As Twitchy reported earlier Tuesday, the New York Times decided to change the headline of a piece by Michelle Goldberg, making it much less reflective of the opinion piece running beneath it. The headline suddenly changed from, “Attacks on Jews Over Israel Are a Gift to the Right” to the noncommittal, “The Crisis of Anti-Semitic Violence.”
Heck of a headline update by The New York Times.
Of course there is no explanation. pic.twitter.com/eSF5YP9haL
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) May 25, 2021
Sure there’s an explanation; they just didn’t want to give it. Here’s David Burge:
I know this may be a controversial take, but perhaps the main problem with domestic street violence against American Jews is domestic street violence against American Jews pic.twitter.com/9ZiOGSAoZD
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 25, 2021
That compelled Jonathan Chait to weigh in with this hot take:
Right-wingers are making truly stupid dunks on @michelleinbklyn by screenshotting her headline, hoping you won't read the piece, which clearly does not minimize the moral harm of anti-semitic violence https://t.co/eitAZUHcBA
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 25, 2021
Newsflash: headlines oversimplify! But it's just not even a remotely plausible read of the column to suggest Goldberg treats anti-semitic violence as merely a political problem.
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 25, 2021
That must be why the NYT changed the headline.
— Stop scolding me, I'm vaccinated (@jtLOL) May 25, 2021
Or maybe – just hear me out – they’re dunking on the stupid headline they screenshotted
— Lawyer Cat* (@LawyerCat_) May 25, 2021
Well, the headline is free to the public, but the piece is behind a paywall, so essentially you're saying "we're not leftist assholes, give us money and we'll explain why".
LOL, no.
— J.G. Petruna (@jgpetruna) May 25, 2021
Considering most people can't/won't go behind the paywall, the headline is kind of all that matters.
— Brad. Kill the filibuster, pass Voting Rights Act (@BradCNct) May 25, 2021
Which is why news organizations do this on purpose. It's how they spread disinformation and misleading bullshit while still claiming that they weren't.
— You Should Have Voted For Jo (@colorblindk1d) May 25, 2021
The dunks are deserved.
— Wildfowler (@Waterfowler365) May 25, 2021
"Republicans Pounce on Domestic Street Violence Against American Jews"
— John (@jermsguy) May 25, 2021
So much pouncing
— Dave Vance (@DaveVance34) May 25, 2021
Are you suggesting Republicans pounce over a headline suggesting that Republicans pounce? It is so meta. pic.twitter.com/oUhBE5D6VZ
— Kay KEELY (@KayKEELY) May 25, 2021
I cannot believe that it has to be told to Chait, a guy who’s been in media for decades, but here goes: the headline IS the article. That you don’t know that already is emblematic of the broader problem in media.
— The Iron Yuppie (@Iron_Yuppie) May 25, 2021
There's this thing you can do where you just write better headlines. 🤷♀️
— Chicks On The Right (@chicksonright) May 25, 2021
They're not dunking on Goldberg for the article, they're dunking on the Times for the headline. Which is why the "dunk" features this picture instead of article excerpts.
— Paimon's Burner (@burner4hire) May 25, 2021
"Attacks on Jews Over Israel Are a Gift to the Right"
What does that mean, Jonathan?
— Stop scolding me, I'm vaccinated (@jtLOL) May 25, 2021
If you don’t see the issue with reducing mass violence down to “this is bad for my team’s chances of winning an election,” it’s time to rethink your life.
— Arthur Boreman Once Held His Breath for 30 Seconds (@ArthurBoreman) May 25, 2021
If you want people to read the piece, maybe don’t roll it out with a sensationalist, misleading troll job of a headline and then turning around and blaming them for it.
— errxn (@errxn) May 25, 2021
I, too, believe people should expect the content of a piece to contradict its headline.
— VOC 💸 Fintuationist (@hyperreal_voc) May 25, 2021
The NYT intentionally feeds into dangerous negative partisanship narratives in order to cater to hyper-partisan left-wing readers, in a story about literal physical attacks against Jewish Americans, & your f-ing take away is "hurr durr right-wingers are so dumb read the piece."
— Neal Pierson (@NealPierson) May 25, 2021
@iowahawkblog is above party politics, you loon.
— Gigi Levangie, etc. (@GigiLevangie) May 25, 2021
Truth.
Not sure I would call @iowahawkblog a right-winger.
— Magnifico 🪤 (@MagnificoIX) May 25, 2021
Not sure you have the ability to even be let in the courtyard to have a chance at speaking to Iowahawk.
— I can’t complain but sometimes I still do (@TheSmokingYeti) May 25, 2021
@iowahawkblog is karma's janitor. Far, far away from a right wing anything.
— the Real Salty Dog 🐕 (@Triphammer111) May 25, 2021
Big time writer for New York Magazine tries to drag obscure internet car guy.
Conscience bothering you?
— cof53a (@cof53a) May 25, 2021
It’s weird you would assume @iowahawkblog is a right winger. I’ve been following him for a long time. He mostly tweets about cars. Never political. Is it because he’s white(according to his profile pic) or is it because he’s from Iowa?
— THE Queen (@Elizabe92310495) May 25, 2021
The piece may not be as bad as the headline, but the headline is awful.
— Zelda A. Gabriel (@ZeldaAGabriel) May 25, 2021
Read it and it’s bad.
— Nietzsche’s Ghost (@markdzim42) May 25, 2021
Her take away is that it hurts her side politically
— James (@danameisjames0) May 25, 2021
Yep. The first headline was honest and that’s why the Times ended up changing it. It was too honest.
Related:
‘The Mt. Everest of steaming piles of horsesh*t’: Ben Shapiro DRAGS NYT’s Michelle Goldberg for claiming attacks on Jews over Israel are ‘a gift to the Right’ https://t.co/6rzflZLtrX
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 25, 2021