U.S. media headlines report bizarre seizure of oil tanker like it is a sport

Crucial context doesn't even make the subheads this time; "Trump says" is good enough for the headline writers

There’s no way to edit these headlines using my red grease pencil.

From the Post:

And from the Times:

The Post headline is the worst, as it once again lets Trump write the headlines by quoting him. How is that providing readers with the real story when it just gives his version?

The Times story isn’t much better, as it just states the act without any context of what it means aside from adding pressure on the sitting president of another country.

Compare those headlines with this from the Guardian in the U.K. and you’ll see what’s missing from the way the U.S. newspapers of record handled the story:

To be fair, this was a headline for a follow story a few hours after the Guardian’s first story on the seizure. However, neither the Post nor Times wrote such a follow story that I could find on their websites focusing on the Venezuelan claims of piracy.

The Guardian headline shows the effect of the seizure — providing the victims an opportunity to respond to an unprovoked act — and notes importantly where the seizure occurred: off Venezuela’s coast.

Why is this important?

Headlines need to reflect the significance of the story. The heads in the Post and Times present this highly unusual act as if it was a normal occurrence, as opposed to a potential precursor of war.

The Guardian head is a much more accurate portrayal of the stories that each of these papers published underneath their disparate heads.