Headline Hyperbole - Spin doctors at work

Headlines grab attention. Some writers spend more time composing the headline than the article itself because they know that many people just scan headlines for stuff that might interest them. I read two headlines today that grabbed my attention, but the actual story was very different than the headline hyperbole would lead you to believe.

hy·per·bo·le   /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-pur-buh-lee]

–noun Rhetoric.

1.	obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2.	an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

[Origin: 1520–30; < Gk hyperbol excess, exaggeration, throwing beyond, equiv. to hyper- hyper- + bol throw]

—Synonyms 2. overstatement.

—Antonyms 2. understatement.

I am sure you have all experienced this, especially in political reporting, but I thought blog headlines might be different. Financial reporting often resorts to head-fake hyperbole too. How often have you seen "XYZ Corp exceeds expectations" only to find out that profits are down 60% from last year, but they exceeded recent low ball expectations.

Take a look at these two headlines and tell me if you think it is an accurate portrayal of the situation.

"Yahoo says ad system on track for early release"  Early? How about late by at least a year from original expectations? Products get delivered late all the time, and there are often good reasons why. Witness Longhorn, now known as Vista. But for Yahoo to try and spin the Panama story as "ahead of schedule" or "on track for early release" is really comical.

"Microsoft tried to doctor Wikipedia" Huh? Sounds bad, doesn't it? Reading deeper into the story we discover that a low level employee contacted an independent expert and asked him to take a look at the Wikipedia entry on "Open XML Format". The employee, Doug Mahugh, thought the entry was slanted and thought it should be more objective. Here is an excerpt from an email he sent to Rick Jelliffe, who is chief technical officer of Sydney computing company Topologi.

“Wikipedia has an entry on Open XML that has a lot of slanted language, and we'd like for them to make it more objective but we feel that it would be best if a non-Microsoft person were the source of any corrections,” reads the email Mahugh apparently wrote to Jelliffe.

“Would you have any interest or availability to do some of this kind of work? Your reputation as a leading voice in the XML community would carry a lot of credibility, so your name came up in a discussion of the Wikipedia situation today."

I am sure "Microsoft" would never have approved this employee reaching out to Mr. Jelliffe in this way, but "Microsoft" can't control all the actions of all its employees. This employee was well meaning, but handled this all wrong. Any PR person or VP level person would have known how this seemingly innocent request could potentially be twisted in a news headline, and would have never approved it.

We all work for someone in our day jobs. Microsoft PR probably wouldn't approve of me writing this blog entry either. Their reasoning would be something like, "there is nothing to gain and lots to lose. Just be quiet." Maybe they are right, but I think open honest communication is always better, mistakes and all, then predictable corporate spin.

Like it or not, everything we do before, during, or after, work reflects on our employers. I do try to be respectful of the wishes of my employer, and try to always understand that even though I am acting on my own, others might perceive what I say or do to represent the views of Microsoft. Most reporters know that only statements from Microsoft Corporate are official. Blogs written by high level employees can blur the lines. It is a risk Microsoft, and many other companies, are willing to take in the interest of open dialog.

What do you think? Did Yahoo release Panama ahead of schedule? Did Microsoft try to doctor Wikipedia? Or maybe it doesn't matter because we are already conditioned to take headlines with a grain of salt?

The sad thing is I just took the time to read the Wikipedia entry in question, and it looks pretty reasonable "as is". Who knows...there may be some arcane description or sentence that is slanted, but you would have to be an expert in this field to find it...or to care about it. The bad headlines and PR hits were in no way worth whatever might be gained by correcting some preceived slants.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Comments

[Abe Sultan]

Hi Don,

From my understanding Microsoft wanted to contract Rick Jelliffe to add his opinion to the article.

Here is the quote directly from Jelliffe's blog:

"So I was a little surprised to receive email a couple of days ago from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML. I am hardly the poster boy of Microsoft partisanship! Apparently they are frustrated at the amount of spin from some ODF stakeholders on Wikipedia and blogs. "

I don't think it was wrong at all but like all other Microsoft news it was taken out of perspective to portray the evil ruller.

You can find the entire article here:
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html

[Juha]

I think it's good to hear the other side of the story, as silence is often construed as admitting guilt.

That said, The Age was probably justified in labelling Microsoft's counter-spin negatively, although "doctoring" is too strong a word - as far as I know, Jelliffe didn't put anything into Wikipedia, so how can it have been deemed "doctoring"?

[Steve Morsa]

I hadn't thought about this before, Don; but it does seem to be the case more and more as the importance of headlines grows in this Internet-connected age...makes me think that what we need is that old saw about contracts, but updated for today's world:

The headline giveth, and the body copy taketh away.

[Ben Langhinrichs]

Don,

I have to say that while some of the news stories about the Microsoft Wikipedia thing have been overly sensationalistic, it is also pretty clearly "spin" to call this a "seemingly innocent request". While I agree that Microsoft as a corporation would have been unlikely to approve such a stupid move, it wasn't particularly innocent. A person from Microsoft was offering to pay, as in cash money, to have an "independent" reviewer make revisions to the Wikipedia article. I think I have read you yourself point out that you have to follow the money back, and the chances that this money was offered without an expectation for a certain perspective is ridiculous.

So, dismiss this as done by a rogue employee if you like, but don't try to spin it as an innocent move. It hardly takes a sophisticated PR group to figure out that paying somebody else to post something "independent" is not acceptable.

- Ben