Equivocal

The purposes of a newspaper headline are: 1) to summarize, 2) to attract attention. Reputable papers stress summarizing. Sensational sheets seek attention. Both kinds, however, limit their headlines to facts within their stories.

As a rule. Not always. Now and then there will be a "possibility," a fact suggested, but not contained, in a story, which the headline can imply or actually express yet not be lying. For example, last week The New York Telegram headlined: CANADA JURY ACQUITS FORD ON LIQUOR PIRACY CHARGE.

"Acquits Ford? Henry Ford?" exclaimed the reader. No, it was Captain Samuel Ford, the story explained. Henry Ford's name was nowhere mentioned. Yet what more natural that one should think of him? There had been no prominent series of stories on the case. What Fords other than Henry and Edsel are well known?

A more obvious example of equivocal headlining appeared last week in The New York Times. Wrote a New York Times reader to the editor of that daily:

"Not being interested in sports, I do not read that section of your paper. . . . Today, however, . . . a headline in your issue of September 9 caught my eye and held my incredulous attention. The headline was: CHRIST WINS GOLF TITLE . . .

"No doubt your caption writer considered his use of the winner's name an amusing one. That the phrase should have been allowed to stand shows an unpardonable carelessness, at the least, in your editorial department.

"Revolting . . . sensational papers . . . grieved . . . screaming headlines . . . you guilty of such a breach of good taste . . . such irreverence. One looks to the Times for dignity, poise, restraint."