The Washington Post for Idiots

The Washington Post | 8/19/04

[Mississippi Individual]

Can anyone please explain to me how the headline of this article, obviously only what most ignorant Americans will read, reconciles with the last two lines (my red)?

 

Am I missing something or is this not absolutely amazing?  It's one thing to mislead in an article assuming readers won't question the source, but it's an absolute insult (or validation of) their readers' ignorance to have a headline that is directly contradicted two paragraphs later.

 

Stewart

 

---

Abu Ghraib Probe Points to Top Brass

By Josh White and Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 20, 2004; Page A01

An Army investigation into the role of military intelligence personnel in the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison reports that the scandal was not just caused by a small circle of rogue military police soldiers but resulted from failures of leadership rising to the highest levels of the U.S. command in Iraq, senior defense officials said.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been completed, said the 9,000-page document says that a combination of leadership failings, confounding policies, lack of discipline and absolute confusion at the prison led to the abuse. It widens the scope of culpability from seven MPs who have been charged with abuse to include nearly 20 low-ranking soldiers who could face criminal prosecution in military courts. No Army officers, however, are expected to face criminal charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17092-2004Aug19.html

---

For comparison, here's FoxNews's headline (remember that they are the biased ones): "Abuse Report Blames Two Dozen." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129392,00.html)

 

[Jeff Chandler]

They accidentally appended "Br" to one of the words, that's all.

[Sgt. Pile E-6]

I hate liberal media! Kerry is in trouble so now, what happens, well... lets trot out a bunch of stories about Abu Grab

[bitt]

you are both right.

[Interesting Times]

The Washington Post for Idiots

There's another one?

[speedy]

This is where the ideological fanaticism of the press actually hurts its cause. I don't think this Abu Ghraib stuff ever really caught on with the public the way the press seems to believe, but in its single-minded blindness, the Post and its cohorts keep pushing it out there. It leads to contortions like this. The press should do what it does best -- just tell outright lies -- instead of getting itself wrapped around the axel on stories that aren't selling.

[NavySEAL F-16]

Bury what you don't want people to know.

It's an old conservative trick -- just ask Chrissie Matthews. (sarcasm)

[uvular]

Co-writers Josh and Thomas; maybe these two boys should be separated when they write.

Better yet, the editor and the headline writer should be canned.

[gcruse]

What part of 'leadership failings' do you not understand?

[piasa]

Editors suck... this is very common.

It always pays to read the last paragraph first and not bother with the headlines at all- they are almost never relevent to the article.

{The last paragraph's usually where editors bury the most important info- except for a few occasions when you might see the clincher paragraph at the top of the SECOND page of any web article, or just under the fold in a real paper if the article is one-piece.}

[Congressman Billybob]

I thought the same thing, when I read the title of the thread.

And to think that in my college years I thought the New York Times was actually the newspaper of record, and that the Washington Post was not far behind that level of quality. I apologize to all and sundry for my stupidity and blindness.

John / Billybob

[philman_36]

It always pays to read the last paragraph first and not bother with the headlines at all- they are almost never relevent to the article.
You know, even though I took my journalism classes many years ago I still remember being taught to grab the reader's attention in the very first paragraph of an article.

[TigersEye]

There's one thing about the war in Iraq that is exactly like Viet Nam. The press isn't on our side.

[GeronL]

LOL

'Top brass not implicated in scandal', should be the headline.

[Steven W.]

Good catch - be sure to send to www.mrc.org

[piasa]

Do they teach journalism these days? It's hard to tell.

[philman_36]

Do they teach journalism these days? It's hard to tell.
What is taught these days may be called journalism it seems to be more like propaganda than journalism.
I'd say it's like the "newest" math, where all the solutions are subjective having no real right or wrong answers, and instant pudding, which needs to only be shaken around in a tightly sealed container. There's no real substance to any of it.

[philman_36]

oops...While what is taught these days may be called journalism it seems to be more like propaganda than journalism.

[piasa]

By "clincher paragraph" I mean the facts that are actually the most important from the reader's perspective - not neccessarily the eyecatching bait reporter and editor wants the reader to remember. I probably should have selected a better term.