven’t surveyed 100% of them on this).”
There. Accurate. Hmm… not all that succinct though.
I guess they should have gone with the title of the paper in Nature: “Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain”
Everyone would have understood it!
Lol gottem
It’s doesn’t have slam in there though. Im not sure who to blame.
Howsabout just putting the word “Some” at the start, to remove all ambiguity?
I’m not going to lambast you, but I will point out that reading only headlines is why Alex Jones still has a job and has been able to effectively lie for 30 years.
The article is really easy to understand, and it has details that wouldn’t fit or would otherwise be missing context in a headline. I really do recommend reading it. Plus, learning is fun!
So, to be honest, I did read the article, but it’s still important to hold journalism to professional standards, lest we regress towards the dumb.
No, this headline is perfectly good. It’s got all the key details. The extra details would make the headline too long.
What does too long mean? Are we rationing attention spans now?
There are character limits. And conventions.
The article has the details. The headline describes what will be in the article. For this article, it works.
Clickbait is “you’ll never believe why these men from the iron age moved in with their…”
Generally something is left out and intentionally worded to make you curious.
A regular headline is meant to convey a single sentence summary, not necessarily covering the why.
Journalists don’t write headlines for the most part, editors do. If you think the headline is bad you should email the newspaper, not the journalist, because they probably have no control over it.
And expecting a headline to be both succinct and completely explain the story is an unreasonable expectation. That’s why the article is there, to explain what the headline doesn’t. Despite what reddit and Twitter would have you believe, browsing a bunch of headlines is not reading the news.
Editors were once journalists, so I would expect them to keep with the standards, unless they got the job through fraud or nepotism
“Summarize all the details of the article in the headline so that reading the article is unnecessary” is not an editorial standard held by any newspapers, to my knowledge.
Your use of quotation marks implies that you’re quoting me. Please point to where I said, "Summarize all the details of the article in the headline so that reading the article is unnecessary”
Or perhaps you’re acting in bad faith? I believe that may have been a strawman dark pattern you’ve just used.
Oh, you’re a debate pervert, not someone having a conversation. Kind of on me for not seeing that before now. Don’t worry about it, man. We’re done now.
Insults, now?
It’s okay, I forgive you.
Oh booo you have to read more than one sentence to learn things. The horror!
You seemed to be able to judge me on just one of my sentences, so it seems we’re on the level