Misleading Political Headlines are Providing Misinformation to Many

Dewey Defeats Truman

In recent months, as I have read more and more political articles online and in the newspaper, I have realized that many political article headlines are misleading, bordering on untruthful. When comparing the body of these articles to the headlines it seemed evident to me that journalists are writing misleading headlines purposefully. Why would journalists do this? ... I decided to analyze how I view articles in newspapers to try and derive an answer to my question.

When reading the newspaper I typically skim over all the headlines in the paper and stop at a few articles that I want to read. This technique is probably performed by most people. By reading the article headlines I get a sense of the articles without having to read all the articles in the newspaper. After completing my quick examination I discovered the answer to why journalists write bias headlines. ... Many people only read the headline of an article.

Since many people read headlines and not the full articles, journalists can sway public opinion by merely writing a misleading headline (that often aligns with the journalist’s perspective). Of course, a journalist is supposed to be objective and leave their point of view at the door step, but unfortunately many journalists today have become egregiously bias in their reporting. To fortify my inference, I came across a study that proclaims 44% of Google news visitors scan article headlines without ever accessing (reading) the articles. I'm sure journalists know that statistic, and others alike, and that prompts them to write deceptive headlines thus fooling almost 50% of the population into believing something that is untrue. 

Below is an example of a political article I read yesterday with a misleading headline.

Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming (the headline in question)

BEDFORD, N.H. (AP) — GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven. 

"I think we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change," the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state. 

He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: "I don't think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question." 

His comments came at a packed breakfast meeting with local business leaders in a region known for its strong environmental policies. And he made his global warming comment in response to a question by an audience member who cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences. 

But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry's home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data. 

Global warming has become an issue for contenders for the Republican nomination to run away from, since many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening and the big government solutions to stem it. 

Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney — who all at one point supported steps to curb global warming pollution — have since tempered their stances. But unlike Perry, both Romney and Huntsman acknowledge the scientific evidence. 

On Wednesday, Perry promised to return regularly to a state that was not kind to a past Texas governor; Arizona Sen. John McCain upset GOP frontrunner and former Texas Gov. George W. Bush here in the 2000 presidential primary. 

For many New Hampshire voters, Wednesday offered their first close look at the longtime Texas politician, who formally launched his White House bid over the weekend. 

At the breakfast, Perry also questioned the loyalty of the Federal Reserve, just days after saying that if the Federal Reserve puts more money in the U.S. system, it could be considered a treasonous act that would be treated "pretty ugly" back home. 

He noted the criticism he took for the comment, but did not back away from them. And he called on the institution to open its books.

"It would go a long way toward either finding out whether or not there is some activities that are improper of that they've been handling themselves quite well," he said. "But until they do that, I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States." 

Perry also said he would not have signed the debt-ceiling compromise brokered by congressional leaders and the White House to avoid a national default. 

"No I would not have signed it," he said. "We got to quit spending money." 

Perry was meeting with more business leaders Wednesday before touring the seacoast region Thursday.

A fair headline that correlates accurately with the body of this article would have read “Perry is skeptical of manmade global warming.” Either this journalist was not interested in being impartial, hastily wrote the headline, or he is plain old dumb for writing such an inaccurate headline (the cause of the imprecise headline was probably journalistic bias). The clear and truthful headline that I established is ironically more succinct than the journalist’s, so conciseness was certainly not at the root of his headline choice. 

Not once in the article did Rick Perry state that he did not believe in global warming. He didn’t even state that he didn’t believe in manmade global warming. Mr. Perry simply stated that there are a group of scientists that are questioning the idea of manmade global warming as the cause of climate change. We can reasonably infer from there that Perry is skeptical of the science as well, which is why he does not believe in pouring large sums of government money into what he thinks is shaky science. Being skeptical is very different from not believing. Believing or not believing is an absolute while being skeptical leaves some wiggle room for a change in position. The article never once presents any particulars pertaining to the headline that states Rick Perry does not believe in global warming. 

Furthermore, global warming simply refers to the temperature rise across the globe which can be easily calculated by measuring and averaging temperatures. It would be completely unreasonable to disbelieve global warming over the past decade or two since all that goes into computing global warming is averaging annual temperatures and weighing those temperatures against past years. 

Anyone who did not read the complete article would think Rick Perry is completely nuts (which is about 44% of people who read the headline) as not believing in global warming goes against all reason. Perhaps this journalist chose a lengthier than necessary and, I would argue, dishonest headline in order to hurt Rick Perry's chances of being elected as the President of the United States. 

The headline of the above article is completely unfair. It is a lie. This journalist should be held accountable for such blatant smear tactics (or incompetence, take your pick). It is not fair to the public that does not have the time to fully read every article online and in the newspaper. Almost half of the people out there reading the above article are being provided with misinformation. In fact, probably more than 50% are accumulating this misinformation because many who look at the article probably won't delve into it enough to realize that the headline is inaccurate. 

The article I am using as an example is not an isolated incident. There have been many questionable headlines written in the recent past and will be as the Presidential election of 2012 nears. Conservative and Liberal journalists use this misinformation headline tactic, but let's face it, most journalists and media outlets have a Liberal bias. This means most people who read article headlines will be unfairly influenced by the Liberal point of view. I do expect some inherent bias in an article that will leak out of a journalist's subconscious, but it is clear to me that journalists (and reporters) today are knowingly using their bias to deceivingly persuade people to believe what they believe in order to push an agenda, support a political candidate, or unfairly destroy a political candidate. If you don't believe me, I'd have to ask you why Dan Rather was fired from CBS .....