Sorry. I don't buy the headline bias; the headline is factually true.

--|PW|--

The change is statistically zero.

Maybe it's accurate, but if there's a point to the headline, what is it?

Pennywit is right in both cases, it's factually true, and his wit is priced about right for the market, adjusted for inflation. It would have also been factually correct if it was a net gain of one, and I suppose Pennywit would have approved of the same headline too. Had Kerry lost 300 votes in the recount he'd be screaming if the headline read, "Bush Lead Grows After Recount", those 300 votes would have seemed meaningless to him. Then again, at a taxpayer cost of $5000 a vote, I guess you gotta take your victories wherever you find them, even if they are losses.

It was good to have a recount. Now we're likely to have less people questioning Bush's win, which was decisive.

Had Kerry lost 300 votes in the recount he'd be screaming if the headline read, "Bush Lead Grows After Recount", those 300 votes would have seemed meaningless to him. Then again, at a taxpayer cost of $5000 a vote, I guess you gotta take your victories wherever you find them, even if they are losses.

Actually, I would see nothing wrong with a similar construction after a Bush challenge; if it went 300 the other way, the proper headline would be "Bush margin widens after recount." Either way, the story is strictly back-page fodder.

What I'm trying to point out is that if there's bias here, it's only there because it's deliberately being sought by the reader.

--|PW|--

Pennywit,
When the change is 285 votes out of over 5 million votes cast and with an initial lead of over 118 thousand it statistically is no change and yes it is an intentionally misleading headline. The only proper slant for the story would be to address the more than a millions dollars wasted on a recount which had no chance of having any bearing on the outcome. As a tax payer and an Ohioan, I resent this waste and I resented having moonbats like Conyers, Jackson, Olbermann, etc talking about Ohio like we had lots of voting irregularities. It was all BS! The complaints amounted to crap like there were long lines.

Large:
You write:

The only proper slant for the story would be to address the more than a millions dollars wasted on a recount which had no chance of having any bearing on the outcome.

and then follow it with:

As a tax payer and an Ohioan, I resent this waste and I resented having moonbats like Conyers, Jackson, Olbermann, etc talking about Ohio like we had lots of voting irregularities. It was all BS! The complaints amounted to crap like there were long lines.

In essence, your assessment of the "proper slant" for the story is based on your analysis -- i.e., opinion -- of the complaints and their merits. There are several possible headlines for this sort of story:

* "Recount Narrows Bush Margin by Small Figure"
* "Taxpayer Money Wasted in Recount"
* "Greens, Libertarians, Receive Little Satisfaction in Recount."

And so on. From a strictly objective standpoint, the only real way to write this story is:

1. Outline changes in the vote revealed by recount.

2. Contrast this number with the total number of votes cast and the margin of victory.

3. Gather comments from officials and interested parties.

4. Note the costs of the recount.

A headline-writer has to look at the various spins and try to put something together. Of all the pieces of information, the only real "fact" is that the margin of victory narrowed infinitesmally.

--|PW|--

Back page fodder? We Ohioans paid about 1-1/2 million dollars for that story, AFTER READING FRONT PAGE HEADLINES FOR TWO WEEKS GENERATED BY JESSE (Pay-me-now) JACKSON and CHARLES (Sorry-I-thought-I-was-in-Michigan) CONYERS ABOUT HOW BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION IN OHIO!!!!!

I WANT THAT STORY ON THE FREAKING FRONT PAGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then by all means, Don, start your own newspaper and put it on the front page. On the flip side, if I'm running a newsroom in, say, Virginia, a story about 285 votes shifting in an already-decided presidential race is going to take a back seat to local news, the tsunami in Asia, and the latest from Iraq.

Now as for the headline -- you're giving the AP headline writer a bit too much credit. He's not sitting there, rubbing his hands together, and saying "How am I going to put a liberal slant on this story." He's going to read through it and conclude that the only real news is a slight shift in the vote; most other elements of the story are spin.

--|PW|--

Pennywit,
When you title a story, you usually pick out the main point to make the title.

What is the main point? That Bush's lead shrank? or that the count didn't change the outcome? or the count was almost exactly the same?

They chose the title that reflected what they want you to concentrate on: that the lead shrank.

That's how titles get selected.

Also, since 285 is well within the margin of error, it's not even accurate to say it shrank or grew. If we counted a 3rd time, we'd get a third number, maybe in the middle, maybe with Bush getting more votes.

Hey Guys,
Bottomline is Bush won Ohio by a very big margin and nothing the Democrats do can change that. Bush won Ohio by over 118,000 votes and Florida by over 300,000 votes so Bush won this election fair and sqaure. TO BAD LIBS

Headline writing, due to its space constraint, is often viewed by the Old Media as an invitation to exploit the reality of the old saw: “A partial truth can be the greater lie”.

This is a classic example.

Note that the defense to an objection to it is:

1. It is a Headline &
2. It is true as far as it goes.

lets go look at what they are doing in Washington. if you let them re count it again they will find more ballots they forgot to count?
how come they never find GOP votes in these selected re counts? If you are close it can be stolen. How do we stop this?

In reverse order:

Plutosdad:

When you title a story, you usually pick out the main
point to make the title.

Not quite. When you write a headline, you draw out the most pertinent
bit of news and at a wire service, you make it generic enough that any
newspaper can use it. You also want it to be such that it can be
hacked into bits for the newspaper to run the headline atop a
one-column story.

You are correct that there is an element of news judgment here.
Should one emphasize the change in vote totals? The expense of the
recount? The comments from various flacks? To my mind, the most
neutral of those is the change in vote totals.

Don: In Ohio, perhaps it's material for the bottom of the front page.
In a newsroom in, say, New Jersey, it's back-page matter, as the
tsunami, news from Iraq, judicial nominations, and local news are of
greater import than a miniscule shift in an election count.

Bill:

Assessments of the complaints are just that -- opinions. And I do
believe you're giving the AP headline writer a bit too much credit.
He's not twirling his moustache as he decides how to advance the
Leftist Agenda. It is far more likely that he's interested in
slapping a headline on that story and sending it out.