In any case, bias is one thing...an unavoidable thing, it seems. Lying outright, however, is obviously not unavoidable, and it certainly isn't understandable.
What is really damning about this is the fact that they edited the article without apparently writing a retraction, or mentioning the edit at all. Their lie was public just long enough to be picked up by a dozen other news sources, and now it's probably filtering down into the public consciousness. A retraction at a later point will do no good. It feels like a carefully-crafted step in a smear campaign. If they could have gotten away with the fallacy, great; otherwise, they can just leave it out there long enough to sow suspicion, and hold off on a retraction, because as we all know no one reads retractions anyway.
Here's one interesting thing...if you look at the article as it appears on AP's website, you'll see the list of related articles below it. Check out these two names.
Bush Offers Best Wishes for ClintonIf you just saw the first title by itself, you wouldn't necessarily realize that Clinton was in for bypass surgery, would you? Or that anything in particular was wrong. You'd just think that Bush was sending some kind of "wishes" to his predecessor. But if you see the Kerry title, you immediately know that Kerry is being big-hearted and sending best wishes to a sick friend. The lack of the word "ailing" in the Bush title takes away a sense of importance, while its presence in the Kerry title adds importance.
Kerry Offers Best Wishes to Ailing Clinton
Also, check out the prepositions. Bush seems to be offering wishes "for" Clinton--that is, not directly to him, just in general. But Kerry is sending his best wishes right "to" Clinton. Why the difference in wording, when the two men did the exact same thing (offered "best wishes" during a campaign rally)?
Do people who don't study language and writing notice things like this?
2 comments:
Eh. Well, having two different names for the articles isn't that big of a deal, I don't figure. Clinton's big enough of a celebrity to where most anyone that would read or see any kind of news probably already knows his situation. Cracking down on article titles might be just a little over the top, what with all that "you must show exactly 1 second of candidate B for every 1 second you show of candidate A" shit.
Not to mention, if they're near to each other, and both candidates are wishing the best for ol' Billy, likely people'd figure it out.
As for the AP. Hahah. I won't say all their reporters are biased, but neither can I say that seeing that original article surprised me in the least. ;>
Actually, cracking down is a little too fascist for what I was going for. I was thinking about my other post, wherein I discussed Luke's idea about news organizations cutting the crap and not pretending to be unbiased anymore. I think it's impossible for a news organization to be unbiased, and those article titles are an example. To eliminate that kind of bias, you would have to exert an unprecedented level of micromanaging on the news, and I think that would be a step backwards. (If you start to censor one thing...)
Post a Comment