Honestly, who writes Politico headlines, cont'd
December 04, 2008 10:47 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Another day, another misleading headline from Politico about the Obama transition team. Hey, as long as they keep churning them out, we're gonna keep throwing the flag.
The latest: "Holder pardon makes Dems squirm."
Obviously, it's an article about Obama's pick of Eric Holder to be his AG, and specifically a look at Holder's role in the the last-minute pardon granted to Marc Rich in 2001. The press, desperate for some sort of conflict narrative, has been clinging to the story.
But look at the headline, "Holder pardon makes Dems squirm." Pretty simple, right? Clearly the article will include evidence--quotes, anecdotes, etc.--indicating how Dems are squirming about Holder's pardon role, right? You'd think. But this is Politico, where editors clearly feel no reason why headlines should match the article's content because, FYI, Politico provide zero evidence--none--that a single Democrat is squirming. Not one Dem in the article raises real-time concerns about the pardon.
Question: Why would Politico attach a headline that claims Dems are squirming if Politico has no evidence Dems are squirming? Answer: It makes the article seem more interesting. It helps sell the content. But last time we checked that's called marketing, not journalism.
UPDATE: The Politico headline has been changed to "GOP hopes Holder makes Dems squirm"
"The Politico headline has been changed to 'GOP hopes Holder makes Dems squirm'"
Hah! That's truly hilarious to me. So they're now claiming that other people are hoping that another group of people are acting a certain way. How many degrees away from actual information do you have to go before it's no longer considered journalism?
The headline is three or four degrees of separation from Journalism as noted by a commenter above.
A group of people hope to make another group of people behave in a certain manner because of the actions carried out by a certain person.
Journalism would be;
1. What Holden did or did not do.
2. What Republicans and Democrats claim Holden did or did not do.With Names, affiliations and quotations; No anonymous sources please.
3. Who is telling the truth.
Notice we are not told exactly what Holden did , just that he "played a role" and wished that he had taken a stronger stand.
Forget I said four or five, make it ten.