I'm a journalist and I know that headlines typically aren't written by the reporters that write the story. Headlines often are written at the copy desk and are chosen in large measure by the space available and which words in the headline's typestyle will fit into that space. I also understand that headlines often are jotted at the last minute as a story is being copy-edited on its way to the typesetting and layout people. Those are some of the reasons why headlines, like this one, often aren't well enough thought out. I've seen it on stories I've written and, recently, in one that I was the main source for.

It's still shoddy reporting. Biased, and by your own admission, written before the Tea Party Express even showed up. How could you even think to do that? Where's the re-write? As a journalist, you are responsible, through patch, to bring facts, not opinion, to your readers.

I'm not a member of the Tea Party. I'm not a member of any "Liberty" group or PAC. I think your comment is a bit over-the-top. The author wrote "Liberty" because that's the name of the PAC: "LIBERTY." Lighten up.

Marc, get a life.

First, the sources described themselves as part of liberty groups. If you watch the videos, you can hear a bit of that.
Second, the word "liberty" is featured in two of the four groups in attendance (there may have been other groups represented, I only know of four). I mentioned this before.
Third, none of the people involved in this story said anything racist or anything else. Their points were about economics and not liking what Romney has represented with his voting record and previous statements. I simply reported on what was said and done. I truly don't see how writing what happened at a protest or demonstration has any suggestion of bias. In fact, it's a bit astounding actually.

I think a major issue in journalism today is reporters parroting whateber it is that groups want them to parrot. Because they call themselves "liberty groups" is in no way sufficient to veer from the common usage of "Tea Partiers" . No doubt you are not bound by the AP or NYT style guides, but if you were this would be an absolute no-brainer, your shock notwithstanding.

Thanks Marc for the note. I appreciate it. It's been interesting reading the comments today.
The major issue really isn't journalists or journalism. It's the hyper-partisan, hypersensitivity to everything that is going on in politics right now. In many ways, it has always been this way since there have always been people who have some entrenched interest - often financial - to who wins the campaigns every two years. Just about anyone can scream bias for any reason these days, on the right or the left.
The process of reporting what happens in a news story is a simple one: The writer shows up and reports what happened. Yes, it is that simple. This was not an analysis piece. It wasn’t a Sunday Times 4,000-word feature or spotlight investigation. It was short story about a counter-demonstration at a rally.
Yes, there are style issues involved (we use AP, with some tweaks here and there). Yes, there are limitations to the software. But this one was pretty straight. You don’t like the headline. I’m sorry for that. But there wasn’t and isn’t any bias in this story.

I appreciate that. And honestly was not trying to make it a federal case - really an off-hand comment that you happened to respond to directly so it kept going. And yes, I agree about all the hyper-partisanship. Personally, I think a false equivalency trope is out there in terms of there being equal responsibility for it; I would say, and easily, that it is the Right. But obviously that's a larger, much different talk. best to you

The race card strikes again! This is really getting old.

They are nothing but the racist fringe of the GOP.

@ItBeMe Do you have even the vaguest notion of what "playing the race card" is? This person is pointing out that many of (presumably) your ilk possess racist notions, something which if you scan a crowd at a 'Bagger event becomes overwhelmingly clear instantaneously. "Playing the race card" is when a minority uses his own racial status to try to curry favor, etc. Just because race is mentioned doesn't mean it isn't valid. For further lessons in argumentation, pick up a book on rhetoric...

@ItBeMe the race card is a fact. Obama is hated because he represents what the US is gonna become...non-white. Lots of folks hate that... can't stomach that.
I know a good number of people who are racists. You don't?

Hello Mr. Winghunter:
Homework for you. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, John T.; Glaser, Jack; Kruglanski, Arie W.; Sulloway, Frank J.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol 129(3), May 2003, 339-375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r=.50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Summary:
Some conservatives are motivated by fear, distrust and hate.

Then separate you local NH "Liberty Groups" from the vastly funded by GOP operatives "Tea Party". Don't confuse your readers, clarify with facts.
Try some of these links for what's really going down in these post-Citizens United days:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://maplight.org/
http://www.legistorm.com/
http://www.congressmatters.com/
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://www.congressmatters.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.govtrack.us/
http://maplight.org/

Thanks for the replies, honestly. I'm happy to have started what seems to be a lively little debate here! However, you have not to my mind adequately responded directly to my issue with the headline, whether or not you wrote it (but seems you are saying you did) -- Why would you use the phrase "liberty groups" in the first place? Sure, they bandy about that term ad nauseum, this is true. But they are known in general and certainly in the journalistic sense as "tea partiers". Let me use hyperbole here: If a group calling itself "Nazis for Peace" were to hold a rally in your town, would the headline read "Peace group protests..." ? Of course not. But when you confer such status on a fringe group - and these are fringe groups if any reasonable definition of the margins still exists, you are doing your readers a disservice.

