This is going to turn into a semantics discussion.I am arguing that a blanket reference to 1984 has become a rhetorical device. No one hears that and changes their mind unless they already believe it. Because it's seen as scaremongering, it is ignored. I feel it's much better to put the effort into showing WHY something is like 1984; the more specific, the better. Personally, I think it's better to not mention it, as it's basically the new Hitler argument (although that seems like it's back en vogue as of late).

Also, I am not saying that the media can't be manipulative. Both sides have their version: for the left, it's fox and for the right it's everything else. As far as that headline being an "accident," there are many ways something could get published unintentionally. My point was that most lies that are influenced by bias are subtle. As it pertains to MSM, this involves lots of lies of omission, data that is interpreted from a political leaning, or choosing to run with a story from an unverified source. Very, very few stories are as blatantly wrong as the one you linked above.

Let's assume for a second that the media was trying to manipulate a large group of people and is perfectly ok with using a blatant lie.... would you go with "Paul Manafort charged with 5 counts of murder" or "Paul Manafort connected to Russian journalist death in England?" The later would at least play into preconceived notions of who Paul Manafort is and how Trump is connected to Russia. The former has no ties to previously held notions, so even people who want to believe it probably had their doubts.

Even if we take for granted that the media is full of bias, all I am saying is that there is going to be an accidental headline from time to time, and I'd caution about making them all intentional. The ironic part (at least as far as I'm concerned), is that it's these kinds of lies that carry the most clout because they're so obviously wrong. People on both sides should be more critical of subtle bias, imo.

---