Since many people read only headlines, and they're clearly the most memorable part of the article for the vast majority of readers, I'm limiting my analysis to them.  I somewhat subjectively divided the headlines into conservative-friendly, progressive-friendly, and neutral.  Basically what I'm trying to get at here is the cognitive impact of these headlines--how they are likely to affect feelings or opinions toward a party's agenda or members.  This doesn't have to be purely through spin and unfair wording, but often it is.   

Just remember, folks, this is just one day's headlines.  Just imagine the impact on people who read the site several times a week.  This is a very tricky task to undertake in a rational way.  Everything has to stand up to scrutiny for this to be a valid method of critiquing the news.  If you can think of a better way to do it, I'd be happy to hear from you.


TODAY'S POLITICO HEADLINES

Conservative Friendly

"Wilson's Rallying Cry" (main headline) While the President giving a speech on the country's greatest challenge, in the most important legislative chamber on earth, Rep. Wilson screams out and calls him a liar.  Some, including Rahm Emmanuel, say it has never happened before.  He's condemned by his own party leaders, forced to apologize, and his opponent raises $100,000 overnight.  All in all, it was a terrible day for Rep. Wilson.  Politico could have called it an "outburst", or portrayed it as it was--an unprecedented act of boorishness-- but instead the headline implies the President's agenda drove him to scream and energizing his party. 

Of course, the most damaging aspect of this, however, might be that it completely diverts attention from the policy message of Obama's speech.

"GOP Leaders fire up crowd on Hill"  The takeaway is that a large majority of Americans are opposed to the health care bill, and Republicans are getting people excited.  The subheading mentions that there were only about 800 people in attendance.  This sort of news might be acceptable if comparable democratic events are covered to the same extent and are also described as lively and passionate.  From a brief perusal of old articles, they're not.

"What Obama Said, What He Meant"   Obviously this implies that there is a significant difference between what Obama says and what he means.  A neutral headline might purport to explain where he was right and where he was wrong. The subheading says "Obama portrays reform as nonthreatening."  Instead of describing this generally fair and factually accurate speech as  'assuring' or 'explaining', Politico implies that he might be hiding reform's threatening nature.

"Boehner Defends Wilson on Substance"   Perpetuates the myth that illegal immigrants will benefit from health care reform, despite a progressive-friendly sidebar headline stating "PolitiFact: Wilson Immigration Claim 'false'"

"Dems Heckled Bush, Too", "Reid called Bush liar, stood by comment," These headlines seem to offer talking points for those who want to defend Wilson, though they aren't exactly fair comparisons.  The point was not that he called Obama a liar, but that he shouted it during a Presidential address, something that probably has never happened before.  Also, Dems did collectively boo on two occasions, as have Republicans, but none have made individual exclamations.

"Line in the Sand, Squiggle in the Mud" subheading: "Obama offers few new ideas, but radiates confidence-- he knows how to give a speech, give him that."  Need I say more?  This completely ignores the policy content of his speech and reinforces the notion that he is a good public speaker and little else.  Besides, why does he need new ideas?  It seems like the problem is people don't understand the old ones.

"Boustany Rebukes Public Option" Subheading: "GOP response pounds back against public option."  The trend here seems to be playing up the successfulness of GOP arguments and tactics.  They don't just 'oppose' or 'speak out against', they 'rebuke' and 'pound back' against the public option.  

"Can Pelosi, Hoyer Keep Lid on Tension?" All this headline does is cast doubt on health care reform, despite the lack of any new development.

"Echoes of Clinton in Obama Speech" Suprisingly, Clinton's infamous failed attempt at health reform and Obama's current effort share the frequent use of words such as 'insurance' and 'health care'.  Ergo, Obama's effort will fail.

"Wilson gives Obama a taste of town hall" This is a bit weak, but I get the sense it implies Obama is isolated from reality, which is that ordinary

"Cook Calls Reid Race a Toss-Up"

 
Progressive Friendly

"PolitiFact: Wilson Immigration Claim 'false" A rare fact check on Politico.

"Health Reform is Worth Uphill Battle" An Op-Ed from Tom Daschle,

"VIDEO: Cantor Atwitter, not attentive" A video of Eric Cantor on his Blackberry during the Obama speech.  Should be the tiniest of dents  in Cantor's reputation.

