1. Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says

The simplest explanation is that this headline is just plain dumb. Think about it: there is a crash... so do we need an expert to tell us something went wrong?! On a deeper grammatical level, however, there is an additional element of incorrectness. If something went wrong in the crash, then that implies that the crash itself was intentionally committed, and that an error occurred during the purposeful execution of the planned crash. After all, if a plane is to crash and something goes wrong, then the plane might actually land! Imagine that!
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

2. Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

In the USA (and many other countries) there are laws that state what pedestrians can and cannot do on public streets and sidewalks. For example, pedestrians must cross the street between the painted lines of the crosswalk. Or, in areas where no crosswalk is painted, pedestrians must cross the street from one corner to another streetcorner. "Jaywalking" is a crime in which a pedestrian crosses the street in the middle of a city block rather that walking to the nearest corner first. Jaywalkers, obviously, are the people that commit this crime.
 
The humor in this headline originates in the phrase "run down." "Run down" is a two word verb (also known as "prepositional verbs" or "phrasal verbs"). It can mean to chase after and find, or to seek and find, as in to run down a copy of a certain book. However, run down can also mean to hit or crash into a person with a motor vehicle. As in, the poor woman was run down by a bus. So, while the intent of the headline was to state that police officers are chasing after or looking for jaywalkers, it is also possible to interpret the phrase as "police officers are using their vehicles to attempt to hit and kill jaywalkers." The unintended meaning is extra ironic because the crime of a jaywalker is to step out into the street when it is unsafe to do so!
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

3. Survivor of Siamese Twins Joins Parents

Siamese Twins are two twin babies which are born with their bodies physically, anatomically joined. The phrase "survivor of Siamese twins" is a clear indication that the twins have been surgically separated. Perhaps one died, and one survived, or perhaps they both survived but at this time only one survivor is going to live with his parents again. The irony is that "survivor joins parents" is ambiguous. It could mean that the survivor is reunited or reintroduced to his parents. Or it could mean that the survivor will take his two parents and somehow bind them or connect them together, perhaps even performing a strange new surgery on them that would be the opposite of the surgery just done to the twin!
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

4. Iraqi Head Seeks Arms

This is a great headline! I think we all know what a head is and what an arm is, because hopefully we all have those things attached to our bodies (i.e. the head above our shoulders, the arm we extend to shake somebody's hand). But what is an "Iraqi head?" In this case, head is a synonym for politician, official, chief, etc. Think of the term "head of state." Arms, then, is a synonym for weapons or warheads. Therefore, an Iraqi official is seeking weaponry. Darn! It's so much funnier to imagine a disembodied head floating around shouting "where are my arms (and legs)?"
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

5. Reagan Wins on Budget, But More Lies Ahead

When something is ahead, it can either be physically ahead of something else (meaning "in front of" something else) or it can be temporally or chronologically ahead (meaning it is "in the future" - it hasn't happened yet). The ambiguity of this headline resides entirely in the last half: "more lies ahead." If "more" is a noun and therefore the subject of the verb "to lie," then the phrase means that
 
          "a lot (of events) are awaiting us in the future."
 
If, however, "more" is an adjective that modifies the plural noun "lies," then the phrase means
 
          "many additional dishonesties(falsehoods) await us in the future."
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

6. Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim

This is a case where the writer probably should have followed the practice of hyphenating compound adjectives. "Dog bite" is functioning as a compound adjective in this phrase, modifying the noun "victim." The squad was attempting to help the victim. The victim had been bitten by a dog. If the headline had contained a hyphen, as in "Squad Helps Dog-Bite Victim," then English grammar and English writing conventions would not allow for the secondary meaning. However, without the hyphen, the second possible meaning of the headline is that the squad was helping the dog so that the dog could better and more easily bite the victim.
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

7. Plane Too Close to Ground, Crash Probe Told

Like number 1, above, this headline is best characterized as "simply dumb." Again, we don't need experts or expert crash probes to tell us that the plane was too near to the ground. It hit the ground! That can indicate nothing other than close proximity to the ground!
 
