Press-to, change-o

If the news isn’t to your liking, make sure it looks uninteresting?

“Jehuda” at The Rhetorican spotted a curious pair of headline revisions on stories about the administration’s latest polling figures:

So a certain NYT story was published on line last night [Wednesday] with the headline “In Poll, Obama Is Seen as Ineffective on the Economy“.  I know it because I saw it with my own eyes. Professor Reynolds linked to it late last night, too.

But I just heard Rush on the radio comment that the headline was changed overnight.  And, in fact, it was.  Much milder headline, isn’t it?

I noticed the WSJ did something similar with another poll related story I linked to yesterday.  It went from “Rising Doubts Threaten to Overshadow Obama’s Agenda” to something significantly milder…

Not just milder; less interesting, too.  Ace:

Is this a big deal?

I'll tell you it is.  Because the NYT’s changed headline had just the intended effect on me...

Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care

...instantly said “snoozer”... and I navigated away.  I didn’t bother to read it.  The headline successfully dissuaded me from reading or linking the poll.
...
Two newspapers published a poll finding growing doubts about Obama.  Both started the day with strong, punchy, grabby headlines that suggested strongly that Obama was approaching serious trouble.  And both, within a night, changed their headlines to be bland and protective of Obama.

I suggest this is no coincidence.  The Obama White House is scared shitless about the public changing its mind in a hurry, and they want to continue the “Everyone loves Obama” narrative they currently have going, which helps keep public opinion on his side.  Because if everyone loves Obama, you’d have to be weird not to, right?

White House influence or editorial second thoughts?  It doesn’t matter.  Whatever the cause, shenanigans like this will be noticed.  And when they are, it doesn’t encourage trust.

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 19:44:24 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 4 kb.

Spin, spin, spin...

“Edward Von Bear”:

I recall in 2002-2004, during the “jobless recovery”, whenever claims filed would drop, that was treated as a bad thing by the MSM, because they decreed, ipse dixit, that that was because disspirited workers had just given up looking for work.

Ditto for the productivity index. An increase in that was spun as no big deal, since so few people are working, blah blah blah.

Now, not so much. Suddenly, this drop in claims is heralded as something good by the MSM.

So, I look at the L[os] A[ngeles] T[imes] site, and guess what their headline is:

Jobless rate hits 9.4% in May; layoffs slow

Then, this paragraph was priceless:

But the employment figures, which the Labor Department reported this morning, offer hope that the worst of the economic downturn could be over: The number of lost jobs was the lowest since September, and it was only half of the average monthly job losses in the last half-year.

Geez, it’s almost as though the MSM is trying to spin bad news as good based upon who is in the White House.

Ya think?

Meanwhile:
First “jobless recovery” headline spotted in The Wall Street Journal:

Economists, on the average, think nonfarm payrolls shed 525,000 jobs, following a 539,000 loss in April, which would push the number of jobs lost... to 6.3 million, the worst since the 1930s...
...
The labor market is no longer cratering, but its recovery may come slowly, and that isn’t good news for the economy...

Elsewhere:
The Rhetorican (via Ace):

The LAT discovers the Happy Unemployed...

Funny how stories like this one never surface during Republican administrations...

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 15:06:27 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 4 kb.