I've been noticing for a while that the yahoo news headlines in my mail often tend to either take Bush 100% at face value or give a negative slant to Democrats. The most recent example:
Bush wary of jeopardizing Iraq gains
Granted it's an AP story, but I assume some Yahoo editor wrote the headline. And there you go - it's taken for granted both that we have actually made real gains in Iraq and that whatever course Bush is calling for is obviously out of genuine concern for "jeopardizing" those gains.
― Hurting 2, Friday, 1 February 2008 02:23 (seventeen years ago)
that's an AP headline
― and what, Friday, 1 February 2008 02:24 (seventeen years ago)
lol
― Hurting 2, Friday, 1 February 2008 02:25 (seventeen years ago)
ok, so, AP News Bias?
http://www.themongoose.co.uk/img/tinfoil/tinfoil_hat_wearers_for_bush.jpg
― Mr. Que, Friday, 1 February 2008 02:27 (seventeen years ago)
i think ap has a bias towards... i dunno, the status quo, easy narratives, whatever. ive never discerned any actual political bias towards any non-majority opinion.
― and what, Friday, 1 February 2008 02:27 (seventeen years ago)
• Obama, Clinton grow testy in one-on-one debate
• McCain now benefiting for supporting surge in Iraq
hmmmmmmm
― Pleasant Plains, Friday, 1 February 2008 02:53 (seventeen years ago)
Will More Jobless Benefits Aid The Economy? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_go_co/stimulus_jobless_benefits
Maybe I'm nitpicking but this one bothered me because the actual article provides no evidence or quotes to suggest it WOULDN'T benefit the economy, only that it faces some opposition in the Senate.
― Hurting 2, Sunday, 3 February 2008 14:37 (seventeen years ago)
"This just in: GOOGLE SUX."
― Bodrick III, Sunday, 3 February 2008 14:40 (seventeen years ago)
they've actually toned down the bias since the 2004 elections, i'd noticed it forever and thought it was common knowledge?!
― tremendoid, Sunday, 3 February 2008 21:10 (seventeen years ago)
yeah actually I used to feel like I'd see it more but now when I actually bother to start a thread I haven't seen that many egregious headlines
― Hurting 2, Sunday, 3 February 2008 21:14 (seventeen years ago)
Well, more even a year ago than now probably, not just pre-2004
WASHINGTON - In the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget, President Bush seeks to seal his legacy of promoting a strong defense to fight terrorism and tax cuts to spur the economy. Democrats, who control Congress, are pledging fierce opposition to Bush's final spending plan — perhaps even until the next president takes office.
― Hurting 2, Sunday, 3 February 2008 22:05 (seventeen years ago)
All eyes on Clinton as big vote nears (AP)
waht?
― Hurting 2, Monday, 4 February 2008 00:49 (seventeen years ago)
Big diff between the AP news writers and Yahoo. I thikn Yahoo is mainly responsible for the headlines, tho they never had a problem with running Nedra Pickler's shite.
― kingfish, Monday, 4 February 2008 00:55 (seventeen years ago)
Two of the five stories today:
Some global adversaries ready to give Obama chance (AP) (the first "adversaries" mentioned are Kim Jong Il and Castro) Issue of terrorists' rights to test Obama's pledge (AP)
not to mention in the past few days they keep running stories to the effect of "Released Terrorist Now Al Qaeda Lieutennant" and shit like that, as though to imply that it had something to do with closing Guantanamo, which it doesn't.
― Joe Bob 1 Tooth (Hurting 2), Sunday, 25 January 2009 17:06 (sixteen years ago)
AP's rightward drift may have something to do with niche marketing in a shrinking universe.
― M.V., Sunday, 25 January 2009 18:55 (sixteen years ago)
Does Yahoo News give everyone the same headlines when they open their mail or am I getting targeted ones?
― Joe Bob 1 Tooth (Hurting 2), Sunday, 25 January 2009 20:38 (sixteen years ago)
^^^ paranoid
― s1ocki, Sunday, 25 January 2009 21:14 (sixteen years ago)
Pentagon: Gitmo prisoner releases not fail safe (AP)
Really hammering that theme.
― Joe Bob 1 Tooth (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 02:18 (sixteen years ago)
A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package, a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with record foreclosures and soaring unemployment.
I know this is a case of standard 'objective' news writing, but it's not just that opponents say this; it is a move that puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with record foreclosures and soaring unemployment! Why else are they turning down the money?
― Leon Brambles (G00blar), Thursday, 19 February 2009 08:42 (sixteen years ago)
Proponents wouldn't say "ideology", which has a negative connotation; they'd call it "reason" or "values" or something.
― ----> (libcrypt), Thursday, 19 February 2009 15:05 (sixteen years ago)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainee_taliban
Further conflation of closing Guantanamo with letting high profile detainees go free.
― Bonobos in Paneradise (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 02:12 (sixteen years ago)