As I mentioned recently, and have mentioned many times in the past, how headlines are shaped has a great deal of influence on how people think of an issue. The headline creates a picture of a theme in our minds as we read the article, influencing our view of the entire issue. In addition, many don’t even read the articles, but gain their impressions completely by glancing through the headlines. This is not something that has slipped the attention of the media; you can be certain that they know this and pay close attention to how headlines are worded.

So when headlines begin to change, one should pay attention to the how and why. The Obama passport file scandal has just lifted off and has been in the public eye for only hours, but I have noticed that the headlines have notably changed in that short time. While the scandal is obviously centered on the breach of privacy, how it impacts the Obama campaign, and were there any dirty tricks involved, the headlines have suddenly begun focusing on a different and almost irrelevant aspect of the issue:

WaPo: Looking at Obama’s File Gets Two Fired
NYT: 3 Disciplined in Passport Case
ChiTrib: State Dept. workers fired for looking at Obama passport file
AP: Feds Fire 2 for Looking at Obama File
LAT: State Dept. fires 2 for peeking into Obama’s passport file
MSNBC: 2 fired over Obama passport file breach
AFP: State Department sacks two for Obama passport breach

Why focus on the fact that three people were disciplined for this, when there is a long list of far more important aspects? It does not seem to make any sense…until, that is, you try to think of it from a different angle: if you wanted to downplay the offense to the Obama campaign and make it sound like the government acted appropriately, then these headlines would be perfect for conveying that sense.

Update: now that the story is no longer just about Obama, the media has suddenly dropped the “three employees disciplined” or “two workers fired” headlines, and–now that the focus superficially allows for dismissing the dirty-tricks angle, the headlines have changed to center on the falsely exculpatory part of the story. Here are the headlines from the exact same sources I quoted before:

WaPo: 3 Candidates’ Passport Files Breached
NYT: Passport Files of 3 Candidates Were Pried Into
ChiTrib: Obama, Clinton, McCain passport files breached
AP: Candidates’ Passport Files Breached
LAT: Passport files of McCain, Clinton, Obama all breached
MSNBC: Passport case leads to Va. contractor
AFP: US candidates’ passport files breached

How about that? Now that Obama is not the only one identified as having his files breached, now the MSM’s headlines drop their focus on how people got fired for it and focus instead on the angle that all three candidates’ records were “pried into” or “breached” (they no longer say “peeked into” or “looked at,” more trivializing verbs). Sometimes the tendency to change wording in a biased way is rather surprisingly overt–if you care to take notice of such things.