And it is earie as to how well it hews to the example discussed back in 2017:
If you are “a moron” however and only read the headlines… well then yes. You may very well believe Russia hacked the vote.
Based on studies of the typical behavior of most people browsing online. That is probably just about all the majority of people read. The next smaller group might have even read the first paragraph in the article. After that, you're down to a quarter or less of the people who clicked on the link.
You're bumming me out man... Probably not wrong, but disheartening.
Well, it gets better when you consider claims of "media bias" and consider another item I had brought up elsewhere. Look at how many agencies write their stories.
For example, they'll lead with a (pro)Trump Claim, and IMMEDIATELY seek to refute it from the opening sentence.
If they lead with an anti-Trump claim, they'll usually spend the next several paragraphs talking about what the opposition thinks before getting into the "meat and potatoes" of the issue itself. (IE. They're putting the anti-Trump stuff up front, where the "average attention span" will catch it, while they're placing anything that might support Trump near the end of the article, in the hopes that people won't bother to read it.)
Likewise, with Clinton, it wasn't uncommon to see a Pro-Clinton claim get a pro-clinton lead-in while the anti-Clinton content trailed.
Or media coverage in regards to political strategy. How is it that the narrative tends to be "Democrats are going to try ___. What are the Republicans going to try to counter, and how could it hurt them(the Republicans) in the polls?" vs "The Republicans are going to try ____. How is this going to hurt them in the polls."
But to get to the recent example from the Associated Press, which means you can find the headline on most major outlets, I'm picking on NBC just because:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-against-immigrants-temporary-status-n1269868Headline:
Supreme Court unanimously rules against immigrants with temporary status
Well, at least the court could agree 9-0 on something involving immigration, but that certainly puts a sinister spin on the court the liberal press wants to pack with more liberal justices.
The byline does at least somewhat mitigate the headline, but you have to read it carefully:
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.
But then we get into the opening of the article once again:
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.
Again leading with the most broad application possible.
Second paragraph:
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.
Well, at least they bothered to clarify it before too many people lost interest and moved on to reading something else.
And then 8 paragraphs later at the very end of the article:
Monday's decision does not affect immigrants with TPS who initially entered the U.S. legally and then, say, overstayed their visa, Kagan noted. Because those people were legally admitted to the country and later were given humanitarian protections, they can seek to become permanent residents.
