As I opened up my browser just now the familiar face of the Yahoo! home page came up. Scanning the news headlines I was surprised to see that the nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had stated conclusively that the US was losing the Iraq War. But there it was in black and white, the first headline listed. "Gates says U.S. losing Iraq War." Mr. Gates is facing a confirmation hearing in the Senate today, and I'm fairly certain that the Iraq War would come up in conversation, so this had to be true.
I clicked on the link, to be greeted by an abstract including the article's title and the first paragraph of the story, with a link to the entire Associated Press story. Except now the headline read "Gates says U.S. is not winning Iraq War." This may seem like a subtle point, but there is a big difference between "not winning" and "losing," just like there's a big difference strategically being tied going into the second half of a football game, versus being three touchdowns behind. The first scenario can be categorized accurately as "not winning" but not as "losing;" the second can be described as both "not winning" and as "losing." Like George, I was curious. Well, who would not be?
So I followed the link to the full story, and read a bit. This contained the same headline, "Gates says U.S. is not winning Iraq War," but fleshed out the details of his statements. Did Mr. Gates actually use the term losing, as the teaser link had stated? In short, no.
Gates, 63, said he believes President Bush wants to see Iraq improve to the point where it can govern and defend itself, while seeking a new approach. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said.
No kidding, but that's not a declaration of failure, is it?
Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."
So Mr. Gates actually stated that the US is neither winning nor losing at this point, and yet the teaser Yahoo!/AP headline stated otherwise? How can that be? They wouldn't lie, would they?
12/5/06 1330: Rats! While I was trying to get a screen shot of it, they changed the headline on the main Yahoo! page to say "not winning." Timing is everything. Here's the screenshot of that, belatedly.
12/5/06 1530: Imagine a parallel universe where a more-careful-with-his-words Robert Gates sits before the senators, seeking confirmation. Instead of opining that "the U.S. is not winning the Iraq War" this Robert Gates tells the senators that "the U.S. has not yet won the Iraq War." Virtually the same, yet a difference in tone, no? And much less juicy headlines for those hoping for a defeat for the U.S. President.
12/5/06 1540: Ah, there it is. This 10:45 AM version of the AP story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded Tuesday that the United States is losing the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."
Except that Mr. Gates never said that (see above). Later the AP story was changed to this:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded Tuesday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."
Subtle.
12/6/06 1115: And John Hinderaker at Powerline grabbed the screenshot with the losing headline. I've borrowed it below.
His compatriot Paul added that it seemed Yahoo! was less honest than the AP. I don't think so. The timeline would indicate that the story originally said "losing," so the headline said "losing." Then the story was altered for accuracy to "not winning," then the headline change followed. It seems that the Yahoo! headline followed the story accurately; it was the AP story that was inaccurate.
