Replies

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

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.

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.

Let me clarify that:

"headline not matching the article" referred not to FR posters changing the original headline, but, as I tried to explain in a second post, to headline writers sensationalizing or stating intent not expressed in the body of the article, and sometimes even exactly opposite from the facts presented in the article. Now, I found that type of misleading headlines prevalent in "liberal" media (AP, Reuters, major US newspapers and TV websites), though I couldn't vouch for all other media not doing the same.

Re Drudge, he's in somewhat different business ("breaking" and non-traditional news aggregator) and so his job IS to sensationalize some otherwise non-remarkable "news", and sometimes he's "embargoed" from actual article to link to (while told about form , subject or substance of upcoming article) - and in this way his popular website has been USED by the media (recently, by NYT and WaPo) to bring attention to their papers (often, Monday editions) - it's a symbiotic relationship, I guess. So he describes the nature of upcoming piece, until actual link becomes available.

Not that I like this, but it might explain the annoying and sensational way it happens now on DrudgeReport. The liberal media is now using him to "break" their "news", similarly to the way he was getting news before mostly from conservative sources like Washington Times or NY Post... The "price" of fame, I suppose.

Sorry to return to the subject, but found today a good illustration of both major media (AP) "headline not matching the article" and Drudge relationship (link) to it, which is what I was really referring to in post. Not that I am defending Drudge on sensationalizing, but this is a good example of headline writers, yet look who is getting the brunt of the blame for it, simply because his site has a huge traffic. No, it's not anywhere near what Huff's blog is doing, but my intention was to highlight more insidious and more prevalent misuse of journalistic ethics by major media.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/capitalcommerce/070227/did_the_drudge_report_help_tan.htm

Did the Drudge Report Help Tank the Stock Market?
February 27, 2007

Here's a headline sure to spook any investor or economist: "Greenspan warns of likely U.S. recession." That was the headline right near the top of the widely surfed Drudge Report yesterday afternoon and this morning, referring to a speech that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made the other day via satellite to a business conference in Hong Kong. Many market watchers are blaming those comments– along with a weak durable goods report and the plunge in the Chinese stock market – for today's stock market sell-off. But despite the inflammatory Drudge headline – which, in all fairness, linked to an Associated Press story with that same title – the Maestro was hardly so definitive as Drudge made him out to be. Here is what Greenspan said, according to AP:

All in one sentence and without skipping a beat - Drudge is at fault for linking to AP article with that title.

Freepers (correctly) are not allowed to change "inflammatory headlines" by AP, Reuters, ABC News etc., which in turn may (and sometimes does) invite reaction from other Freepers that may be unwarranted by the text and substance of the article itself.

That was the gist of my post, I hope this one made it clearer instead of more obtuse.