One of These Headlines Is Not Like the Other

Following up on my late night discovery (see this post), I want to take you all on a little journey into the wonderful world of “impartial” journalism. But first, a little bit of context for you… Anyone who tells you that news agencies are biased is completely correct. Anyone who tells you that the “liberal media” is in charge of everything we see and hear is full of shit. And anyone who thinks that all news organizations are run by money-grubbing suits that see nothing but the bottom line is also misguided, but closer to the actual state of affairs than the “liberal media” types. (If you want to talk ad-nauseum about the subtle nuances of this topic, I’d love to, I can’t seem to find any sparring partners that don’t tire of the subject after a few hours.)

Truth is, there are many, many different sources for news out there. Some are progressive, some are conservative, but most are pretty close to the middle of the road. But they all have something to say. The trick is to get a varied perspective and then make your own decision. Because it’s only when you sample a little from a bunch of plates that you can really see which one tastes a little off.

Take the topic I just blogged last night. Here’s a list of headlines for that exact story:

Here’s a lesson in being “impartial.” If you look at all the headlines together, they look pretty much the same. I mean, how much variation can you get in ten words or less? Well, headlines are a tricky thing. In this case, it’s not what’s written, but what’s not written. Let’s diagram these, shall we? They all begin the same, and most use the loaded word Wiretap, to help the reader remember the topic from when the story first broke over a year and a half ago. Our collective memory is pretty short, so using keywords like Wiretap or Unabomber or Stagflation help us know whats going on. Two-thirds of these things are cookie-cutter versions of each other. And from a variety of sources too, from the Times to ABC to the BCC, to the great equalizer MSNBC, they all pretty much toe the line of impartial journalistic standards. “Impartial” rating: 2 out of 10

But look at the two that stray a little from the norm:

CNN uses the word Controversial in their headline, perhaps a little bit of editorializing, but if you hearken back to the days after this story first broke in late 2005 Bush condemned the news agencies that first ran the story as hurting our efforts in the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, so controversial actually isn’t that far off. But still, a certain segment of our country takes the “if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide” attitude toward this whole thing, so they might read “controversial” the wrong way. “Impartial” rating: 4 out of 10

FoxNews, however, does a bang-up job of being by far the most “impartial” off all the headlines I found. Now, I know I pick on FoxNews a lot (not so much on this blog, but in life definitely), but I want you all to know that all my criticisms are completely fair and balanced. I blog, you decide. Joking aside, my impartial opinion (notice lack of quotes) is that anything given to you by FoxNews should be treated as possibly tainted and that you should check the story against an actual news gathering organization (any of them) before you believe a word of what FoxNews tells you. Take this headline, for example. Where most headlines give the most succinct picture of what’s going on (New Law Expands Wiretaps), FoxNews actual soft pedals the whole deal. Bush Signs Bill Expanding Terror Surveillance Powers. Terror Surveillance Powers? That’s a very gentle way to say Wiretap. Terrorist Surveillance Powers is about as far away from Wiretap as you can get, and at the cost of five extra syllables and at least two or three column inches (sorry, old school newspaper training kicking in). Not to mention, Wiretap is pretty much standard practice across the rest of the news world.

The trick is, using Terror Surveillance Powers instead of Wiretap separates this follow-up story from the issue it’s covering. Also keep in mind that the story broke over a year and a half ago and the average American can’t remember the news last month, let alone last year, but getting back to the language, Wiretap brings to mind a very specific idea, while Terror Surveillance Powers could be anything. In fact, if you didn’t stop to read the actual article, you might not even connect the two. Not to mention that FoxNews‘ headline actually sounds like it’s protecting me. When you put the word terror in a title, speech, motto, campaign promise it provokes an emotional response. And Terror Surveillance Powers is definitely a good thing, while Wiretap reminds everyone of that pesky 4th amendment. “Impartial” rating: 7 out of 10