My chosen career just got more interesting?

In the course of my job as a financial journalist and in following my oft-nerdy curiosity, I found myself reading a financial column today with this headline on top: "General Electric: Genuine risk of collapse?"

It was interesting and discussed a possibility I had not read about elsewhere. The writer pointed out that the gigantic corporation has more to do with banking and financial services than it does with innovation of earth-friendly technologies -- or "ecomagination" as the TV ads say. So, like any financial services company right now, GE could be in a bit of trouble.

The signs point to a company that's at least a little concerned about its cash position and very heavy on debt, and so the writer of the column concludes that GE could be on the verge of a collapse.

Or, uh, I think that's what he concludes.

Actually, maybe he doesn't conclude anything. He just suggests a lot of things and tops them off with a question.

Don't get me wrong: it's a valid discussion and an interesting read. But after reading it, I began to notice just how many of the "news" headlines I saw online ended in question marks today.

I spotted headlines such as "Is Citigroup for sale?" and "An Obama New Deal?" and "Pam Anderson: Pinhead or Patriot?"

Granted, the Obama article is obviously a commentary and speculation piece, and the Pam Anderson bit is Fox News dribble. But how about this one: "CNN Ticker: Obama picks national security advisor?" First of all, the very notion of a ticker is that it delivers breaking news. I'm not sure how it can be breaking news if you have a question mark at the end. Secondly, the headline is clearly a declarative sentence, designed to state a fact. It's totally illogical to end it in a question mark.

Among my favorites of the day: "Does Mars photo prove aliens exist?" At least this sentence is actually a question.

I have mixed feelings about this barrage of skeptically punctuated headlines. First, as a curious reader who wants to know about the important events of the day, I fear it is going to get even harder for me to keep tabs on the news that matters. If news organizations steadily increase the amount of forward-looking speculation in their reporting (which is not a new concept, I realize), readers will have to spend extra time and thought filtering out which ideas are worth consideration and which ones have been weakly imagined by reporters and editors as a way to fill the "news hole".

As if information overload wasn't enough.

On the other hand, as a writer who likes both journalism and creative writing, I think this could really open up new possibilities for my career. See, the great thing about writing speculation is that you don't have to do so much damn fact-checking. Writers are free to look at a situation, think up possible scenarios that could result, and then write about that possibility, leaning heavily on words like "could" and "might" -- and of course, ending the headline with a question mark.

(Honestly, this sounds painfully similar to my job now, but at least in this case my company's subscribers are investment professionals who know they're paying for speculation, not mass-media consumers who are prone to confuse the articles with affirmative announcements of breaking news.)

At the extreme of this trend, I can envision a new offshoot of the narrative journalism genre -- creative journalism. You know: reporters take real-world people and events and create interesting subplots or side-stories to go along with the news of the day. Part of the fun for the readers would be trying to figure out what's real and what's totally made up.

I'm kidding? Good journalists would never do that?

They certainly aren't already doing it now? At the New York Times, for example?

I know, enough already.

(?)