The AP’s DISGUSTING headline on Collin Powell’s death vs Soleimani/Castro/Chavez

[Big Abraham]

Which headline is inaccurate?

Accuracy relates both to literal facts and how those facts are presented, as I'm sure you know.

Agreed.  So what is the problem here?

I mean it is kinda messed up to throw a dig like that at Powell in his obituary headline while giving figures with very problematic human rights records such generic headings

Uh, Powell is a figure with “very problematic human rights records,” to say the least.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Which headline is inaccurate?

Accuracy relates both to literal facts and how those facts are presented, as I'm sure you know.

Agreed.  So what is the problem here?

I mean it is kinda messed up to throw a dig like that at Powell in his obituary headline while giving figures with very problematic human rights records such generic headings

Uh, Powell is a figure with “very problematic human rights records,” to say the least.

Nowhere near the level of the others mentioned.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Which headline is inaccurate?

Accuracy relates both to literal facts and how those facts are presented, as I'm sure you know.

Agreed.  So what is the problem here?

I mean it is kinda messed up to throw a dig like that at Powell in his obituary headline while giving figures with very problematic human rights records such generic headings

Uh, Powell is a figure with “very problematic human rights records,” to say the least.

Okay so why does he get the dig thrown in but the others don’t?

[Big Abraham]

Which headline is inaccurate?

Accuracy relates both to literal facts and how those facts are presented, as I'm sure you know.

Agreed.  So what is the problem here?

I mean it is kinda messed up to throw a dig like that at Powell in his obituary headline while giving figures with very problematic human rights records such generic headings

Uh, Powell is a figure with “very problematic human rights records,” to say the least.

Nowhere near the level of the others mentioned.

Well the invasion of Iraq was the greatest crime of this century and led to the violent deaths of at least half a million people, mostly civilians, and the others mentioned have not engaged in any illegal wars or caused anywhere near as much suffering on a global scale, so I’ll have to beg to differ on that.

[AtorBoltox]

The level of suffering Colin Powell aided and abetted vastly outweighs Chavez and Castro

[S019]

The level of suffering Colin Powell aided and abetted vastly outweighs Chavez and Castro

Are you serious?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Castro and Chavez headlines are entirely neutral ("defying the US" and being "fiery" aren't inherently good or bad things), and the Powell headline include both positives ("exemplary general") and negative ("Iraq claims") so they balance each other out. In other words, three of those headlines as perfectly neutral. The only one you could make a claim of bias about is Soleimani's, but even then it's pretty flimsy.

The outrage about this is pure American jingoistic solipsism. Our guys are always the good guys, our geopolitical enemies are evil villains. It's genuinely saddening that people are so caught up in their own propaganda to be so unable to consider any other perspective. Even the fact that Soleimani was popular in his own country seems like something an intellectually curious American might want to know, as it's an important consideration in evaluating the impact of his assassination. It genuinely never stops baffling me how many Americans are comfortable stomping all over a world they reflexively reject learning anything about.

[DaleCooper]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

[DaleCooper]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

[Benjamin Frank]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

In that case, referring to him as 'celebrated' is as much a blurring of news and opinion and is referring to his legacy as 'stained.' And it could also be argued that highlighting his being an early proponent of the Iraq War is promoting an implicit (negative) opinion of Colin Powell.  So, all we're left with then for a headline is "General Colin Powell dies at 84."

[Antonio the Sixth]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

I mean, Powell's reputation undoubtedly suffered from it, so the word "stained" definitely had some objective basis here. You can quibble endlessly about it if you want, and it's possible there could have been a more neutral formulation, but this is a level of scrutiny that I don't think anybody consistently engages in. There are a ton of valid headlines that could be written about someone's death, and I don't think micromanaging which exact headline is chosen is the best way to build a better journalism.

[Benjamin Frank]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

I mean, Powell's reputation undoubtedly suffered from it, so the word "stained" definitely had some objective basis here. You can quibble endlessly about it if you want, and it's possible there could have been a more neutral formulation, but this is a level of scrutiny that I don't think anybody consistently engages in. There are a ton of valid headlines that could be written about someone's death, and I don't think micromanaging which exact headline is chosen is the best way to build a better journalism.

