This morning the Washington Post published an article, headlined, Advances, Not Approval for Bush. It's a fair reflection of the story's content. The Hartford Courant picked up the story and suddenly the headline was a much more pro-Bush, double headline at the top of page A3 (at least in the Middletown edition) Bush Beginning to Rebound With Iraq Quieting, President's Political Fortune Looking Up Again. And don't try to find an online version of the Courant piece. It's not there.
In the Courant's version of the headline, unlike the Post's there is no indication that there is no movement in the public's approval of the President.
So what are we to make of it? First of all, it's a non-story likely peddled to the Post on a Sunday when real news is hard to come by. It's a PR piece positing the notion that because violence in Iraq is down to 2006 levels (is that really an accomplishment), and Bush has found his veto pen in the second-to-last year of his presidency (since Congress is no longer sending him bills he likes, or can easily wiggle out of with a signing statement), that he is somehow going to be able to salvage his presidency. The remainder of the article, if you read that deeply, indicates how unlikely it is for the president to salvage his "legacy."
And that's the point. Many people don't read articles like this one beyond the headlines. And whoever wrote the headline and placed the story at the Courant, gave the Prez a nice PR boost. Kind of like an ad. Big headline, with a long subhead, and you've almost got and advertorial.
Shame on the Courant and the editor, who obviously constructed the headline and placement for shamelessly partisan reasons.
