“As the president of the United States, you have power to change the course of history, and the responsibility to save lives right now,” the staffers wrote.
“As the president of the United States, you have power to change the course of history, and the responsibility to save lives right now,” the staffers wrote.
Someone did the implying, and that’s bad practice. You are correct that intent is irrelevant, yet you take issue with the headline being accused of intentional misinformation.
The thing about implications is that they exists regardless of your intent or your audience’s comprehension. It doesn’t matter if the headline is technically correct, if a significant portion of the audience leaves misinformed, that’s poor jounalism. The extent to which this happens here edges into malpractice, either from ignorance or malice.
Since you take issue with the accusation, you either disagree with the claim of malice or the claim of misinformation; as you reject the former you must disagree that a headline that gives a drastically different interpretation of reality is misinformation. Am I wrong?
It’s called grammar. I didn’t make the rules.
So I don’t see it as malice or misinformation. I had no no trouble with the headline.
An implication doesn’t need to be directly conveyed, especially in a situation so small as a headline. Implication is often used in headlines to convey more information that explicitly stating everything, and especially to save on word count.
For example: “TITANIC SINKS, 1500 DIE” Purely by literal meaning: A big boat sank, and somewhere at somepoint, many people died of something. Odd to include that people have died before, that’s just a fact of life, but the Titanic was carrying a lot of people, did they survive? Too bad the headline didn’t say, I guess they don’t know yet.
We could look even deeper and conclude that Biden rejected the possibility of a ceasefire specifically because the former staffers demands. I don’t think he’s that spiteful, so it would be an odd interpretation, but it would be fully grammatical correct. Sorry, I didn’t make the
.
So I don’t see how a single definition rules out others, as several exist.
So, you didn’t like, or understand the headline, and that’s the author’s fault. Fair point. It doesn’t make it grammatically incorrect though. Email the writer and let them know, if it means that much to you.
So they were grammatically correct with their intentionally misleading headline. Glad everyone reached a consensus.
Because it’s grammatically correct it’s not intentionally misleading. “As” is the keyword. Run has 645 meanings. Just because people interpret a phrase differently doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or malicious.
Except that it is obviously both wrong and malicious.
I proved that it is not grammatically wrong, can you prove that it is malicious?
It leaves out context, intentionally. If this was a fox news headline, I’d say the same thing, and you’d agree.