Who reads the headlines, anyway? -- a tale told mostly in tweets

 

 

 

Saturday morning Twitter, or at least the corner of twitter that obsesses over politics and political journalism, started furiously exchanging takes triggered by this headline from the online version of the New York Times.

Political scientist Amy Fried appears to be the one who got the ball rolling at an embarrassingly early hour for a weekend.

Trump backs out of the planned debate on September 10 on ABC. He then unilaterally sets a new date, changes the hosts to Fox and says that, instead of no audience, it will be in an arena. And this is how the NY Times headline reads:@DougJBalloon pic.twitter.com/jKApDHTDQX

— Amy Fried (@ASFried) August 3, 2024

The tweets tell the story here, but we'll set the stage first.

A few days ago, we ran a post about a piece by the New York Times editorial board which talked about how both sides could and should do more to facilitate debates, somehow failing to mention the facts that Harris had already been aggressively pushing for a debate while Donald Trump had just backed out of one. That piece so misrepresented what was actually going on that it crossed the line into distortion. This headline managed to do the same in a dozen words.

Just to get the obvious out of the way, there is no such thing as a unilateral agreement. Trump backed out of an agreed-upon debate giving a succession of sometimes contradictory reasons. He then made a counterproposal. An unserious counterproposal.

When the social media reaction started hitting critical mass, the NYT changed the headline without comment, but the damage was done.

I started out thinking the Times had a small problem. But it's a big one. Related but far greater than really every other major media problem. I don't really fully understand its origins. But I know it when I see it. https://t.co/2vCr6nIIp7

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

It's genuinely weird. We both know lots of people at the Times. I didn't used to think the issue was this deep. Saw it as criticism merited because of the standard to which we need to hold the Times. But I don't understand these decisions. And as you say, whose even are they?

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

A huge stain on professional political journalism that Variety got this right when so many outlets that specialize in politics got it wrong, and now won’t reflect on why. https://t.co/Ovc9SKiwR9

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) August 3, 2024

The actual article didn't help.

The Times has a piece on Trumps unilateral debate ploy which takes the whole thing at face value, says “unclear” if Harris has agreed to it yet and barely mentions the ABC debate Trump just pulled out of but follows his line of criticism agst it pic.twitter.com/nrK28HyRRQ

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

The proposal itself was a poison pill, not to mention being completely at odds with the serious exercise in democracy the NYT had been pontificating about.

If you look at what Trump is proposing and what the Times is falling for it's essentially a debate at a Trump rally. Hosted by Fox, in an arena, with all Fox hosts, etc. I don't think Kamala doesn't need a debate. If he wants to play these games I'd just say show up on on 9/10.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

Reminder that debates without live fact-checking are a gift to the serial liar: https://t.co/TsWqdroBfQ

— Dan Froomkin (PressWatchers.org) (@froomkin) August 3, 2024

A bit off topic but still relevant.

"Can you not fact check? He's not going to take the stage if you fact-check."

Behind the scenes with the Trump team and the National Association of Black Journalists. https://t.co/05vNdFPwXN

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) August 2, 2024

What the hell is going on at the @nytimes !? This is the THIRD rewrite of this headline. It's now factually correct but the journey to get here raises lots of questions about the concerning pattern of the Times getting stuff terribly wrong. pic.twitter.com/NBmYWvexeQ

— Jennifer Schulze (@NewsJennifer) August 3, 2024

Pretty wild to pull a 180 on framing like this without so much as an editor's note, @nytimes. pic.twitter.com/2xwyrTpBEj

— Christopher Ingraham🦗 (@_cingraham) August 3, 2024

he's flailing https://t.co/6FSjk37rbD

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) August 3, 2024

The funny thing with the Times is they often backread their heds from terrible to sub-terrible to sometimes even reasonable. So they seem to *agree* with the critiques, or at least concede them. So how is there not some recognition or consideration of: "Why do we routinely run…

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

I have long said the Washington Post has a huge advantage over the New York Times if it just gets things right that the Times fucks up because it's trying to be fair to both sides. Bravo for this. pic.twitter.com/d5veREdyim

— Dan Froomkin (PressWatchers.org) (@froomkin) August 3, 2024

It didn't take long for the usual suspects from Politico, the NYT, and the rest to start whining about the criticism. It did not go over well with the crowd.

I've been writing about journalism for decades, but it's taken me years to come to terms with how many journalists, especially political "journalists," are not very smart, but are very much assholes. @jmart pic.twitter.com/v0dFAsJehr

— Airbag Moments | 45X34 | 🇺🇦 (@airbagmoments) August 3, 2024

combining both "nothing the new york times does matters, so why complain" and "critics of the new york times only care about its impact on Dem electoral fortunes" gold star jonathan https://t.co/u0Qk10lGlr

— Atrios (@Atrios) August 3, 2024

 

A quick note on headlines, following on the point in the other exchanges. Headlines are obviously important on a number of levels. The fact that they're individually ephemeral is meaningless. They're particularly important in digital news (which is to say the overwhelming ...

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

You can read Marshall's excellent thread here.

An amazingly cynical remark. Won't waste time explaining the important role headlines play in news coverage, especially in digital news. But I'm most struck by the casual disdain for readers. Hard to pick apart what part 'pulling the Dem lever' even plays in that cynical stew.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 3, 2024

"Anyway, my position remains that if you have a six-figure job in political media and strongly believe that nothing you do matters (and therefore you cannot be held to any standards for professional conduct), you should quit and let somebody who actually gives a shit have the job."  

Scott Lemieux