"Obama Jabs FOX dance show" It could have been "FOX refuses to air Obama speech", but at least its acknowledging the fact.

"Dem Governors Laud Obama Speech" The subheading explains how they think 'overhauling' they system will help their states budget woes.  This barely qualifies, though, considering they refer to reform as an 'overhaul', and it should impress no conservative that Dem governors support a Dem president.

"Obama: Now is the Season for Action"

"Teddy's Letter to Obama"


Neutral

"Dems renew push for Wilson Censure"
"Pelosi Considered Gavelling Wilson"
"Wilson Opponent Fills Coffers"
"Specter Wants Wilson Censured"
"Limbaugh Wishes Wilson Hadn't Apologized"
"VIDEO: Pundits react "you lie"
"NEA Director in Politics Flap"
"Reid: Public option in eye of beholder"
"Power for Harkin, Boost for Lincoln"
"Dodd Keeps a Hand in Health Care"
"Frank Says Dodd Will Get Reform Done"
"Is Iran Serious on Nuke Talk Offers?"
"Baucus Moves Bill Forward"
"Long Live the Culture Wars"
"D.C.'s Power Siblings"
"Health Fight Arouses Immigration Battle"
"Deeds Hits McDonnell on Thesis"
"Rep Ortiz: Quit Bashing Libya"
"VIDEO: Obama Speech Highlights"
"Obama Hits Critics"
"Endorses Public Option Idea"
"Pundits react: Obama's Speech"
"Remembers Kennedy"
"Obama Unlikely to Make Olympic Pitch"
"VIDEO: Obama's Gibbs and Takes"


Final Analysis:

There were 43 headlines today, 58% of them I consider neutral.  About 26% of them were conservative-friendly, and about 16% progressive-friendly.  But as you can see, the cognitive effect in favor of conservatives is high.  Republicans are "pounding back," "fired up", and "rallying", Whereas Democrats are besieged with tension and Obama is probably just a good public speaker without any leadership skills.  As for the progressive-friendly articles, they barely even qualify as progressive-friendly.  I can't imagine how any of them could slightest impact on the opinions of its readers.  A former Democratic Senator wants health care reform?  Obama wants to move on health care this season?  Eric Cantor wasn't paying attention to the speech?  I just don't see any of rhetorical punch you see for conservative views.  Even without my analysis, just reading the headlines should be enough to see the conservative tilt.

Bonus fun fact: 28% of Politico's headlines were about the Wilson Scream, which is even larger if you just count the articles published today.   

·         Rejected: cut aid and global aid funding by $1 billion (Buyer, R-IN)

·         Rejected: cut Peace Corps funding by $77 million (Stearns, R-FLA)

·         Rejected:  cut foreign aid by a half billion (Culberson, R-TX)

·         Rejected: four separate Republican motions to adjourn on July 8th

·         Rejected: cut FDA employee salaries by $373 million (Broun, R-GA)

·         Rejected: cut discretionary spending in Ag appropriations bill by 5% (Blackburn, R-TN)

Somebody should tell these guys they need some new ideas.  Just saying 'cut this and cut that' can end up directly causing a lot of suffering.  Republican Jeff Flake proposed a few amendments to chisel away funding to specific programs, like an environmental cleanup project in Maryland, which tells me there is a chance that the project could be porky.  But to call for hammering a billion dollars out of global aid, or $373 million from FDA employees really shows you how a lot of Republicans just want to cut something and don't care enough to cut carefully.  

Obama is being hyper-pragmatic.  The reason Obama is avoiding reforms on transparency, gay rights, etc. is to avoid divisive political battles until health care reform is accomplished.  He realizes that many presidents have tried to unseat the entrenched private insurance system and failed in spectacular fashion.  Obama recognizes the paramount importance of health care reform, to individuals and to the country's overall economic health, and has decided to fix his sights on health care, picking his battles with the strategy of a chess player until he accomplishes that near-impossible goal.

