Headlines Should Match the Evidence

Hi everyone, it’s been quite a while since I’ve written for this newsletter. I’m going to try and get back into it, starting … now.

In the past, I’ve focused on tips to write clearly and convincingly. A key part of that is presenting your conclusions up front, but also making sure they are supported by evidence presented later. It therefore drives me nuts when news headlines fail this test, especially because those headlines are often more sensational than the evidence presented.

So, today just for fun I’m going to pick apart a few recent, low-stakes headlines that I think got this at least somewhat wrong. Get ready to learn about a ride-sharing app that grew quietly, an asteroid that could hit earth, and a spike in prostate cancer rates.

• Disclaimer: I want to acknowledge that putting out news day-by-day is hard, and requires tough choices in words and phrasing. There will always be something that a critic like me will pick apart. But still, I think it’s important to get right, so let the picking begin!

1. Turo “Grew Quietly”

First, the New York Times had an article about the peer-to-peer car rental app Turo, after cars rented on it were used in the deadly vehicle attack in New Orleans and, separately, the vehicle explosion at the Trump hotel in Las Vegas. The title was “Car Rental App Turo Grew Quietly Before Ties to Wednesday’s Incidents” (bold emphasis mine). Gift link here.

The use of the word “quietly” here implies Turo intentionally kept itself out of the news or spotlight as it gained users in an unusual way. Otherwise, the headline would not have included the word “quietly.”

The problem is that the facts in the article don’t establish any such thing. The article:

• Presents some facts about the company, including when it was established, various changes over the years, how it works and how many people use it, and that it was considering an initial public offering last year.

• Notes that the link between the two incidents and use of Turo may have been coincidental.

• Includes nothing at all about the company’s comms strategy as the company grew

• Has no assessment of how “loud” Turo was compared to any other companies in a similar situation.

So a better headline would have omitted the word “quietly.” Of course, this would’ve also been a less interesting headline.

2. Asteroid “Could” Hit Earth

Next, for something a little more lighthearted, CNN just published a story “Near-Earth asteroid Bennu could hit Earth in 157 years and set off a global ‘impact winter,’ study says” (again, bold emphasis mine). Link here.

I don’t actually have much quibble with this headline, and it’s a fascinating article. But the word “could” does trip one of my writing bugaboos, in that using that word could (ha!) imply that this asteroid hit is more likely than it is. If you read the article, you’ll see there is an estimated 1 in 2,700 chance of this asteroid hitting earth, which isn’t a particularly high chance.

As I’ve written about before, “could” is a “weasel word” that lets you get out of rigorous assessments of how likely something really is. Yes, an asteroid “could” hit the earth. Also, I “could” become President, or perform at the Super Bowl half-time show, but it’s not very likely. (I may put my odds of both at less than 1 in 2,700, though.)

So in this case, a more apt headline might be something like “Asteroid with very low chance of hitting earth in 157 years would be capable of setting off ‘global impact’ winter, study says.” Of course, this takes some of the excitement out of it.

3. Prostate Cancer Cases Spike

Finally, Fox had a story “Prostate cancer cases spike in this US state as doctors share likely reason.” Link here.

Ok there’s actually nothing wrong with this headline, in terms of reflecting the evidence in the article. But I’m pointing this out because the article includes information that appears to confuse the message of the headline. This is illustrative of how important it is to make sure all writing clearly matches up.

The article includes:

• “The incidence rate of cases [in California] increased 6.7% per year on average between 2011 and 2021, the JAMA-published research revealed.”

• “The rising cases correspond with a change in guidelines for PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing, in which the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) stopped recommending the screenings in 2012, according to the UCSF press release.”

• “The guidelines were changed in order to reduce the number of prostate cancer patients who were treated with ‘potentially harmful interventions’ for non-threatening forms of the disease.”

All well and good, and matches the headline. Except the article also includes the following:

• “Although cases rose, prostate cancer mortality rates declined 2.6% per year from 2004 to 2012, and plateaued from 2012 to 2021.”

This last point is confusing. Certainly it is worrying that mortality rates plateaued instead of continuing to decline. But if cases rose, and mortality didn’t go up, doesn’t that suggest that the rise in cases may not as worrying as the headline makes it out to be? Maybe these cases are indeed the “non-threatening forms of the disease” mentioned earlier?

I am not a medical researcher so I don’t want to get over my skis here. But a look at the headline of the JAMA article this appears to reference shows there’s a word included that would’ve been useful here: “Alarming Rise in Rates of Advanced Prostate Cancer in California” (bold emphasis mine).

The Fox article doesn’t mention that the rise in rates was a rise in rates of advanced cancer. That would have been helpful to mention, either in the headline or body of the article, and it would have been helpful to explain how the mortality rate statistics should be understood with that in mind.