Stumbling over a bad headline
Wednesday update: Looks like we're not the only one criticized for a headline involving President Bush's comments.
A couple readers have complained to me about our headline over this Peter Baker story from the Washington Post. We published a shortened version today on page A2 under the headline: "Bush acknowledges Iraqi deaths but has no regrets."
The story starts this way: President Bush estimated Monday that 30,000 Iraqis have died in the war since U.S.-led forces invaded in March 2003, but he offered no second thoughts about ordering the attack and said the threat of terrorism against the United States has subsided as a result.
"Knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again," Bush told a questioner after a speech here. "Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country."
Unfortunately, in the process of editing a 19-paragraph story down to four-paragraphs to fit the space available, the second sentence in that quotation was cut. More important, the readers correctly point out that the headline is misleading; it could easily be interpreted as meaning that the president was uncaring about the Iraqi dead.
One writer commented: Intended bias or not, this is a very unfair -- and untrue -- headline.... Bush gets more than his share of grief from the N&R, many of its columnists, and letter-writers.
Another wrote: You know as well as I do that such a headline gives the impression that President Bush doesn't care and that he has no regrets about the Iraqi deaths. I'm sure you know that the comment pertaining to "no regrets" was uttered in reference to the decision to target and go to war against Saddam. He conveyed that he has no regrets because believes that the world is a better place without Saddam. I read the transcript. The "no regrets" comment was totally unrelated to the comment on causalities. No honest reporter of facts would ever use such a headline which dishonestly attempts to suggest that President Bush is cold or uncaring regarding Iraqi deaths. mislead your readers.
I agree. To say the least, the headline was imprecise and, in my opinion, is misleading. I believe it was caused by deadline pressures and a tight space to fill, rather than by bias. We can and should do better, particularly with headlines involving politics. In this polarized political atmosphere, readers look for the slightest hint of bias. With bad headlines we feed the perception that we have an agenda.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Another example of slanting the headlines to achieve a liberal point of view regardless of the facts.
Mr. Robinson, you and I have discussed this before, it's exactly the kind of thing I see and feel is unfair.
Posted on December 13, 2005 11:57 PM
Yes, Mr. Appel, except that you believe it is purposeful and I don't.
Here's what copy desk Jim Denery wrote to the staff about this headline:
"The error is highly unfair no matter why it was made. Obviously, we need to ensure that every headline is accurate, but special care is important in headlines about the president and other politicians who fill sensitive roles and occasionally draw heat. Treating them unfairly will create doubts about future stories that might be rightfully critical about their performance. There are plenty of people out there looking for bias in our work, and it becomes more difficult to argue that bias was not a factor in an error each time we make such a mistake."
Posted on December 14, 2005 8:42 AM
Hello Mr. Robinson. I was one of the writers you referred to who objected to the headline and I appreciate your acknowledgement that this headline was not appropriate. I pay attention to things like this because I do harbor a belief that there is a pro-liberal bias reflected in newspapers in general and I think many other people believe this to be true as well. I am not an advocate for having newspapers follow a pro-conservative agenda but just an agenda of impartiality. I think impartiality in presenting the news is simply what people in the news business are supposed to do and even more so I think it is the best business strategy.
Posted on December 14, 2005 2:40 PM
Mr. Robinson, when a journalist sees things in a liberal light and interprets things with a liberal slant, it's difficult not to write liberally slanted headlines. I don't think it's intentionally done that way, it's just the way the liberal journalist sees, interprets, and expresses things. Ergo, the headlines reflect his outlook on the issue.
Posted on December 14, 2005 4:27 PM
Sorry Mr. Robinson,
Your newspaper in my opinion is very bias. See your LTE today, this is the second trip on this letter. Cuts in social programs. Show us one cent in cuts. While you are at it tell us why there are never any LTE on whats going on in the 49th worst managed state.
Posted on December 15, 2005 7:31 AM
Dog, I don't have authority over the editorial pages or the letters. However, on the letters page, the paper tries to give letter writers a great deal of latitude in expressing their opinions. I can hardly explain why people don't write to us about "whats going on in the 49th worst managed state." But there's no reason that we would not publish letters about that. Feel free to write one.
As for the facts to back up the letter writer's contention about cutting social programs, you can simply google medicaid cuts or food stamp cuts and come up with a variety of news stories about congressional action, including one here:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14195074.htm
Posted on December 15, 2005 8:57 AM