Now, to be fair, the author of this headline deserves "the benefit of the doubt," as we say. Perhaps the headline is a summary of a situation in which the pilot was warned to cruise at an altitude of 30,000 feet and the pilot willfully disobeyed orders and chose to fly at 20,000 feet instead, thereby causing the crash. Nonetheless, a better headline for such a scenario would be "Cause of crash: cruising altitude deliberately lowered below regulation." Therefore, there's really no excuse for "plane too close to ground."
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

8. Miners Refuse to Work After Death

Another doozy of a headline! The key here is "after death." Without any other information, "after death" almost always causes a native English speaker to think of "one's own death," or "the death of each individual human on the planet." In other words "after death" sounds like a general phrase applicable to all of mankind. For example, the eternal question, "Is there life after death?"
 
The problem is this: certainly the headline refers to the death of one particular man. This would have been clarified by writing "Miners Refuse to Work After Death of Comrade," for example, meaning that one of the miners died and now the rest no longer wish to work. However, upon first glance, most people would read the headline and think that each individual miner is saying "I refuse to work after I die! No way! I just won't do it!" Of course, the humor arises because no one could possibly force you to work after you die, whether you refuse or not!
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

9. Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant

The problem here is that the English language allows a vast number of uses for "-ing" words. The
"-ing" ending can signal the use of the present participle, or the use of the gerund functioning as a noun. Additionally, an "-ing" ending can mark an adjective, such as in: "my very understanding wife," or "my f*cking car."
 
The ambiguity in this case is whether "shooting" is the object of the verb "try," or whether it is an adjective modifying "defendant." (Also, the meaning of "try" would differ depending on which of the two cases were true, but in either case "try" would remain a verb.) If "shooting" is the object of try, then the sentence means:
 
          The court will try out (or "will test") a new strategy: the strategy of shooting the defendant.
 
On the other hand, if we take "shooting" to be an adjective describing the defendant, then we get the more logical interpretation. "Shooting Defendant" is simply a person accused of shooting someone. Also, "try," in legal terminology means "to subject someone to a trial." Therefore, the intended meaning of the headline must have been:
 
          The court will begin a trial for the person accused of shooting someone.
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

10. Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures

By definition, a cold wave IS a period of time during which the temperatures are consistently low. So if something is "linked" to its own definition, then that doesn't sound very newsworthy, does it? Sort of like saying "Ocean linked to salt water."
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

11. Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge

As with headline #2, the ambiguity in this headline once again comes from a two word verb. Here, the two word verb (or phrasal verb) is "to hold up." In its more literal sense, "to hold up" means to support/fasten/bolster/brace something in an upright position. But in everyday speech "hold up" is frequently used as a synonym for postpone or delay.
 
The other factor in this headline which really adds to the humor is the double meaning of "red tape." Red tape could literally be a ribbon or some adhesive strip which is red in color. However, "red tape" is a common idiom in English that means "bureaucratic restrictions." Therefore, if we combine the ambiguity of "hold up" with the ambiguity of "red tape," we get the following results:
 
          The weight of the bridge is supported entirely by red ribbons.
 
          The construction of the bridge is being delayed by bureaucratic restrictions.
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

12. Deer Kill 17,000

This headline, in conjunction with headlines 5 and 9, helps to illustrate a key concept of English grammar. That concept is: the English language has very little morphological inflection as compared to many other languages. What this means is that it is nearly impossible to analyze a word looking only at its spelling or the sounds it contains and then determine (based on spelling or sounds alone) whether it is a noun, verb, adjective, etc. For example: "water" is a noun, and "water" is a verb. Yet nothing in the phonetic structure or the written spelling of the word(s) indicates unequivocally what part of speech the word could be! More examples: "mobile" as an adjective, or "mobile" as a noun; "abstract" as a noun, verb, or adjective; "address" as a noun, verb, or adjective; "annex" as noun or verb; "complex;" "contact;" "corporal;" "maroon;" "recess;" "romance;" etc. etc. etc!
 
