Media spin: a tale of two titles

[Cerridwen]

The same article. As far as I can tell, word for word. Each article appears in a different venue with a different title.

--------------------------

The title used in the original article at the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa-american-media

[font size="4"]Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media[/font]
[font size="2"]Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should 'fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can't control'[/font]

--------------------------

The title used for the reposted article at Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/media/seymour-hersh-story-about-killing-osama-bin-laden-one-big-lie?akid=10983.38044.3iPMRk&rd=1&src=newsletter902420&t=3&paging=off¤t_page=1

[font size="3"]Seymour Hersh: Story About Killing Osama Bin Laden is One Big Lie[/font]
[font size="1"]Plus, 90% of lamestream editors should be fired.[/font]

--------------------------
The font sizes are approximated to show the emphasis in the "originals."

Imagine how a discussion might go based on each of the titles. The first might be a discussion about the media and how it molds impressions. The second might be a discussion about bin laden; or President Obama; or the lies of the current administration.

Same article. Different titles. Different emphasis. Different focus on information. Cherry picking to spin.

This is how media spins the message and emphasizes details.

I wonder who the target audience is at the Guardian and who the target audience is at Alternet.

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. K&R&LOL.

It's a good thing this doesn't work here...

[Cerridwen]

2. Many years ago, I did an interview for a local print

"news" source. I was fortunate as the reporter was a pretty good guy who tried to stay with facts and to not twist what I said.

Out of about a 45 minute interview, he used one sentence I said in that 45 minutes. The way I talk that 1 sentence was approximately 20 seconds. 20 seconds out of 45 minutes made it into the article.

Interviews are rarely, if ever, reported totally and verbatim in any form of media. A decent reporter will attempt to distill the interview into a few quotes that exemplify the overall tenor and content of the interview without taking things out of context and reporting them as completely opposite of what was said.

The article to which I refer in my OP, was a very long discussion about today's media. I wonder how many of those quotes were taken out of context, distilled into something the "reporter" wanted to convey rather than what the interviewee said.

Seriously, why the hell did Alternet alter the title? Well, it changed the focus of the entire interview, didn't it?

If we're going to constantly criticize the media for spinning shit, shouldn't we attempt to clear the shit out of the way before we base a discussion on nothing but shit?

It's a rhetorical question. For those unfamiliar with that phrase, I'm using it in the manner defined in the first sentence.

[baldguy]

3. "Seymour Hersh: Story About Killing Osama Bin Laden is One Big Lie"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3742405

261 replies & counting w/ 44 recs.

Propaganda is alive & well on DU. Especially anti-Obama propaganda.

[Cerridwen]

4. Bias is alive and well on DU.

I see people posting articles that fit their bias without bothering to check sources or to drill down to where the info came from. aei proves feminists don't agree with feminists; reported as fact though the feminist(s) in question were of the sarah palin variety and long time "scholars" at aei. Another article from conservative voice also presented as valid, factual, and truthful about politics. Really?

Remember the IRS outrage? The IRS was targeting r/w groups based on their name!!!!1111 Except the IRS was using names to check both sides of the aisle. The reporting of that last kinda fizzled out. Want to re-visit how ACORN was defunded and destroyed with the help of the "reality based" Democrats covering their fucking asses?

Then there was something about a big government "convention" in which the government was paying exorbitant amounts per night for suites! It was reported by issa two or three days before the official report came out and picked up by the aforementioned "pathetic media" then catapulted on to DU and many people were outraged! outraged that the government paid so much for those rooms. Then the report came out and the government never paid that much for the rooms. There were apologies for misreading and believing issa rather than waiting for the official report...well, in my dreams there were apologies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. And under the original title, about 24 hours earlier:

Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media 19 recs, 54 replies, 1003 views (4943 views for the "'one big lie" title; though by the time you have 261 replies, I think a lot of views are people checking back to reply to replies made to them).

Yeah, titles make all the difference to what gets looked at, discussed, and recommended on DU. Notice that the first thread did put the paragraph about "one big lie, not one word of it is true" in the excerpt, so people who did open the thread got the message.

[DGeorge]

6. Well shit. I read that as "A tale of two titties". I guess I should go to bed now.