The WordSmith from Nantucket at Sparks from the Anvil has a great write up about the media bias in reporting the U.S. Armed Forces desertion figures for the war in Iraq.
In particular, he writes about USA Today's headline for its story detailing desertion statistics for the "all-volunteer U.S. military."
The article was introduced with these words:
8,000 desert during Iraq war
That certainly sounds like more bad news for the military, punctuating how poorly the war is going. It implies failure in Iraq.
A quick glance at that headline, without digging into the article, leaves one with the impression that the 8,000 figure is newsworthy because it's so enormous.
If that's what one takes away from USA Today's headline, then one is left very misinformed.
The article is clear that the overall desertion rates have plunged since the 9/11 attacks.
It even includes a chart that illustrates the dramatic drop in desertions from the Army.
So, why not use a headline that actually gives the reader an indication of the content of the article?
Obviously, the writer of the headline wanted the reader to get the impression that the glass was half empty.
Such deception is a disservice to the reader. The journalistic standards of USA Today are embarrassingly inadequate, revealing the bias that permeates the publication.
Another proud moment for the mainstream media.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Headline Deception
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mary, the intent of a headline is to encourage the reader to read the rest of the article. I submit this particular headline would get readers from both sides to read the whole thing, and might even change some minds on the left's side. It is encouraging for those of us who support the President's decision to wage war in Iraq.
I think it's a pretty good headline, for all intents and purposes. On the other hand, I myself would probably not even have read the article. I don't like reading things that I don't like.
One of the main problems I see in this headline, Mark, is what you just touched upon in your last sentence: Not bothering to read the actual article. So if you see the headline and nothing but, you are left with an impression that somehow desertion is a big news item happening, due to the war in Iraq.
The big news about it, of course, is that despite the seeming unpopularity of the war in Iraq, desertion rate has gone down since 9/11. That should have been the headline report to entice both left and right to read on.
I agree, Mark, that the headline is meant to spark interest to read on.
But as WS says, the problem is so many readers do a quick scan of the headlines. That makes any headline very powerful. In many cases, because readers don't carefully examine entire articles, then the misleading headline is all they get.
Although a headline should be an attention grabber, it shouldn't be deceptive.
Post a Comment