Tweet
Well, you had your fun, gentlemen, and I smiled at the attempts at writing a caption for that photo. In fact, I genuinely enjoyed reading the captions written. Nevertheless, I would be remiss in failing to point out that while the captions you wrote used to be acceptable in some high school publications (magazines and yearbooks) back in the day, there would be absolutely no place for them on the pages of a modern newspaper.
In other words, they would be unacceptable to a copy editor.
From what I can see, the caption writers here on RBC were primarily concerned with being funny, sometimes at the expense of the young lady and/or the soldiers. In real life situations, this would not work, and legal considerations such as libel or false light serve to restrict blatant attempts at crude comedy at the expense of the subjects in any published photograph.
Now, if I were to grade the captions written, my grade would be influenced by the following shortcomings:
1. The “where”, “what”, “who” (full names are needed, although in a tense situation such as Tivoli Gardens last week, it might be difficult to obtain names) and “when” are missing from the action in the photo!!
These four W’s (“when”, “what”, “who” and “where”) are generally the most important information needed for photo captions. The “why” is generally difficult or even impossible to include, while the “how” is often unnecessary.
2. Readers are NOT looking for comedy in a newspaper caption; they want facts! Also, surely some background information (for example, why were armed soldiers standing on the sidewalk?) could have been included in the captions written here.
In newsmagazines such as Newsweek, Time and others, the captions are generally very brief, but this is because the relevant details are generally found in the story which the photo accompanies.
Finally, many of us here often lambast journalists for not digging further (I believe the term often used on this forum is “investigative journalism”, a term which became fashionable following the exploits and successes of the Washington Post’s team of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein back in the 1970s). Hopefully, my comments here make it apparent that things are not always easy for today’s newspaper journalists.
In other words, they would be unacceptable to a copy editor.
From what I can see, the caption writers here on RBC were primarily concerned with being funny, sometimes at the expense of the young lady and/or the soldiers. In real life situations, this would not work, and legal considerations such as libel or false light serve to restrict blatant attempts at crude comedy at the expense of the subjects in any published photograph.
Now, if I were to grade the captions written, my grade would be influenced by the following shortcomings:
1. The “where”, “what”, “who” (full names are needed, although in a tense situation such as Tivoli Gardens last week, it might be difficult to obtain names) and “when” are missing from the action in the photo!!
These four W’s (“when”, “what”, “who” and “where”) are generally the most important information needed for photo captions. The “why” is generally difficult or even impossible to include, while the “how” is often unnecessary.
2. Readers are NOT looking for comedy in a newspaper caption; they want facts! Also, surely some background information (for example, why were armed soldiers standing on the sidewalk?) could have been included in the captions written here.
In newsmagazines such as Newsweek, Time and others, the captions are generally very brief, but this is because the relevant details are generally found in the story which the photo accompanies.
Finally, many of us here often lambast journalists for not digging further (I believe the term often used on this forum is “investigative journalism”, a term which became fashionable following the exploits and successes of the Washington Post’s team of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein back in the 1970s). Hopefully, my comments here make it apparent that things are not always easy for today’s newspaper journalists.
Comment