Fun With Headlines

The headline in the New York Times:
Second Attack on Iraq Prison in 48 Hours Wounds 5 Iraqis

The headline in the Washington Post:
Iraq Prison Assault May Mark Shift in Tactics

The headline in the Turkish Daily News:
US military: 50 insurgents wounded [in] jail attack

Mind you, the Turkish Daily News is using the AP wire copy.

Let's see. All are using the same copy, yet each comes to a different conclusion about what is important. The Turkish paper finds that the US military wounding 50 insurgents in the raid most important, while the US papers find it interesting that the prison was under attack again.

If you're a terrorist, which is the subject that you want covered? Is it the fact that your forces are getting the crap beaten out of them, or that you have sufficient forces to continue pressing attacks against the US? From a propaganda view, the latter is clearly the most important, but from a tactical and strategic point of view, knowing that you're getting pasted each time you attack US forces is determinative.

Now, I know some of you might think that this is nitpicking, but most people scan headlines, and don't bother reading the underlying text. This is why headline decisions are crucial in determining the way news is handled and prioritized. An American reading these three stories would take away three different messages, and while each is true, which one is the most defeatist, and which one bolsters an optimism about defeating the terrorists? The problem is that the two defeatist positions are taken by US papers.