Not the Headlines Extra! A tale of two type sizes

An examination of newspaper headlines from around the US on the weekend interruption of the Israel/Hamas ceasefire.

www.thelisteningtube.com

Transcript

NTH  A tale of two type sizes

You may have heard that there was a brief interruption in the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.  The story is that two Israeli soldiers were killed by Hamas, so Israel retaliated.  That’s where it ended, and the ceasefire resumed.  As was claimed later, the Hamas guys who killed the Israeli soldiers didn’t know that their was a ceasefire.  Well, one way to get the word out is to eliminate those who didn’t get it the first time.  Reports are that 36 people were killed in Israeli strikes to neutralize the threat.  
Allow me to share with you some of the headlines from newspapers around the United States, and you can decide for yourself if they tell the same story I just related to you:

Washington Times;  Gaza ceasefire starts to crumble.  subhead: Israel retaliates after Hamas kills two soldiers

The Washington Times is a relatively conservative publication.  The headline is a little ominous, but the subhead sums up the event in only a few words.

There are some who try to be centrist, like the Chicago Tribune, which says Israel halts aid after fighting in Gaza  subhead:  Ceasefire holds as Netanyahu doesn't push return to war.  And, the Wisconsin State journal which says,  Renewed fighting strains ceasefire  subhead:  Hamas blames remote units;  Israel halts aid

Other headlines also mention the suspension of aid, but only the Washington Times mentions that Hamas struck first.  Other headlines from around the country clearly show a pattern of partisanship on the part of our print media, and its digital accessories.  Or at least a negative narrative of the peace deal and ceasefire and its likelihood of succeeding.  Here’s one from the Tampa Bay Times:  Israel hits Hamas, halts aid in Gaza  subhead:  Trucks stopped until further notice as renewed fighting tests the fragile ceasefire.   
Simply describing the ceasefire as fragile has a purpose.   
The Chattanooga Times Free Press was a little more optimistic when it read:  Renewed fighting tests Gaza ceasefire.  subhead  Israel briefly halts aid. 
But the Philadelphia Enquirer was much more bold in its description:  Israel briefly halts aid as fighting restarts.  subhead:   The ceasefire shows signs of fraying as accusations are traded, escalating into deadly Israeli airstrikes.  If you only read the headline, you would believe that Israel dropped bombs on people and stopped all aid without any provocation but accusations.  
The Portage Daily Register (WI):  Renewed fighting tests fragile ceasefire.  subhead:  Israel briefly halts aid to Gaza amid deadly strikes. It doesn’t blame anyone specific for the deadly strikes, and makes the interruption of aid the main story.  You have to read the story to find out that the fighting isn’t continuing, as the headline might lead you to believe, and that aid had been resumed.  
The Dallas Morning News was more to the point:  Truce restarts after attacks.  subhead  Israel says peace, aid to resume after airstrikes kill 26.  
Yes, there is a discrepancy in the number of people killed.

Roanoke Times (VA):  Ceasefire tested as fighting renews.  subhead:  Health officials said at least 36 palestinians were killed.  It doesn’t mention that two Israeli soldiers were killed.

Minnesota star tribune:  Top story:  Israeli attacks shake ceasefire.  If that’s all you read, and that’s all you think you need to know, and it simply confirms what you suspected or hoped would happen, then you have no reason to read the subhead:  Gaza aid also temporarily halted after Israel says Hamas broke truce by shooting soldiers.  That sounds fair on the surface, but the headline would imply the Israeli attacks are confirmed while the shooting of Israeli soldiers by Hamas is an allegation.  It’s a subtle difference, but it matters.
 Some of the country’s headlines were more to the point:

Arizona Daily Star:  Israel strikes targets in Gaza

Washington Post:  Israeli strikes hit Gaza days into truce  subhead;  Dozens killed after IDF says it responded to alleged Hamas violation.  A violation?  Two Israeli soldiers were killed, and the Washington Post calls it an alleged violation.

Reporter Times in Martinsville, IN:  Israeli military launches series of attacks on Gaza  subhead  Hopes dim for lasting peace after ceasefire deal    same exact headline on Times Mail in BEdford, IN

 Citizen Times of Ashville NC:  Ceasefire hopes dim as Israel launches more attacks

Here’s the bottom line:  America’s reporters on the ground are doing a pretty good job of bringing the facts of the story to the editors.  But it’s the editors who write the headlines, not the reporters.  There was a time when a headline was meant to get your attention.  It was a reason to read the story.  But now, headlines are written to get you to skip the story.  The headline along with the subheadline sums up everything a busy person on the go needs to know about the story.  That’s why we have the media, right?  To sum it all up for us?  Well, yes.  And it is, by some pretty good reporters.  Not all of them have an agenda.  For those who do, the headline makes their point anyway, and the editor is happy for the content.  But even if an independent-minded reporter submits a well-written and comprehensive story, the editor can still cut content under the pretense of space, and also may write a headline that is vaguely related to the content but tells a different story altogether.
In this case, newspapers nationwide chose to vilify Israel, cast doubt on the peace process in place, and sought to generate sympathy for one side while ignoring the fact that the whole thing was over in a matter of hours and started with the killing of two Israeli soldiers, violating the ceasefire.  All by the way they wrote the headline.  Counting on you to not learn the whole story.