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.
