Anyone old enough to remember the late ’90s early ’00s series The King of Queens can’t deny the amazing chemistry that Doug and Carrie had on the screen. Kevin James and Leah Remini played a married couple who lived in Queens, New York. Every episode carried a lot of laughs, along with a heartfelt moment or two.
Apparently, however, the chemistry between Remini and James’ characters weren’t confined just to The King of Queens. James’ new series, Kevin Can Wait, had Remini come on for a guest spot. The chemistry ran rampant again, and an administrative decision opted to kill off Kevin’s wife, Donna, played by Erinn Hayes. While it was promised this would be done with, “dignity and respect” the season two opener of Kevin Can Wait left fans more than a bit upset about how Donna’s death was handled.
The following three headlines convey that many are dissatisfied with how the sitcom mishandled the death of Donna, but each are worded a different way, and have different strengths.
This title stood out because, considering the hype that went around it, the word ‘barely’ caught my eye. This might trigger avid fans of the show to click on the link, especially those who were upset or on the fence about Erinn Hayes departure. The syntax is well done, it’s in an active voice, and it isn’t going out of the realm of truth, because Donna’s death came off as a quick joke to let viewers know it had been over a year since she died. Probably so viewers will feel enough time as passed so that James and Remini’s characters can form a love interest. This isn’t technically bias because the death was only mentioned for a few seconds in the episode.
Angering viewers happens more often than not today. There is simply no way to please everyone, but this is another active statement that gives a clear view of what the topic is about. The show is there, the character’s death is there, and the unpleasant reaction is there as well. Anyone who had been curious, might click this link to see what the issue is. However, generally, it seems, more people are likely to click on an article when there is controversy. If it had been a satisfactory turn of events, it is likely it wouldn’t even make headlines. This one is less bias than the first, simply reporting that it angered viewers, which judging by the abundant tweets of doom, it’s the truth.
This one especially caught my eye. If I had not seen the episode, didn’t watch the show, or hadn’t even heard anything about the character replacement–I would still click on this article. It has me wondering just what the hell went wrong that it earned ‘the most awkward death of all time’. While the other two appeal to fans specifically, it seems that this particular title widens the spectrum by offering a bit of information that would intrigue a broader audience. It also took a different approach. While many of the news articles are regurgitated and recycled versions of the above two, this one stands out in tone, syntax, and originality. However, this is the most bias of all the titles.
All of the above titles may draw in people to read. They have the necessary clarity to make readers realize something is amiss. However it is the third one, I think, that carries the most powerful use of words, syntax, active phrasing, and the most likely to draw in readers.