This NYT Headline About Student Loan Forgiveness is an Exercise in the Paper's Absurdity
How a simple headline about student debt relief turned into a prime example of Times editorialization.
Hey readers. Parker here.
On Wednesday, The New York Times reported on President Joe Biden’s latest round of student loan forgiveness. “Biden Cancels $1.2 Billion in Student Loan Debt for 150,000 Borrowers,” read the headline, simply stating the facts. The subheadline was equally neutral-yet-informative, letting readers know that the administration “has canceled $138 billion of student debt for nearly 3.9 million borrowers.”
This is what a good hed/dek combo is supposed to look like.
The headline is clear, specific, and informative, and the accompanying subheadline adds context and scale to the headline's announcement by situating the latest round of debt cancellation within the broader efforts of the Biden administration. By citing the total amount of debt relief provided and the number of borrowers affected to date, it offers a broader perspective on the administration's efforts in this area.
But first, here’s the part of the newsletter where I ask you to consider signing up for the free version if you’re new here and ask existing free subscribers to consider upgrading to the paid version. Now through the end of the month, you can get 25% off subscriptions by clicking this link:
This additional detail enhances the reader's understanding of the policy's scope and the administration's priorities without inserting opinion or bias, maintaining the neutrality expected in journalistic reporting.
But then the paper changed the headline to “A Beleaguered Biden Chips Away at Student Loan Debt, Bit by Bit,” managing to take a neutral headline and turn it into a standard and here’s why this is bad for Biden piece. Yes, the headline went from simply stating facts (stating how much the administration had canceled and for how many borrowers) to turning it into a bizarrely editorialized thing that doesn’t say much other than Biden being “beleaguered,” something the paper itself has contributed to.
The shift from one to the other is a prime example of how headline changes can significantly alter public perception and narrative framing in journalism. The original headline straightforwardly presents a fact, detailing the scope of debt cancellation and its impact on borrowers. The revised headline injects a subjective tone, suggesting struggle and minimal progress ("beleaguered" and "chips away"). This editorial decision shifts the focus from the policy’s impact to the president's political standing, potentially leading readers to view the policy through political conflict rather than its actual effects.
The dek was also edited, inserting the line, “But the piecemeal efforts have garnered him little praise.” The whole thing went from perfectly fine, neutral, and factual, to less thorough (no more reference to the number of borrowers helped) and highly editorialized (“piecemeal,” “little praise”).
Later, “A Beleaguered” was deleted from the headline, leaving it as “Biden Chips Away at Student Loan Debt, Bit by Bit.” While this removes the loaded term “beleaguered,” and removes some of the negative editorialization that comes with it, this still falls short of the clarity and impact conveyed by the original headline, "Biden Cancels $1.2 Billion in Student Loan Debt for 150,000 Borrowers."
By focusing on the incremental nature of the policy ("chips away, bit by bit") without quantifying its actual effect, the revised headline dilutes the message and is, simply put, less informative than the original. The original headline’s directness in reporting the scope and beneficiaries of the action is crucial for public understanding. It underscores the tangible outcomes of policy decisions, making it the better choice for accurately informing the audience.
But, perhaps thinking that was somehow too positive, the Times added, “Amid High Expectations” to the end of it. Once again, this is some bizarre editorialization in a headline. What began as a perfectly fine, neutral, factual headline had been twisted into a vague mess that essentially amounts to saying that it’s important to realize this is “bit by bit” and short of the “high expectations.” Truly, this isn’t how journalists should be talking about policy. Not everything needs to be seen in terms of how it will affect a candidate electorally.
What’s most frustrating is that the Times would likely look at this newsletter and think it’s evidence they’re doing a good job.
In a recent interview with the Reuters Institute, Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger had this to say about media criticism:
Some of our critics have legitimate grievances, and we have to be open to hearing those grievances. A news organisation that shuts itself off from public criticism is a news organisation that's about to make big mistakes because the criticism helps keep us honest.
But not all criticism, and not even all good criticism, is aimed really at correcting the record. Often it's aimed at intimidating independent reporting. So our job is to help give the staff confidence to do those stories that explore unpopular positions and wade into controversial areas that challenge conventional wisdom.
Personally, I do not care if Sulzberger thinks these headlines upset me because he thinks I’m some super duper partisan who loves Biden (I’m not, and I don’t), but he’s absolutely full of crap with this “not all criticism, and not even all good criticism, is aimed really at correcting the record.” If it’s good criticism, if it’s factual criticism, who cares whether the person sharing it is really focused on neutrality or not?
But for the record, this edition of the newsletter is about correcting the record. And when people criticize the Times for things like its factually inaccurate and obsessive coverage of trans people and trans issues, that’s about correcting the record, too. Sulzberger is an ivory tower dweller who thinks that he can just smear his critics as “activists” whenever they call him out. Well, I’m calling him out, and I don’t care what that nepo-case thinks.
I’ve certainly criticized them quite a bit. And I do so because I want them to be accurate and unbiased. They’ve repeatedly proven that they can’t (or won’t) be.
That’s it for me today. As always, thanks for reading.
Parker
“I’m totally happy to accept criticism, just not the criticism that anyone actually has.”
This simple headline fail is an example of why the NYTimes, as it currently is (and has been for longer than most in major media are willing to admit) needs to be kneecapped at every opportunity.
All they have to do to not get the sh** kicked out of them is what they did at first - which as you so accurately and thoroughly point out in today's newsletter, is actual journalism, as compared to the biased bs they added later.
They simply have to not f*** things up.