Wow, NYT… Really?

[MrScorpio]

[bravenak]

1. Whoa!!

Next headline- Should we use immigrants as slaves?

[Dawson Leery]

2. WTH is this from the Times? Breitbart? Drudge?

[mshasta]

3. they keep it up!

...adding more gasoline to the fire!!!


fuckers.. ..

[elleng]

4. No, NOT really. Headline:When Immigrants Lose Their Human Rights.

President Obama’s recent initiative on immigration has reignited the national debate on the issue. This interview, the first in a series on political topics, discusses philosophical ideas that underlie this debate. My interviewee is Joseph Carens, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He immigrated to Canada from the United States in 1985 at the age of 40 and is a citizen of both the United States and Canada. He is the author of “The Ethics of Immigration.” — Gary Gutting

GARY GUTTING: In your recent book, you talk a lot about the rights of people to immigrate or to remain in a country after they’ve immigrated. What would you say to those who think that immigration policy should instead focus on the right of a country to decide who gets to live there? They might agree that there are extreme situations — say the threat of genocide — in which people have a right to immigrate, but generally, they’d say, the citizens of a country have a right to decide who they want to take into their community. How do you respond to that position?

JOSEPH CARENS: I think this way of posing the question confuses two issues. The first is the question of who ought to have the authority to decide what a policy will be. The second is whether that policy is morally acceptable. Someone can have the right to make a decision and can still make a decision that is morally wrong. Let’s assume for the moment that the citizens of a country have a moral and legal right to determine who they will take into their country. It doesn’t follow that whatever they decide is morally defensible. Even apart from the question of people fleeing genocide, I think everyone today would agree that it would be morally wrong to exclude people on the basis of race or religion.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Look at the text of my link (post #5) and the original headline reference is still there.

[elleng]

10. Yes, they changed it, fortunately.

Something about headline writers often get the story/picture wrong. Maybe they're interns, practicing??? That one's NOT going to get the job permanently, imo.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Since it is holiday time

probably an intern! Or I would hope.

[JonLP24]

22. Headline writers try to draw viewers

Sometimes the real story or picture isn't as interesting or controversial. Writing headlines that grab the reader's attention is the goal, everything else is secondary. Can't blame it on interns as this is something widely taught in journalism schools.

Though there is another approach aimed at the same results

JOURNALISTS over the years have assumed they were writing their headlines and articles for two audiences — fickle readers and nitpicking editors. Today, there is a third important arbiter of their work: the software programs that scour the Web, analyzing and ranking online news articles on behalf of Internet search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN.

The search-engine "bots" that crawl the Web are increasingly influential, delivering 30 percent or more of the traffic on some newspaper, magazine or television news Web sites. And traffic means readers and advertisers, at a time when the mainstream media is desperately trying to make a living on the Web.

So news organizations large and small have begun experimenting with tweaking their Web sites for better search engine results. But software bots are not your ordinary readers: They are blazingly fast yet numbingly literal-minded. There are no algorithms for wit, irony, humor or stylish writing. The software is a logical, sequential, left-brain reader, while humans are often right brain.

In newspapers and magazines, for example, section titles and headlines are distilled nuggets of human brainwork, tapping context and culture. "Part of the craft of journalism for more than a century has been to think up clever titles and headlines, and Google comes along and says, 'The heck with that,' " observed Ed Canale, vice president for strategy and new media at The Sacramento Bee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/weekinreview/09lohr.html?pagewanted=all

Odd that I found "This boring headline is written for Google" on Google.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Someone there realized the lunatic headline and they changed it

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/should-immigrants-lose-their-human-rights/?_r=0

THE STONE
When Immigrants Lose Their Human Rights
By GARY GUTTING and JOSEPH CARENS NOVEMBER 25, 2014 7:30 PMNovember 25, 2014 7:30 pm 125 Comments

[elleng]

11. Thanks for posting NYT 'correction,' BumTRushDaShow.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. No problem!

This certainly woke me up this afternoon!

[elleng]

16. Me too!

Could live without such a brusque wake up!

[Dirty Socialist]

6. That's what the Statue of Bigotry says

N/t

[cyberswede]

7. What the actual fuck?

[Scurrilous]

9. As a subscriber and daily reader might I add that the NYT, by and large, sucks the big one.

Liberal media my @#$.

[Sheepshank]

12. Why should the NY Times be concerned over these types of comments?

this is not a group of voters. Some of them will have a status updated to "resident" and still won't be able to vote. Likley any family member currently a citizen is already voting D......they have nothing to lose by being RW assholes.