I do agree that sensationalist headlines are a problem with mainstream media outlets.  As many people still don't know, the headlines aren't written by the reporters, and I've read that there has been an increasing amount of push-back from reporters themselves regarding the sensational nature of headlines.

[DaleCooper]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

I mean, Powell's reputation undoubtedly suffered from it, so the word "stained" definitely had some objective basis here. You can quibble endlessly about it if you want, and it's possible there could have been a more neutral formulation, but this is a level of scrutiny that I don't think anybody consistently engages in. There are a ton of valid headlines that could be written about someone's death, and I don't think micromanaging which exact headline is chosen is the best way to build a better journalism.

I guess I was taking it in the direction of making Powell's headline more neutral, but what I'm really concerned about is consistency. Powell's headline is fine, but if AP is going to distill Hugo Chavez to a "fiery leader" then it comes across as a political statement to be nuanced on Powell. The inconsistency is the problem. 

[Benjamin Frank]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

I mean, Powell's reputation undoubtedly suffered from it, so the word "stained" definitely had some objective basis here. You can quibble endlessly about it if you want, and it's possible there could have been a more neutral formulation, but this is a level of scrutiny that I don't think anybody consistently engages in. There are a ton of valid headlines that could be written about someone's death, and I don't think micromanaging which exact headline is chosen is the best way to build a better journalism.

I guess I was taking it in the direction of making Powell's headline more neutral, but what I'm really concerned about is consistency. Powell's headline is fine, but if AP is going to distill Hugo Chavez to a "fiery leader" then it comes across as a political statement to be nuanced on Powell. The inconsistency is the problem.  

I'm sure though that as the believer in free speech that you are, that you ultimately agree that the AP can write whatever headlines it wants, even if they are completely inconsistent.

[DaleCooper]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

I mean, Powell's reputation undoubtedly suffered from it, so the word "stained" definitely had some objective basis here. You can quibble endlessly about it if you want, and it's possible there could have been a more neutral formulation, but this is a level of scrutiny that I don't think anybody consistently engages in. There are a ton of valid headlines that could be written about someone's death, and I don't think micromanaging which exact headline is chosen is the best way to build a better journalism.

I guess I was taking it in the direction of making Powell's headline more neutral, but what I'm really concerned about is consistency. Powell's headline is fine, but if AP is going to distill Hugo Chavez to a "fiery leader" then it comes across as a political statement to be nuanced on Powell. The inconsistency is the problem. 

I'm sure though that has the believer in free speech that you are, that you ultimately agree that the AP can write whatever headlines it wants, even if they are completely inconsistent.

Lol

[Benjamin Frank]

I won't pretend to be outraged on this, but TarHeelGent is right. AP needs to be consistent in its headlines. If Castro's claim to fame is simply "defying the US", then Powell's legacy shouldn't be editorialized in the headline.

It isn't though? Castro is most famous for being a strenuous geopolitical foe at the US' doorsteps. Powell is most famous for his sterling military career and for his claims about WMDs in Iraq. Both headlines accurately reflect that.

I'm talking about the "stained" part. "Colin Powell, Celebrated General and Early Proponent of Iraq War, Dies at 84" would be an acceptable headline. The blurring of news and opinion is a large part of why the media is not trusted.

I mean, Powell's reputation undoubtedly suffered from it, so the word "stained" definitely had some objective basis here. You can quibble endlessly about it if you want, and it's possible there could have been a more neutral formulation, but this is a level of scrutiny that I don't think anybody consistently engages in. There are a ton of valid headlines that could be written about someone's death, and I don't think micromanaging which exact headline is chosen is the best way to build a better journalism.

I guess I was taking it in the direction of making Powell's headline more neutral, but what I'm really concerned about is consistency. Powell's headline is fine, but if AP is going to distill Hugo Chavez to a "fiery leader" then it comes across as a political statement to be nuanced on Powell. The inconsistency is the problem. 

