Skip to main content

NYT: Re-wriitng the headline. Why?

 Thankfully people like FAIR keep an eye out for tweaking or fiddling with the news.....

 "Non-violent protesters came up with a novel way to protest Israeli plans to build more settlement colonies in the occupied West Bank: They occupied the land themselves. The Bab Al Shams tents went up on Friday on privately owned Palestinian land  in what Israel designates as the E1 part of the West Bank. Israel's announcement of a plan to build new colonies in that part of the West Bank was especially controversial.

The New York Times reported the news on Saturday. But the most remarkable thing is what they did with the headline.

The headline on the earliest versions of the story was "Palestinians Set Up Camp in Israeli-Occupied West Bank Territory." Such acknowledgments of the West Bank as "occupied" territory are relatively rare in corporate media, as Seth Ackerman pointed out in Extra! (1/01).



But then, as Ali Abunimah wrote (Electronic Intifada, 1/12/13),  at some point it was changed to "Palestinians Set Up Tents Where Israel Plans Homes." (Twitter user @jamiesw was credited with spotting the change.)

The Times story, and the one the next day, both refer to "Israeli-occupied West Bank territory." So why was this fact removed from the headline? The decision is certainly a curious one–a casual reader would likely react very differently to the idea that Palestinians are protesting an occupation, versus placing tents where someone would like to build "homes."




It seems like a good issue for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan. If you'd like to know more about why the Times changed an accurate headline,  you can email her at public@nytimes.com."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more