biased headline

[Phillip Allen]

an example of the propaganda of leading headlines and biased reporting and editing...

"Romney wants his risky pick to play it safe"

it's is simple as that and Dad pointed it out to me back in the 60's, during the Veitnam war... it was relentless and always leaned the same way

I just noticed this while scanning the headlines and thought I'd give the liars a chance to lie (same sort of bias in my sentence

[David W Pratt]

Is this about wearing a condom?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

If this headline gores your ox take it like a man!

[Gerarddm]

The truth shall set you free,Phillip. So sayeth the Bible.

[Phillip Allen]

that's one...

[Joe Dupere]

Clearly I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Would you explain it to me please? Oh, and would you mind writing it at a sixth grade level?

[Paul Pless]

I'm with you Phillip. This is exactly the kind of **** that has unwittingly led me to become a frikkin liberal.

[Phillip Allen]

Clearly I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Would you explain it to me please? Oh, and would you mind writing it at a sixth grade level?

it is subjective... the writer pre-supposes that 'pick' is a risky one and suggests it to the readers in an attempt to short-circuit open minded thinking from the reader.
The 'risky' claim cannot be quantified at all except thorugh the power of suggestion... which any true scientist would eschew

[Paul Pless]

Diabolical. I bet Katie Couric was behind this some how.
.

[Phillip Allen]

Perhaps if you're read the article, instead of simply scanning the headline, you might have a better understanding of what the author was saying.

Is there any chance you would do that... or have you already made up your mind about it?

here is another example:
in the quote above, the author has claimed ignorance on my part by stating that I have not read the article when there is no way he could have known, one way or anther.

He has suggested from my comment that I was 'scanning headlines' that I could not have stopped and read the article... further, what the article says is independent of my comment about the biased headline and in that respect, attempts to distract away from that very point.

by saying: "you might have a better understanding of what the author was saying.", he has made a subliminal and unsupportable claim that I do not understand the article and what it's author was trying to do. That message is directed, not at me, but at other auditors in an attempt to bias them.

Of course the last question in the quote (actually two questions) is also heavily suggestive and leads away from my original point

[John of Phoenix]

The 'risky' claim cannot be quantified at all except thorugh the power of suggestion

There have been headlines calling the "Risky Pick" a "Bold Move" by Romney's staff. Any comment on that one?

BTW, Ryan wants to do away with Social Security and Medicare. If you don't see him as a risky pick, you're worse off than people accuse you of being.

[John of Phoenix]

I'm with you Phillip. This is exactly the kind of **** that has unwittingly led me to become a frikkin liberal.

And I thought it was our powerful powers of persuasion. Damn.

[Phillip Allen]

There have been headlines calling the "Risky Pick" a "Bold Move" by Romney's staff. Any comment on that one?

BTW, Ryan wants to do away with Social Security and Medicare. If you don't see him as a risky pick, you're worse off than people accuse you of being.

I was not speaking of the actual politic of the headline but, rather, that it was a leading headline... I am nost interested in digression from the original premis

[John of Phoenix]

Your original premise is that the headline leads one to believe Ryan is a risky pick.

If you've paid any attention to his policies you'd know... HE IS A RISKY PICK! That's why they picked him.

If you're being "led" it's because you didn't get the message the first day he was announced or every day since.

[Garret]

While I've seen plenty of biased headlines, I don't see this as an example of one. Ryan is a risky pick - as choosing him risks losing many moderate Republicans (including many women). I'd be willing to bet that the RNC folks/Romney advisers who chose Ryan used the exact phrase.

[Kevin T]

Yes the headline is biased if news happened in a vacuum or this was the first and only headline, or story for that matter on Ryan as the VP pick, and I have to assume you take issue with the word "risky" absent of any other evidence I'll go with the word risky as the troublesome word.

Ryan as has been reported all this week is "risky" for just some of the following reasons, there are others.

He's another white guy, which does nothing to attract a wider base (risk being little or no appeal to the latino vote, an ever increasing voter block)

Ryan has put forth a few troublesome budget ideas (risk primarily that 65 million retiring and soon to retire baby boomers may see him as gutting SS)

Hypocrisy in Ryan positions ( Initially he was a Rand devotee, then when it was pointed out that Rand was an avowed atheist the campaign backed away from the risk of alienating people of faith. - another instance of risk in Ryan as running mate)

That should be enough for now, so if you took issue with the word risk, my guess is that the media was simply reporting the "risk" that has already been reported. If this is not your beef, please, how would you write the headline, inquiring minds wish to know?

[Joe Dupere]

Oh, you are a crafty one aren't you? In post #15 you say you aren't interested in the 'politic' of the headline, just the fact that it's a 'leading' headline. But your original post certainly implies that it's leading in a certain political direction, for those who are canny enough to catch your drift.

[Curtism]

I saw that headline on Yahoooo this morning (prior to adequate caffeine) and thought it said, "Romney wants his frisky p*ick to play it safe".

[Ian McColgin]

Campaign 2012
Romney wants running mate to play it safe, for now
August 18, 2012

GLEN ALLEN, Va. (AP) — Mitt Romney wants running mate Paul Ryan to play it safe.

This is how the headline for the AP story Phil quoted appeared in a number of places. I took it from:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney...s#.UDBaTRzUq2k

Perhaps Phillip does not know about the Washington Examiner. He might read from Wikipedia:
“When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama). [10]
“The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[11] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[12] On December 14, 2011, it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.[13]”

Point being - One can find biased headlines. But when both “liberal” and “conservative” papers use the same headline - hope you know that papers often change the headlines of wire service stories - you might offer a guess that the head accurately reflects the story and that the story gains that credibility that can only come from all sides agreeing on the facts.

