Just today I saw the NYT headline on "divisiveness" within the Democratic Party on the VP choice facing Harris. "Harris Faces Party Divisions as She Chooses a Running. Mate." Not only is the headline misleading, the article makes assumptions based on absolutely no verification of facts or comments from Harris. See the first graph 'The competitive, divisive primary that many Democrats long wanted to avoid has arrived anyway--playing out largely behind closed doors in a fight over the bottom of the ticket." Really? The best the authors can do is quote left-leaning e-mails, with no reference to on-the-record statements or documents. I agree something is wrong at the NYT. Even the most basic journalistic principles are not being followed. One of the author's even admits in his bio that his intention is to "be provocative, no matter what the issue." This is not the journalism we need today.
Given what the Times's editor has said publicly about that outlet's political coverage, I can only conclude that its headline writing is bad on purpose. That being the case, it deserves all the derision we can heap upon it.
Thank you. There are many such examples and they're not getting any better. The headline for Adam Nagourney's piece at the NYTimes 3 days ago: "Not One of Us: Trump Uses Old Tactic to Sow Suspicion About Harris."
"Tactic" being a euphemism for racism, a word which doesn't appear anywhere in the article. "Tactic" is to racism what "enhanced interrogation" was for torture.
This follows Haberman's headline (for which she received much criticism but doesn't seem to affect the practice at the paper) "Trump’s New Rival May Bring Out His Harshest Instincts," blaming Harris for Trump's racism and sexism, similar to the Post headline.
The headlines you rightly deride represent scandalous abdications of journalistic duty. It’s as if, after Trump happily watched the insurrection unfold for hours and then finally called the dogs off, the headline the next day read, “Trump demands that Capitol rioters leave peacefully”. Context is everything.
I would think Harris would be savvy enough to refuse any debate with Trump on Fox. And so far MSM studios have been falling flat on Trump interviews. It took the black journalists to call him out and fact check him as he should be treated.
So true. The NYT has really angered me in the last year or so. I initially thought Kamala had agreed to the Fox debate, but then read the article and saw that it was the exact opposite. This headline was terrible writing. So bad in fact that I had to correct at least three friends who texted me about the change of venue. The NYT really has to get their act together. Going downhill pretty fast, a little too balanced in my opinion. The NYT has to report the news like they used to do. My interests have moved much closer to the WP and CNN.
WaPo often has similarly misleading headlines. And if you think the Times is just going down recently - do you remember Judith Miller and her pieces all over the front page leading up to the Iraq war? Or the Times' coverage of Al Gore's campaign? Or coverage of Obama the first go round? They've always had a right-wing bias while somehow having a reputation as a "liberal" paper. (Of course, remember how they fired Ms. Sullivan for doing her job as public editor? That says it all.)
Don’t forget it was the Times that drove the coverage of all those phony Clinton scandals — Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, etc. It was also the Times (and WaPo) that signed exclusive deals with Steve Bannon’s partner Peter Schweizer to get exclusive prepublication excerpts from Schweizer’s hit job on the Clinton Foundation from his book “Clinton Cash”. That is how the completely bogus story about Hillary supposedly pressuring the government to approve the sale of the Uranium One mining company to Russia to benefit a big donor to the Clinton Foundation originated. That false accusation did a lot of damage to Hillary because it was legitimized by the Times and WaPo just as happened with the Whitewater, etc. slanders in the 90s.
I know you’re unlikely to call out a specific journalist, but Jonathan Martin, who is far too influential to be saying garbage like this, really summed up the arrogant, cynical attitude of so many journalists towards their readers. It’s pretty mind boggling and infuriating. It’s hard to believe there’s any hope for America’s press corps with prominent people like this. https://x.com/jmart/status/1819718981952958788?s=46&t=jhfEdv7AQKGOjXqJYE2GEQ
That Martin remark (which Josh Marshall called "amazingly cynical") was just as bad as you say. He doesn't defend the bad headline; he just dismisses its importance. If Martin really thinks journalism (which includes getting headlines right) is such a trivial activity, why doesn't he stop wasting his time with it and undertake some other line of work -- such as plumbing or auto repair -- that actually produces real value? Bad work cannot be excused by saying that it doesn't matter.
