-By Warner Todd Huston
The headline of the Internet version of a Washington Post story about the shooting sports at the Olympics asserts that "even at the Olympics" the Olympians face questions about gun violence. Yet, upon reading the article, it is clear that the author of the piece is saying that none of the Olympic contestants have been confronted with such questions at all, at least not from anyone in the Olympics.
The headline of the piece reads, Even at the Olympics, Athletes in the Sport of Shooting Face Questions About Gun violence. But as you read it, what is clear is that only the media are pestering the Olympic Shooters with such questions. The contestants said no one actually in the Olympics, no fellow Olympians, have asked any such questions.
The print version carries a different headline that isn't much better: Shooting: Athletes Battle for Titles -- and to Dispel the Stigma of Gun Violence.
In any case, the whole story shows that it is really the media asking these questions, not other contestants, as at the very end of her piece Boyle gives us this paragraph:
“It’s not shocking to hear questions about gun control legislation,” Johnson said. “But when it comes to athletes in the village, I haven’t heard of a single one ask about anything along the lines of politics or Aurora. They see what we do.”
Oh, so after two pages telling us the Olympians face "questions on gun violence" we find out that they really aren't?
Of course, sometimes one has to wonder if the folks in the Old Media that write the headlines even read the stories to which they affix titles?
For those unaware, the reporters rarely ever write the headlines for the articles that carry their bylines. Usually it is an editor or some other newsroom personnel that take care of headlines, so we probably can't blame Katherine Boyle for this misleading headline.
However, Boyle herself did insert the political issue into the story for no real reason, so one can almost not blame the headline writer for this conceit.
In other words, there is no controversy, here. It's just the fevered imagination of the Old Media up to its old tricks again.