Bush Pressured on Iraq by Pope, Protests in Rome

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040604/pl_nm/bush_italy_dc

We-ell, it didn't exactly say that Bush didn't do any protesting!
I suppose they have to insert their links, but the one caused me to think they intended City more rowdy anti-war protesters attempted to disrupt the U.S. president's visit to Rome to stand on its own.

Allowed that I have a high nincompoopity quotient in these matters, this headline reads as a simple list, to me. It would need a second comma (or, rather a first) to 'mislead': "Bush, Pressured by Pope on Iraq, Protests in Rome. Or?

Bush Pressured on Iraq by Pope, Protests in Rome
That's a difficult one to recast without making it seem Rome's citizens were protesting the Pope's pressuring Bush - or- that the citizens were protesting against the meeting of Bush and Pope.
What suggesteth y'all?

Pope pressures Bush on Iraq, Romans protest Bush visit ?

Bush visit protested, Pope pressures Bush on Iraq ?

but the point is that Bush is under pressure from both the Pope and the protests. I think it's fine the way it is.

I seldom comment on these issues, but this time, debilitating semi-literacy notwithstanding, I shall. The headline makes perfect sense, and I see no problem with it at all. I must be insufficiently clued-up to perceive what it is about the headline that others see as so problematic. This ignorance probably brands me as part of the writer's intended audience.

IMO, any misunderstanding could be avoided simply by changing the comma to a semi-colon -

Bush Pressured on Iraq by Pope; Protests in Rome

That being said, my personal preference would be to recast in the active voice, as wow suggests.

There was another story on the events that gave rise to the headline in question (which I read with the non-existent comma as suggested by
Rock Island) which haed a headline something along the lines of:

Bush meets with Pope amid protests in Rome.

Yes, Faldage, I think you've found it.

As for you, IP - "nincompoopity" cracks me up. Royalties forthcoming.

I have a different relationship to headlines ever since I saw this one back in November: "Bush pays troops a surprise visit" (referencing the big Thanksgiving photo-op). With a little clever folding, it's a great party trick to make it read: "Bush poops a surprise". "Hey, look guys! My head!"

A friendc of mine in DC sent me this one on May 31, from, of all papers, the Washington Post:

A teenager died dead after an attack in Suitland

I suspect the editor was dithering between

A teenager died after an attack in Suitland

and

A teenager dead after an attack in Suitland.

I did not see the headline, so I cannot assert that it was as reported to me. I doubt the initial article, something that is not used in headlines.

TEd

Read a lot of MAD magazines when you were young, didya F.B.?

There was a headline during WWII that caused some second thoughts. "ALLIED PUSH BOTTLES UP GERMANS"


edit I can't think of any punctuation that would help with this one either.

oy! took me a read or two of that one...

Perverts! I thought the Allies were supposed to be the GOOD guys?

>edit I can't think of any punctuation that would help with this one either.

I guess you'd have to add something like: Latest Allied Push Bottles Up Germans?

I'm thinking that at the time this would have caused no problems. Allied would have been taken as an adjective, the standard noun would have been Allies, and Push would have been commonly used in headlines in the noun sense. It's only the similarity to the infamous British Left Waffles on Falklands that would lead us, today, to the humorous misinterpretation.

Like you said, Faldo: Now, I meself, would have writ, "Allied Push Bottles-up Germans" thus removing all doubt. (or would it?)

(Nice to see you back, Lil' Dog: hows exams gone?)