Look at one example of an ever so carefully misleading title and text of an article covering the Honduran crisis:
Honduras's Two Presidents Keep Their Distance by Elisabeth Malkin and Mark Lacey, September 23, 2009
Firstly, practically the whole world, the UN, the EU, the OAS, and all embassies, including even the U.S. State Department and President Obama, have declared that they recognize only one president, President Zelaya, as the president of Honduras.
No one has, to our knowledge, ever written of Roberto Micheletti as president of Honduras, outside pronouncements of the renegade and undemocratic mix of Honduran scions and U.S. trained military that had the elected President Zelaya serving the last four months of his term,sequestered and seized power - ostensibly to prevent a survey of the opinions of the citizenry on the constitution.
The corporate media cartel leading New York Times would have us think that there are "Two" presidents: Manuel Zelaya and the person put in Zelaya's place by the military coup which involved American personnel from a U.S. military base in Honduras.
The editors of the New York Times know well that usually a majority of those looking over an edition will be only scanning the titles, and skipping to articles of what is of particular or personal interest. (certain world or national news, local events, human interests stories, health, gardening, sports, scandals, etc.)
A subtle skewering of meaning in the title is all it takes to set up or plant a confusion to be later augmented into a totally false understanding of what is going on. (That's how all the wars manage to become justified by the New York Times before they begin.)
At least half the readers of the New York Times will come away from this edition with a false idea that there are two men with equal claim to be the President of Honduras.
Many of us who choose to read the article or at least skim its content will come away with a dented inclination to be feel that Zelaya is deserving of all the attention, esteem, sympathy and affection that he has garnered up to now from the less than right-wing, middle of the road, sector of the American public. Other readers will be inclined to hold in abeyance their judgment as to which of the "two" Presidents be best for Honduras.
Secondly, that the two men referred to in the title "Keep[ing] Their Distance" is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. All reports of the actions and statements of these two men have over weeks been consistent. Zelaya wishing dialog with Micheletti to the point where he has returned to Honduras while under threat of re-arrest, while to the contrary of the New York Times articles title, it is only Micheletti who is keeping distance between them.
It is striking that the authors concocted this second fabrication in their title, for right in the second paragraph they quote Zelaya wishing to get together with Micheletti, "We need to sit down face to face,"
Thirdly, one notices certain phrases in the text that seem by choice of words and their connotations to steer us into an impression of Zelaya as perhaps being less than a heroic and far and away popular president, forbearing and patient, noble for his lack of rancor, a victim of the power elite of his country.
The New York Times publishing editors know that Zelaya, as a potential new member of the growing group of Latin America's democratically elected socialist presidents, has long become a headache for America's corporate governance, which the Times is beholden to.
For readers who have not been following the coup d'etat, it will stand out that the authors choose to modify Zelaya supporters with the adjective "some"; that this "one of the two Honduran presidents' has "some" supporters, at least in his immediate vicinity in the protection of a friendly embassy, without reminding the reader that President Zelaya (the only recognized president of Honduras) has the firm recognition and backing of the whole world with the sole exception of Israel, which has recognized the so called interim government that has taken control by using the military - or visa versa.
Some seemingly calculated disparaging choice of words follow in the coverage: