Talk about misleading headlines

The Dispatch/Argus carried a story by the Chicago Tribune yesterday and gave it the headline, "Obama event turns into anti-war rally".

That certainly got my attention. But as I read the piece, it became clear that it had "turned into" nothing of the sort.

Apparently there were anti-war protesters at the event who began chanting and attempting to disrupt Obama's talk.

The article states:

Then a vocal crowd of anti-war protesters quickly made the issue the central focus of Obama's evening rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion, holding up a sign that read "Cut the Funding" during his address and chanting loudly as he tried to speak.

"I'm glad they were there," Obama said later. "They feel a sense of urgency about a war that should have never been authorized and a war that should have never been fought."

But he said he doesn't want to cut funding for the military personnel who are already serving in Iraq, saying that could mean they don't get the equipment they need.

"We need to bring this war to an end," he said, "but we need to do it in a way that makes our troops safe."

OK. Seems clear that he does NOT agree with the protester's position of cutting funding.

Then later in the piece:

He hadn't yet gotten to his points about the Iraq war when the protesters began to chant "Troops out now!" prompting Obama to stop his talk and try to engage them.

"I hear you," he said. "We'll talk about that in a second. ... You've made your point, so why don't you relax?"

But the protesters continued to chant, and the rest of the crowd began to drown them out with deafening chants of "O-ba-ma!" Someone grabbed the sign from the protesters' hands -- the protesters said later that security officers did so -- and they left.

"They kicked us out," said Ryan Donnelly, a UIC student who participated in the protest with about 20 other students.

So, a small crowd of protesters among a crowd of 7,300 people TRIED to turn the even into an anti-war rally, but Obama told them to "relax", or in other words shut-up, and the rest of the crowd yelled at them to shut up and tried to drown them out with their own chants, and even grabbed the protesters signs.

And yet from this they report that the rally "turned into an anti-war rally", and that these few protesters, "...quickly made the issue the central focus of Obama's evening rally..."???!! They did nothing of the sort!

Is that really an honest description? If someone read only the headline, would they have the correct view? Of course not.

The event clearly didn't "turn into an anti-war rally", as a matter of fact, quite the opposite. Obama told them to settle down, and the crowd tried to drown them out and shut them up as well. And not only that, Obama clearly stated that he doesn't share their desire to cut funding for troops.

So why write it that way?

At least the Tribune had the sense to title the piece, "Protesters disrupt Obama rally", which is both true and accurate, though the lead paragraph is

A homecoming for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) turned into an anti-war rally Sunday evening, as he returned to his home city following the weekend launch of his candidacy for president to find a crowd of 7,300 troubled over the Iraq war.

And that's not accurate either.

The Dispatch Argus choose "Obama event turns into anti-war rally".

Why do they do inaccurate and misleading things like that?