Why the Media Pisses Me Off

Misleading Headlines
(Part 1 of an ongoing series.)

“Clinton raises $35 million in 1 month” was the headline of an AP story that appeared on my local paper’s website this morning. That is so not the story.

I see this type of careless headline writing on a daily basis, and I’m taking a stand.

I remember a few things from my journalism classes at the University of Delaware. One is that the “lead” of the story (generally the first sentence) should be a microcosm of the entire story. It should accurately describe the main theme of the story. The rest of the story fills in details in order of importance (or chronologically when appropriate).

The lead of this story describes Hillary Clinton’s “remarkable financial recovery” and goes on to point out that despite her efforts, Barack Obama was still outspending her. This is an interesting point, but does this lead convey the most newsworthy aspect of the story? I think not. In the fifth paragraph we discover that Obama has likely raised over $50 million in the same time period. This will shatter the record for fundraising in a primary election. But I’m not saying that should have been the lead.

Here’s the deal: When there are multiple angles to a story, it’s the reporter’s and editor’s jobs to decide which angle is the most important. The lead and headline of the story should follow suit.

If the story is about the Democratic candidates’ fundraising, than the news might be that both candidates saw huge increases in donations. Possible headline -- “Candidates see huge boost in fundraising.”

If the story is about comparing the two candidates’ campaign financing in general, than the news is that Obama continues to crush Clinton in dollars brought in and dollars spent. (This was introduced in the second paragraph, and reported in more detail later in the story.) Possible headline -- “Obama outpaces Clinton in fundraising, spending.”

If the story had been only about Clinton’s fundraising, which some might infer from the headline, the headline still doesn’t convey the most important point. Raising $35 million in a month is not news in and of itself. It is only newsworthy when compared to other stats. So the story might be that Clinton’s fundraising more than doubled from January to February. Possible headline -- “Clinton donations more than double.”

So, I know you’ve been waiting patiently to hear my humble opinion on how this story should have gone, so here it is:

“Despite boost, Clinton fundraising still lags”
The lead is pretty close, but I think it should include the fact that Obama’s campaign is outspending and out-fundraising Clinton’s.

So what happened at the AP? Was this just a mistake? Just a bad day for the headline writer? Did he or she just skim through this story before typing up the headline? Did the editor really feel that the headline reflects the biggest news in this story? Or is this an indication of the writer or editor leaning toward Clinton? I don’t like any of the above possibilities. I expect better from the Associated Press.

Disclaimer: Please don’t add a comment pointing out a typo or misplaced comma. I know I was not a great copy editor (or headline writer, for that matter). That’s why I’m ranting on a free blog site instead of writing or editing for the AP, the Times or the AJC.

Thank you Ralph Nader

Thank you for “Unsafe at Any Speed.” Thank you for the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thank you for the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the EPA and OSHA.

I can think of no other single person who has been looking out for the well-being of his fellow citizens as fervently as you. For 40 years you have been battling for consumer rights, government transparency and environmental prudence. You have been monomaniacal about exposing corporate power and influence in our government. You are a true American hero.

I absolutely agree with you that the two major political parties are becoming more and more alike -- the Democratic Party has been shifting toward the right to try to compete with the strong conservative base of the Republican Party. We independents have grown tired of the complacent attitude of both parties. I also agree with your Constitutional right to run for office.

But Ralph, I implore you, please don’t do this. Not again!

Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate. I know this. But he is the best Democrat I’ve seen in a long time. He has seen wide-spread support from the middle and the left. He is a viable mainstream candidate with some progressive appeal. He has opposed the war in Iraq since the beginning. He has chosen not to take money from lobbyists. He talks of being independent from the power-brokers in Washington. (I know we’ve heard that before, but it might actually be true this time.) I know you hate the “lesser of two evils” theory, but this is the least evil option we’ve had for a long, long time.

If you stay in this race to the end, many progressives who would have voted for Obama will support you instead. I can’t bear to see a repeat of 2000. (I know there are a hundred other factors that cost Al Gore the 2000 election, but your presence in the race certainly didn’t help.)

You’ve said that this race is the Democrats’ to lose. I agree. Recent polls show Obama beating John McCain by a narrow margin. I’m hoping Obama’s support will swell as the campaign season progresses. But if it stays close than your candidacy could help McCain win.

Democrats, Greens and independents from the left and the middle have to find a way to come together to turn things around for this nation. You could make the Green Party a powerful force in this country. Grab hold of the Greens and progressive independents and then make a deal with the Democrats. You withdraw from the race and throw your support behind Obama, he agrees to appoint you to a position where you can spend the next 4 to 8 years helping to make policy in the Cabinet -- Secretary of Commerce, Energy, or Transportation. Or how about running the EPA -- wouldn’t that be poetic? The Dems win the White House, the Greens gain a voice in the direction our nation should be heading.

Please Ralph, just think about it. I’ve got my cell if you want to talk about it.