incitingariot.blogspot.com
As we mentioned on Tuesday, the LA Times stirred up a ruckus this weekend when its website posted an op-ed from the Sunday paper titled, "Was 9/11 Really That Bad?" The incendiary headline drew an instant and furious response (including from commenters on HuffPo's main page) and as of this morning it had been changed to "Putting 9/11 In Perspective." As it turns out, the original web headline differed completely from the print version, which ran with the line, "Apocalypse, No." Meanwhile author of the piece David Bell, who was careful to note in the text that he meant "no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces," has since been criticized over the headline as well as the questions raised in his analysis, with little heed to the fact that headlines are typically written by editors, not writers. When reached for comment, Bell, who also posted a statement about the article on the New Republic's "Open University" blog, had this to say:
You're quite right that I didn't write the original headline, and was not consulted about it. In fact, this was not even the headline in the print edition. The editorial page editor, Nick Goldberg, finally settled on "Apocalypse, No." However, for reasons that weren't made clear to me, the web editorial team was not informed of this change. When I saw the headline on Sunday morning I immediately wrote Nick to ask that it be changed. He thought, however (comedy of errors) that I was objecting to headline in the print edition, which he defended. When he finally realized that the website had been using the headline "Was 9/11 Really that Bad," he had that one changed as well.
Sure, editorial boards maintain the right to run stories under whatever headline they wish, but failing to note the alteration anywhere in the article looks sneaky. Not to mention that it's unlikely the Times staff wasn't aware that slapping such an inflammatory title on an op-ed about an emotional subject would both attract readers (which it did; as of Tuesday, the piece was No. 2 on the website's Most Viewed Stories list) and set the writer up for excoriation. While revising it after Bell objected was a fair move (and a precedented one, considering Forbes' afterthought overhaul of the originally-titled "Don't Marry Career Women"), waiting half a week to do so, particularly in a hyperactive blogosphere that catches mainstream slip-ups within minutes, essentially moots the change. Though with Michael Noer we could have a sense of humor about it.
Earlier: "Was 9/11 Really That Bad?" Depends On Who You Ask [ETP]
