Badger - Slant of Associated Press Headlines

[soonercruiser]

Badger,
Here is a good example of what I posted about yesterday - the AP slanting headlines for emphasis.

There is an AP article in the Daily Oklahoman about the Senate vote rejecting Obama's jobs bill.
In two different references, the headline is slanted in a way that quick/scan readers might draw an incomplete or incorrect conclusion of the facts. The "inference" is - blame the Repubicans.

The AP article, by Andrew Taylor, seems to be complete on the details, if you take the times to read it completely.

The headline in the print version of the Daily Oklahoman is....
Obama refuses to take GOP's "no" to jobs bill

The headline in the on-line version of the Oklahomanonline is....
GOP senators vote to defeat Obama's jobs bill

In truth, Harry Reid is the one who has delayed the Senate vote on Obama's job's bill all this time, rather than "pass my bill NOW"!
He knew that even with a Dem majority in the Senate, that he didn't have all the Dem Senator's voteing for it!
In fact, there was bipartisan rejection of the bill - two Dem Senators joined the Repubicans.

Here is a link to the whole story...
http://newsok.com/article/feed/305884


Now, I am RW, of course.
But, if I had written the article, I would have the headline read...
Senate rejects Obama jobs bill on bipartisan vote
Is there an honest way to not slant the headline, before the whole story is told?
:stupid:

Just imagine the "blame game" on MSNBS!!!

[badger]

I linked that article in the jobs threads about an hour ago... you wanna just discuss headlines?

I think that some people, like many fanbases in college football, are determined to find that they are being wronged or slighted or dealing with a biased media that hates them. I can attest to this first-hand as I journey around message boards across the country looking for meldowns after college football losses these past few weeks :D

I must caution people against taking the Texas A&M Aggie football fan approach to political headlines --- ooo, ESPN hates us sooo much because of their Longhorn Network that they are DETERMINED to make us look bad. No, your football team blowing two second-half leads on national television makes you look bad!

I must also caution people against taking the Oklahoma State Poke football fan approach to political headlines --- ooo, the Oklahoman hates us sooooo much because the Gaylords are big money donors so they'll overlook OSU's win and focus entirely on OU's win. They are writing to their main audience in football season, which is OU fans!

So, is "the AP slanting headlines for emphasis?" Yes, of course. You have to emphasize something, there has to be some reason why you're writing the story and the big hullabaloo here is that Obama has been pushing a jobs bill for at least a month now that got defeated.

"Obama refuses to take GOP's "no" to jobs bill"

This is quite factually correct and I have no problem with it, because Obama has said publicly (at those little rallies that he's doing in front of Democratic voters, yes) that his backup plan is to split up the bill to try again, because he saw the writing on the wall that the bill was going to fail.

"GOP senators vote to defeat Obama's jobs bill"

Well, every single one of them did that was in session! That was every last one except Coburn who is fighting his third round with cancer (see the jobs thread, I linked an article if you haven't heard about Coburn) here in Tulsa. Considering that you'd need 60 votes to extend the discussion, I'd say that it is fairly accurate. While Reid and two other Dems voted against it, I am not sure that's headline worthy.


"Senate rejects Obama jobs bill on bipartisan vote"

This would have been very inaccurate. That's like calling the Texas side of the Cotton Bowl bi-fanbase because there's a few OU fans sprinkled in here and there. Bi-partisan means that you have at least a good-sized amount of support (or anti-support) from both sides, and 3 of 53 is like the OU fans sprinkled on the Texas side. We love you for braving the sea of orange, but you are VASTly outnumbered!

There are other factors to headlines as well --- the online ones are designed to get you massively click-click-click on the story, the print ones are designed to make you read the story (or to fit the space they're given for the headline). So, it's not just biased media hackery in play all of the time. :)

I don't like all of AP's headlines. This just doesn't seem like a good example of totally outta whack one.

[sappstuf]

This brought up an article I had read years ago about the slanting of headlines in regards to Israel/Palestine fighting that was going on. It was from a one month period in 2003 and all headlines are from Reuters. I've always thought it was interesting.




1) Named subject

In violent acts against Israelis, the Palestinian agent is named in 33% of the headlines.

In violent acts against Palestinians, the Israeli agent is named in 100% of the headlines. Moreover, Israel is always emphasized by appearing as the first word in the headline.

2) Named object

In violent acts against Israelis, casualties are labeled “Israeli” in 11% of the headlines.

In violent acts against Palestinians, casualties are labeled “Palestinian” or “Hamas” in 50% of the headlines. Considering “militant” as a Palestinian-specific term raises this figure to 71% of headlines.

3) Verb selection

Violent acts by Palestinians are described with “active voice” verbs in 33% of the headlines.

Violent acts by Israelis are described with “active voice” verbs in 100% of the headlines.

A few examples of Reuters headlining Israel in ferocious terms:

“Sharon Vows More Attacks on Militants Despite Talks” (June 15)
“Israel Threatens New Raids After Anti-Hamas Strike” (June 22)
“Israeli Army Swoops in Nablus After Security Talks” (June 23)

Here are three side-by-side comparisons of how Reuters headlines similar violent events involving Israelis and Palestinians:

Example 1:

“Israeli Troops Shoot Dead Palestinian in W.Bank” (July 3)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinian named as victim; described in active voice.

&nbsp vs.

“New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce” (July 1)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israeli not named as victim; shooting described in passive voice.

Example 2:

“Israel Kills Three Militants; Gaza Deal Seen Close” (June 27)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians (“Militants”) named as victims; described in active voice.

&nbsp vs.

“Bus Blows Up in Central Jerusalem” (June 11)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israelis not named as victims; described in passive voice.

Example 3:

“Israeli Tank Kills 3 Militants in Gaza – Witnesses” (June 22)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians (“Militants”) named as victims; described in active voice.

&nbsp vs.

“Israeli Girl Killed, Fueling Cycle of Violence” (June 18)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; killing described in passive voice.

[badger]

Oh yes, there is tons of headline bias out there and I'm not trying to take away from that.

[TUSooner]

Sometimes headlines - print headlines that is - are affected by that supremely apolitcal factor: space. Things get said in weird ways just to make them fit. Anyone who ever word on the high school newspaper can tell you that. Just sayin.

[Mississippi Sooner]

Unless things have changed since I was in the biz, headlines aren't written by the writer, or writer's pool in the AP's case. They are written by the individual publications in which they appear.

[TUSooner]

Unless things have changed since I was in the biz, headlines aren't written by the writer, or writer's pool in the AP's case. They are written by the individual publications in which they appear.

And generally by folks quite a long way from the top of the editorial heap, I think. (I would say "interns and lackeys" but I'm not sure

[soonercruiser]

That was THE single point of my post!
Some folks only scan the paper and headlines.......too busy to get all the facts straight.
The writers and editors know this!

I will leave it to you to try to convince Obama, Peeloski & Reid, and the LW of the Dem party to stop mis-using the word "bipartisan" - as that is precisely how THEY misuse it!

I am merely pointing out how the AP have "evolved" into using this too.

[soonercruiser]

The AP sends out the original article and "title" in it's entirety.
That is why I pointed out how both presentations of that article used a GOP blame slant in the headline .