Quite struck today by headlines in my 'newspaper of choice'- the Times - which stated quite boldly 'Anglicans Block Gay Adoption'.

This is not what the letter from Canterbury and York to the Prime Minister was saying. It suggested, rather, that Church and voluntary organizations involved in the process of adoption should not be forced, under pain of falling afoul of antidiscrimination laws, to be agents of 'gay adoption' where issues of conscience and/or Church teaching were involved.

I'm wondering what goes on in the minds of headline writers when they write headlines in this manner:

1) Are they just rushed and needing to meet their mates at the pub and therefore any old thing will do.

2) Does the one headline motivate people in the newsstand to choose the Times over the Telegraph with its (slightly) more accurate headline of Churches unite against gay laws

3) Is there an actual motivation to make things look worse or more sinister than they are with respect to the meddling of bishops in social affairs? One would expect that of the Guardian but not the Times.

On a related note, the article by Mark Harris at Preludium had some excellent points about the role of press (and quasi-press - bloggers and pundits) in attempting to create realities rather than to merely describe them. Different media and a different angle, perhaps, but much of the same thing.