Actual news Headlines vs Fox News Headlines.

[Wolfy]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines

...Thats...that's some interesting stuff...

Seriously, why do people still trust fox news anymore? @_@

[TheGlyphstone]

Shouldn't this be in P+R?

[Kunoichi]

I think that depends on whether they're real or fake.

You have to admit, some of them look a little outrageous...

[Brandon]

People who have an issue with a certain business or group will often find the absolute worst they can to smear said group. That said a lot of the claims seem a little out there but its meaningless to me, I dont watch fox news. Neither do I watch Rachael Madow or other highly politically slanted news organizations

[TheGlyphstone]

The one about the fundraisers, in particular.... It's the only one in the list that isn't even a right-wing "rephrasing"/distortion - it's word-for-word the same, plus an extra slant to appeal to Fox's viewerbase. If it weren't there, the article would make much more sense, but including it gives the whole thing a 'Bash-Fox-for-being-conservative' slant rather than the intended 'Fox-lies-in-its-headlines' message.


Overall, just more evidence that the only news worth watching is John Stewart and Steven Colbert.

[gaggedLouise]

The one about the fundraisers, in particular.... It's the only one in the list that isn't even a right-wing "rephrasing"/distortion - it's word-for-word the same, plus an extra slant to appeal to Fox's viewerbase. If it weren't there, the article would make much more sense, but including it gives the whole thing a 'Bash-Fox-for-being-conservative' slant rather than the intended 'Fox-lies-in-its-headlines' message.


Overall, just more evidence that the only news worth watching is John Stewart and Steven Colbert.

I'd agree that one stands out a bit, it's not necessarily bizarre in itself to dislike a candidate because he seems to be overly concerned with getting campaign money or rubbing elbows with the rich. But there are some hidden sides to the issue too, that Fox just won't acknowledge. Bush, when in office, was very firmly against any laws that would force candidates to disclose where they got their campaign funding. And also, he was very much a guy who came from the upper class and there was a steady perception among many people that he was blinkered by it (Katrina, tax policies etc) and doing the business of the rich. While Obama was seen as, in many ways, a candidate for those who didn't have a rich family, a long education or a year's wages in the bank to rely on. So you could conjecture that Bush wouldn't have needed near as many fundraisers - he'd get financing anyway -  and never really bothered to create that kind of support, because he was not the kind of guy who actually comes out to the people and engages with them, all through the term. I might be shielded by my own sympathies here, I admit that, but I still think those perceptions are part of the subtext to the wording in that headline and what is not said in it.

Then the rest of the bunch really are amazing. "Muslims cattle brand prostitutes", "AP: Obama has a big problem with white women" - not my idea of decent headlines, haha!

[Oniya]

Then the rest of the bunch really are amazing. "Muslims cattle brand prostitutes", "AP: Obama has a big problem with white women" - not my idea of decent headlines, haha!

The one about white women is also a prime example of how a headline can be distorting.  It's not that Obama has a problem with white women, the way that I have a problem with liver and onions; but that the poll results show that the white female demographic isn't as supportive of Obama. 

[Sabby]

Some of the comments were gut bursting.

Actual News Headline: Obama walks on water.

Fox News Headline: Like most negroes, Obama can't swim.

[gaggedLouise]

Makes me think of some of the headlines in the recent burst of bad publicity and, frankly, campaign hournalism,  concerning the King here. Support for the monarchy, and for the royal family, is very strong in Sweden, though everyone knows the king or queen regnant doesn't wield any solid power, and last year, when a trio of journalists put out a book that was billed as "the secret history of the monarch" (=all the gossip you didn't previously get to hear about the king, unless you're an old reporter yourself) it became a bit of a succès de scandale. Much of the content was decades-old rumours of love affairs with actresses and models, fried up again and not much research added, but the allegations that, in time, really made the shit hit the fan, were that some high-society friends of the monarch had taken him to "secret parties at strip clubs" and - of course - orgies, in Stockholm and abroad. Some of these clubs were being run by gangsters, not very odd really: who hasn't heard of flash restos and nightclubs with mob connections? The actual connection of those places with gangsters seems clear, it wasn't denied by anyone. The idea that the king had been there and had been having hot nights there was a lot more spurious.

The only supposed evidence of these stories consisted in interview statements by said godfathers and torpedoes (men of the "Yugo mafia") and purportedly existing (not so far published) photos of the currently 65-year old monarch at a table with some half-nude serving girl popping up in a corner of the room. The court and king first tried to ignore and then denied anything unseemly had taken place. So far it looks like a winning-out strategy but there's been a huge amount of low-class sensation/campaign journalism and editorializing, with very flimsy limits between the news stuff and the subjective, or biased, comment, even in papers that ranked as somewhat classy. It's been presented in a way that more or less took it for granted that if the gangsters running these restaurants and clubs say this stuff happened and say pictures exist, then we should believe them hands down and so the pics do exist, though nobody's seen them and no one's had a chance to check if they might have been doctored. Uh, what great journalism! (Personally, I am not really for the monarchy, but I think if one is going for abolishing it, it should be for much more solid and politically valid reasons than this.)

Anyway, after this "the-king-partying-with-strippers-and-the-Serb-mob" had been running the newsstands for some time, one of the morning papers put out this big black headline: "DRAMATIC DROP IN POPULAR SUPPORT FOR THE KING - Only 7 percent!" Reading the article, you found out that the share of people who think the king is doing a good or very good service to the nation had dropped from 62 to 57 percent since the last gallup on this, six months before. The headline cropping of the number was a lesson in how to create a dramatic and unfair sticker: 7 percent above the majority mark. Wow! (of course the article was illustrated with an equally xcropped diagram, making it look like the years before the French revolution)  :D

My bet on the whole affair is that some people in the media who want to see a republic feel that they have to grab the window of opportunity now. The crown princess (a very popular young lady) married last year and once she bears a few princes and princesses, support for the royal family will hit the roof again.