On Thursday, the Washington Post published an article titled, "SEC Votes to Ease Audit Requirements," written by the Post's Carrie Johnson.
The headline of the article, as it appeared on the Washington Post's website on Thursday was straightforward and to the point. As Johnson writes in the article, "Securities regulators unanimously embraced a plan that they said would slash costs and restore common sense to an audit rule attacked as too expensive by business groups and lawmakers."
However, when that same article by Carrie Johnson appeared in yesterday's AbqJournal, the headline was "SEC Votes For Plain Sense." I would link to the article, but the Journal didn't make it available on their website.
Having read the original article, the Journal's headline struck me as example of an editorial comment than a headline.
The SEC commission defended their vote saying it was a common sense decision, but the Journal's headline reads like an endorsement of their decision.
Whereas the Washington Post's headline was a factual reflection of the article's content, the Journal's headline was an interpretation of the story.
The Journal seems to take a lot of liberties when it comes to printing articles. I've noticed in the past that they'll publish a David Roybal story on a Sunday and then again on a Wednesday. Sometimes they just seem a little desperate for content.
Comments