Can AP News get away with a clickbait-y headline?

Controversial take on headlines coming in hot! An AP News headline caught me by surprise a few weeks ago—in a good way-—and got me thinking.

There’s tension around clickbait-y headlines—after all, we need people to open the articles. Wedded to journalism, when I was copy editor at The Mom Edit, I usually argued for restraint on such headlines. But in order to make money, we needed people to not only click on the story, but ideally to buy (by clicking on the affiliate links within). Between SEO and the powers that be, I found a happy medium—Is it accurate? Is it genuine? Is it engaging? Does it reflect the author/contributor's natural voice?

No “These jeans are magic” if they merely make a person appear an inch or two taller.

Yes, this AP headline is clickbait-y, but it's also:

• accurate

• from a historically credible source (very important)

• engaging and

• it doesn't bend over backwards to "sound" neutral*.

We were inundated with clickbait for about a decade and those headlines became synonymous with "story-that-doesn't-reflect-the-headline.” They were emotive, so when the content didn't match the drama promised, we felt betrayed.

The problem with clickbait-y headlines—beyond the fact that they’re usually sensationalized, is that they've become synonymous with misleading. Synonymous with disappointment and betrayal. And in the era of the current president, they’re contributing to the erosion of trust between the Fourth Estate and the citizenry it’s meant to inform.

Yet researchers and practitioners are telling us—journalists—that we may be of better service if we are fun and if people enjoy our content and—like a good main character—want to spend time with us. Not every headline can be exciting. Not every headline can be uber-creative. But they can be thoughtful.

Here’s the crux of the matter: People read headlines. The majority of people read the headlines and the subheads. But do the majority read the story? Nah.

So it’s essential that the headline be accurate--not just in denotation but in connotation--and be engaging. Regardless of their behavior now, we want the audience to click through for the full story (to be informed; that’s why we do this work) but more importantly, the headline (and the subhead in conjunction) need to tell the story.

The AP concurs:

“Conspiracies, espionage, an enemies list: Takeaways from a wild day of confirmation hearings” tells a story. Even a reader who views it because someone shares it on Bluesky, regardless of their initial thought, sees that this story is from the AP and knows it's a reliable source. Not only does this header provide insight, but it also makes me want to read more—it evokes curiosity. If we're going to inform our audiences—the citizens, the consumers, the voters—we need them to read the full story to get the context. We need them to invest at the headline. This one does just that.

*Some would argue that their insistence on neutrality can feel negligent, particularly in the era of Trump and covering the alarmingly egregious actions coming from the White House. (For example, referring to the recent spate of airplane crashes as “mishaps.”)