In the specific cases of these botched headlines, we have (in #5) "more" as either a noun or an adjective, (in #9) "shooting" as either a verb or an adjective; or (here in #12) "kill" as either a verb or a noun. If kill were to function as a verb in this headline, then we would have a meaning similar to "Deer have killed/murdered 17,000 people" or "Deer are killing 17,000 something (they could be killing people or other animals, we don't have any additional information)." Of course, this occurrence (of murderous deer) would seem highly improbable. Therefore, I'm sure the author was using "kill" as a noun, similar in meaning to "a hunt." In other words, the hunt/extermination/eradication/massacre of the deer resulted in 17,000 dead deer.
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

13. Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charges

The key here is "Battery Charges." Surely the author was referring to "formal criminal-judicial charges," as in accusations or arraignments or indictments. In that case, "battery" would obviously be a synonym for beating or assault or some type of physical attack or abuse.
 
However, another possible meaning for "Battery Charges" would be the application of an electrical charge or electrical "surge," such as the electricity transmitted back into a battery to replenish its power after the battery has been drained. In this case, the headline is fairly humorous, because the poor man was already "zapped" and nearly electrocuted by lightning, and now it looks as if he faces receiving further electrical shocks!
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

14. Kids Make Nutritious Snacks

This is a very interesting case of ambiguity. Unlike the majority of the headlines listed on this page, in this case the ambiguity does not depend on different grammatical parsings of the sentence. In other words, in each of the two meanings, "kids" remains a noun, "make" remains a verb, "nutritious" remains an adjective, and "snacks" remains a noun. The ambiguity is caused by the multiple meanings that the verb "make" can communicate. "Make" is one of those words that has a very, very large entry in the dictionary due to its extreme versatility and multitude of uses. In the "non-funny" version of this headline, "make" means prepare, cook, assemble, produce, etc. The article that would presumably follow this headline would likely contain simple recipes that kids could make. In the funny interpretation of this headline, "make" is basically a synonym for the verb "be," which renders the meaning as "Kids are great snacks." In other words, we recommend that you eat a child! How horrible! Yet it's funny because it was clearly an unintended meaning.
 
Other, more common examples of "make" as a synonym for "be" are: "You would make a great teacher," or "this book would make a great addition to your collection."
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

15. Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half

Dropouts are students who quit attending school before receiving their diploma or degree, or just generally before they should. Technically, there is really only one meaning conveyed by this headline, and it happens to be the unintended meaning. That meaning is: Students who have quit attending high school are cut in half. As in, the bodies of the students are severed (sliced) into two halves, which would obviously imply that the students are killed in the process. However, the author most likely meant that the quantity (or the occurrence or frequency) of students quitting school has been reduced by half.
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

16. Man Minus Ear Waives Hearing

Before I address the humor and the ambiguity in this headline, I will briefly address the phrase "man minus ear." I would like to point out that in my opinion "man minus ear" does not sound natural at all in English. However, I assume that journalists occasionally use awkward-sounding phrases to save space. That would explain this particular phrase, since "man without ear" or "man missing his ear" or "man who lost ear" are all lengthier than "man minus ear."
 
Regarding the ambiguity: this is another case of a word having a very specialized meaning in a legal context. You will recall that in #9 the verb "try" has a special meaning as related to the idea of "trying a criminal," and in #13 the words "battery" and "charges" both have special meanings in the context of crime and the legal system. Here, in "Man...Waives Hearing," the ambiguity derives from the word "hearing." In a basic sense, "hearing" would refer to one of the five senses, the sense of hearing, i.e. "a person's auditory perception." In a legal sense, a hearing is a sort of meeting or conference inside a courtroom, usually where someone makes a presentation to a judge. So the two possible meanings are:
 
          1. The man with one ear will skip (will not perform) the meeting with the judge.
 
          2. The man with one ear has decided to renounce his sense of hearing.
 
View list of headlines without explanations.

