Replies

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.

What you are saying here may or may not be interesting to ponder if one wants to do so, but to me, it's actually unrelated to the topic, in my opinion.

In the matter you are citing in your above post, an AP reporter made an actual error -- meaning, I believe an AP reporter would not deliberately report the opposite of the important remarks made by the chair there. Otherwise, the reporter is manipulating the stock market. So, the reporter made an error for whatever reason. The reporter didn't hear the speech or didn't sit close enough or received a copy of the remarks that had a typo in it or didn't bother to double-check or maybe the hard copy of the speech given to the reporter contained an actual error so it wasn't even the reporter's fault.

Drudge did nothing wrong here because Drudge reported the exact headline from the AP.

But, because of the original error by the reporter (or someone who gave such erroneous information to that reporter), there was a bad outcome.

Now, as to what I am talking about here in my post: in my opinion, there was no unintentional "error" made by Huffington Post admins involving the numerous and various elements of the fake headline thread - as these elements fraudulently induced one to post a comment in a frenzy, or to then "click" to "read more." And, either way - that means: more money for Huff Post. Had Huff Post simply posted the real headline, no such outcomes for Huff Post. People would have shrugged and not posted at all, and people like myself would not have even clicked because I had already seen that headline elsewhere.

Also remember: if you are someone who ONLY gets your news by reading Huff Post headlines, then you have NO idea who is actually a candidate for president in 2008 -- and who is not.

So, you see, in the case of Huff Post, there is money to be made from this media manipulation by Huff Post, as they deliberately mislead the public, again, in my opinion. Never mind that the posters there are being abused - there is no customer service. And, I now realize too: Never mind what other wrongful results may occur by some crazed lunatic reading that headline, and concluding Jeb Bush is now a candidate, and yet, Jeb Bush is not. None of these consequences are of interest to Huff Post forum admins, since they ignored every poster who complained on that thread about this deception.

It's apples and oranges what you are describing and what I am describing.

In your case, an AP reporter (or someone giving that reporter information) made an error, and there was an end result involving money -- but the person making the mistake did not benefit from that money changing hands.

In this Huffington Post media manipulation, there was, I believe, a deliberate falsification and fabrication by forum admins, with the intent to induce more clicks and more money -- and the Huffington Post owners do benefit, despite the current or future harm those forum owners are causing to others, whether voter or candidate or non-candidate. That forum doesn't seem to care who it harms, as long as their fraud results in more traffic, more clicks and more money.

And, that kind of "business" operation -- as I pointed out by writing this editorial (and in recent years I have been a right-leaning independent though my background before that was quite liberal, as people on this forum know since I came here as a Dem) -- is very well summed up by the left-leaning indendepent I quoted in my editorial, who correctly characterized Huff Post's actions here as: "despictable."

How Drudge was described in your post in that instance is irrelevant, since the description was inaccurate in this instance and was wrong. So - that's apples. My point concerned oranges.