In short, my dear Phillip, you let your prejudices run away on this one. You exposed not any paper’s bias, certainly not some sneaky liberal bias in a notoriously conservative paper. You exposed your own bias.

[Phillip Allen]

Campaign 2012
Romney wants running mate to play it safe, for now
August 18, 2012

GLEN ALLEN, Va. (AP) — Mitt Romney wants running mate Paul Ryan to play it safe.

This is how the headline for the AP story Phil quoted appeared in a number of places. I took it from:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney...s#.UDBaTRzUq2k

Perhaps Phillip does not know about the Washington Examiner. He might read from Wikipedia:
“When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama). [10]
“The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[11] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[12] On December 14, 2011, it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.[13]”

Point being - One can find biased headlines. But when both “liberal” and “conservative” papers use the same headline - hope you know that papers often change the headlines of wire service stories - you might offer a guess that the head accurately reflects the story and that the story gains that credibility that can only come from all sides agreeing on the facts.

In short, my dear Phillip, you let your prejudices run away on this one. You exposed not any paper’s bias, certainly not some sneaky liberal bias in a notoriously conservative paper. You exposed your own bias.

I spoke only of the bias in the headline... if you assumed anything else about me, personally, you erred

[hokiefan]

I spoke only of the bias in the headline... if you assumed anything else about me, personally, you erred

There was no bias in the headline. Ryan was a risky choice as VP candidate. Period.

Bobby

[Phillip Allen]

There was no bias in the headline. Ryan was a risky choice as VP candidate. Period.

Bobby

I see you have adopted the premis of the headline

[hokiefan]

I see you have adopted the premis of the headline

I didn't ADOPT squat. My first thought when Ryan was announced was, "Romney just risked it all and lost."

Bobby

[Phillip Allen]

... said he... smugly

[hokiefan]

... said he... smugly

Time will tell. The only truth I know.

[Joe Dupere]

I see you have adopted the premis of the headline

I personally am not adopting the premise of the headline, I'm rejecting the premise of your original post. All you are seeking is confirmation of your bias. I think you way misoverestimate the powers of your logic.

[John of Phoenix]

I think you way misoverestimate the powers of your logic.

No more entries folks, we have a WINNER!

[Glen Longino]

... said he... smugly

Translation: Ha! You think you're smug, Bobby?
Everybody around here knows that I, Phillip "Smug" Allen am the King Of Smug!

[Ian McColgin]

Phillip indeed spoke of the bias of the headline. The fact that the same headline appears in both conservative and liberal papers prooves that there was in fact no bias in the headline and that to presume such a bias shows bias on Phillip's part. I've no doubt that the same studied bias that led Phillip to believe the manifestly unbiased headline was biased will also prevent him from seeing his own bias.

[Glen Longino]

Phillip indeed spoke of the bias of the headline. The fact that the same headline appears in both conservative and liberal papers prooves that there was in fact no bias in the headline and that to presume such a bias shows bias on Phillip's part. I've no doubt that the same studied bias that led Phillip to believe the manifestly unbiased headline was biased will also prevent him from seeing his own bias.

Bingo!
That last sentence should go into the "Best Bilge Quotes", IMO!

[Phillip Allen]

nothin's changed... here it is again

"Romney wants his risky pick to play it safe"

[Ian McColgin]

OK Phillip. It's been pointed out that the headline is an objectivly accurate statement. It's been further pointed out that the headline was used by both conservative leaning and liberal leaning papers. These are two different ways of coming to the conclusion that the headline was not biased. You continue to insist it is biased. Give us a reason.

[Glen Longino]

nothin's changed... here it is again

"Romney wants his risky pick to play it safe"

Yep, here it is again...and you're still just as deluded as you were when you first whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiined about the statement. Has
it ever crossed your mind that maybe you're crazy as a shyte-house rat and McColgin is sane?
No?
I figgered!LMAO

[Phillip Allen]

OK Phillip. It's been pointed out that the headline is an objectivly accurate statement. It's been further pointed out that the headline was used by both conservative leaning and liberal leaning papers. These are two different ways of coming to the conclusion that the headline was not biased. You continue to insist it is biased. Give us a reason.

it is patently obvious...

[hokiefan]

it is patently obvious...

The conservative press thinks Ryan is a risky pick. So does the liberal press. But you're oh so much smarter than the people who do this for a living??? Give me a break...

Bobby

[David G]

This message is hidden because Phillip Allen is on your ignore list


I peeked at the OP. Every once in a while I do something like that... and regret it. Do any of you actually think that Mr. Allen will eventually develop sufficient critical thinking capacity to make discussing such matters with him fruitful?

For those of you who are simply participating to torture the poor goof... shame on you. For those of you who are using him as a foil in order to model good logic and fact-finding skills... my hat's off to your diligence and patience. And for those who continue to engage with the hope, driven by love of your fellow human being - if not by rational expectation, that Mr. Allen will eventually advance his level of discousrse... you also have my admiration. Would that I could exhibit such saintly behavior.

[Ian McColgin]

It's patently obvious to most that the headline is NOT biased but that obviousness notwithstanding we have provided reasons supporting the conclusion that the headline is not biased. To repeat, the head is objectivly factual, and the head is accepted as a fair head by both conservative and liberal news papers. You really need to either articulate whatever reasons you have to conclude that the head is biased, perhaps even indicating whether the bias is in your opinion liberal or conservative, or you need to admit that you cannot adduce any reasons but believe it biased as a matter of faith - perhaps after consulting SamF on faith versus reason.