SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
All the News That's Fit to Rewrite. (Photo: flickr/cc/Alexander Torrenegra)
New York Times Rewrites Gaza Headline: Was It Too Accurate?
Wednesday (7/16/14) the New York Times posted its first account of the Israeli strike that killed four young Palestinians on a beach in Gaza. The headline looked like this:
Jul 18, 2014
Wednesday (7/16/14) the New York Times posted its first account of the Israeli strike that killed four young Palestinians on a beach in Gaza. The headline looked like this:
That headline appropriately conveys the horrors witnessed and documented by the Times reporters.
But at some point-around 9:00 pm, according to the website Newsdiffs-the headline was changed to the version that appears on the front page of the New York Times on Thursday: "Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife."
Was there something wrong with noting in the headline that the boys were killed? Do readers learn more being told they were "drawn into strife"?
Headlines are one very prominent way that news stories are framed. In this case, it does a disservice to the reporting underneath.
There's a television equivalent to a headline-the information an anchor provides to introduce a piece. The NBC Nightly News Wednesday night (7/16/14) led with Gaza, and the segment by Richard Engel was vivid and powerful. But anchor Brian Williams' introduction included this comment:
When Hamas launches rockets from Gaza, Israel hits back.
Like the Times, that set-up does a disservice to the story that it introduces-and serves to instruct viewers that Israel's strikes should be thought of as retaliatory, laying ultimate responsibility on Palestinians for their own deaths.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Wednesday (7/16/14) the New York Times posted its first account of the Israeli strike that killed four young Palestinians on a beach in Gaza. The headline looked like this:
That headline appropriately conveys the horrors witnessed and documented by the Times reporters.
But at some point-around 9:00 pm, according to the website Newsdiffs-the headline was changed to the version that appears on the front page of the New York Times on Thursday: "Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife."
Was there something wrong with noting in the headline that the boys were killed? Do readers learn more being told they were "drawn into strife"?
Headlines are one very prominent way that news stories are framed. In this case, it does a disservice to the reporting underneath.
There's a television equivalent to a headline-the information an anchor provides to introduce a piece. The NBC Nightly News Wednesday night (7/16/14) led with Gaza, and the segment by Richard Engel was vivid and powerful. But anchor Brian Williams' introduction included this comment:
When Hamas launches rockets from Gaza, Israel hits back.
Like the Times, that set-up does a disservice to the story that it introduces-and serves to instruct viewers that Israel's strikes should be thought of as retaliatory, laying ultimate responsibility on Palestinians for their own deaths.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Wednesday (7/16/14) the New York Times posted its first account of the Israeli strike that killed four young Palestinians on a beach in Gaza. The headline looked like this:
That headline appropriately conveys the horrors witnessed and documented by the Times reporters.
But at some point-around 9:00 pm, according to the website Newsdiffs-the headline was changed to the version that appears on the front page of the New York Times on Thursday: "Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife."
Was there something wrong with noting in the headline that the boys were killed? Do readers learn more being told they were "drawn into strife"?
Headlines are one very prominent way that news stories are framed. In this case, it does a disservice to the reporting underneath.
There's a television equivalent to a headline-the information an anchor provides to introduce a piece. The NBC Nightly News Wednesday night (7/16/14) led with Gaza, and the segment by Richard Engel was vivid and powerful. But anchor Brian Williams' introduction included this comment:
When Hamas launches rockets from Gaza, Israel hits back.
Like the Times, that set-up does a disservice to the story that it introduces-and serves to instruct viewers that Israel's strikes should be thought of as retaliatory, laying ultimate responsibility on Palestinians for their own deaths.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.