There are a lot of people who seldom read beyond the headlines, either because of lack of time, lack of interest, or even a belief that they can glean the facts from just those few words. And sometimes that belief is correct . . . but not often. Because a headline can be — whether intentionally or not — misleading. And sometimes they’re just wrong. Case in point: Most of us are not old enough to remember this one from 1948, though it is well preserved in the annals of U.S. history:

No, there never was a President Thomas E. Dewey. In 1948, the incumbent, Harry S. Truman — who had stepped up to the job when FDR passed away — iwas re-elected and served until 1952, when he was succeeded by Dwight D. Eisenhower. But the odds, and the polls, had been so strongly in Dewey’s favor that the newspapers were comfortable with printing the aticipated “results” ahead of time. Lesson learned.

But headlines can be very helpful in guiding us to the articles that most interest us, and in giving us a sense of what’s happening in the world today. Unfortunately, what’s happening in the world isn’t always what we’d like to hear. And, also unfortunately, the article doesn’t always match the headline. But let’s look at some examples from just the first few days of this new year.

*. *. *

First Headline: “Trump, potential VP pick and former actress swarm Iowa ahead of caucuses.” [CBS News, Jan. 4, 2024.] I try to avoid the subject of U.S. politics as much as possible, but this one caught my eye because of the mention of a potential VP choice and a “former actress.” (Also, I’m not sure three people really constitute a “swarm,” but I’ll chalk that up to the Trump team’s well-known preference for gross exaggeration.) So I opened the article and found that, besides his son Eric, Trump had converged on Iowa with South Dakota governor Kristi Noem and . . . oh, my God, no! . . . say it isn’t . . . it can’t be . . . but it is! It’s Roseanne Barr!! Loud, coarse, insulting, vulgar, every-other-word-out-of-her-mouth-is-an-obscenity, Roseanne Barr.

Ordinarily, I would have some sort of comment here, but I am — to use my favorite British-ism — gobsmacked. Just when you think Trump can’t possibly sink any lower . . . Okay, I’m edging preciously close to a comment here, and I really don’t want to do that. But . . . Oh! My! God!

Bottom line: There really is none. We’ve already hit bottom.

*. *. *

Second Headline: “Will Putin agree to a Ukraine ceasefire in 2024?” [Harriet Marsden, The Week UK, Jan. 3, 2024.] Here we have a question that just compels you to read further for an answer — if you’re interested, that is. And who isn’t interested in the war in Ukraine, right? Plus . . . great picture!

So I started reading. First was a report of the most recent carnage in Kyiv and other parts of Ukraine, quoting Financial Times, BBC News, and President Volodymyr Zelensky. Then a month-old quote from the New York Times: “[Putin is] buoyed by Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive and flagging Western support. . . . [But] in a recent push of back-channel diplomacy . . . [he] has been sending a different message. He is ready to make a deal.” Then there was mention of undated comments to the New York Times by two unnamed senior Russian officials to the effect that Putin had been “signalling” that he was “open to a ceasefire that freezes the fighting along the current lines, far short of his ambitions to dominate Ukraine.”

Then it continues with assurances that Putin intends to pursue his “special military operation” until his goals are met, countered by reports of a survey that “revealed that those who favour peace far outnumber pro-war voices.” [Euronews, Dec. 2023 – no exact date.] And “a grass-roots movement has been ‘gaining momentum’ recently.” [The Guardian, undated.]

And so it goes: he needs a ceasefire; he won’t cede any territory; but this is an opportune moment; but maybe he should wait until Trump is elected; but the Russian election is coming up in a couple of months . . .

Bottom line: That enticing question in the headline that drew me into the article in the first place remains unanswered. In fact, I’m more confused now than ever. But the art was good.

*. *. *

Third Headline: “Iran Explosions.” As of 6:26 a.m. EST, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2024, CNN reported that “Iran has vowed revenge on Israel after blaming the country for twin blasts that killed dozens Wednesday in the Iranian city of Kerman.” My reaction: “Oh, that’s bad! That’s really bad!”

At 11:49 a.m. EST, same day, CNN issued an urgent update:

“News Alert: ISIS claims responsibility for deadliest attack in Iran since 1979 revolution.”

My reaction: “Still really bad, but at least it was ‘just’ another one of those internal religious things, and not Israel going bonkers.”

Bottom line: While both CNN reports were accurate as of the time they were issued, it’s always best for the reader to wait for the full report. And even the second one pointed out that the ISIS claim of responsibility hadn’t yet been positively confirmed. So you probably shouldn’t take every news flash at face value.

*. *. *

Fourth (and final) Headline: “Here’s why MAGA politicians are deflecting hard & getting VERY NERVOUS about that Epstein List.” [Pride, Jan. 3, 2024.]

You know what? I’m going to let you search that one out for yourselves. It’s just way too tempting . . .

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
1/5/24