[PREV - KENNEDYS_CONSCIENCE]    [TOP]

FROM_BOTH_SIDES_NOW

                                               January 25, 2008
                                        Rev:   January 24, 2010

On the art of working both sides of
one's mouth at the same time...             Bicameral
                                            ventriliquism.
   There was a political tactic
   invented by some campaign manager
   genius (I forget which one... we
   have so damn many, after all):

   Target ads *outside* of the
   media centers, so the
   opposition doesn't hear about
   them until it's too late.


That came to mind one day when I
noticed that the New York Times
sometimes uses different                   There are days when it
headlines in it's on-line edition          seems like you could hold
from the ones I see on the stands          a contest:
in the print edition.
                                                Can you figure out what
                                                the New York Times is
                                                trying to say?

This was on January 24, 2008.

The front page headline was:            The on-line version is:

  "Bush, Pressing Modest                 "In Address, Bush
  Agenda, Insists U.S. Must              Insists U.S. Must Not
  Not Fail in Iraq"                      Fail in Iraq"


Having listened to "Democracy
Now" on the subject, I was
wondering how "doubling-down"
in Iraq could possibly
constitute a "Modest Agenda".

Reading the story provides an
explanation of a sort:

   [ref]

   By David E. Sanger and Jim Rutenberg
   Washington, Jan. 23

   President Bush tried to resuscitate his ailing
   presidency Tuesday night, using his State of the Union
   address to present a modest agenda of energy and health
   care proposals while warning an increasingly assertive
   Congress against undercutting his new Iraq strategy.

If you read the first sentence, the headline
means one thing to you... but if you *don't*
read it, you're left with the vague
impression that Bush's new Iraq policy is not
a big deal ("Modest" = "Moderate").

So, the question would then be: is this intentional?

Perhaps a sign of different factions inside the
paper?  The writer going one way, and the headline
editor going the other way?


I've seen the Hearst SF Chronicle
do things like this, too...

   The headline alone gives a certain spin that
   seems outrageous, so you read the article,
   and then the spin seems to go away, it leaves
   you feeling like you misread the headline
   slightly.

   You need to remember that most people didn't
   read the article, and the spin is really
   there as far as everyone else is concerned.




--------
[NEXT - SMALL_TIMES]