Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Eric Umansky argues in today's "Today's Papers," Slate's daily news roundup, that headline writers are forsaking accuracy in order to soft pedal the Bush administration's problems with the truth. He cites an article in the Washington Post that document's the administrations contradictory statements about how Bush came to lie in his State of the Union. The latest statement from Bush is that the CIA didn't doubt the evidence until after the speech, which is false and inconsistent with the rest of what his administration has said. The headline of the article is: "PRESIDENT DEFENDS ALLEGATION ON IRAQ; Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address." Umansky suggests a more accurate headline would have been: "WHITE HOUSE OFFERS CONTRADICTORY EXPLANATIONS FOR INTEL CLAIMS."

He continues:

Another example of why the papers should consider sending their headline scribes to journalism reeducation camp: The NYT's David Sanger...reconstructs the path the bogus intel took and details how the White House's various stated defenses don't hold up: "Many are still asking how a White House aware of the doubts could have shown such caution in October, and thrown it to the winds in January." The mushy headline, "A SHIFTING SPOTLIGHT ON URANIUM SALES." Headline writers—typically copy-editors—have an obligation to give readers the most accurate sense possible of an article's conclusions, regardless of how poorly those conclusions reflect on our nation's leaders. They're frequently failing.