Say Anything Blog

How is 6 Die in U.S. Strike on al-Qaida Safehouse not factual?

How is 6 Die in U.S. Strike on al-Qaida Safehouse not factual?

It’s factual. The complaint was that it is misleading.

Talk about soft paternalism.  The MSM does it all the time, since we are all too stupid to get the right take on the news.

If you’re too lazy or stupid to read past a headline, you deserve to be misinformed.

It appears that six people did die as the headline states so I’m not sure why I shouldn’t conclude that it’s not accuracy you’re looking for.

It appears that six people did die as the headline states so I’m not sure why I shouldn’t conclude that it’s not accuracy you’re looking for.

The Whistler’s complaint is that it is misleading. It can be accurate and misleading at the same time.

It’s the usual MSM trick of emphasizing the information that furthers their leftist agenda, and using the well-known fact that a majority of people scan the leads in the media, rather than reading them in depth.  Thus they manipulate public opinion.  Then thay take agendized polls, and lie about their real significance.  It’s layer upon layer of lies.  It’s interesting to me that lefties take what might have been inaccurate intel, and accuse the President of "lying", even without evidence that he was being deliberately misleading, but when the Dems and the MSM mislead us 24/7, they never accuse them of lying.  Double standard.

It’s the usual MSM trick of emphasizing the information that furthers their leftist agenda, and using the well-known fact that a majority of people scan the leads in the media, rather than reading them in depth.  Thus they manipulate public opinion.  Then thay take agendized polls, and lie about their real significance.  It’s layer upon layer of lies. 

So Oliver, when’s your new movie come out? I loved JFK.

Dave: Having any trouble getting the sand out of your ears?

What is misleading about the headline? I’m guessing that you believe that the reader should infer that six Americans died but I have difficulty believing even you guys can be that shallow and provincial.

What is it really? 

The truth:  Three suicide bombers were killed before they could do their work, two other suspected insurgents were killed, one female bystander was killed, and three women and a child were wounded, along with five American troops.  Why rewrite it?  Give me a good reason, Mike, other than to mislead the public.  If you can’t refute someone, call him "provincial".  Real good.

Three suicide bombers were killed before they could do their work, two other suspected insurgents were killed, one female bystander was killed, and three women and a child were wounded, along with five American troops.

If that’s your proposed headline then I think its too long. 

If that’s your proposed headline then I think its too long. 

LOL!!!

Ok Six die in a US raid.  Clearly it’s a raid by US forces.  But....

Was it Six Americans soldiers who died?

Was it Six Terrorists?

Was it Six Civilians? 

 I think most people will read the headline and nothing more.

My headline would have been much more accurate and much less ambigous..  The problem with my headline is that it would have advanced the war on terror which we can’t have. 

So, we sacrifice the truth for brevity.  Good choice.  Why not "Skirmish in Iraq"?  Even briefer, not not misleading.  Not inflammatory, either, which was the real purpose of the other headline.

r108...shall I infer from your response that you recognise the objection that I raise?

The headline was neutral in the sense that the topic addressed was six deaths in Iraq. A biased headline might have been, and I’m being charitable here, Six More Deaths in Iraq, where the eye is drawn to the word "more" or Six Deaths at Hands of Occupiers. It seems like the perceived problem with the Yahoo headline is that it wasn’t rah rah enough for you...in which case I say go to Human Events or NewsMax where you can get your fill of your editorial preference.

MikeA:  You can infer that I prefer that truth in news reporting, be it headlines or text or whatever.  The ongoing press bias has been to accentuate casualties over good works, so the mention of deaths is a bit suspect, and not being specific leaves the subject open to misinterpretation.  It might imply civilian deaths, which would satisfy the anti-war lefties, or it might imply US troop casualties, which would satisfy the anti-war lefties, or it might imply terrorist casualties, which would satisfy the pro-Iraq war Bush supporters.  What’s your guess?  My guess is that they don’t intend to be "rah rah" as you put it. 

You’re wrong about my perception of the headline.  I was against it because it was misleading, with a two out of three chance of favoring the anti-war lefties, as I have just explained.  Rationality is ever so much better than snarky invalidation, don’t you think?  What got under your skin? 

the mention of deaths is a bit suspect, and not being specific leaves the subject open to misinterpretation. 

6 No Longer Living After U.S. Strike On al-Qaida Safehouse

Better?