1. Asesinada pidió que avisaran a la Policía al ver a su marido

For argument's sake, let us postulate that the identity of the "asesinada" is "María Rodríguez." Let's also say that it is true and correct to state that "María Rodríguez pidió que [sus vecinos, sus familiares, etc] avisaran a la Policía." Well, if we can say "María Rodríguez pidió," and if la asesinada is María, then why can't we perform a simple substitution and say "la asesinada pidió?" The problem lies in semantics. The semantic properties of the proper noun María would tend to indicate that María is animate, sentient, self-determined, etc. Therefore, the subject María could easily carry out the verb of requesting. The semantic properties of asesinada, on the other hand, leave no possibility whatsoever that 'asesinada' is an entity capable of expressing any wishes, nor making any requests, nor of actively performing any action at all. Suggesting or implying that an asesinada did anything will inherently cause the reader of the headline to mentally assign the feature "animate/living" to the noun, and to imagine a new type of 'asesinada' that is capable of coming back to life and making pleas!
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

2. Hieren, roban e incendian la casa de un octogenario

As I see it, we actually have two options here for deciding what piece of this headline is the object of the three verbs. According to a standard analysis, the only possibility seems to be la casa (or, in its complete form with its modifying prepositional phrase: la casa de un octogenario). When the sentence is viewed in this manner, then the meaning of the headline could be logically and grammatically broken down into three "events." 1. Incendian la casa de un octogenario, 2. Roban la casa de un octogenario, and 3. Hieren la casa de un octogenario. (!!!) Number three sounds preposterous, and that is precisely why this headline is a gazapo. Here is one explanation as to how the writer could have formulated such a sentence: in his or her mind, the writer is reviewing the entire sequence of criminal events that took place. The writer first imagines how the criminals attacked and wounded the octogenarian. The writer begins to write "hieren..." Then, the writer recalls the other two crimes that occurred immediately thereafter (i.e. the robbing and the arson). So, thinking about the attacking, the robbing, and the burning, the writer continues "hieren, roban, e incendian..." Finally, thinking that it's a good idea to state where this occurred and what was burned, the writer hastily adds "la casa de un octogenario," creating the problematic headline we now see before us.
 
But wait! I believe there is actually a second possibility. Maybe, even if it was only for a split second, the writer actually thought that this headline made good grammatical sense! Here is why:
 
Consider the following two sentences: Estas corporaciones perpetúan este sistema. Asimismo, estas corporaciones se aprovechan de este sistema.
       In the first sentence, the verb consists only of "perpetúan." In the second sentence, the verb consists of "se aprovechan de." The rules of grammar would permit in this case the combining of the two sentences into: Estas corporaciones perpetúan y se aprovechan de este sistema.
       Therefore, if the headline writer somehow convinced himself that "incendian la casa de" could be classified as a prepositional verb akin to "se aprovechan de," then perhaps the writer convinced himself that "hieren e incendian la casa de" would not break down as ["hieren la casa de" and "incendian la casa de,"] just as "perpetúan y se aprovechan de" does not break down into "perpetúan de."
       By this faulty logic, "incendian la casa de" would be reclassified as a far-fetched type of prepositional verb (note: "se aprovechan de" is an entirely legitimate prepositional verb), and therefore the object of all three verbs would be "un octogenario," rather than "la casa."
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

3. Una gaviota avería un avión al introducirse en uno de los motores

There are several factors working together to create humor in this headline. In general, the sentence puts far too much emphasis on the gaviota. Not only is gaviota the subject of the sentence, it is also the subject of an action verb! A passive construction would probably have been more desirable. So already - just within the first three words - it looks as if the gaviota is accused of intentionally causing the avería. Further along in the sentence we find even more evidence that the gaviota brazenly committed this act. This additional "evidence" comes from very popular and prominent Spanish pronoun "se." "Se" has many uses in Spanish. This makes it a very useful pronoun, but also a pronoun that can be subject to ambiguous "double-interpretations." For example, "se mató" could mean "[someone] was killed" or "[someone] committed suicide." This is because "se" is used to construct both the passive and the reflexive, as well as other constructions. The author most likely intended "introducirse" to be a passive construction meaning that the gaviota "was drawn into" or "was sucked into" the engine. However, due to the prominent role that the gaviota already has in this sentence, it almost sounds as though the gaviota purposefully infiltrated the engine area! Clearly the poor bird was ripped into pieces, yet this headline makes it sound like everything was part of the bird's own great plan.
       A related interpretation would be that the plane broke down after a bird "got into (and meddled with) the engine." In that case, one can imagine that the bird is an inept mechanic that tinkers with vehicles in an attempt to fix them, yet always leaves the vehicles worse off than they began.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

4. En esas, una esbelta joven - su figura se repartía entre 180 centímetros de los que casi un tercio eran piernas interminables - recorrió la alfombra roja...