The opinion leaders have to be swayed by these twisted headlines. How else can you possibly explain that this election's choice for president is even close.
Millions old Americans never see anything that originates with the Times or any other mainstream media outlet. They only get news from right wing media. I have people in my extended family who used to be rational who are like that.
Today's Buffalo News (8/5) ran a headline indicating Con. Claudia Tenney was "off base" in claiming President Biden was harvesting votes at federasl agencies in violation of the Hatch Act. If the reader goes through the entire article and goes to the jump on page two, Politifact rates Tenney's claim "Pants on Fire." Why is the media so averse to calling a lie and lie?
Sometimes I skip reading the NY Times and just go to the NY Times Pitchbot on Twitter. The Pitchbot dude satirizes the Times - but it seems like his job is getting harder and harder given that the Times is so determined to satirize itself.
Last Thursday, as rumors of the hostage/prisoner swap swirled on social media was like watching the final scenes of "Argo". Curious whether you've considered writing about respecting (or not) news embargoes.
I don't think it's a case of the NY Times not wanting to appear "in the tank" for Democrats. I think the NY Times is still pitching a fit over the fact that Joe Biden refuses to give them an exclusive interview. In other words, I think it's intentional the other way from the conventional wisdom.
How about this Wapo headline... With a tight polling lead, "it's Trumps race to lose right now'
I have to assume this is based on Wapo's "recap??" of recent polling that regurgitates mostly the most recent BIDEN v Trump polling and in several battlegrounds they didn't even have any current HARRIS v Trump polling. Margaret, you know people over there! Can you gently give them the news that Biden has dropped out and therefore any polling with Biden in it is useless. This is journalistic malpractice of the highest order.
Just today I saw the NYT headline on "divisiveness" within the Democratic Party on the VP choice facing Harris. "Harris Faces Party Divisions as She Chooses a Running. Mate." Not only is the headline misleading, the article makes assumptions based on absolutely no verification of facts or comments from Harris. See the first graph 'The competitive, divisive primary that many Democrats long wanted to avoid has arrived anyway--playing out largely behind closed doors in a fight over the bottom of the ticket." Really? The best the authors can do is quote left-leaning e-mails, with no reference to on-the-record statements or documents. I agree something is wrong at the NYT. Even the most basic journalistic principles are not being followed. One of the author's even admits in his bio that his intention is to "be provocative, no matter what the issue." This is not the journalism we need today.
I had a similar reaction…who knew there might be differences of opinion in a political party – especially one that isn't a cult?
Given what the Times's editor has said publicly about that outlet's political coverage, I can only conclude that its headline writing is bad on purpose. That being the case, it deserves all the derision we can heap upon it.
Can you remind me what you are referring to?
An interview with Times executive editor Joe Kahn at Semafor.com on May 5, 2024. https://www.semafor.com/article/05/05/2024/joe-kahn-the-newsroom-is-not-a-safe-space
Thank you. There are many such examples and they're not getting any better. The headline for Adam Nagourney's piece at the NYTimes 3 days ago: "Not One of Us: Trump Uses Old Tactic to Sow Suspicion About Harris."
"Tactic" being a euphemism for racism, a word which doesn't appear anywhere in the article. "Tactic" is to racism what "enhanced interrogation" was for torture.
This follows Haberman's headline (for which she received much criticism but doesn't seem to affect the practice at the paper) "Trump’s New Rival May Bring Out His Harshest Instincts," blaming Harris for Trump's racism and sexism, similar to the Post headline.
The headlines you rightly deride represent scandalous abdications of journalistic duty. It’s as if, after Trump happily watched the insurrection unfold for hours and then finally called the dogs off, the headline the next day read, “Trump demands that Capitol rioters leave peacefully”. Context is everything.
I would think Harris would be savvy enough to refuse any debate with Trump on Fox. And so far MSM studios have been falling flat on Trump interviews. It took the black journalists to call him out and fact check him as he should be treated.
So true. The NYT has really angered me in the last year or so. I initially thought Kamala had agreed to the Fox debate, but then read the article and saw that it was the exact opposite. This headline was terrible writing. So bad in fact that I had to correct at least three friends who texted me about the change of venue. The NYT really has to get their act together. Going downhill pretty fast, a little too balanced in my opinion. The NYT has to report the news like they used to do. My interests have moved much closer to the WP and CNN.
