i was trying to avoid another "my god what's the hell is happening" post, but...

[acroyear]

when the reuters headline is "Republicans Nominate Bush, Sing His Praises", I have to *seriously* wonder 1) what the hell is going on that they need to use such religiously-tainted fodder like "Sing His Praises", and 2) where the *hell* assholes like Rush get off saying there's anything like a "Liberal Media" that can spout out such claptrap.

(b.t.w., the article was written by "John Whitesides, Political Correspondent". maybe desmond can tell me if he's as bad as some of the other pro-republican people like coulter or not.)

now given that the article mentions how democrats simply don't see any "compassion" in "compassionate conservatism", it may be that the headline is actually intentionally mocking the proceedings.

the trouble with satire is that nobody can tell the difference anymore.

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

"Satire is what closes on Saturday night."

Whitesides being from Reuters, they're a little better about quoting the other side, so he's no Coulter et. al. Many reporters in the mainstream media just pass the crap along like it's on an assembly line (my next column is going to be on media coverage, specifically television) without thinking about what goes into the "product." A recent LA Times editorial puts it succinctly as it can possibly be made: "The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988 ... Bring a charge, however bogus.  Make the charge simple.  But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.  Then sit back and let the media do your work for you.  Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment.  But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false."

Otherwise, I think you're reading too much into "Sing His Praises," [and I'm a pretty hardened atheist, so I think I'd know] so I think it's a headline writer's turn of phrase. Jarring and annoying, but probably used without any deeper thought as to its context.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

possible. in fact probable. the situation is that it fits directly into my metaphore (and Doonesburys if you're reading this week) of GWB as a "Caesar" acting the role of exercising absolute power whenever possible (since the reality of both Rome and now are that its actually rare to be able to do so...possible, but rare).

The phrase, added to the modern church by the Romans (through their interpretation of the parts of the old testimate they felt were important), plays right into that comparison.

in addition

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

there's also the fact (which you've pointed out has affected your own works) that headlines are often written (or changes approved) by the editor, sometimes without consultation with the author.

about 50 minutes ago, the headline @ reuters changed to "Hail His Leadership" instead of "Sing His Praises", with not a single change to the article text.

My guess is being a newswire service, they tend to change headlines regularly in the hopes that one of them catches a newspaper editors eye enough to warrent publication (and thus, eventual commisions/royalties). The Reuters / Associated Press approach was never meant for "normal" people to read through services like yahoo. They evolved with having local editors being more particular about which of their articles (and associated headlines) actually made it to print.