A new low for Star headlines, or more of the same?

by David Safier

Lighthearted? Obama is lighthearted? That's what the Star claims in its latest Creative Headline Writing effort:

Lighthearted president brings job-creation message to Tampa

Lighthearted. That means he doesn't have a care in the world. He's tiptoeing through the tulips with Tiny Tim. He's a lightweight. Who else could be lighthearted when he's a President facing the burdens facing him every day?

Except that's not what the article says, or even implies.

This headline is akin to the Republican's campaign to portray Obama as a "celebrity" like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. But that was the Republican attack machine, I expected that kind of trash. The Star is our only daily. That kind of slanted writing is an affront to reasonable journalistic standards. And it's been happening on a regular basis lately.

Before I show how the Star arrived at its headline, let's take a look at some headlines from other papers.

I only found 2 other papers which carried the same article. Their headlines are:

• He won't drop agenda, Obama tells supporters (Columbus Dispatch)
• Obama takes fight to Florida (Chicago Tribune)

The difference in tone is startling.

Plenty of other papers used different articles to write about the same story. Here are some of their headlines:

• President Barack Obama announces $832 million for high-speed rail plan (Greenbay Press Gazette)
• President cites populist roots as he pushed emphasis on economy (Washington Post)
• Obama and Biden address independent voters in Tampa (Miami Herald)
• Obama reaches out to GOP but defends his agenda (The Statesman, Texas)

The only head approaching the Star's is in the LA Times: A peppy Obama takes his message to Florida. Even here, the tone is upbeat, not derogatory. Compare "peppy" — lively, spirited — with "lighthearted" — not a care in the world. They're in different leagues.

Now, let's see how far the Star's Creative Writers had to stretch to get "lighthearted" in the headline.

Papers generally take the tone and wording of their headlines from the first paragraph. In that paragraph, you find words and phrases like "energized," "feisty," "hammering home," "plenty of political fight." All of those are strong, and certainly not demeaning. So the Star passed them by.

Instead, the paper went all the way to the third paragraph.

Though his mood was light, Obama had a clear message for those who threatened his health-care plans and who hoped to chip away at his political capital in the months leading to the fall's midterm congressional elections: He's not giving up on his agenda.

There it is. "Though his mood was light." That's an introductory clause leading up to the meat of the sentence that describes Obama's message, which is strong, even defiant. His mood was "light," the introductory clause says, showing that he still has his sense of humor and his natural resiliency. He's not "lighthearted." Huge difference.

The Star has indulged in this type of shoddy, biased journalism far too often lately. It's a disservice to its readers and an affront to serious journalism.

YOU CAN TAKE ACTION: If you agree that the Star has been using its headlines to misrepresent and distort articles about Obama (you can find similar posts here, here, here and here), you can email people at the Star and let them know what you think — any or all of the following: Debbie Kornmiller, Reader Advocate; Bobbie Jo Buel-Carter, Executive Editor; or John Humenik, Publisher and Editor.