E-Mail 'Editor and Publisher tries to whip up controversy with misleading headline' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Editor and Publisher tries to whip up controversy with misleading headline' to a friend

Loading ...

5 Responses to "Editor and Publisher tries to whip up controversy with misleading headline"

Severian says:

April 25, 2006 at 12:39 pm

The MSM has a long history of misleading headlines. In some cases, it’s obviously just bad writing and sloppy thinking, in other cases it’s so blatant that it’s obvious they do it deliberately. I think it’s because a lot of people will only read the headlines, or the headline and skim the article, and they know they can skew the news that way. A prime example occurred recently when former President Ford was quoted as saying the retired generals speaking out against Rumsfeld concerned him because it undermined civilian control of the military. That’s a valid concern, and note that Ford has the decency and tact to keep his mouth shut most of the time and doesn’t criticize the presidents who followed him, something Carter and Clinton could learn from. Anyway, the headline read something like Ex-Generals Comments About Rumsfeld Concern Ford, it was geared in such a way as to make it appear that Ford was concerned about Rumsfeld, that the generals comments made him concerned that Rummy should go, not that he was upset with the generals. I see this all the time in the MSM, and frankly it’s disgusting. Heinlein said “Never attribute to malice that which is adequetly explained by stupidity.” In general, that’s really good advice, but at times stupidity alone is not enough to explain things, and it’s apparent that malice is behind a lot of what we see in the MSM these days.
forest hunter says:

April 25, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Well said Sev!

As if we needed further proof of where the American hating left and their unmasked henchmen in the MSM will drag us down to, if allowed.

The nonstop cherry picking and latest example of abuse in the MSM of President Fords quote, continue to demonstrate the fact that the main thrust of their business is not about reporting news. In fact, they have and will continue to avoid news and slash away at the foundations of all that’s good about America, in their twisted attempts to apologize for the moral relativisms rife in our society pouring directly from our schools, colleges and universities.
Baklava says:

April 25, 2006 at 1:26 pm

Yes. The legacy drive by media. They’ll keep spraying their targets.
Jim M says:

April 25, 2006 at 1:47 pm

This is just one of many reasons people are looking away from the liberal MSM and towards other sources such as the internet (Blogs) , Talk radio (Which liberal Democrats hate) and Foxnews. Just look at the ratings and the number of people that watch Foxnews as oppose to the alphabet channels (ABC,CBS,NBC and CNN. Then we have the print media and once again look at the liberal papers losing readership just because of their blatant liberal twists leaving words out or adding a words to fit their agenda.

Severian is right about people reading just the headlines or skimming the first part of the article that is why the MSM will twist the first part on the front page. Then you have to go to say page A16 for the rest of the article where they might print the true story or full story. Just look at the track record of the NY Times and the only local paper here is the Atlanta Journal Constitution you talk about a liberal rag. That is why I go on line and read other publications and read the same article from more than one source before forming an opinion.
😕
G Monster says:

April 25, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Man Shot by Cheney Leaving Hospital…

very similar…it makes you think he shot the guy again…yahoo had this headline posted on thier front page, but changed the wording later in the day, even though the headline on the link still stayed the same…it’s quite obvious what the writer of this story was trying to do with the headline…either
A. get people to read thier story, or
B. get people to think that cheney had shot another man.

Comments are closed.