How ambivalence becomes "momentum"

When The New York Times first posted this article, the headline ran, "US Job Losses in February Obscure View of Recovery," and the lede was, "Just as unemployment in the United States seemed to be abating, the government said Friday that the economy was hit with another round of job losses last month."

Now the headline reads, "Jobless Rate Holds Steady, Raising Hopes of Recovery," and the lede: "The economy lost fewer jobs than expected in February, the government reported Friday, bolstering hopes that a still-sputtering recovery was beginning to gain momentum."

So in one case, the loss of 36,000 jobs is presented as an indicator of an economy in flux, potentially experiencing continued, or renewed, decline. In the other, the emphasis shifts to the unemployment rate, a delicately massaged collection of metrics that showed no change over the course of the month and is therefore a beacon of better days to come.

From what I can tell, the remainder of the article and the link are unchanged, and there is no notice indicating that it has been altered.

Readers who finish the story are not likely to experience the feelings of hope that the new lede and headline suggest. The article is at best ambivalent about jobs, focusing on "doubts about the recovery" and struggling individuals and businesses. A couple of economists say that the labor market is poised for a turnaround. The Labor Department's "report did not offer a clear snapshot of the economy’s underlying health," according to Javier C. Hernandez, who wrote the story (but probably not the headline or lede).

This is an object lesson in just how much interpretation is involved in reporting news and how critical the framing of a story can be. The content of the article is irrelevant to its presentation, which reflects either ambivalence or "momentum" according to the whim of an editor.

No new facts were required to inspire the change in tone, only the commitment to spin the numbers differently. Whether this commitment is ideological or the product of mere sycophancy—carrying water for the White House, regardless of who inhabits it, is a revered pastime among the mainstream media—is beside the point.

That framing is an essential element of news reporting is not exactly a revelation, nor should we be shocked to find that objectivity continues to be a myth.

But this case is interesting because it shows this framing in process. Updating earlier editions of articles is common practice, but when the changes reflect an alternative interpretation of the same facts, an interpretation with obvious political ramifications, we gain an unusually clear window on the cynical procedures of newsrooms.