Very aware that writers do not always assign headlines, and the text does include a factual recounting of what happened, but this is also in the piece itself.
The dueling narratives reflect how an attack that resulted in the disruption of heartbeats in the middle of 5th Avenue is increasingly viewed differently along partisan lines -- and how Trump has bet that the president-involved-shooting won't hurt his candidacy.
Unionized writers should bargain for, if not writing authority, at least veto power over their headlines, as it so deeply colors how their work is received
tbh, i always hear this, but i’ve never worked in a newsroom or heard of one where writers do not at least have some input. at the very least, i have veto rights if the issue is a factual one. but maybe that’s not the case with a “wire service” like the AP.
I know it's not the point, but it is galling that they're still referring to the election we've been living through for years as a "potential rematch".
How about a factual headline stating -
"The GOP is racist. Here's why"
Media claims to adhere to facts and truth but they shy away from the obvious, and facts and truths, to placate fictional bipartisanship and reader apathy.
This whole bit of journalists trying desperately not to offend ANYBODY (for the worst reasons possible) isn't helping anything. Some things are just wrong, trying to overthrow the government is one of them and that needs to be said.
myferretsatepepethefrog.blogspot.com/2024/01/cult...
"One attack, two interpretations: Democrats, Republicans in Louisiana both make Colfax Massacre a political rallying cry." Beyond caricature with the bothsidesism. 🙄https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