[still_one]

13. From the paper that brought you WMDs in Iraq, another wonderful call

[frazzled]

17. That's not what it says when I go to the piece

which by the way, is not an article in the NYT, it's an interview conducted on an opinion blog on the Times's website. At any rate, it reads:

When immigrants lose their human rights

And it's a pro-immigrant, pro-human rights piece (on the part of the interviewee).

[BumRushDaShow]

23. The original headline was changed

See post #5 where I included the original story link that shows where the earlier poorly-shortened headline may have come from.

[frazzled]

26. If you read the interview, the original headline was fine

I don't know why people are all oohing and aahing over a headline. When read in conjunction with the story, it expresses the debate that has gone on in this country regarding undocumented individuals for decades. And it's on the right side of the issue.

I'm more surprised at the jump-on-the-bandwagon herd mentality here. I guess some people are only interested in playing gotcha, even if it means petty criticism of a headline on a blog, pulled out of context, that really wasn't all that horrendous to begin with if read with the story. But they don't want to know what the story was about. It's just a chance to say "lookee over there!"

[BumRushDaShow]

28. I have been a NYT subscriber since 1976

and when it comes to newsprint, headlines matter... Given the subject matter and the sustained attacks on current immigrants by RW loons, many of whom are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants themselves, then that headline was tabloid. The NYT is not supposed to be an elementary school newspaper where the children wouldn't know any better. IMHO, if you think that original headline was fine vs something like "Should Immigrants have Constitutional rights?", which is what the debate has been about in this country, then I vehemently disagree with your dismissal of the distinction. I read the article but did so after that screenshot of the original headline was made.

When you witness what happens with Borowitz or The Onion articles posted here, then you can see why context in headlines is critical.

[frazzled]

29. Me too

I've gotten the dead-tree version delivered to my door for more than 35 years. This was an online "opinionator" blog, not an article in the paper. The question being posed in that headline was answered "yes" in the article; many in society say "no." It was nothing to get your knickers in a knot over, and it was not expressing an opinion. Should the headline have been better? Sure. Fortunately, with the Internet, editing happens continuously. There is never any room for an "oops" in hard print journalism.

Do you imagine that millions of people read that headline and decided the New York Times thinks immigrants rights are questionable? You'd be wrong on the first count (the number of people) and most likely on the second. Most people who dig as deeply into the website to find a blog interview like that actually read it. And so they were not fooled one bit.

But lo and behold, some smartass takes a screenshot and tries to start a whoop-dee-do on the Internet: everybody reads THAT.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. I think the issue is more

of past times when the NYT dropped the ball outside of the Judith Miller fiasco (e.g., the Bill Kristol disaster) and it doesn't matter what format but that it has the NYT name associated with it, and the decisions of many mainstream media like the NYT, to torpedo their copy editors. Sloppy journalism has only accelerated the death of any credibility in the mainstream media.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. facetious: fa·ce·tious

1: joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish <just being facetious>

Perhaps I'm missing something (I always am, yes?), but I think this was intended as a headline to grab eyeballs, not as a question to be pondered (other than whether we're violating the human rights of immigrants).

But I haven't read the thing, so who knows?

[0rganism]

19. YES, i do believe the answer to that question is YES

Next i'll take "color of green grass" for 500, Alex

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Was it intended rhetorically?

As in, "Shouldn't Immigrants Have Human Rights? Duh."

[NYC Liberal]

21. Actual article (an interview) is strongly supportive of protecting immigrants' rights.

[hughee99]

24. This is how you "do" journalism. Write a provocative title to draw people in and then

answer your own question. From reading the article, it's clear the authors believe that, yes, immigrants should have human rights... the faux outrage from Stroehlein is just to drum up a little more buzz for the article.

They've also changed the title of the article above the pic to "When immigrants lose their human rights".

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/should-immigrants-lose-their-human-rights/?_r=0

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

25. Really stupid title

Human rights are human rights for a reason. We're all human!

However, there are rights beyond human rights - citizenry rights. I think people confuse the two.

For instance, it is not a human right to enter and remain illegally in another country, but human rights are involved in how that country decides who stays and how it deals with immigrants who enter illegally.

[tularetom]

27. Well, human immigrants should

For the benefit of the fucking idiot that wrote that headline "Human" rights apply to all humans.

[Cha]

31. K