tonyevs wrote:Under the headline it states `Gary St.Clair had more success against world champions Corrales and Harris than he did against Khan`... this is true but as always there are big-big differences that should also have been mentioned.
You're referring to the sub-headline, which does its job of telling the reader the most important/enticing aspect of the story in as concise a format as possible. The full details reveal themselves when reading the story.
What a sub-headline should never do, in a specialist publication like BN, is give a misleading impression (and because it ignores context and timeframe that's exactly what it does). In this respect it doesn't do its job.
The handling of the Thaxton issue was also pitiful.
It wasn't misleading. It pointed out the facts. It got the readers' attention. Then the reader can get the full story by reading on. Headlines should draw you in, that's all. Or do you think The Sun's famous "Only Here For DeBeers" headline was misleading because the robbers stole other brands of jewellry too?
