The title of a story posted on NJ.com yesterday, Murphy signs costly auto insurance law that will affect 1.1M N.J. drivers, illustrates two of my gripes about commercial journalism these days, especially the on-line kind.
I believe that news articles should be primarily about providing the reader with facts. Other pieces, clearly labeled as “opinion” or “editorial”((I would prefer that the label “analysis” be reserved for much more in-depth reviews of an issue.)) can reflect the author’s point of view. I have found that adjectives and adverbs usually indicate the “article” is not primarily a factual presentation. In the story in question the title does not give the reader a clue about the nature of the auto insurance law, merely that it is, or will be, “costly.” Costly is bad, so the legislation must be as well. It turns out that the legislation raises the minimum liability limit for automobile insurance policies, which will naturally lead to an increase in the premiums. Whether this is good or bad is not my point, but that the title reflects the author’s value judgment.((Previous coverage of the issues suggested that proponents of the change were or were seeking to benefit personal injury attorneys.))
My other complaint is that the title, which is what appears on the site’s homepage, does not adequately convey what the article is about but instead serves as a piece of “click-bait” to excite the reader’s curiosity to go to the article (thus generating ad revenue). I know that’s what commercial journalism is about these days, but it is still annoying that my time is monetized in this way.
Jay Bohn
August 8, 2022