29-10-2008, 05:38 AM
Who writes column titles in newspapers? Is it the author of the column or someone at the newspaper?
Here's why I'm asking.
"Will Swift: British years that put a philanderer on the path to presidency"
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/W...4635380.jp
Looks like the column is going to be a real hatchet job on John Kennedy doesn't it? We've been subjected to decades of trash written about him, presumably so we won't understand the true value of what was taken from us.
However, the actual article says nothing about Kennedy's philandering. Nothing. It's very admiring, for example:
"Learning from his father's mistakes, Jack would embody hope, flexibility, strength, and visionary optimism. Jack recognised that realism had to be leavened with optimism and courage had to be supported by a moral vision.
Moving beyond his father's focus on keeping the world secure, Jack Kennedy felt secure enough in himself that he could focus on transforming it. Jack absorbed his father's commitment to excellence and, as president, Jack Kennedy called the American people to greatness, and to public service ("Ask not what your country can do for you?").
In one of his finest and most courageous moments, on two succeeding days in June 1963, Jack gave his great "Peace Speech" at American University, setting the stage for the de-escalation of the culture of crisis and confrontation with the Soviet Union, and a televised address to the nation in which he called upon the American people to recognise the moral and practical importance of desegregation.
Jack Kennedy's extraordinary place in the nation's psyche is the greatest legacy of Joe and Rose Kennedy's tenure in London."
So where does a trashy, and in this case irrelevant, title like that come from?
Here's why I'm asking.
"Will Swift: British years that put a philanderer on the path to presidency"
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/W...4635380.jp
Looks like the column is going to be a real hatchet job on John Kennedy doesn't it? We've been subjected to decades of trash written about him, presumably so we won't understand the true value of what was taken from us.
However, the actual article says nothing about Kennedy's philandering. Nothing. It's very admiring, for example:
"Learning from his father's mistakes, Jack would embody hope, flexibility, strength, and visionary optimism. Jack recognised that realism had to be leavened with optimism and courage had to be supported by a moral vision.
Moving beyond his father's focus on keeping the world secure, Jack Kennedy felt secure enough in himself that he could focus on transforming it. Jack absorbed his father's commitment to excellence and, as president, Jack Kennedy called the American people to greatness, and to public service ("Ask not what your country can do for you?").
In one of his finest and most courageous moments, on two succeeding days in June 1963, Jack gave his great "Peace Speech" at American University, setting the stage for the de-escalation of the culture of crisis and confrontation with the Soviet Union, and a televised address to the nation in which he called upon the American people to recognise the moral and practical importance of desegregation.
Jack Kennedy's extraordinary place in the nation's psyche is the greatest legacy of Joe and Rose Kennedy's tenure in London."
So where does a trashy, and in this case irrelevant, title like that come from?