It was a Friday morning, and I was putting the finishing
touches on a manuscript about NBA star Kevin Durant. This was for a youth
publication -- 9,000 or so well-crafted words geared toward high school-aged
kids.
It was for a series of books being written about the Golden
State Warriors’ triumphant 2016-17 season, in which they defeated LeBron James
and the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the NBA Championship. Durant’s story was of
particular interest. He was already an established superstar last summer when
he signed a free-agent contract to join the Warriors, who had already been to
two straight NBA Finals without him, winning it all in 2015.
Durant received plenty of criticism for signing with Golden
State, but he played through it, helped his new team recapture the title, and
was named MVP of the Finals.
Anyway, I was just browsing the web in search of some
information for one last sidebar when I came across the following headline:
Kevin Durant recants Golden State Warriors’ season, title run in new
video
Wait, what?
The longest chapter in my manuscript is all about “that
championship season.” All that work I put into detailing the events that led to
winning the title … Durant is disavowing it?
How was this not front-page news?
Of course, a quick perusal of the article confirmed what I
really thought: The person who wrote that headline doesn’t know what “recant”
means.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Recant: to withdraw or repudiate (a
statement or belief) formally and publicly
The Warriors’ season and title run doesn’t qualify as a
statement or belief, so the headline wouldn’t make sense even if there were some weird, negative angle. No, it
was simply a story about this video in which Durant was looking back on last
season.
Reflecting.
Reminiscing.
Recounting.
Yes, that’s what the headline was supposed to be: Kevin Durant recounts Golden State Warriors’
season, title run in new video.
Should we give the editor the benefit of the doubt? Maybe he
or she meant to write “recounts” but misspelled it. Autocorrect -- not having
any context -- changed it to “recants.” Of course, then it’s just a terrible
editing job.
I know what you’re thinking… It’s way too easy to pick on
digital media outlets for their shabby writing and editing skills. But there
are two aspects of this egregious error that really stick out:
For starters, this likely wasn’t just a careless typo or bad
grammar. It wasn’t a millennial who thinks text shorthand – like thru instead
of through -- is okay for headlines. No, this was a vocabulary-related offense.
It was just ironic that the wrongly used word completely reversed the intended
meaning of the headline.
On top of that, it should be noted that this story was
originally published on a major media site that actually employs writers and
editors. Because my intent is not to shame any particular source, there’s no need
to call them out here. But make no mistake, the headline was not written by a
blogger in a basement.
That said, you can easily find the source by dropping that
headline into your browser. And therein lies another problem. If you Google
that headline you’ll find the original source – plus a dozen other blogs and/or
newsfeeds that picked it up. Some are clearly feeds that automatically pick up
the original headline, but a few are blogs created by humans who lazily re-ran
the original headline and didn’t think there was anything wrong with it.
Either way, it’s a sad state of affairs. And it’s not simply
a matter of us grumpy old journalism school grads making too big a deal out of
grammar and spelling (and vocabulary, for crying out loud).
Last week, I was talking to a buddy of mine who is an NFL
reporter for a major sports website. His work is read by millions. Recently,
his boss asked him to add a new person to the distribution list when he emails
stories to the desk. It was the new editorial intern, he was told, and there’s
a chance the intern might be the one editing your story.
Good for the intern, I guess. At most major sports sites,
the editorial intern might get to edit wire stories or game recaps. But the
only set of eyes on the NFL insider’s news stories?
I repeat, It’s a sad state of affairs.
And that is a statement I will not recant.
