Ever wonder why the Star Tribune includes code that forces your browser to reload periodically? Ever wonder why they don’t have full RSS feeds? I understand that stories evolve as more information becomes available, but watching the Star Tribune’s headlines change online before (and sometimes after) they go to print has been an interesting experience for me the last week or so. My handy RSS reader, Vienna, treats each time a headline changes as a different link and stores it. Below are a few examples. In the final headline I link to the story:
On July 22nd, the Star Tribune published a story titled “Senate votes to move ahead with plan to curb speculation in oil markets that some blame for high oil prices.” A few hours later, the headline changed, pointing to the same story: ”Oil speculation bill provides Senate forum for partisan energy blame game.” This change took the focus off of “oil speculation” being to blame to it being a “partisan energy blame game.”
The next day, on July 23rd, ”Help for homeowners, mortgage giant sails through House, on track to become law” was updated after the vote to ”House approves bill that aims to help strapped homeowners facing foreclosure, mortgage giants” but ultimately the final headline read “Help for strapped homeowners, mortgage giants sails through House after Bush drops opposition,” where it now sounds like Bush gets a lot more credit.
On July 25th, a story that head a headline that sounded like good news for Obama turned into a pro-McCain headline: ”In shadow of Obama trip, McCain works battleground states and raises campaign funds” went to ”McCain claims Obama’s policies for Iraq could have led to war across Middle East” in the afternoon. Before it went to press it became ”McCain mocks Obama policy for Iraq as ‘audacity of hopelessness’ that could have lost the war.” Ouch.
On July 26th, I saw a headline go through eight different versions. “Obama defends decision to travel to Europe, Middle East, says it’ll help Americans in long run” changed slightly to ”Barack Obama defends trip to Europe and Middle East, saying it’ll help Americans in long run” to ”Obama defends decision to travel to Europe, says US must work with allies” to ”Barack Obama defends trip through Mideast, Europe, says US must cooperate with allies” to ”Barack Obama defends decision to travel to Europe and Mideast, says US must work with allies” to “Obama defends decision to travel to Europe and Mideast, says US must work with its allies” to ”Barack Obama rejects criticism of trip, says John McCain moving his way on Iraq, Afghanistan” to finally ”Obama rejects criticism of trip, says McCain moving his way on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The key words here are “Obama defends decision” changing to “Obama rejects criticism.”
Also on the same day, a story titled “Bush signing legislation next week to triple funds for AIDS around the world” changed to ”Bush says he’s eager to sign legislation to triple funds for fighting AIDS around world.” It changes from the fact it will be signed to talking about how Bush is eager to do so.
On July 29th, bad news for McCain: ”John McCain steps back from ‘no new tax’ pledge, gets rebuked by conservative anti-tax group” turns to ”John McCain returns to ‘no new tax’ pledge after criticism from anti-tax group.” Funny though, how bad news for McCain can turn into positive news: after another headline change he sounds proactive: ”Analysis: McCain eager to reassure anxious conservatives he won’t raise taxes.”
On July 31st, ”Bush poised to report Thursday on progress in Iraq war.” After the report, the headline and story was updated: ”Bush declares significant progress in the Iraq war, saying terrorists ‘are on the run.’” Sounds like the same old news right? Well, the headline changes again to ”Bush cites progress in Iraq, suggests further US troop withdrawals possible.” The final version, headline changed later in the day reads: ”Citing gains in Iraq, Bush hints at possibility of further US troop withdrawals this year.” Sounds like great news now.
While not presidential in nature, it was too interesting not to include: Also on July 31st, “Alaska Sen. Stevens, in arraignment, expected to plead not guilty to hiding $250,000 in gifts” turned to ”Alaska Sen. Stevens, in arraignment, pleads not guilty to hiding $250,000 in gifts” which later read as ”Alaska Sen. Stevens pleads not guilty to corruption, gets chance to clear name before election.” Overnight it got its final title, “Sen. Stevens takes ‘gutsy’ tactic, asks for speedy corruption trial in time for elections” which doesn’t include the words “guilty” “hiding” and “$250,000 in gifts.”
On August 1st, “Obama calls for $1,000 energy rebates to be paid with windfall profits tax on the oil industry,” which was mildly edited to say ”Obama proposes $1,000 rebate checks from oil company profits as part of pitch to Fla. voters.” Sounds like a great deal. The headline then gets changed to focus on a right-wing hot-button issue: ”Obama shifts, now says he would be willing to back limited additional offshore oil drilling.” The final story reads: ”Obama endorses energy compromise that includes additional offshore drilling.”
On August 2nd, a headline about Obama and McCain agreeing on debates turned into different story: ”Obama campaign agrees to 3 debates with McCain and 1 between their running mates” changed to ”Obama steps back from McCain challenge for series of debates, agreeing only to standard 3.” That’s quite a different story. The final headline painted Obama even weaker: ”Playing it safe, Obama steps back from McCain’s challenge for a series of summer debates.”
I want to stress that in all of these cases, the changing headlines all link to the same story URL.
I think there’s a pattern here.
