OT--More bias in the press
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


A proper headline would have read: "Marines and Iraqi forces kill
25
enemy
insurgents".


I'd be careful about using the word insurgent. A majoritu of Iraqis
want
us the hell out of their country. At some point, the "insurgents"
may
become, in the minds of the Iraqi people, "freedom fighters."

In the minds of the Iraqi people? More like in the headlines of the
liberal
press. The same headline in the NY Times probably would have read:

"Blood-thirsty US Marines murder 25 Iraqis"



It's obvious you don't read much.

Harry,
Go back to the original link that I cited. They changed the word
"Iraqis"
to now read "Insurgents".

Here's the first link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._re_mi_ea/iraq

Here's a Guardian link of the way it was originally written:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...338926,00.html

I'm paranoid, right?!?!?




Way back when, before you were born, I was a reporter and then a desk
editor for a major newspaper. Part of my job was to take wire service
copy, edit it, and write headlines to fit the paper's style.

Precisely. The NY Times, CNN, and LA Times will use the word "Iraqis" in
the headline, and the honest press will use the word "Insurgents".

In those
days, and perhaps even now, the paper required major news stories to
have decked headlines, with several subheads.

You apparently are under the delusion that a media outlet simply
publishes a news story the way it comes in over the transom.




I don't care who did what. The fact of the matter is that *someone* with a
personal agenda chose a headline that was misleading. Then *someone else*
caught the bias and inaccuracy in the first headline, and changed the
headline to more accurately reflect what happened.

Doesn't it concern you that someone with a biased agenda can change the
entire meaning of a story by simply changing a word or two in the headline?
And worse yet, the reader doesn't know *who* wrote the headline, and what
political party that person is affiliated with?

OT--More bias in the press
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


A proper headline would have read: "Marines and Iraqi forces kill
25
enemy
insurgents".


I'd be careful about using the word insurgent. A majoritu of Iraqis
want
us the hell out of their country. At some point, the "insurgents"
may
become, in the minds of the Iraqi people, "freedom fighters."

In the minds of the Iraqi people? More like in the headlines of the
liberal
press. The same headline in the NY Times probably would have read:

"Blood-thirsty US Marines murder 25 Iraqis"



It's obvious you don't read much.

Harry,
Go back to the original link that I cited. They changed the word
"Iraqis"
to now read "Insurgents".

Here's the first link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._re_mi_ea/iraq

Here's a Guardian link of the way it was originally written:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...338926,00.html

I'm paranoid, right?!?!?




Way back when, before you were born, I was a reporter and then a desk
editor for a major newspaper. Part of my job was to take wire service
copy, edit it, and write headlines to fit the paper's style.

Precisely. The NY Times, CNN, and LA Times will use the word "Iraqis" in
the headline, and the honest press will use the word "Insurgents".

In those
days, and perhaps even now, the paper required major news stories to
have decked headlines, with several subheads.

You apparently are under the delusion that a media outlet simply
publishes a news story the way it comes in over the transom.




I don't care who did what. The fact of the matter is that *someone* with a
personal agenda chose a headline that was misleading. Then *someone else*
caught the bias and inaccuracy in the first headline, and changed the
headline to more accurately reflect what happened.

Doesn't it concern you that someone with a biased agenda can change the
entire meaning of a story by simply changing a word or two in the headline?
And worse yet, the reader doesn't know *who* wrote the headline, and what
political party that person is affiliated with?


Naw. I'm more concerned that simpies like you are allowed to vote.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--More bias in the press
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Holy ****! It said "Iraqis" an hour ago! At least the Guardian has the
headline the way it was originally written:

So, would you say that the Guardian is good source of non biased news?
If it *is* biased, which way?

ugly snicker

DSK


You obviously missed the point.

AP News Wire reported the story as "Marines Kill 25 Iraqis in Ramadi Clash".
An hour later, the same AP News Wire reported the story as "Marines Kill 25
Insurgents in Ramadi Clash". The Guardian is still using the original
headline.

Regardless, in each case, the reader comes away with a completely different
idea of the story's content.

OT--More bias in the press
 

NOYB wrote:
You obviously missed the point.

No, I didn't. But you obviously dodged my question.

Do you have any idea what the Guardian's editorial bias is, if any?

I think you've really been unmasked, Comrade Nobby! Please report to
your control for conclusion of your mission. I'm sure you'll be relieved
that your arduous duty here among the degenerate capitalist swine is
over ;)

DSK

OT--More bias in the press
 

Naw. I'm more concerned that simpies like you are allowed to vote.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

Hey Harry does your wife put out as much as you do. I think you are nothing
but a liberal whore that would sleep with anything. Like you Hero Mr. Bill
Clinton



you mean "A vote for Kerry is a vote for America going ****."

OT--More bias in the press
 

Bill wrote:

Naw. I'm more concerned that simpies like you are allowed to vote.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

Hey Harry does your wife put out as much as you do. I think you are nothing
but a liberal whore that would sleep with anything.


Oh, I dunno, Bill...after all, I did turn down your wife and daughters,
even though they offered to pay me.

OT--More bias in the press
 

"Bill" wrote in message ...

Naw. I'm more concerned that simpies like you are allowed to vote.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

Hey Harry does your wife put out as much as you do. I think you are nothing
but a liberal whore that would sleep with anything. Like you Hero Mr. Bill
Clinton



you mean "A vote for Kerry is a vote for America going ****."

Impossible. ANYONE would be an improvement to what Bush has done to this country.