I'm sure though that has the believer in free speech that you are, that you ultimately agree that the AP can write whatever headlines it wants, even if they are completely inconsistent.

Lol

Is that a 'yes'?

[John Dule]

Is that a 'yes'?

The question is not whether the AP has the legal right to publish such headlines. The question is whether it is acting ethically in this particular exercise of that right.

[Benjamin Frank]

Is that a 'yes'?

The question is not whether the AP has the legal right to publish such headlines. The question is whether it is acting ethically in this particular exercise of that right.

How so?  If you are a free speech absolutist, then there are no considerations such as ethics as a constraint on free speech.  The only constraints are legal constraints.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is that a 'yes'?

The question is not whether the AP has the legal right to publish such headlines. The question is whether it is acting ethically in this particular exercise of that right.

How so?  If you are a free speech absolutist, then there are no considerations such as ethics as a constraint on free speech.  The only constraints are legal constraints.

Ughh, I'm sorry but that's a really stupid argument. Free speech doesn't mean you can't criticize a news outlet for how they choose to use their free speech. Such criticism is also free speech.

[Benjamin Frank]

Is that a 'yes'?

The question is not whether the AP has the legal right to publish such headlines. The question is whether it is acting ethically in this particular exercise of that right.

How so?  If you are a free speech absolutist, then there are no considerations such as ethics as a constraint on free speech.  The only constraints are legal constraints.

Ughh, I'm sorry but that's a really stupid argument. Free speech doesn't mean you can't criticize a news outlet for how they choose to use their free speech. Such criticism is also free speech.

Were that a position that I held, I agree it would be a really stupid argument.  But, I think I was fairly clear that's not a position I hold:

"I'm sure though that as the believer in free speech that you are, that you ultimately agree that the AP can write whatever headlines it wants, even if they are completely inconsistent."

I believe in saying 'ultimately' that I was fairly clear, albeit implicitly that 'free speech' means anybody can criticize anything they like, but that 'ultimately' if they believe in free speech that they also have to acknowledge that everybody else is entitled to use their free speech however they like, within the bounds of the law, even if they are entirely inconsistent.

Or, you can whine about the AP headline to express OUTRAGE! all you want. but ultimately all you can do is 'suck it up.'

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, sure, but going on a tangent about how the AP has a right to write biased headlines if they so wish is a pointless distraction on the topic of the argument, which is whether the headlines are in fact biased. I still don't think they are in any meaningful sense, except for perhaps the Soleimani one.

[Benjamin Frank]

Well, sure, but going on a tangent about how the AP has a right to write biased headlines if they so wish is a pointless distraction on the topic of the argument, which is whether the headlines are in fact biased. I still don't think they are in any meaningful sense, except for perhaps the Soleimani one.

I don't think it's pointless in that if there were to be a post here every time a major media outlet published a 'biased' headline, this board would be flooded.

The only real purpose of complaining about this is for right wingers to express OUTRAGE!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, sure, but going on a tangent about how the AP has a right to write biased headlines if they so wish is a pointless distraction on the topic of the argument, which is whether the headlines are in fact biased. I still don't think they are in any meaningful sense, except for perhaps the Soleimani one.

I don't think it's pointless in that if there were to be a post here every time a major media outlet published a 'biased' headline, this board would be flooded.

The only real purpose of complaining about this is for right wingers to express OUTRAGE!

I think calling out media bias, especially when it occurs in a seemingly innocuous form, can be a valid use of this forum. Like, obviously we shouldn't start making a new thread every time Fox News or OAN says something stupid, or we would indeed be flooded with those. But instances of bias in the mainstream media* are worth pointing out.

*Which is a real thing, of course, if not in the ways conservatives think. The false equivalence bias in Beltway commentary, for example, is an absolute cancer.

[DrScholl]

It is mentioned because an otherwise good career was definitely tarnished by the false claims about WMDs. He pushed obvious lies as a trusted public servant and that is not something that should be ignored. The soldiers who were killed and injured as well as the innocent Iraqi citizens who were killed, injured and displaced paid the ultimate price for that deception.