LA Times using headlines to give False Perceptions

[Truth Detector]

No bias in the mainstream drive-by media? This article from the LA Times is the epitome of the efforts of the media and news journals to give false perceptions.

After reading four paragraphs into the article the ONLY thing one can surmise is what is the point of this story?

Here was the headline:

Marine suicides in 2008 at a yearly high since Iraq invasion
Forty-one active-duty Marines are possible or confirmed suicides for the year.

Now this gives one the immediate impression that because of the stress of the war in Iraq, Marine suicide rates are UP!

Here is the by-line:

The rate per 100,000 troops remains about the same due to the Corps' increased size, a report says.

It remained the same?? So then what is the point of this article and such inflammatory headlines?

But it gets better.....in the fourth paragraph into the article you read the following:

The Marine suicide rate is still below that for civilian populations with similar demographics -- 19.5 per 100,000.

That's right people; the Marine suicide rate is LOWER by THREE percent than the regular civilian population.

Now look back at the headlines and try to explain to me the purpose of such a story. Could it be that the media know most readers rarely get past the headlines and wish to sensationalize data that is mundane?

So let me correct the headlines to fit the story better: "Marine suicide rates are still far lower than civilian rates even accounting for the stress of serving in Iraq" But alas, this headline is too factual and not sensational enough to grab people who hate our military lemming like attention.

Yep, there is NO bias in the journalistic efforts of the mainstream drive-by media; it is a figment of paranoid neocon's right?

Carry on; you now have MORE information about what we mean by bias in the media.

Marine suicides in 2008 at a yearly high since Iraq invasion - Los Angeles Times

 

[PeteEU]

I dont see the problem. Newspapers use this "trick" all the time, so that people will pick up the paper and read. The headline aint factually wrong after all.... they aint telling a lie.

 

[Jessica]

I dont see the problem. Newspapers use this "trick" all the time, so that people will pick up the paper and read. The headline aint factually wrong after all.... they aint telling a lie.

Here's a headline for you:

 

[niftydrifty]

The thread title told me about "headlines." The OP talks about only one story.

The OP goes on to talk about media, plural. But the conclusion about the media is based upon only one story in one paper. Furthermore, nothing in the article is untrue, and it speaks about how the military is doing what it can to help the troops.

I feel jipped. I have been misled. This thread has given false perceptions.

If you want an example of real bias, here ya go...

Obama gets a crisis 'test run' - Los Angeles Times

The LA Times baselessly suggested that Obama had anything to do with the Blagojevich scandal. There's the Liberal elite for ya... they'll print anything for a buck.

 

[Dezaad]

The media have a bias toward the sensational, because that's what creates interest, thereby selling newspapers or capturing the eyeballs of television viewers, thereby selling advertising, thereby making a profit.

If you concentrate on that fact whenever you read articles, you will, after a while, end up feeling completely manipulated.

 

[DAR]

The media have a bias toward the sensational, because that's what creates interest, thereby selling newspapers or capturing the eyeballs of television viewers, thereby selling advertising, thereby making a profit.

You hit the nail on the head. Couple all that with hiked up skirts, plunging necklines and really pretty (albeit plastic-y) looking "journalists" and you have the recipe for wildly successful* TV news media. The most significant bias in any commercial news media is toward ratings (or listeners tuned in, or copies sold, or website hits; whatever the case may be).

Regards,
DAR

* This assumes that "success" is determined by ratings and revenue, rather than journalistic quality and integrity.

 

[Truth Detector]

The thread title told me about "headlines." The OP talks about only one story.

The OP goes on to talk about media, plural. But the conclusion about the media is based upon only one story in one paper. Furthermore, nothing in the article is untrue, and it speaks about how the military is doing what it can to help the troops.

I feel jipped. I have been misled. This thread has given false perceptions.

If you want an example of real bias, here ya go...

Obama gets a crisis 'test run' - Los Angeles Times

The LA Times baselessly suggested that Obama had anything to do with the Blagojevich scandal. There's the Liberal elite for ya... they'll print anything for a buck.

You are feeling "jipped" because you refuse to allow your mind to come out of the myopic world you formed for it. You are also feeling “jipped" because you glossed over my comments: No bias in the mainstream drive-by media? This article from the LA Times is the epitome of the efforts of the media and news journals to give false perceptions.

Of course you are wrong about this thread and I will tell you why; because you attempt to pretend this is the ONLY article where mainstream media distort the FACTS with headlines that suggest something that the body of the story does not contain.

To compound the feeling of being "jipped", you are also in denial that the public actually reads much past the first or second paragraph. But to further you denial, you also feel "jipped" by believing that the media doesn't know that the lemming like uninformed public ever read past the headlines or through the second paragraph.

As I stated above, is the LA Times wanted to have a factual story headline it would have read: "Marine suicide rates are still far lower than civilian rates even accounting for the stress of serving in Iraq"

Now go out there and open up that closed mind of yours lest you "jip" yourself again.

 

[American]

Did someone mention getting head?