February 12, 2017
10:24 p.m.

I am a writer.

You may not agree with that statement, but since I have often been paid for my efforts, I have earned the right to make this declaration: I am a writer. I can put it on a resume. I can put it on my tax forms.

I am many other things, as well. But tonight, I am writing as a person whose occupation and vocation is WRITER.

As a writer, I know a few things. I know how to spell. I know how to write a complete sentence. I know how to use punctuation correctly. I know the difference between to, too and two.

I also know that writers begin their projects with an audience of one. We write, first and foremost, for ourselves. We are compelled to do it; it is not a choice. Whether it is a fictional story that demands to be told, or an opinion we absolutely must share, those ideas pop into out heads and we must get them down on paper as quickly as possible before they slip away, never to be retrieved. And we do it, first of all, for ourselves.

But in the end, once a thing is written, we begin to feel a need to share. Why write it, if no one is ever going to read it? We edit, we organize, and we consider our audience.

Who is this for? And how do we make sure it gets the attention it should?

If it is a book or a short story, we begin to consider titles. If it is an article for a magazine or a newspaper, we attempt to create a sufficiently compelling headline.

I have a point. It has to do with headlines or titles, and how leading--or misleading--they can be.

Writers want to grab your attention, and the whole point of a title or a headline is to make you want to read the story.

But titles and headlines are NOT the STORY. They are simply the lure, the hook to pull you in and make you open the cover and read. They invite you to click on the article and read. They ask you to be a part of something the writer has spent a good deal of time thinking about, researching and writing.

As a reader--which is also something that I am, and that all writers certainly should be--I am obligated to read the story behind the title, to read the article behind the headline, in order to understand what the writer wants me to know.

Take for example the headline: "Nut Bolts and Screws". It is simple and to the point. More importantly, if you read the story it heads, you will find that the headline is perfectly relevant. But what do you suppose that article is really about?

Carpentry? Perhaps.

Tools? Maybe.

Actually, it was the headline of an article that told of the escape of an inmate from an insane asylum who later raped several women before being apprehended.

Nut Bolts and Screws.

I heard about this story and headline from my High School journalism teacher, and I never forgot it. It started quite a funny conversation between students and teacher, and was a learning tool that I'm sure many of my former classmates have gone on to use in their work.

A compelling headline draws the reader in and makes him want to read the story.

It can be perfectly apt, as in the case above; it can also be misleading. Therein lies the hook--you want to read it and understand the headline. And you must read it to understand the headline.

But somewhere along the way, things have gone wrong. I could point a finger at the writers whose headlines mislead, but I honestly believe that the fault lies with the reader who goes no further into the story than that headline.

I'm seeing it several times a day: hundreds of shares of a story online, with comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the story behind the headline.

I have literally asked people, "Did you read the story? Did you read it before you indiscriminately pounded on the share button? Did you read it before you made your wildly inappropriate comment? Did you bother to read anything beyond the headline?"

The replies? "No, I didn't read it. I know what it says."

And "I already know what they're going to say."

And "I don't have to read it to know what it is about."

WHAT?!

Attention, indiscriminate share-button pounders: You DO have to read it to know what it is about! You DON'T already know what the writer is going to say. You do NOT know what it says--not without READING. 

For crying out loud. I shouldn't have to explain this simple fact to you. Unless you are a bona fide mind reader, you do not have any idea what I am going to say beyond my headline of, for instance, "Dealing with drugs in a practical way".

I just made that up. Just now. You're welcome to try to read my mind now and tell me what I have to say on this subject.

Good luck. Because:

1. You can't know if I mean street drugs or prescribed drugs
2. You can't know if I mean addiction or side effects
3. You can't know what practical means to me personally
4. You can't know if I might actually mean dealing drugs

The headline is ambiguous. It is there to draw you in so you will read the story and find out what I mean.

You don't have to agree with the story, and if that's the case, you are certainly free to rant on about it as much as you like.

But only if you READ it.

If you simply share it with a comment like: "There's nothing practical about drug abuse." you have immediately shown me that you have indiscriminately shared and commented on an article you didn't read at all, because guess what?

Nothing about drug abuse in the article. Nothing.

Disclaimer: This is not a real article. Did you read the part a few paragraphs earlier where I distinctly said that I just made it up, just now? You didn't?

Then don't share it. Don't comment on it.

For the love of chicken noodle soup, don't do it!

I am always happy to see the opinions of others, because sharing ideas and values is a learning experience. It is important to me to be well informed.

What I don't want or need is to be inundated with mis-information. I don't need to see pictures of "Vietnam veterans" which are actually stills from a Ben Stiller movie. I don't need to see videos of slave marketers who are really actors playing roles. And I don't need to see stories that have been shared with incorrect assumptions and unrelated comments by the sharers who didn't bother to read them first.

(Although I must admit that I have been wildly amused by some shares by Republicans who think they are dissing the Democrats, but when you read the article it is totally Pro-Democratic. And vise versa; because indiscriminate share-button pounders come from all parties, races, creeds, etc.)

Before you share it, read it. Before you comment on it, read it. If you don't understand it, ask questions. If you want to know more, research it.

If you have a cause or an agenda that you want to promote, you are doing it a disservice when you indiscriminately share and comment without reading first. You want to appear educated and informed, but by not reading first, you are simply putting a spotlight on the fact that you are not.

Share smart. Comment smart.

That is all.

Good night!