Comments 11
A quick googling of a majority of those headlines show other websites with that exact wording, which leads me to believe they are updated versions of the AP stories with differently casted headlines. AP changes their headlines often throughout the day and offers “alternative” versions of their headlines and ledes for papers wanting something a little less dry. Often they mention what the changes are in the meta information give to papers, but for most newspaper websites (the Strib included), the changes are automatically pushed and published regardless of what the change.
These headlines are also the headlines in the paper, not in print. These headlines seem awfully long to fit in the paper, and most of the AP political stories get blended with the best of wires into smaller, round-up stories in the metro edition.
Your issue is most likely with AP, not the Strib. I’m not saying that perspectives don’t get infused into stories. But it is not as nefarious as it might seem. There is an argument for most of these changes, I would argue, based on the news at hand and the judgement of the reporters/editors. What some call sensational are often on the other side of an issue that some call highly interesting. Or perhaps newsworthy.
I’m sure any analysis of the paper version would show some interesting trends, too. Mostly it would show how often stories have to get whittled away in the shrinking newspaper of the Twin Cities, but it also may show a more balanced and we-skewer-anyone-who-needs-it attitude I find in the morning. But you might have to spend 50 cents to see it.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 07:34 ¶m-
Thanks for your comments. In the above cases, I believe they’re all AP stories. I’m aware that there are multiple versions available; my main concern is why they choose to change it. In many cases, the meaning completely changes or sometimes tells an opposite story - something I assume, perhaps wrongly, doesn’t happen automatically.
I have seen this happen on some Star Tribune stories as well too.
I originally started to draw some conclusions in this piece but to your point, my examples are AP and that I didn’t actually discuss this with anyone at the Star Tribune. I edited it down to just showing the headlines for the most part.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 07:54 ¶Maybe you could, um, change your headline? Heh.
With AP headlines served up through newspaper websites, there often is not a human who authorizes every write-through on the wire. In all of these cases, I don’t see how any of the new headlines completely changes or tells the opposite story. There are cases of shift of focus or a recasting to show the news value of a story, and that sometimes tends to focus on conflict or things that are surprising or phrases that make readers read stories.
Like this example:
Help for homeowners, mortgage giant sails through House, on track to become law
vs.
Help for strapped homeowners, mortgage giants sails through House after Bush drops opposition
answers the question of how this hotly-contested issue all of a sudden sailed through: a shift from presidential opposition.
“Obama rejects criticism” vs. “Obama defends decision”: essentially the same idea, but the difference is in the second part, where it mentions McCain, giving ownership to the criticism.
Most of these changes are all in the nuance and I would argue an improvement. And that’s from a journalistic standpoint, not ideological. For the AP, these stories are pushed out as quickly as possible, then reworked later to improve them. (Unedited AP Wire is a pretty scary thing.) Those are pushed automatically to the website. As far as Star Tribune headlines changing, I’ll definitely buy that, but the number of hands on a given story is way more than people would believe. Stories change, interviews happen late, context and past stories get found after the first version gets pushed, stories get shifted around on pages, and, as the saying goes, stuff happens. It’s not an excuse; it’s a reality. And that’s not often conservative or liberal pandering, it’s just how news sausage is made.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 08:57 ¶The headline is the first thing most people read, and in some cases the only thing people read. When people read “Obama defends decision” versus “Obama rejects criticism,” they are painted as two different stories simply in the difference of tone. I believe the first is positive, the second is negative even though literally they may both be completely accurate.
When a story that talks about both campaigns agreeing to the standard amount of debates turns into Obama “playing it safe” and “stepping back,” you’re telling a different story on the headline alone. It’s not about agreeing to debates anymore, it’s about Obama on being on the defensive.
While I agree with the amount of automation (and how the unedited AP Wire is scary), I have a difficult time believing that the evolving slant of headlines is completely automatic. The Star Tribune has a choice of headlines and the option to write their own.
It’s clear you have more background on this subject than I do. I appreciate your comments; this is good conversation.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 09:15 ¶I agree headlines — and editing — are essential to a story, and I’ve seen enough EyeTrack information to see how influential they are to readers.
There’s plenty to be argued in semantics, but it’s endless. I think “Obama defends decision [and tells America it's good]” makes it sound like he was weak and all of America said it was a bad idea while “Obama rejects criticism [and fires back at McCain]” makes him look tough and tells a clearer picture of this being a minor campaign battle. But that’s just me, and more and more readers sadly are going to see the names Obama and McCain and look for anything to reinforce what they already believe. (See also: the Bush headline.)
But back to AP automation: Sites like Newsvine and the majority of news websites I’ve seen that have a raw feed often just automatically update the headlines and stories fed in through AP. It’s not an editorial decision; it’s a business decision. AP stories increase exposure and site rankings and give local readers a reason to stick around on their local paper’s site. Those updates could be overridden, of course, but I can all but guarantee no one is doing that for newspaper websites on AP stories, across the board. It’s not worth it for content that is just dumped on websites all over the net.
