I like dead people. Also tea.
If I might humbly observe:The three headlines are certainly different, and the contrast between the British/Arab versions and the American version is particularly striking - but the majority version is not necessarily right and the minority version is not necessarily wrong. Criticism and praise can both be equally biased, after all.It would be interesting to know more about which reporters are covering the story for their respective countries, whether there is a news service working behind the headlines, whether the two similar headlines are the result of two individual writers coming to the same conclusions independent of each other or whether they are the result of two individual writers relying on the same wire service to say the same thing, etc., etc., etc.And, of course, it would be particularly interesting to have the text of the Pope's own talk for the purposes of deciding which of these two emphases does most justice to his words, or whether there is some third, fourth, or fifth emphasis that everyone is leaving out.
I did not mean to imply one was right and one was wrong! What I meant to suggest was that the rest of the world may see things differently than we do in the U.S. and we would be wise to remember that.
Does it speak to the power of headlines, journalism and the need for individuals to be more discerning instead of the often knee jerk reaction? I agree with LKT: we must always consider those who may see things differently, culturally or otherwise.
I am perhaps belaboring the point to say that all of the headlines are "right" in terms of accuracy; the thing that interests me is what they choose to emphasize and what those suggest both about the writers and the intended audiences.I think it's worth pointing out, too, that it's not just the headlines that are different. The two international papers featured pictures of Pope Benedict with Castro; the US paper showed Pope Benedict in the middle of presiding at the mass.I just find it interesting, is all.
Post a Comment