WSJ's misleading headlines...

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Sat May 07, 2011 12:03 pm

Not just WSJ, but the whole of media is ignoring that Pakistan made a peace treaty with Osama five years ago, and big surprise!!! Osama has lived there for five years! jesus...christ.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110507/wl ... 0507125905
ISLAMABAD (AFP) – Osama bin Laden's Yemeni wife claimed the Al-Qaeda kingpin lived for five years in the compound in Abbottabad where he was shot dead by US commandos, Pakistani security officials said Saturday.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... ives_.html

Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:18 am

WSJ yesterday, "Several thousand turn out" to protest Walker Tuesday. About !5,000 were there.

...and their wildly lowered estimates of the crowd sizes in February/March once they went well over 100,000. They also said that the pro-labor to Tea-bagger crowd was "roughly equal" when it was actually at least 5 to 1 pro-labor to Tea-Bagger.

Imagine the uproar if they misled in the opposite direction. Instead of deliberately miscalculating the pro-labor crowd sizes to 5 times less than what they were... "75,000 show up to protest Walker" last Tuesday, or "Palin supporters outnumbered 25 to 1!"

"Wisconsin's co-dependent voice"

Today, "Assembly debate opens with attacks." Obviously, replying with the truth about the bill is an "attack" on it. Not that there's anything wrong at all with stealing from underpaid state employees/education/disabled etc. to pay of his buddies...

lolagirl
Forum Addict
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:59 am

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby lolagirl » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:54 pm

I canceled my subscription back in March (well, actually I went from a 7-day to Sunday only). Haven't regretted it once.

This has been a tough, tough year. Not having that partisan rag in the house is a small thing - but at least it's one thing I can do that actually had a good result.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:28 pm

Partisan rag : )

Sunday's WSJ headline: Schism not unusual, it's openness is. (get used to the court breaking the law for partisan politics) In other words, focus on the partisanship(caused by liberal outcry), not the law itself.

They could have been honest. "Supreme Courts ruling in partisan fashion in violation of laws not unusual anymore."

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14151
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:38 pm


Sunday's WSJ headline: Schism not unusual, it's openness is.


If that apostrophe was in the original, I won't be surprised either.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:59 pm

I guess that depends on what their meaning of the word 'is' is..

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:24 am

6-22-2011 page A3 "Violence mars Capitol protest"

Um, aside from WSJ's intonation, doesn't violence usually mar the people who caused it?

If WSJ was honest, "Peaceful protest disrupted by violent Walker supporters." But this is not an honest newspaper...

The article could explain that there were no incidents of violence since the protests began February 13th, including 19 continuous days of 24/7 protests with sleep-ins at the Capitol...except at the 2 Tea-Bag events where there were multiple incidents of Tea-Baggers shoving and swearing at peaceful protesters, including deliberately damaging their property. But WSJ is not run by honest people.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby DCB » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:52 am

jonnygothispen wrote:6-22-2011 page A3 "Violence mars Capitol protest"

Um, aside from WSJ's intonation, doesn't violence usually mar the people who caused it?

I wouldn't quibble with the grammar, when the context is completely distorted. A better headline would be
Anti-union thugs assault protesters
or
Pro-Walker thugs turn violent

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:23 am

7-10-11: "State gears up for recall season opener"

Just another season of tiring recall elections, happens every year. Yawn...

talagaster
Forum Addict
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby talagaster » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:24 am

"Some union members pleased with Walker's changes" 7/11/11 - They managed to find two. How about "A few union members pleased with Walker's changes." It's about 1 character longer so it is slightly harder to fit in the headline but seems much, much more accurate.

Also, the gem from Friday: "Elect local Latina to legislature." When David Blaska & I are both offended by the same headline, that means it is a pretty terrible headline.

Michael Patrick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4228
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:56 am
Location: Around here somewhere
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Michael Patrick » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:59 am

talagaster wrote:"Some union members pleased with Walker's changes" 7/11/11 - They managed to find two. How about "A few union members pleased with Walker's changes." It's about 1 character longer so it is slightly harder to fit in the headline but seems much, much more accurate.


I thought the same thing when I read that article - wow, they found two whole union members who think Act 10 is great.

But how much weight should we give the opinions of people who think they are getting a good deal trading $4,000 in pay to avoid $800 in union dues? They are still $3,200 in the hole. Maybe the headline should have read "Some union members suck at math."

Lily
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Madison

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Lily » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:53 pm

I believe the article said she is an elementary school teacher--hopefully not teaching math.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Detritus » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:33 pm

Lily wrote:I believe the article said she is an elementary school teacher--hopefully not teaching math.

Elementary school teachers teach all subjects--they don't specialize. So, yes, she probably is teaching math.

Lily
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Madison

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby Lily » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:35 pm

Detritus wrote:
Lily wrote:I believe the article said she is an elementary school teacher--hopefully not teaching math.

Elementary school teachers teach all subjects--they don't specialize. So, yes, she probably is teaching math.


:shock:
OMG.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: WSJ's misleading headlines...

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:29 am

In early August, a featured article on the front page had the headline very close to "Voters get who they vote for." The article blamed the voters for what politicians are doing rather than, at any time ever, suggest that none of us on either side are getting what we vote for. Corporations are getting the candidates we vote for, or at least they have excessive control over them, especially on the federal level. And again, corporations also slant the news using the media they own to make voters lean towards candidates they prefer, and also use multiple side issues so few look closely at what's really wrong with the process.

Their voting patterns aren't going to change unless the media is pried away from corporate influence. All you have to do is look at the pattern over the last 30 years, and how they've realized just how much control they have over the message now, and the outrageous policies they're passing successfully.

I'd rather kill the beast than just trim his nails every election cycle...


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: I am Jack's PO Box and 2 guests