WaPo often has similarly misleading headlines. And if you think the Times is just going down recently - do you remember Judith Miller and her pieces all over the front page leading up to the Iraq war? Or the Times' coverage of Al Gore's campaign? Or coverage of Obama the first go round? They've always had a right-wing bias while somehow having a reputation as a "liberal" paper. (Of course, remember how they fired Ms. Sullivan for doing her job as public editor? That says it all.)
Don’t forget it was the Times that drove the coverage of all those phony Clinton scandals — Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, etc. It was also the Times (and WaPo) that signed exclusive deals with Steve Bannon’s partner Peter Schweizer to get exclusive prepublication excerpts from Schweizer’s hit job on the Clinton Foundation from his book “Clinton Cash”. That is how the completely bogus story about Hillary supposedly pressuring the government to approve the sale of the Uranium One mining company to Russia to benefit a big donor to the Clinton Foundation originated. That false accusation did a lot of damage to Hillary because it was legitimized by the Times and WaPo just as happened with the Whitewater, etc. slanders in the 90s.
I haven't forgotten any of those. Yep, it's a lot and it's disheartening. :(
I do, I remember all those instances but unfortunately not in much detail, just more or less similar to a "headline".
I know you’re unlikely to call out a specific journalist, but Jonathan Martin, who is far too influential to be saying garbage like this, really summed up the arrogant, cynical attitude of so many journalists towards their readers. It’s pretty mind boggling and infuriating. It’s hard to believe there’s any hope for America’s press corps with prominent people like this. https://x.com/jmart/status/1819718981952958788?s=46&t=jhfEdv7AQKGOjXqJYE2GEQ
That Martin remark (which Josh Marshall called "amazingly cynical") was just as bad as you say. He doesn't defend the bad headline; he just dismisses its importance. If Martin really thinks journalism (which includes getting headlines right) is such a trivial activity, why doesn't he stop wasting his time with it and undertake some other line of work -- such as plumbing or auto repair -- that actually produces real value? Bad work cannot be excused by saying that it doesn't matter.
Margaret- you hit the mark here! A lot of us have been complaining for months about MSM terrible and misleading headlines.
The opinion leaders have to be swayed by these twisted headlines. How else can you possibly explain that this election's choice for president is even close.
Millions old Americans never see anything that originates with the Times or any other mainstream media outlet. They only get news from right wing media. I have people in my extended family who used to be rational who are like that.
The Post isn't really any better. I've seen many trump friendly headlines there.
Speaking of headlines, you have a great one on your own column!
Wrote it myself!
I figured you wrote the perfect head for a column that critiqued poor ones!
Today's Buffalo News (8/5) ran a headline indicating Con. Claudia Tenney was "off base" in claiming President Biden was harvesting votes at federasl agencies in violation of the Hatch Act. If the reader goes through the entire article and goes to the jump on page two, Politifact rates Tenney's claim "Pants on Fire." Why is the media so averse to calling a lie and lie?
Sometimes I skip reading the NY Times and just go to the NY Times Pitchbot on Twitter. The Pitchbot dude satirizes the Times - but it seems like his job is getting harder and harder given that the Times is so determined to satirize itself.
Last Thursday, as rumors of the hostage/prisoner swap swirled on social media was like watching the final scenes of "Argo". Curious whether you've considered writing about respecting (or not) news embargoes.
Thanks. It’s a good subject.
I don't think it's a case of the NY Times not wanting to appear "in the tank" for Democrats. I think the NY Times is still pitching a fit over the fact that Joe Biden refuses to give them an exclusive interview. In other words, I think it's intentional the other way from the conventional wisdom.
How about this Wapo headline... With a tight polling lead, "it's Trumps race to lose right now'
I have to assume this is based on Wapo's "recap??" of recent polling that regurgitates mostly the most recent BIDEN v Trump polling and in several battlegrounds they didn't even have any current HARRIS v Trump polling. Margaret, you know people over there! Can you gently give them the news that Biden has dropped out and therefore any polling with Biden in it is useless. This is journalistic malpractice of the highest order.
Democfracy Dies In Darkness indeed!!