Dave: More of the same.  You cherry-picked my reply;  I already clarified my point several times and gave several examples of a more responsible headline.  As far as my personal preference is concerned:

Five terrorist scum dead in successful attack on al-Qaeda "safehouse"

But that would be partisan, wouldn’t it?  Even better:

Another Iraq War success:  5 more terrorists killed before they could kill more innocent people

Once again, too partisan.

Or:  Another success:  5 dead terrorists, no dead US troops

Oh, well.  I could do this all night. 

What got under your skin?

Too many chocolate eggs perhaps. If you genuinely find the headline misleading then obviously there is nothing else for me to say. 

In reading this topic it’s quite interesting to see that the only headlines you Conservatives would be pleased with are those that dehumanize those killed by American troops. 

Guess what?  It’s not bias to recognize that our opponents are human beings and are now dead.

It’s both simplistic and psychologically disturbing to require human worth lessened symbolically in news reports - -  that, my friends is the real bias.  What this actually shows is that you don’t think the American people are smart enough to discriminate between Us and Them and you require a firmer delineation in order to reinforce your justifications.  Creepy. 

Terrorists aren’t humans for that matter.  Since at least some of these guys were wearing Bomb-Vests I think we can safely assume they were in-fact terrorists.

 I however would approve a subheadline of "One Woman killed in crossfire".

Terrorists aren’t humans for that matter.

And any other viewpoint is bias? 

Rick: Of course, terrorists are human.  They are very bad humans who want to kill others for not believing as they do.  They favor violent means rather than reasoned debate, and thus often enjoy the fruits of their ambitions at the hands of those who want to stop them.  Do you favor co-existing with them?  Do you think they would co-exist with you?  Just wondering.

You wrote: "Guess what?  It’s not bias to recognize that our opponents are human beings and are now dead."  Guess what? That is not our job.  Should we put them on our welfare rolls?  Should we offer them therapy?

That is not our job.  Should we put them on our welfare rolls?  Should we offer them therapy?

 But it is the job of our news organizations to report the news.  The news is that several people (humans) were killed.  The headlines you proposed dehumanize human beings, and as I said before:  creepy.

You also said:

They favor violent means rather than reasoned debate, and thus often enjoy the fruits of their ambitions at the hands of those who want to stop them.  Do you favor co-existing with them?  Do you think they would co-exist with you?

Which has nothing to do with my point in this thread or with the topic of bias itself.  I merely stated that you’d prefer dehumanizing them in the headlines and consider anything less to be bias.  I stand confirmed. 

And any other viewpoint is bias?

No any other viewpoint is wrong.  Bias is when the wrong viewpoint is the only one presented in order to advance a certain agenda. 

Should we offer them therapy? 

The liberal tactics on the war on the Global War on Terror?  Why not this tactic seems to be working in the Global War on Men.

Rick: Wrong again.  In choosing to ignore the neutral headlines I supported and in emphasizing the ones I said were biased but stated just for fun, you illustrate the use of bias, as it appears in the MSM.  You just made my point;  thanks!  You cherry-picked the examples, took them out of context, to advance your agenda.  If you had been fair or neutral, you would have told the truth about what I wrote.  Instead, you chose to lie about what I wrote, since I clearly stated that some of those headlines were "too biased".  I do favor the real news, which is the plain truth of what happened.

I do favor the real news, which is the plain truth of what happened.

Which is that six died in U.S. strike on al-Qaeda safehouse.

Dave: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  What you have there is a partial truth.  That is the misleading part.  It allows the reader to interpret, just like the jerkoffs in the MSM do every night.  It is at the very least disrespectful to the public.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  What you have there is a partial truth.

Then show me what a headline that contains "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" looks like.

Wait, scratch that. This is just too retarded right now. I can’t believe we’ve had 30 comments on a story as nonsensical as this. If you guys can see bias in this headline, you’ll see it anywhere.

Taking your ball and going home when  you lose Dave?

Dave: I have not only given several examples of a neutral headline(as opposed to a misleading one)but have also explained what the bias is in the original headline.  You just don’t seem to be able to pay attention;  perhaps you are simply being emotionally reactive.  I’m not your daddy, so it’s not my job to spoon-feed you.

Dave...you lasted longer than I.

Mike, with a little training you could go the distance.

I know but is it worth the cost of my soul?

You’d be a better man for it. Men would fear you, women would desire you.

ooooh baby!