Headline 1: Trump defunds the WHO – experts warn of incoming dark ages for global healthcare cooperation
Headline 2: Trump administration ceases funding of the WHO
Headline 3: Trump ceases funding of the WHO after experts demonstrated records of pro-China bias
The first example headline is one that is modeled after a headline pertaining to a left-wing article. This is because the headline utilizes bias by selection, where the author has clearly selected the “expert” in this case to support the narrative, which is that Trump’s defunding of the World Health Organization will bring about a large amount of negative impact on the global healthcare system. This is also linked to bias by labeling, as the actual usage of the “expert” label creates an impression of a very knowledgeable, wise individual who is of well-formed and well-founded opinions. By having the “expert” conveniently agree with the article’s narrative of Trump’s actions potentially creating a “dark age” of global healthcare cooperation, the author is using an air of authority to push readers towards a side of the argument so as to agree with the “expert” and not appear incorrect. Finally, the tonality alludes to bias by spin. By referring to the situation as the “dark ages”, the author portrays an image of a hopeless time, and utilizes it as an allusion to a period of deterioration, supporting their narrative of Trump’s actions leading to a declining state in global healthcare cooperation.
The second example headline is one formed after an article that is in the middle of the political spectrum; neither leaning left nor right. The headline simply reports the objective fact, which in this case, is that the Trump administration ceased funding of the World Health Organization. This fact itself doesn’t align with either the left narrative or the right narrative, instead, it is up solely to the interpretation of the reader of its morality or ‘correctness’. Another note is that rather than utilizing the synecdoche of Trump representing the entire US presidential administration, the headline correctly states that it is the entirety of the Trump administration as a body that has decided to cease funding. This is an important distinction, as it avoids drawing additional reader attention to a singular subject, which can increase greater amounts of opposition or emotional charge from either political side.
Finally, the third headline represents a right-wing headline. Similar to the first headline, it utilizes bias by selection of sources, as it indicates that “experts” have demonstrated “records” of pro-China bias. By utilizing “experts”, it again attempts to draw readers towards the ‘right’ conclusion, which in this case, is supposed to be supporting their narrative. With “records”, it’s also implied that these are indisputable facts, further strengthening the author’s allusion that there is only one ‘right’ conclusion. There is also clear bias by omission as well as bias by story selection, as it blatantly ignores potential cases where the WHO has in fact, not been pro-China, illustrating that the author knowingly omitted key information to ensure readers are forced to draw conclusions only using the limited information that exists, which in this case only supports the right-wing argument. Unlike the unbiased headline, it again uses Trump as a synecdoche to the entire US presidential administration, playing on the fact that many right-wing readers support Trump, meaning that crediting the action solely to Trump is likely to draw greater emotional support for the action as a result.
