Bill,

You comported youreself with grace and fairness. I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Bouffard, after all, is a liberal. So even though he wasn't willing to sacrifice his credibility in his area of expertise, I don't find it in the least surprising that he'd be willing to excuse that part of the media that echoes his ideology.

Misleading headlines, to conservatives, are lies.

For liberals, misleading headlines, or slogans, or stump speeches, or even Actions (Kerry's 20+ year voting record) are never lies so long as they are mixed in with some truths, or even just some PERCEIVED truths.

To be fair, the tendency to excuse those who share one's ideology extends to quite a few conservatives as well.

I like to think that the new breed of conservatism that people like you respresent, tend to be less excusing of lies.

And I think the actions of conservatives in general, vis-a-vis our broad repudiation of the statements that forced Trent Lott to step down from his house leader position, shows that as a group we tend to apply our moral code more fairly.

Hmm. Headlines don't matter? What if the headline starts "John Kerry linked to Forgery" and the story says, 10 paragraphs down, that John Kerry probably had nothing to do with the forgery. Maybe that's fair by Globe standards.

If the Globe had half a brain they'd hire an investigative reporter like you... though I doubt seriously that you'd work for that rag.

Bullshit. Seperating the two as distinctly different animals is bullshit. The craziest headline ever written: "Headless Body in Topless Bar" was based on the body copy. (God Bless the NY Post's headline writers from back then!)

You use the head to say "hey, check this thing out!" You don't then talk about a different version of this in relation to thing.

"[Bouffard]believes the documents could have been prepared [on a selectric Composer]" is misleading (and I thing deliberately so, considering the headline.)

They were deliberately trying to twist what he said into "he believed the composer was affirmitively capable of producing the memos in disputed. The headline in conjunction with this phrasing certainly gived this impression.

He believed it was possible the composer *might* have been able to produce a similar document, and needed to review the evidence.

The correction they wrote does nothing to correct the false impression they tried to leave with the reader.

"The story quoted one analyst saying that the documents could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s.

He said no such thing.

He was just saying that machine hadn't been ruled out yet as being capable of producing a similar document.

He never said that the typewriter could produce the documents, in the important sense of the "composer typewriter was capable of producing the the documents."
It might have been, he wasn't sure yet.

The Globe, with it's choice of headline, deliberately tried to deceive the reader into thinking Bouffard was sure the typewriter was capable of making the documents.

I sometimes feel sorry for the headline-writers when there's not much meat to the story (e.g., "So-and-so Evokes Gladness, Tears"), but this is not such a case.

bottom line:

bouffard says definitively that selectric composer couldn't be used to make the docs.

globe escapes with its skin.

meanwhile the vultures start swirling around cbs, while dan rather starts screaming..."wait! i'm not dead...yet...".

Bingo.

I, too, can't separate the headline from the content, but I once had an experience with a reporter whose article contradicted the headline. He told me that the headline belongs to the editor and that he's not responsible for it. I still don't buy it, but I thought I'd pass that one experience along, just in case that was indicative of how journalists think.

That is correct. the reporter doesn't write the headline. It doesn't excuse the Globe.

"gived" this impression? I am havingmore that the usual finger slippage today.

The reporter's responsible for using ambiguous language that confused people and gave a false impression.

Yay to Bouffard for stating plainly to you the composer is off the table.

Yeah, I have written a number of reporters slamming them on their headlines that don't match the body of the article - every time they have said "not my fault, headlines are written by the editors". Newspaper people are so buried in their profesion that they always seem shocked that I don't know this, so he may legitimately be bent out of shape that you don't know the difference.

Nevertheless, this only makes it worse for the Globe. The lowly reporter got it right, but the senior people (the editors) screwed up.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning...

It smells like... VICTORY!

;)

From a journalist's perspective, it's true that most often headlines are written without the advice or consent of the writer. BUT, I was trained - and train students - to put a "proposed" headline on the top of any story they submit. That way, they can help guide the copy editors into selecting a headline that actually fits the story. It doesn't always happen, though.

But to claim that the headline is not at all important is likewise rubbish. The vast majority of readers NEVER READ the story, but only headlines. Even those who read stories are only likely to read the first 2-3 graphs. A small minority reads the entire story.

In short, for most people, the headline is the story, which makes the Globe headline even more damaging.

Headlines are typically written by the city editor or copy editor.

--|PW|--

As pennywit said, the reporter who writes the story doesn't usually write the headline. An editor usually does.

This typically involves looking at the first paragraph and turning an active sentence from it into a headline.