The error in this headline is a refreshing change from the errors in the other examples. This error is a purely mathematical error! Imagine: a math error in a list full of grammatical ambiguities! What a pleasant surprise!
 
In this example, the writer was trying to be very creative in the description of a tall, svelte, presumably attractive young woman. The writer has chosen to mention that the woman is 180 cm tall (about 5 ft 11 inches) and that she has "piernas interminables." So far, so good. But here comes the problem: the writer adds that one third of her height is attributable to her legs! That would make her legs much shorter than the norm! Apparently those legs aren't so "interminables" after all!
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

5. La joven se quedó dormida cuando perdió el equilibrio y cayó al suelo

What the author of this headline most likely meant was the following:
 
       La joven se quedó dormida, perdió el equilibrio, y cayó al suelo.
 
In other words, there was a succession of three events that occurred in sequence. First, se quedó dormida, THEN perdió el equilibrio y cayó. Therefore, the word "cuando" is superfluous, ambiguous, and in reality incorrect. Adding "cuando" implies that all the events occurred in the same moment! It implies that she fell asleep as she fell down.
       So, how could the author have decided to add "cuando?" Answer: because in other types of sentences "cuando" can introduce a verb (and therefore an event - the event described by the verb) that occurred after whatever is described at the start of the sentence. Perhaps the author was thinking of sentences such as those listed below, in which "cuando" does legitimately introduce a verb-clause that took place after the first event mentioned in the sentence.
 
       1. Ya había muerto cuando el personal de emergencia llegó al lugar.
       2. Ya me había ido cuando llamó.
       3. Ya se había ido cuando tomamos las fotos.
 
Obviously, the characteristic of these three sentences which allows "cuando" to introduce a succeeding event is the way verb tenses are used in the sentence. The prior event is described in the pluperfect tense, and the subsequent event in the preterite. Now let us return to our headline about "la joven." In the case of "la joven," because all of the verbs in this gazapo-headline are in the same preterite tense, the use of "cuando" is problematic and causes unintended interpretations of the sentence.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

6. Un agente especializado en el tráfico de sustancias estupefacientes...

To eliminate ambiguity, the author probably should have said "especializado en el combate del tráfico..." or perhaps incorporated some other, similar word like "infiltración" or "desmantelación." As things stand, it is very easy to extrapolate from this headline that the agente is very good at illicitly transporting illegal substances! To be fair to the author, it is also possible to read the headline and understand that "being a specialist in drug traffic" could simply mean that the agent knows a lot of facts about the topic, thereby making him good at chasing down the traffickers. Nonetheless, "especializado en el tráfico" is too ambiguous. It is too easy to think that the agent actual performs the illegal trafficking, and performs it quite expertly!
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

7. Era de profesión peluquero y además violador de sus dos hijas mellizas

In this case, a stylistic critique is perhaps more appropriate than a grammar critique. While the sentence may be grammatically sound, the overall logic and choice of phrasing is less than ideal. It just doesn't seem right to put "peluquero" and "violador" in the same parallel construction. It appears to indicate that "peluquero" and "violador" are always equally legitimate members in the semantic category of "labor occupations." I understand that the author wished to describe how the man was a peluquero, and how that very same man was discovered to be a rapist. Yet, the headline seems to minimize or "make light of" the deeds of a rapist. It sounds almost as silly as saying "the man was a full-time barber with a side job as a rapist."
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

8. Eduardo Menem contra el pacto defendió senadores de 6 años

While it may not be the funniest of all the ambiguities in Spanish, I would bet that this type of ambiguity (the type with "de [X] años") is one of the most common types in Spanish. "De [X] años" can refer to many concepts beside the "age since birth" of a person. Consider the following examples:
 
       1. Empresa de 5 años de antigüedad
       2. Tarjeta de 5 años de garantía
       3. Me separé de mi pareja de 5 años (de 5 años de unión, de vivir juntos, de matrimonio, etc.)
 
