Replies

... I felt a need to write to you first, because I disagree with you.

We don't really disagree, it's just that in my comment I put an emphasis on a different part from the essence of your post, which was about changing headlines on Huff and some other lib blogs, hence my "aside from changing headlines" caveat at the very beginning.

The reason I did that also reflects the fact that so-called "mainstream" media (they can only be called such by sheer volume, but not the reflection of mainstream opinion, which is why they are suffering drastic declines in circulation and advertising revenue) have been using similar methods to deceive and provoke their readers for a long time, predating the use of such tactic by liberal bloggers. So it's not unique, the lib bloggers just adapted the tactic, while they really have no need to do so - liberal media have already done that. Also, headline writers in "news" media are generally different from the writer[s] of articles, and even those are edited differently for different publications.

That's why my emphasis was on reaction to a known tactic - that, unfortunately, many of us are prone to respond in similar fashion to the headlines done by the people we know are out to confuse us and get different impression from actual substance of the article or just an opportunity for them to repeat the same propaganda or hit piece. I am glad that FR doesn't allow changing headlines - one of the reasons I feel good about joining FR - yet we're getting the misleading and inflammatory headline writers courtesy of "news" media headlines nonetheless, so I concentrated in my comment on the reaction to this.

I didn't disagree at all with the premise of your post, it's good to bring attention to their chicanery, and you didn't disagree with the substance of my post. We just emphasized different aspects of media and blogosphere today.

Thank you for your response. Hope I made the reasons for my post more transparent.

Re your post #58 - and its first paragraph

I reread your initial post, and you had written this about FR: ...headline not matching the article -- and, that is I recalled and what I disagreed with. I have never seen that happen on FR because they do strictly enforce their policy; if it has happened, it was a rare instance of an error.

Beyond that, I notice you are talking about "liberal" media. And, I know that exists. However, as more than one poster on this thread pointed out, there are tactics other media like Drudge uses, and as Miss Marple points out above, the right has used. So, I guess it's a media mess out there, up to a point.

But, what Huff Post did still stands out because it looks to me like outright fraud (switching photos, rewriting a headline AND keeping the original AP journalist's name on an excerpt of only a sentence or two).

In any event, thanks again for writing -- I'm not trying to disagree further with your additional reply; it's simply that one phrase I mentioned above, that you origiinally wrote, stuck in my mind.

Also, as an aside -- it is amazing how the web and internet is transforming everything so quickly, and the news business as well. Since the time I published this editorial, it has been indexed in a Latin American index I found on google, under the heading "credibility" (see below).

So, it appears credibility does still count, and does matter to people (as even those liberal bloggers on Huff pointed out, in addition to people on this thread). Again, thanks for writing! :)

From a google search:

News, Photos, Videos, Links and Blogs related to credibility

How to Lose Credibility on your blog, the Huffington Post way. Editorial written by summer Whenever I start writing something I hope can be appreciated by ... www.buscasitios.com/index.php?sen=credibility - 28k - Feb 18, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages