Who says the title has to match the story?

The Associated Press offers us further proof that headlines and content are not meant to be viewed side by side:

The Headline: Top U.S. Commander: Iraq Forces Not Ready

Lead Paragraph:

The top American commander in Iraq (news - web sites) on Wednesday said U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces were still not ready to take over the counterinsurgency and there was no guarantee they will ever be able to defeat it on their own.

Let's take a look at what Gen. Casey actually said in the interview:

"Can I sit here and look you in the eye and say that the Iraqi security forces guaranteed 100 percent are going to be able to defeat this insurgency by themselves? Of course not," Casey said.

"From what I've seen in the seven months that I've been here, I believe that we can achieve capable Iraqi security forces over a period of time that can deal with the Iraqi insurgency that's here."

I guess that's what he gets for offering a realistic assessment. Did the reporter mention anything about the expected timeline for having more Iraqi troops trained? Did he mention that, since reorganizing the training effort some months ago, the military has repeatedly said this is a process that will take at least a year or two? My impression would be that he is implying that the general is admitting a recent failure to meet a pre-determined timeline to have those troops ready. In essence, that is the opposite of what he is saying. This is poor journalism.

Here's my thought:

Me: "...well sure, eventually the world will end. And I imagine all Iraqis will die sometime."

Reporter's interpretation: "According to world-renowned expert-on-everything Tim, the world is ending. All Iraqis are doomed."

The Mudville Gazette offers further examples of AP's poor work here.

The Daily Polemic dissects additional bias here.

The Ranting Professor digs into another article here.


Iraq
Journalism