It is common in many contexts to use "de [X] años" without adding the extra information of "[X] años de unión" or "de experiencia laboral" or "de" + whichever other noun is being quantified. However, whenever the noun to be quantified is omitted, the writer needs to be certain that the meaning is clear. Otherwise, the 'default' ending that most people's brains will insert is "[X] años de edad." It is precisely this mental insertion of "de edad" that causes the ambiguity and the humor in this headline. The true meaning of the headline is "senadores con mandato de 6 años," but the ambiguous meaning is "six-year-old senators." In other words, the senators are small children born just 6 years ago.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

9. La Justicia afirmó que los muertos habían entrado desarmados al local

The humor in this headline originates in the second clause, "los muertos habían entrado desarmados al local." Basically, this headline suffers from the same problem as Spanish Gazapo #1, found above. Due to the fact that "los muertos" has been made the active subject of an action verb, the reader has no choice but to envision some type of zombies or Frankenstein-esque half-living-half-dead creatures walking into the locale. Obviously, what really happened is that two or more (vigorously alive) people entered a place unarmed, and that some ruthless person killed them despite the fact that they were merely a few unarmed, harmless people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

10. Hubo 115 muertos y uno solo se salvó

For the purposes of this analysis, let us say that "uno solo" is functioning as a pronoun. The problem, then, is determining what the antecedent of this pronoun might be. Using some imagination combined with common sense, we could guess that this sentence refers to some automobile or aviation accident. In that case, "uno solo" could refer to one passenger, for example. This would make perfect sense. There was an accident. 115 are dead. One passenger survived.
       The problem is that grammar rules require that an antecedent be explicitly mentioned in noun form (rather than pronoun form) somewhere in the text prior to the appearance of the pronoun. Additionally, the antecedent is usually the closest preceding noun that agrees in number (and gender) with the pronoun. Therefore, the only available antecedent found in the text is "muertos." The sentence is humorous because it indicates that among "115 muertos, uno de los muertos se salvó." The reader is left with the following humorous conundrum: What does it mean to say a dead person was rescued?
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

11. Se estrenó por segunda vez en la Argentina el grupo "Yes"

Do you know what "estrenarse" means? The writer of this headline apparently does not. I will now quote directly from the dictionary:
 
       estrenar: representar o ejecutar por primera vez una película u otro espectáculo.
 
So, if we replace the verb with its definition, we get: Se presentaron por primera vez por segunda vez. Hmmm.... I cannot even begin to imagine what that would mean or how someone would achieve such a feat.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

12. Uno de sus pacientes fue el perro de Pelayo Serrano, que se convirtió en uno de sus mejores amigos y colaboró con él en varios proyectos

I was tempted to call this sentence "a classic case of a misplaced modifier." However, as I look deeper into the structure, I think things are actually more complicated than that. Modifying clauses and other types of modifiers have a strong tendency to create confusion. To avoid confusion, grammarians usually recommend placing the modifier as close as possible to the thing that it modifies. If it is not as close as possible, then it may be considered "misplaced." Yet, in this case, the modifier (i.e. "que se convirtió...") is indeed located as close as possible to what it modifies. It modifies "Pelayo Serrano," and it is located immediately adjacent to "Pelayo Serrano." Because the modifier is right next to "Serrano," there shouldn't be any confusion. Yet there most certainly is confusion! The humor of the sentence is that it seems to state that the dog became a great friend and collaborated on many projects. How can this be if the modifier is apparently not misplaced?
       Here's why: "Pelayo Serrano" is also part of a modifier! The modifier "de Pelayo Serrano" is an adjectival modifier that describes the dog. By virtue of being located within a modifier phrase, "Pelayo Serrano" actually occupies a weak position in the sentence. "El perro" is much higher in the syntactical hierarchy of the sentence. Try to think of it this way: "Pelayo Serrano" only exists in this sentence as part of the concept of the dog. Therefore, when the reader looks for the thing being described by or qualified by the modifier, the reader's brain tends to automatically discard "Pelayo Serrano" from the list of possible options due to "Pelayo Serrano's" weak role in the syntax of the sentence.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

