Anatomy of a Biased Headline: Part IV

How is it that in this time of historic change and euphoria, the media can remain so pessimistic?

The messiah has been elected, ACORN and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie are stealing an election in Minnesota, conservatives are going to be silenced via the Fair-Less Doctrine, and gay marriage activists are assaulting the elderly. It is a time of hope and optimism in this, our liberal country.

So, why so negative?

The answer of course is, certain news might be perceived as a positive point in the waning days of the Bush Administration.

The bias, after the break…

A mere couple of days ago, headlines had been plastered all over the news networks pertaining to Barack Obama’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden. The media was salivating at the President-elect ‘ratcheting’ up the effort to hunt down bin Laden, while simultaneously taking an opportunistic swipe at Bush for downplaying the importance of such a pursuit.

With the media this gangbusters about bin Laden, wouldn’t that be the first mention in any article involving a CIA report that says he is essentially fighting for his survival? It should be the absolute crux of the headline, as Fox News and even CNN agree.

Perhaps it would be after January 19th, but certainly not prior to that. Let’s take a look at some of these ‘glass half empty’ headlines which will only continue to exist Before Obama (B.O.).

MSNBC was quick to shift focus to the negative with their headline:

CIA chief says al-Qaida still greatest threat

They then grudgingly mentioned bin Laden’s isolation in the sub-heading, though not without completely focusing on more negatives.

Bin Laden isolated but network spreading influence in Africa, Mideast

Am I reading this correctly? When Obama mentions bin Laden as a priority, while Bush maintains focus on the overall threat, then the media will fixate on bin Laden. But a report comes out like this one and the attention reverts back to al-Qaeda as a whole, while minimizing the success in destroying bin Laden?

Which is more important to the MSM, bin Laden or his terrorist network? The answer: Barack Obama. That’s not a typo.

The New York Times follows the same pattern of re-prioritizing content to match their agenda:

C.I.A. Chief Says Qaeda Is Extending Its Reach

Stunningly, there is no mention of bin Laden's struggle for survival in the article.

And the Washington Post declares:

CIA Chief: Iraq Not Main Front

In fact, the Washington Post article is such a travesty of misleading information that they fail to mention bin Laden until the second to last paragraph, and even then make no mention of the success in isolating him.

The USA Today went with a similar theme:

CIA: Al-Qaeda 'single biggest threat' to U.S.

Their article did actually mention bin Laden as a priority, but apparently not enough to give it headline status. That is only warranted when Obama mentions his name, as evidenced by their headline two days ago:

Report: Obama to focus on bin Laden capture

Pro-Obama journalism at its finest.

If George Bush had announced two days ago that he is focusing on either capturing or killing bin Laden, is there any doubt that the headline would read the following?

Bush Ignores CIA Warning of Increased Al-Qaeda Threat

Not to mention, what we would be reading had the timing of this report been different?

Would it be a reach to assume that the headlines would be singing the praises of Obama having finally succeeded in isolating bin Laden, to have him on the lamb and struggling to survive, to accomplish what Bush could not, had this report came out three months from now?

Photo Credit: AP