THE OMBUDSMAN
Headlines, photos, and grief
IN WASHINGTON, debate swirls over what President Bush knew of Al Qaeda's pre-9/11 activities and when he knew it. In the om-
Critics had no problem with the story but said the headline, which is all some people read, made it sound like Bush knew enough of the 9/11 terrorist attack in time to stop it. "I was appalled" at the headline, e-mailed reader Jeff Schwartz. "I am truly undecided on the pros and cons of the administration's handling of the months leading up to 9/11. Your headline led one to believe there had been some nefarious cover-up, now come to the light of day, that Bush had known all along about the `steps' leading up to the attack and should have, could have, prevented same . . . Shame on your headline writer . . ." "This is over-the-top sensationalism," wrote Paul Daly. "Someone who will just glance at the headline . . . assumes that Bush knew of every detailed step for 9/11 attacks." A caller from Milton said the headline was discussed at Easter dinner, and seen as fresh evidence of the Globe's anti-Bush bias. Another reader, Edward Friedman, echoed that suspicion, adding: "You should avoid putting slanted headlines on top of articles that are not consistent with the headlines." I'd say it's more a matter of a vague word spawning different interpretations. The memo did describe Qaeda steps -- such as a bin Laden cell's recruitment of American Muslim youths in New York, and surveillance of federal buildings there -- but in the context of a 9/11 headline, "steps" could (and, obviously, for certain readers, did) imply something more hijacking-specific. Ironically, that was just the sort of misinterpretation headline writers were trying to avoid. "We did not want to make it look as though Bush had been specifically warned of the attack that occurred on 9/11/01," said Sunday editor Ellen Clegg. "That's why we used the word `steps' -- by definition, a stage in a process. We rejected words such as `plan' and `plot' and `threat.' We thought the word `steps' accurately described the incremental nature of the Al Qaeda activity described in the memo." The headline didn't bother me when I read it, but I can see why some other papers took a more literal approach, such as "The briefing on bin Laden" or "2001 Memo: Al Qaeda in US." What those main headlines may have lacked in liveliness, they gained in unassailability. Continued... |
