Remember yesterday’s item about how the N.Y. Times and Wall Street Journal published their very, very different editorials on John Bolton’s resignation? In answer to a Brazilian commenter’s question, the Times is the liberal paper (and therefore anti-Bolton) while the Journal, and most famously its editorial page, is the conservative one.
In today’s papers, there is evidence that those irreconcilable differences also visit the news pages on occasion. Each paper today published an article on a new F.D.A. study measuring the possible increase in suicidal tendencies among young people who take antidepressants. Keep in mind that in the supposed liberal/conservative news split, the conservative Journal is considered to be much more pro-business than the Times.
Here is the Times‘s headline: “Study Finds Medication Raises Suicide Risks in Young Adults.”
And here is the Journal‘s: “Suicidal Thoughts Seem to Abate With Age of Antidepressant Users.”
I don’t want to get all anti-Big Pharma on anybody, but does the Journal‘s headline strike anyone else as a little, um, protective?
These headlines represent a type of editorial interpretation that I am guessing is hard to measure in academic studies of media bias. But to the typical newspaper reader, such differences are so plain as to be nearly comical.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
“I don’t want to get all anti-Big Pharma on anybody, but does the Journal’s headline strike anyone else as a little, um, protective?”
Um, no.
But . . .why, Steven, does it occur to you to question the Journal’s state of mind, and not the Times? You wouldn’t be a little um, protective of the Times would you?
You are correct of course, these biases are so plain as to be comical.
“I don’t want to get all anti-Big Pharma on anybody, but does the Journal’s headline strike anyone else as a little, um, protective?”
Um, no.
But . . .why, Steven, does it occur to you to question the Journal’s state of mind, and not the Times? You wouldn’t be a little um, protective of the Times would you?
You are correct of course, these biases are so plain as to be comical.
Well, it depends on what the study actually said. Let’s assume that Dubner has read the articles and maybe even looked at the study and his summary, “Each paper today published an article a new F.D.A. study measuring the possible increase in suicidal tendencies among young people who take antidepressants” is accurate. If that is true, then I’d say the times headline is neutral.
Well, it depends on what the study actually said. Let’s assume that Dubner has read the articles and maybe even looked at the study and his summary, “Each paper today published an article a new F.D.A. study measuring the possible increase in suicidal tendencies among young people who take antidepressants” is accurate. If that is true, then I’d say the times headline is neutral.
Come on. There’s no getting around that the Journal has used some savvy wordsmithing to actually make it seem as if the drugs are helping when, in fact, the study is stating that they may have a negative effect on young users. Whether or not this was done intentionally we can only debate, but it’s very clear that the headline is confusing.
Come on. There’s no getting around that the Journal has used some savvy wordsmithing to actually make it seem as if the drugs are helping when, in fact, the study is stating that they may have a negative effect on young users. Whether or not this was done intentionally we can only debate, but it’s very clear that the headline is confusing.
Wow, that’s really quite remarkable. I suppose the stories could be more similar than the headlines indicate, but those really do tell two almost opposite tales. Incidentally, based on what I’ve heard, the Times headline is closer to the story, but the contrast alone is remarkable for a regular news story and not an editorial.
Wow, that’s really quite remarkable. I suppose the stories could be more similar than the headlines indicate, but those really do tell two almost opposite tales. Incidentally, based on what I’ve heard, the Times headline is closer to the story, but the contrast alone is remarkable for a regular news story and not an editorial.