Do you want a good example of leftist yahoo's media bias?

Question

On the front page of yahoo right now is this headline created by the commie yahoo content editors: "White House defends Mukasey silence on torture."

This leads to this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_attorney_general
With THIS headline:
White House defends Mukasey

The commies at yahoo CHOSE to add "silence on torture."


The story itself talks about whether certain things should be classified as torture or not; debatable stuff.

The commies at yahoo DECIDED ON THEIR OWN what torture consists of and placed their little addition in the headline in order to create the impression that the White house defends torture.

Get it?

yeah_but, you fail to grasp the entire POINT of the post. I'm positive others will as well. The usual suspects.

Global, THE POINT is that yahoo content editors DISHONESTLY ADDED to the original headline with their own OPINION. Get it????

I had a feeling some of you wouldn't be able to see. Utterly blinkered.

BNP, I have seen this over and over with yahoo.

BNP you are merely defending yahoo's dishonesty. It isn not up to them to add their opinions to headlines.

Answer 1

I'd be pretty tempted to chalk that one up to general media sensationalism. It would be useful to have a log of all similar title changes, preferably over several years (so that it isn't just because criticizing the current administration isn't in vogue)
And please, name calling doesn't help anyone.

I just gave it a second look. The addition to the title actually does clarify what the article is about. I think you seeing it as a liberal bias may be in part because you want to find evidence of liberal bias. Such behavior is only natural (see the research in "The Social Animal" - there was a study that shows how people will actively seek justification of a decision they make after the fact, and ignore contradictions. In this case it was related to car buying.)

To clarify, when I first saw the statement it did make it seem like they were painting him in a bad light. However, reading the article it made it clear that it was a fairly accurate title. I feel that the addition (on torture) was not entirely uncalled for. I had not really been following the story closely, without the addition I would have no idea what it was talking about.

Response to additional info: I don't view it as an opinion. It's pretty clear that he was silent as to whether waterboarding should be considered torture, hence the headline "White House defends Mukasey silence on torture". There is no lie in that statement, unless you choose to view it from a perspective of "since they used the word torture they must believe it should be considered torture". You are interpreting it thusly. I see it as "There was an issue concerning the definition of torture, he was silent on it." All a matter of perspective.

So as a final statement, yes it could be indicative of an attempt to influence public opinion. I just find it far more likely that whoever is in charge of putting the titles up felt that "White House defends Mukasey" was just not descriptive enough, clarified that it was on his "silence on torurture", and left it at that. Perhaps they could have been more clear, but that would have resulted in a too-long headline.


Addendum for Pfo - you should re-read the answer you chose as best. She said the title was accurate and appropriate, it just didn't seem that way to you because you didn't understand what the article was about.

Answer 2

Well,I'm a liberal,and I certainly see the liberal bias I hate the liberal and conservative media They are sick,and I hate that they care so damn much about this issue You do have to understand that,they're also focusing on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. For years,they've claimed to have the good family values and have advocated abstinence only education. Obviously,that's not working. I would find it hilarious if after this,Palin and McCain have the same stance when it comes to sex education. Also,Sarah Palin is the one who announced to the world that her daughter is pregnant. If anyone is dragging out this issues,it's Republicans who are parading around Bristol and announcing to the world that she's pregnant and getting married. It was Sarah Palin who asked the boyfriend to come to the RNC. Not the liberal media. The media is no better to focus on it,but Palin is the one who brought this one herself By the way,this a scandalous story. You would have no problem if the media attacked Chelsea Clinton if she was pregnant in the White House. You also had no problem when the media attacked Obama for the whole Reverend Wright thing and repeated the smears against Obama. I guess you only care if they falsely attack the other side but can't take when your own side is attacked

Answer 3

I read the news today oh boy.

Mukasey refused to take a position on whether he would take the White House line on torture or comport with the Geneva Convention.

Echoes of the sound of silence.

Answer 4

There should not be any debate. Any method causing extreme distress is torture. The U.S. used to hold the high road. Even though the British tortured Americans Geo. Washington forbade Americans from torturing Brits. Germans surrendered quickly to the Americans because we treated our prisoners properly. This administration has lowered the bar so far that we are now a disgrace! Torture does not work and to do so is only showing that we are as bad, if not worse, than those we abhor.

Answer 5

And the truth shall set you free..... quit being an idiot. The white house defended his right to remain silent on torture. No slant just the truth. They defended him, not torture.That is how I read it. When Fox News has a headline that reads: "Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan not to include illegal immigrants" It is funny they are bashing her for not wanting to give illegals free healthcare when Bush & co. doesnt even want lower middle class children to get it. Gotta keep gettin the money to those insurance companies!

Answer 6

Not really, and if I was, this AP news wire story sure wouldn't be it. I'm more tired of far right wing nutjobs whining about Yahoo's "liberals bias" while they still continue to use it. If it's so slanted why are you even here? I'm sure FOX has a message board that can satisfy your need to hear all pro-Bush and all pro-Republican points of view without exception.

Answer 7

yep. 4 people get the question.....

i've been noticing this since i started using yahoo. but i need some ying and yang at the same time. the hard part was training myself to take it ALL with a grain of salt...

Answer 8

BNP is right.
How can you fail to see this.
Also, anyone who uses the term "commie" truly exposes their ignorance.

Answer 9

I demonstrated a similar example several months ago:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjXfHSfsPkJpR1qu93xBk2Lty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070801082709AAZG4IV

I'm sure they are numerous, I stop trying to point them out. One side already knows it, the other (typically) denies it.

Answer 10

The commies at yahoo CHOSE to add "silence on torture."

INSTEAD they SHOULD have phrased it

"virtuous non-stance on torture"