Two days ago I criticized a glaring disjunction between two Los Angeles Times headlines and the underlying article’s text. Today, it’s theWashington Post.
The headline of an article on page one by Charles Lane declares “U-Michigan Gets Broad Support Using Race.” The article discusses the amicus briefs being filed in support of Michigan’s race preferences by other universities and major corporations. But do filings by Fortune 500 companies and other universities employing preferences consitutute “broad support”? If so, what does one say about the fact that a recent poll, discussed here, reveals 2-1 support across the nation for President Bush’s opposition to Michigan’s preference policies? As far as I know, there are no polls that suggest what most people would think of as “broad support” for preferences.
Apparently even the Post doesn’t think the support for Michigan is actually broad, for the large, five-column headline across the continuation of the story on p. A10 of the paper edition — a headline that does not appear in the online edition — says something quite different (and more accurate): “Mich. Case Reflects Elite Support For Race-Conscious Plans.”
There was a time, not so long ago, when liberals were rarely seen carrying the water for big business elites.
[…] the immediately preceding post I criticized a page one Washington Post headline for declaring “broad support” of […]