13. Los turistas podrán denunciar robos por fax desde sus países

Here is a classic case of a misplaced modifier! The modifier that creates the ambiguity in this sentence is the phrase "por fax." The intention of the writer was surely to indicate that "las denuncias" can occur via fax - in other words that the tourists may send via fax their crime reports. Most readers of this headline would, in all truth, be able to understand the intended meaning quite easily. However, because "por fax" is located immediately following the word "robos," a second possible meaning does emerge. The second meaning would be that some strange new type of crime is occurring, i.e. the crime of "robberies through fax machines!" So... if you are a tourist, and if you have been robbed via your fax machine, be sure to report it!
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

14. Las constructoras no pagan las multas por inseguridad

Here, the phrase that creates the ambiguity is "por inseguridad." The phrase "por inseguridad" is first and foremost just a bad choice of words. It is somewhat baffling that the author would have written "por inseguridad" when the much more common term to use is "multas de seguridad." Had the author simply chosen "multas de seguridad" from the start, then the possibility for misinterpretation would have been eliminated. It would have been obvious that "safety fines" (fines levied due to safety infractions) are being imposed, and that las constructoras are refusing to pay the safety fines. With the use of "por inseguridad," on the other hand, it is much more difficult to arrive at the intended meaning. "Inseguridad" seems to refer to a lack of confidence or to feelings of self-doubt. "Por inseguridad" could easily apply to the verb clause in general, meaning that the reason the constructoras don't pay is that they are suffering from feelings of inseguridad. In other words, the construction companies aren't paying because they feel so bashful!
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

15. PESTE. Los cerdos toledanos ya pueden circular libremente por Europa

"Pueden circular libremente" is a phrase that is used quite frequently in Spanish. It is important to note that the phrase is usually (though not always) used to indicate that people (not pigs!) can enjoy freedom of travel or freedom of movement. Therefore, the problem with this headline is the writer's choice of tone (or what we could also call "voice" or "register"). By choosing the words "circular libremente," the writer has phrased the headline in a tone more suitable for referring to humans than for referring to pigs! This headline makes it sound as though pigs are dignified and respectful enough to abide by restrictions and to respond appropriately when restrictions are lifted! The pigs of Toledo must be very fine pigs indeed!
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.

16. ConceptDraw ya está disponible para Mac OS X! La versión carbonizada de ConceptDraw es totalmente compatible con Mac OS X

This is a case where a word can have one definition within the specialized jargon of a specific professional field, and an entirely separate meaning among the general public. This case - the case of carbonizada - could even be called "extreme." I say "extreme" because the relevant jargon for this gazapo is the jargon of Macintosh computer users. Depending on who you ask, only about three to ten percent of all computer users are Mac users. Most people, be they English speaking or Spanish speaking, would readily admit to their utter ignorance regarding the topic of Macintosh computer use. If you are a Mac user, then you know that "versión carbonizada" means that the application (the product for sale) has been adapted to make it fully functional with "Mac OS X." (Note: "Mac OS X" is an operating system.) If you are not familiar with Macintosh jargon, then you will most likely be thinking of the dictionary definition of "carbonizado," which is: completamente quemado; achicharrado.
 
       ...and who wants to buy computer software that has been burnt to a crisp?!!
 
P.S. I have a feeling that even native Spanish speakers (or maybe I should say "native Spanish speakers in particular") will be loathe to believe that "carbonizado" can mean anything other than "incinerated." To remedy this disbelief, I offer the following: please click this link to see many examples of "carbonizado" in a Macintosh-specific context.
 
View list of gazapos without explanations.