You must read this

Since I complain when philly.com does things wrong, I'm obligated to praise them when they get things right.

The headline on today's column, "I don't care about Flight MH370," is entirely right.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20140321_I_don_t_care_about_Flight_MH370.html

It is timely, provocative and succinctly summarizes the column. In truth, I suggested the headline myself.

But I also suggested the same headline to the Daily News, which came up with this leaden mess: "Keeping up with missing Malaysia airline a downer." (Author stifles yawn.)

Daily News headlines are usually much better that that.

So let's talk about headlines for a minute. They are supposed to invite the reader to the story, but they are not supposed to mislead. The story is the steak, the headline is the sizzle.

We frequently hear that "the headline is just trying to sell newspapers."

Well, our business is selling newspapers, so what's wrong with that? It's like saying the design of a box of corn flakes is "trying to sell corn flakes."

Of course it is. It should.

What it should not do is lie to the reader about the contents of the story, to promise something that is not delivered.

We all know certain key words will attract readers. I'm not going to list them all, but "sexy" and "gruesome" and "amazing" are among them. But if you use them too often, they lose their power.

The headline atop this post, "You must read this," is a trick. It worked (for you) this time, but how often can you do that and maintain your credibility? (Answer: Not often.)

The "I don't care" headline attracted a certain group of viewers (some of whom said they don't care that I don't care – and that's OK).

Let's have a little fun.

Let's say I wanted to attract a different set of readers.

"10 Mainstream Media lies about MH370."

Who would this headline attract?

How about reframing it this way?:

"Military/Industrial complex tech weaknesses exposed by MH370."

Still with me?

How about "Hundreds of minorities vanish as Old Boy network crashes."

That's a two-fer – both race and gender are highlighted.

So much for the headline.

The thing that is really driving me (and most journalists, I expect) crazy is the way TV has thrown away the rule book, which says journalists must verify information before disseminating it.

9/11 demanded 24/7 coverage. MH370 does not.

The networks, by and large, devote a few minutes to it, and that's appropriate. The cable networks have gone crazy (which was predictable, remember O.J.) and the craziest has been CNN.

Why? The lowest-ranked news network (behind even the awful MSNBC last year) needed to improve its ratings (ratings = money) and this chase can be laid at the feet of CEO Jeff Zucker, who has created new shows and made stars of new people (like homeboy Jake Tapper) or reviving old shows, such as "Crossfire." Interestingly, "Crossfire" has been sacrificed on the altar of MH370 coverage.  It hasn't been seen in weeks.

Crushing your regular schedule is the wrong way to go.

The right way?

ABC did it right back during the Iranian hostage crisis, which was getting a lot of coverage in the early days, but ran out of steam.

It created a show for Ted Koppel, which eventually morphed into "Nightline."

It summarized the day's events in a neat and deep package. It is the show that made Koppel a star, deservedly.

Since there are so few new MH370 developments, CNN (and everyone else) ought to run regular programming and break in when there is a new development.

See, eventually, the MH370 story will go away and the temporary ratings gain will be just that, temporary.