Guardian more partisan than NYT

Noted by Irish Eagle: Two differing headlines about U2's attitude towards political fundraising (by Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton) coinciding with their concert tour.

The Guardian: U2 sing out against Republican's plans to bolster fighting fund at stadium gig

The New York Times: U2 Moves to Distance Itself From Concert Fund-Raising

Comments

[EWI]

"more partisan"? Pray tell, but what exactly is your problem with these two headlines? Do they, or do they not, reflect what happened?

[Frank McGahon]

No. The NYT one is correct. The Guardian is incorrect in highlighting the Republican party when this applied to both parties.

[John]

I think it would be easier to make the case that the headline in the British publication could have focused on Hillary Clinton seeing as she's far more well-known in the UK than is Rick Santorum.

[EWI]

Frank, the Times article is the one that's misleading. They've implicitely tied Clinton to the story, when a closer reading suggests that it's Santorum who was the actual target of these comments.

[John]

What if you read this statement?
"Throughout the U2 tour, politicians from both sides have been organizing fundraisers at the venues or around specific shows. Neither DATA or Bono are involved in these and they cannot be controlled. The U2 concerts are categorically not fundraisers for any politician -- they are rock concerts for U2 fans".

[Frank McGahon]

a closer reading suggests

I like that one - a new euphemism for selective interpretation. Let's see if I can take it for a spin: "It might appear that Spurs deserved the draw but a closer reading suggests that United were robbed"

Seriously though, both stories mentioned Senator Clinton, The NYT headline was correct because it was accurate and not misleading or tendentious unlike that of their British counterpart.

[EWI]

This controversy was over Santorum's supposed endorsement by Bono, which was a claim made (erroneously) by Newsmax. P. O'Neill covered this. Show me where Clinton was claiming U2's endorsement.

[Frank McGahon]

Sheesh! Look, the NYT's headline merely stated the facts: U2 moves to distance itself from concert fundraising. That is true, you haven't even attempted to deny this. It is even consistent with your contorted interpretation so I don't know why you are making a big deal about this. It's not like the NYT singled out Clinton in the headline.

The story to which John and I refer is not the "controversy" you are trying to shoehorn* into this. Our story is that from a statement by associates of U2 which explained that they didn't endorse political fundraising, coinciding with their concerts, by any party, the Guardian puts a spin on it by specifically referring to the Republicans, (even though this particular Republican, Santorum, is pretty obscure on this side of the Atlantic). Any statement I've seen stresses the point that this "unendorsement" applies equally to Republicans and Democrats. The Guardian is guilty of a partisan slant, while the NYT, not typically considered pro-Republican, relays the facts. That's all.

* Your "controversy" relates to the suggestion by some that Bono was performing a fundraiser for Santorum (a story, FWIW, Santorum's own office immediately denied). A "careful reading" of John's post and my own should fail to elicit any reference at all to this particular controversy.

[EWI]

Your "controversy" relates to the suggestion by some that Bono was performing a fundraiser for Santorum (a story, FWIW, Santorum's own office immediately denied). A "careful reading" of John's post and my own should fail to elicit any reference at all to this particular controversy.

Am I to blame just because you didn't investigate this thoroughly before posting?

[Frank McGahon]

You are to blame because you didn't bother "carefully" reading my post, John's or either article so keen were you to respond to a different question entirely - "Was Bono performing a benefit for Santorum?" to which the answer is of course "no but so what", neither I, John, the NYT or the Guardian suggested he did.