 The reason is that Obama and Axelrod have a basic map of where Obama's presidency should go.  He's going to ride in on the endearing gloss of his remarkable character and his racial barrier-shattering, undeniably historic election.  Of course, some people will never like Barack Obama, but we do know his favorability ratings thus far in are uncommonly high.  He will use this to his advantage, passing health care and economic reform in his first year.  Like Roosevelt and the New Deal Coalition, the popularity of Obama's reforms will win him the long-term loyalty of large voting blocs.  The economy will begin to recover some time before his reelection, whether it's true or not he'll get credit for it, and his influence will be safe for the rest of his presidency.  The later part of his administration will be remembered for the stream of progressive reforms he had promised during the campaign.  He was only waiting to make those reforms until he had political space to maneuver.  If he had acted too quickly on other reforms, his presidency would have been much less effective.

The problem is this: while there's plenty of talking and planning for upcoming reforms, Obama and Congressional Democrats have actually done very little reforming lately.  They have done little to control the news agenda. There are committee meetings, recesses, and endless negotiations, but only one chamber has passed environmental legislation, and none have dealt with health care.  Key proposals on the economy and a Supreme Court nomination lie in waiting.  Iran faces a credible threat to its regime, and Congress is powerless to control it.  To make the political atmosphere even more disconcerting, Obama continues to avoid reforms on civil liberties, transparency, and gay rights.

 So, for the last few weeks, Democrats have been in limbo, promising major change, but taking a long time to actually carry it out.  They have done little to steal the headlines and punch back at Republicans.  Of course, Democrats are at an inherent disadvantage because they are proposing to change the status quo in a major way, and in this intermediary period Republicans have found success by relentlessly assailing their proposals and instilling as much fear and uncertainty in them as possible.  Quite simply, it's just easier to whip up doubt and insecurity rather than confidence and positivity- especially when the future is uncertain and little progress is happening.

 Part of this is that Republicans know almost all reporters are intellectually anemic.  They have masterfully gamed the media and manipulated the news agenda. Ridiculous attacks, which also sometimes come from Democrats, are not counter-argued by journalists to such an extent as to give a fair picture of reality.  This lets Republicans run wild, using deception and sophism, blurting out soundbites with the expectation that they will be splashed across headlines or repeated several times on Hannity.  Even on neutral TV networks and newspapers, the way such attacks are reported is not journalistically impassioned, and as a result they get away with it.  The Republican constant stream of attack strategy works in down times like these, when Democrats are on the defensive.  An attack on one of Obama's plans for epic reform is worth twice as much as praise.

Obama and Democrats, here's what you need to do.  Go on the offensive.  Don't go so far as to sacrifice the dignity and prestige of the presidency, but keep in mind that hitting first is always more effective than returning fire, even if the reasoning is sound.  Take some attention away from the painstaking negotiation process and talk about an issue that will give people a sense of optimism about his agenda.  Take some shots at Republicans, portray them as callous and misanthropic for ignoring the suffering going on in this country.  Create the illusion that Democrats are in control of the ball and they have big, bright plans for the future, and Republicans are helplessly flailing curmudgeons.  Give more campaign-style speeches and town-hall meetings, and get people excited.

Conclusion) It is unethical to abort conscious fetuses, it is not unethical to abort preconscious fetuses. Therefore, the State should protect conscious fetuses by outlawing abortions when it is considered possible that they are conscious.  Imagine you are a fetus in early development that has not reached consciousness yet, and your mother has decided to abort you.  If you are faithfully imagining what this procedure, your death, will be like for you, you will be imagining absolutely nothing.  You were experiencing nothing and you will continue to experience nothing.  Therefore, as I see it, no harm was committed in having the abortion.  A fetus aborted just before it achieves consciousness is no more tragic than a sperm that misses the egg by a millimeter.

Some will argue that unconscious fetuses deserve protection because they will eventually become conscious, and that they will develop into normal human beings.  I don't find this argument convincing, because obviously we should not be concerned with protecting every wasted sperm or egg cell to make sure that it develops into a life.  To respond to this by saying that sperm and egg should be excluded from protection, but that a fertilized egg cell should not, is arbitrary.  The ethicality of an abortion should be couched exclusively in the welfare of the fetus, and an unconscious fetus' welfare has yet to begin.  Aside from religious reasons, which I'm not even going to consider, there is no reason to grant special protection to a fertilized egg cell.  The desire to do this comes from a mental reflex, and instinct impelling us to begin honoring life at its official, biological origin.  It's an urge to find clarity and simplify our interpretation of the world, even when the reason to do so is not grounded in the welfare of the fetus in question. That, in my opinion, is unethical.