A Biased Headline Twists a Story
Today's New York Times has a story entitled "Federal Effort to Head Off TV Piracy Is Challenged" -- a headline that gives the entire weight of the dispute to one side. The story describes efforts by several organizations to challenge the Federal Communications Commission's mandate, on behalf of the copyright cartel in the entertainment industry, to lock down digitally broadcast signals so they can't be copied.
The story itself isn't bad. As the reporter discusses (though not in much depth), there are many good reasons why this anti-copying system, called the "Broadcast Flag," is a travesty -- including its attack on fair use, for scholarship and creating new art, not to mention the peculiar notion that technology companies now need permission to innovate.
But the headline is poison. By defining the debate in terms of preventing piracy -- when the story could have as easily, and accurately, been headlined as "Hollywood Move to Block Technological Innovation is Challenged" -- it sets a tone that even a fair article has trouble balancing back to an honest discussion.
This is a small issue, in a sense. The Times is not going to admit the headline is biased. There will be no correction, no clarification.
Headline writers have other duties. They tend to be overworked and underpaid, given the power their wield. And while I'm sure the headline writer in this case had no qualms -- thinking he or she was capturing the flavor of the issue -- this is a small but telling example of how a headline can twist readers' views, even before they know what the story is about.
One thing we can be almost certain about, however: We'll be extremely unlikely to see any of the major television news outlets even mention this issue, for obvious reasons that they are members of the cartel pushing the Broadcast Flag. So give the Times its due, just for covering it in the first place.
I'm rooting for the opponents of the broadcast flag, myself. But I dunno that the headline is unfair. After all, the supporters of the policy really are afraid of piracy. That's why they're pushing it. You and I see the FCC policy as a threat to the computer industry and the fair use rights of the public--not to mention an unreasonable expansion of the FCC's authority. But the entertainment industry regards these consequences as "collateral damage" in their ongoing war against a very real threat to their revenues.
Posted by: Hiawatha Bray | February 21, 2005 at 01:50 PM
Is the broadcast flag all about piracy though? While giving content owners new levels of control over technologies and audiences' abilities to manipulate television, the flag may actually do very little to combat real piracy. See, for example, Ed Felten's comments today on the matter (highlighting some of the illogic in MPAA arguments for the flag).
Posted by: Molly Moloney | February 21, 2005 at 06:27 PM
It is a bad headline.
When I linked to the article from TVBarn, I rewrote the headline as "Broadcast Flag Is Challenged" and linked below it to Build a HDPVR before the Broadcast Flag becomes law July 1st.
Posted by: Steve Rhodes | February 21, 2005 at 10:23 PM
What about the taping of NON entertainment shows...like news? Oh..wait, those news agencies have been folded into the entertainment divisions haven't they....hmmmmm.
The intent is not protection from piracy. Its the government giving a wink and nod to censorship. If I or anyone else can't tape news interviews and post them as CrooksandLiars.com does, what happens to public access to PUBLIC INFORMATION?
This is mind control. Its information control.
It must not be allowed.
Posted by: Liberal AND Proud | February 23, 2005 at 10:43 AM
You are very charitable to regard the headline as unintentional.
Posted by: Dan Holzman | February 23, 2005 at 11:02 AM