What is a headline? Well it’s meant to be an eye catching one line summation of a newspaper story enticing you to read on. Important word here: summation. You’ve got to encapsulate all of the points of your article into one line.
So why I ask you does the Metro and most papers that did this story, do this?
Basically: a businessman named Danny James who owned a factory had 50 places on offer to 2000 jobless at the jobcentre and was fuming that he had had 0 applicants, assumedly because he wasn’t paying enough and seemed dodgy. If you were to only read the headline and the first two paragraphs of this article, like most people would, you’d get the general impression that the Metro and its fellow publications the Mail, the Sun and the Express want to give across about benefit scroungers. There are enough jobs but the poor people are just too lazy and feckless. They should have their benefits cut, what evil scummy people, they choose to be poor and not want jobs and just sit around playing video games. That’s the political opinion of these papers talking.
HOWEVER: The papers didn’t report the whole story. They didn’t present the original reason this story surfaced because stop and think here: out of 2000 people, 0 even applied, that says just as much about the employer on offer as the unemployed. Employers are not free from scrutiny in my book, especially in this case. This story surfaced because this employer picked on a local on jobseeker who turned it down because he wouldn’t be able to support his family on the wage offered as it was less than his benefits. Mr James picked him seemingly at random to send derranged bullying texts and facebook messages about how he was a burden to the taxpayer and sneering stereotypes about what he assumed this man did while living like a king on benefits, which the man got annoyed about because none of it was true. Yeah this businessman is not really a crusader against scroungers really, he’s more a creepy stalker. NONE OF THIS SHIT MADE IT INTO THE NATIONAL PAPERS.
WHOLE STORY FROM LOCAL PAPER IT ORIGINATED FROM HERE: http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/10747095.I___m_so_angry_at_being_called_a_lazy_scrounger/
Also even without the unreported background removed so this story conforms with the paper’s opinion is the fact the angle of that headline changes halfway through the article.
So…they’re not jobs then are they? Let me cite my sources here, that being the following definitions from dictionary.com (I’ve underlined some key aspects of these two words)
The word “trial” totally changes the angle of this article. The only reason factories and retail outlets feel they’re entitled to offer “work placements” or “trials” or “internships” to people likely to already have experience in these sorts of places and are able to do the job is that they can’t be arsed to pay people or offer them any degree of respect. I can’t fathom any rationality that says otherwise, the whole reason the internship was invented was an employer trust issue. They’re not doing it to “help people get to grips with a job” – even less so in factorial and retail jobs because….well how much experience do you need? Yes I know the article says the take home pay was £220 which is less than the guy he harrassed would get on jobseekers but if you specify its a trial shift, then we’re dealing with a grey area, is that take home pay given on the trial shift itself? Or is it what you will be earning when the trial’s up? Legally they have a get out of jail free card here. And “trial” says quite clearly that this position is insecure and probably not worth bothering with because the employer doesn’t respect you enough to make an actual job offer.
If a job description fully states that the first x amount of time is a trial then it says to the candidate “I WON’T TRUST YOU. YOU ARE MY COMPANY’S BITCH. YOU WILL GET NO RESPECT OR BASIC HUMAN DIGNITY WHILE WORKING HERE” This is the problem, employers do not see employees as people, they see them is objects to be bartered with and who would want to work for someone who doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt?
The reason no one wanted your jobs Mr James is because you weren’t offering a stable employment situation. If a job applicant sees “COME AND DO SOME MENIAL WORK IN A FACTORY AND WE MIGHT PAY YOU LESS THAN YOU WOULD GET ON BENEFITS POSSIBLY IF WE FEEL LIKE IT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE” …well it’s not likely to inspire you to earn a living is it? They’re doing the carrot on a fishhook thing but without the actual carrot on the fishhook and still expecting the unemployed to chase it. Its not about “oh benefits is dishonest scrounging” well not offering a decent living wage is dishonest and taking advantage.
In order to write a headline you need to look at the facts and base it on that, if some facts completely invalidate an opinion in the article, which is the case here, you can’t just overlook it. Maybe change it to make it a bit more honest to say, this?
2000 JOBLESS, 50 (TRIAL) JOBS WITH NO APPLICANTS
WHINY STALKER IDIOT: NO ONE WANTS TO BE MY BITCH
If you’re a paper with an opinion, then fine, but you can’t just highlight areas of a story where life conforms to your opinion with your headline and remove the rest. If there’s something about a story that proves there is a counter argument, you shouldn’t just flat out lie to people in your opening gambit.
Yes I am well aware I’m being a bit bigoted in my opinion but companies thinking they have the right to do whatever they want with a free workforce and the jobless just have to put with it while being called lazy for not wanting a corporation’s dick up their arse with no real financial gain promised in return really pisses me off. There is a reason that the opinion that says otherwise is coming from people on mid to high level incomes. Yes, you are a completely neutral perspective on the subject. Well done for being perceptive. Have a cookie.