New York's ( “All the news that helps Obama”) Times headlines at its blog The Caucus:
Obama Strikes Back With Negative AdvertisementNYT follows with a story which begins:
As the campaigning for the Indiana and North Carolina primaries comes to a close, the Democratic presidential candidates are letting loose on one another over the TV airwaves.The rest of the story’s here.
Just hours after Hillary Rodham Clinton revealed a new advertisement attacking Barack Obama for not supporting a gas tax holiday, the Obama camp is hitting back with a negative spot called “Hometown.”
Mr. Obama’s advertisement accuses Mrs. Clinton of ...
The NYT's headline could have been:
Obama Lashes Out With Negative AdOr this:
Clinton, Obama Air Negative AdsThat last headline favors neither candidate. It's what headline writers called "a neutral." It recognizes that both candidates have been running negative ads.
The Obama Lashes Out With Negative Ad headline would've been more accurate in this particular case. Obama was responding to a Clinton ad and he surely was lashing out.
But only the Obama Strikes Back With Negative Advertisement headline presented an excuse for Obama’s running the ad by putting the blame on the Clinton campaign for a negative ad to which Obama stuck back.
That The Times, at the end of a hotly contested campaign, would use the headline it did instead of a neutral headline I think is telling.
How about you?