The print edition, however, does not operate like that. Most stories are blended from multiple wires or at least hand-chosen to find the best version, positioned on a page in relation to the rest of the day’s news, and given a headline that’s then examined by multiple people. And locally written stories can have headlines that are changed throughout a night, between editions, as stories change, moods shift and more and more people get involved. What you call slant, some might call judgement. It’s not always the best judgement, but it’s human judgement.
Writing headlines is a delicate art of telling a story succinctly without sensationalizing but also not making your readers snooze. It’s tough to do well every day. AP’s headlines are not the best examples, which is why I’d invite you to buy the paper and see what the difference is between shoveled stories from a massive news agency down an RSS reader and locally-tailored and tightly edited news pulled from a variety of sources placed in the context of a complete day’s worth of news.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 10:18 ¶We’re distracting away from what this post is about though. I didn’t claim to have an authoritative reason as to why they change in a technical respect, I’m claiming to show a specific shift of language.
I disagree with your assessment of schematics. When you say “fires back” at McCain, for example, it sounds reactionary and negative. I agree that there is a delicate art of telling a story succinctly without sensationalizing but there is a consistent pattern of headlines changing to become favorable in a certain direction.
Here’s today’s example:
“Obama proposes tapping nation’s oil reserves to help drive down gasoline prices” was a story time stamped at 08:16 in my reader. At 11:45, the same story has a headline that reads “Obama shifts position to propose tapping nation’s oil reserve to drive down gasoline prices.”
There’s an incredible difference between “proposes” and “shifts position.” This isn’t simply semantics.
I think the majority of the examples I list above reflect the same type of changes. I believe there is a consistent pattern.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 11:02 ¶Of course there is a difference between those two phrases. That’s the news! In this case, the first story is 4 paragraphs long. It also includes the paragraph:
“In the past, Obama has not advocated tapping the oil reserve, but Zichal said he has reconsidered because he recognizes that high gas prices have caused many Americans to suffer. Obama is making a speech on energy later in the day.”
meaning the story isn’t over. It’s developing. The new story has has a new lede that starts, “In a reversal…” The story is what it is. If there is a shift, which in this case the Obama campaign admitted to, it’s a shift. That’s not semantics, that’s reporting. If McCain said he wants a timeline of withdrawl, that’s a reversal and would cause headlines like “McCain backtracks on Iraq stance” etc etc. If Obama had never said boo about the nation’s oil reserves, then it would have just been a proposal. But the story is the shift, not the proposal. Journalism 101.
This is the nature of AP Wire, which is only exacerbated because of the internet at push-publishing. The Strib didn’t make the change; AP did. The Strib’s website isn’t going to waste time checking every edit on AP story. It’s going to get the most updated and complete story, and this is it. It’s not favoring one candidate or the other. It’s how news unfolds.
I think there are plenty of conservatives who would argue the AP’s headlines are skewering McCain stances, too. I’ll mention it again that those who want to see bias will often only see in the direction that helps their cause the most. AP’s headlines are notoriously pretty poorly written, so I’m not defending them. But you’re conflating news judgement and outright bias. There’s no such thing as objectivity because news judgement is essential to journalism. You can disagree with that judgement, as you’re doing, but I’m saying it’s not as clear cut that the AP is in the tank for McCain, as you are suggesting.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 11:50 ¶Com’n Aaron, join the fun!!
Republish the exact posting tomorrow with a new headline. And again the following day and again until you run out of headlines! Something like–
“Desparate Interest Groups Sated by Desperate Strib Headlines”
“Strib Expands from News Publisher to News Re-Publisher”
“Strib Spins Headlines in Desperate Search for New Readers”
“Strib Headline Writers Bored By Lack of Content, Re-write Existing Story Lines”
–Haven’t you heard, the news business is all about marketing now, right? Not journalism, what a quaint notion. Then it leaves room for the already written documentary about the polarization of the USA (conveniently excluding their paper’s own role in how it occurred).
I’ll argue long and passionately that the average blogger has more balance than the news, because at least the average blogger does not pretend to be balanced or a journalist.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 14:58 ¶I suspect the automatic-reloading of the pages mentioned in the first paragraph is behind the Strib’s #1 in the nation ranking for time spent on a newspaper’s website.
Without AJAX trickery or a browser plugin there’s no way for web analytics to tell how long a viewer is actually looking at a page. The standard is to take the time between a visitor’s first request and their last request. With the perpetual reloading of pages any browser tab left pointing to the strib looks like a user who’s engaged for hours. No other major newspaper (that I could find) does such a reloading).
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 16:28 ¶It’s not the AP that’s doing it. They just had one today about Bachmann saying the RNC is in Minneapolis, and now the headline says “Minnesota politician”. The alternative headline just mentions Katie Couric.
If that were Al Franken, it would be the top story with his name prominent in the headline.
Posted 05 Aug 2008 at 11:35 ¶Now they’ve got “Couric, other notables mix up RNC locale” as well. “Bachmann” morphs into “Minnesota politician” morphs into “Other notables” and not even being mentioned.
The same thing happened when it was discovered that Coleman was taking money that came from a firm working for the junta in Burma. The headline was vague - something along the lines of “Senate candidate…”.
Posted 05 Aug 2008 at 11:39 ¶Post a Comment