Why are political headlines so limp?

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free _Mother Jones Daily_. Steve Benen and James Fallows remind me of one of my favorite pet peeves

today: the routine use of headlines that blame “the Senate” or “Congress” for blocking a bill. For example: last night every Senate Republican banded together to filibuster a vote on Obama’s

jobs bill. So how did the _New York Times_ copy desk headline this? Like so: “Obama’s Jobs Bill Fails in Senate in First Legislative Test.” Nothing about Republicans and nothing about a

filibuster. Fallows comments: > The subhead and story make the real situation clear. So how about a > headline that says plainly what happened: “Obama’s Job Bill > Blocked by GOP in

 Procedural Move” It would fit. And it would help > offset the mounting mis-impression that the Constitution dictates a > 60-vote margin for getting anything done. Consider yourselves

lucky, guys! My morning copy of the _LA Times_ headlined it just as badly, and unlike the NYT, the subhead doesn’t make things any clearer. Needless to say, there was no need for this. The

hed could just as well have read “GOP Kills Obama Jobs Plan” if they’d wanted it to. So why didn’t they? This is a genuine question. Why do newspaper editors shy away from making partisan

differences clearer in headlines? Is it because two (2) Democrats also voted against the bill, so they think it’s unfair to blame it all on Republicans? Is it because they don’t want to seem

too partisan themselves? Or what? If any friendly copy desk chief has an explanation for this, I’d be happy to pass it along.