'No Possibility' of Gaza Cease-Fire, Biden Says as 500+ Former Staffers Demand One

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 230 points –
'No Possibility' of Gaza Cease-Fire, Biden Says as 500+ Former Staffers Demand One
commondreams.org

"As the president of the United States, you have power to change the course of history, and the responsibility to save lives right now," the staffers wrote.

155

You are viewing a single comment

So they were grammatically correct with their intentionally misleading headline. Glad everyone reached a consensus.

Because it’s grammatically correct it’s not intentionally misleading. “As” is the keyword. Run has 645 meanings. Just because people interpret a phrase differently doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or malicious.

Except that it is obviously both wrong and malicious.

I proved that it is not grammatically wrong, can you prove that it is malicious?

It leaves out context, intentionally. If this was a fox news headline, I'd say the same thing, and you'd agree.

The context is in the article. It could be argued that it is in the headline too, but some obviously have interpreted it differently.

Edit: Replace “as” with “while” and maybe you’ll understand.

Indeed.

Edit: You are just being condescending and not pointing out anything meaningful.

I’m not trying to be condescending. I’m just incapable of explaining this in a satisfactory way. Those criticizing the headline are not pointing out anything meaningful. The information in the article correlates with the headline. Biden has the ability to endorse a ceasefire, “while” his former staffers are urging him to do so.

You are incapable of explaining it because it is an incredibly common and recognizable representation of a bad faith headline.

Summarizing an article and writing a headline isn’t easy. I know from experience. It may be in bad faith, it doesn’t appear that way to me. It doesn’t detract from the relevant information in the article.

FWIW I think the administration could, should, and (unfortunately) probably won't do more to support a cease fire.

I just don't think my opinion justifies misrepresenting what actually occurred in a headline intentionally.

And the author of the headline did. They knew. And if you have experience, you know they knew.