The Times' curious use of single quotation marks in headlines

times falconer

Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’

Such was the headline in the Times last Friday, above an article by Lord Falconer. You would be forgiven for tinking that Lord Falconer actually said that women “are not tough enough to lead Labour”. But what he actually wrote was:

Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper are both very talented politicians. Both have a big future in our party. But neither Yvette nor Liz can steer the Labour party through the challenging few years ahead of us when we need a leader who can reach out to all wings of our party and provide unity

In the article, Lord Falconer didn’t raise the issue of anyone’s gender or whether anyone is “tough enough”.

This example brought back memories of Jeremy Browne’s interview with the Times in April 2014 which was given the front page headline:

LibDems ‘are pointless’

…except that Jeremy Browne didn’t say that the LibDems are pointless. He said a lot of discursive stuff such as this:
the times browne pointless

A lot of people who might quite like the Lib Dems they see in their locality have a difficulty getting what the Lib Dems stand for and why they are relevant…Every political party and every politician has to be able to answer the question, ‘If you didn’t exist why would it be necessary to invent you?’ I’m not sure it would be necessary to invent an ill-defined moderating centrist party that believed that its primary purpose was to dilute the policies of other political parties, whereas I do think it would be necessary to invent a bold, ambitious liberal party.

And that was summarised as “Lib Dems ‘are pointless'”, the single inverted commas being added, presumably, to help copies of that day’s Times fly off the shelves of the newsagents, as did, presumably, the use of the same technique on the day they carried Lord Falconer’s piece.

What is going here? Is the Times alone amongst newspapers in using single inverted commas to use spin and gloss to give a highly contentious paraphrase of what they would like someone to have said, when they didn’t say it?

I remember an old newspaper editor saying to me that double inverted commas should only be used to quote someone’s precise, recorded words. And that single inverted commas should be used to summarise (accurately) what someone said.

I also remember Henry Kelly, who worked on The Irish Times, saying that single inverted commas are used when journalists don’t know what the heck is going on.

I wrote to the Times, complaining about the Browne incident but received no reply.

I invested in the 1999 (more recent versions seemed rather expensive) Times “Guide to English style and usage” which merely said:

quotation marks (inverted commas); remember, single quotes in headlines, straps and display panels; double quotes in captions and keydecks.

It also says:

quotes direct quotes should be corrected only to remove the solecisms and other errors which occur in speech but look silly in print. Always take care that quotes are correctly attributed…

It would seem that the Times have invented a new use for single inverted commas which is certainly not in their 1999 style and usage guide, and which I haven’t seen other publications using – specifically to lay another, more controversial, meaning onto what people have actually said.

It seems a rather reprehensible trend.

At the very least, people need to be very careful when dabbling with the Times.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s