For subs everywhere, the Obama-Osama headline conundrum

For a few hours on Monday, visitors to the Times of India website were greeted by this article on the killing of Osama bin Laden:

A SUB'S WORST NIGHTMARE: Did you do a double take on the headline?

Someone, possibly a reader, alerted the newspaper to the goof-up and the headline was later corrected to read "Bin Laden was found with youngest wife".

***

Still on headlines: A few readers must have done a double take when they saw this one in DNA yesterday:

Unlike the ToI sub, the DNA sub who came up with this headline was probably getting a few pats on the back for his clever wordplay.

***

As long as we are on the subject of Bin Laden, did you know that the New York Times used to refer to him as "Mr bin Laden" on second reference, as dictated by house style, up until he was shot and his body buried at sea? Slate contributor Stayton Bonner, who explains in his piece titled "Goodbye, Mr Terrorist" how the NYT decided to strip Osama bin Laden of his honorific, says that according to the Times, dropping his title was a last-minute decision of minor importance, made just before going to press. "But," writes Bonner, "the decision does seem to imply some form of moral judgment."

Bonner continues:

Bin Laden is certainly a historical figure — defined as someone who will be talked about for decades — so he would have gotten the one-name treatment at some point either way. But why now? If George H.W. Bush died tomorrow, he would undoubtedly be referred to as "Mr. Bush." Idi Amin was sent off as "Mr. Amin," and Joseph Stalin was "Mr. Stalin." The Times' decision to forgo any transition period and jump straight to "bin Laden" indicates it had no fears about offending readers by shortening his name.

As such, Bin Laden joins a select crew of name-shortened Times evil-doers. Adolf Hitler was called "Hitler" even while still alive. The same went for fellow Nazis like Erwin Rommel. [Cambodian dictator] Pol Pot went without a courtesy title in his 1998 obituary.

Well, we have certainly learnt something here about house style, haven't we?

• Thanks to Commitscion Padmini Nandy Mazumder (Class of 2011) for this tip-off.

***

One last item: Who are the SEALs who took out Osama? Slate provides a glimpse into this top secret force: "No bark, all bite".

Sloppy subbing/house style

1. DNA (Bangalore), August 26

• Page 12: Pullout quote in first editorial

Vedanta has got its just desserts, but we need greater transparency in rules

That should be "just deserts": (From Dictionary.com) A deserved punishment or reward, as in He got his just deserts when Mary jilted him. This idiom employs desert in the sense of "what one deserves," a usage dating from the 1300s but obsolete except in this expression.

(We all know what "dessert" means.)

• Page 17: Headline

Mail on Flintoff auction raises a storm

That should be "email" or "e-mail", depending on house style. Why do so many of us, including journalists who should know better, write (or say) mail when it should be email?

In the news report below that headline, we read "e-mails" in some paragraphs and "mails" in other paragraphs. It's so confusing for readers.

2. The Times of India (Bangalore), August 26

• Page 1: Headline

INDIA SETS UP TITLE CLASH WITH SL

Here India is apparently a singular noun. Now go to the fourth paragraph of the match report on Page 23:

Now India have a chance to gloss over their weak links and get their hands on the trophy if they can contrive to run through the Lankans next.

Here India becomes a plural noun. So what is the house style?

Most newspapers allow collective nouns such as the cricket or football teams to be treated as plural subjects to make for ease of reading. For example: India have reached the final. To my knowledge, The Hindu is the only mainstream Indian newspaper that persists in treating, say, cricket or football teams as a singular subject. That is the newspaper's house style. But for The Times to treat India as singular and plural on different pages in the same issue is perhaps an indication that house style is no longer as sacrosanct as it used to be.

3. Open, August 20

• Page 41: Fifth paragraph

Before the channel began operating, a former bureau chief says, there was an unofficial list of dos and don’ts for reporters to follow. He recalls an unstated rule: “‘We will not do byte reporting’ …aisa hi kuch thha  (it was something like that).” The place became a haven for journalists, but it struggled to maintain its ideals. Slowly, quietly, the bureau head believes, the rules disappeared.

Byte? Here's a dictionary definition of byte: "adjacent bits, usually eight, processed by a computer as a unit". So clearly it is a computer term.

Now here's the definition of sound bite: "a brief, striking remark or statement excerpted from an audiotape or videotape for insertion in a broadcast news story".

So Open should have used "bite reporting" in that sentence, not "byte reporting".

In Mint Lounge on May 15, a caption on Page 15 read:

Byte-hungry: Indian news channels were criticized for the way they covered the 26/11 terror attacks

But Open and Mint are not the only culprits. For some reason, universally, we will see a reference to "byte" when what is meant is "bite" or "sound bite". Even television journalists are not immune to this disease. A few months ago I sent an email to Rajdeep Sardesai about this and he replied, "It should be sound bite. But you are right, several of us, myself included, use sound byte. Am not sure why."

When house style is no longer sacrosanct...

...you will find boo-boos like the ones in today's Sunday Times (Bangalore edition):

1. Headline on Page 1: "After merchandize, catering may be the next casualty"

2. Intro to the story below that headline: "Even as the merchandizing deal fell through on Friday..."

Merchandize? Merchandizing? This is what happens when "-ise" endings are routinely — and without thinking — changed to "-ize" endings "to conform with house style".

The strange thing here is that ToI style, going by what I have read, seems to be to use "-ise" endings. So what's up with "merchandize"? What next? Advertize? Advertizing?

3. A Page 1 story talks about the government wanting Dow to pay up Rs.1,500 crore to the Bhopal gas victims and both in the headline and in the story the newspaper uses the new rupee symbol (which I am not able to use yet on my blogs). But on Page 4 in the resident editor's column, "To The Point", the paper goes back to using the old rupee symbol. And this seems to be the pattern on every other page but Page 1.

What is the house style here? What gives, Mr Editor?