@ Marc: I'm sorry, you didn't ask a direct question about that. Since you are now, I'll answer: I wrote the headline.
Second, the members of the group described themselves as liberty groups and, as noted, two have the word "liberty" in their names (maybe more, I only know of four groups represented at the counter-demonstration).

You wrote: "Let me use hyperbole here: If a group calling itself "Nazis for Peace" were to hold a rally in your town, would the headline read "Peace group protests..." ?"

Well, honestly, I'd need more than this sentence to render a decision on that. I rarely write headlines before seeing or hearing what I see or hear in a story. The content mgmt software we're using really requires limited wording on headlines. What do you think? "Nazi Peace Group Protests in Concord"?

Therefore, you're declaring Communism is an original thought, Comrade??

Handing out facts of a record is educating verses parroting what you hear from other Useful Idiots.

The John Birch Society has booths at many kiosks at Teaparty rallies. I wonder why that is?

The Wong Drool: "They advocate the total take down of our government".

A patriots first name isn't 'Comrade', Corrine. Follow Marx and his Useful Idiots if you dare, I'll follow these Patriots:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force.” – George Washington

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”- Patrick Henry

"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." - Thomas Jefferson

Wong way drools more: "These few protesters, and they are few,.."

The 2010 election results clearly puts your psychotic rant in the Insane category as a "few" could not have replaced over 250 officials nationwide. You really should try reality for a change of pace.

Wong way: "They use their "man on the street" protesters as their unsuspecting tools"

Look up the term 'Useful Idiots' and see a picture of yourself staring back.

Winghunter, your drool bucket is full. Please call a nurse to have it emptied, then come down to the dayroom for some nice tapioca pudding.

The Comrade who drools empty rhetoric instead of specific arguments (that he can't bring) needs to realize that the freedom to spew what he likes doesn't provide any truth to his rant.

Winghunter: "The Comrade who drools empty rhetoric instead of specific arguments (that he can't bring) needs to realize that the freedom to spew what he likes doesn't provide any truth to his rant."

You should heed your own words. The exact same statement could be used against your onslaught of inane posts...

Ahh, when all else fails resort to denial. How typical. Look DEEP into your mirror;

The Liberal Mind: Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Dr. Lyle Rossiter http://bit.ly/a4RTOS

KHodder: I agree with everything in your post, except the words: "Ronald Reagan."
Reagan was a soap salesman who understood the art of the possible, the times were more strongly against his fringe conservatism, so he tempered his rhetoric to schmooze his audience... Reagan was Governor of my home state of California. He devastated the states budget and left a mess of ever increasingly partisan politics.

I come from a political family of active Republicans and Democrats, at a time when the two parties worked together. But then — unlike now — we had politicians who could match socks. nReagan started the trend that ended that, for the corrupt advantage of those with big money. Sound familiar?

Hey, and provide Alexander Hamilton's complete thoughts on the meaning of general welfare so we can check your homework. If you can quote Madison you can quote Hamilton.

Like this??
"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

Remind you of anyone, Comrade??

Dredging up arguments laid to rest over 220 years ago can only be an attempt to push a disloyal agenda. Enabling free citizens is enslaving them.

"...although Alexander Hamilton and other leaders of the Federalist Party argued for an expansive reading of the spending power, their reading was, on the whole, rejected both by Congress and, after the election of 1800, by the executive. Indeed, the differing views on the scope of federal power was a principal ground on which the 1800 presidential-election contest between Jefferson and incumbent Federalist President John Adams was waged. As Jefferson would note in an 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, the different interpretations of the Spending Clause put forward by Hamilton, on the one hand, and Madison and Jefferson, on the other, were “almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans.” Jefferson won that election, and, save for a brief interlude during the one-term presidency of John Quincy Adams, the more restrictive interpretation of spending power was adopted by every President until the Civil War.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Enough-Is-Enough-Why-General-Welfare-Limits-Spending

WH is just baiting people. He knew not what to say, so he insulted.

The Great Race; Jack Lemmon as Dr. Fate: "Oh, I'll keep it to myself. Until the water reaches my lower lip and then I'M GOING TO MENTION IT TO SOMEBODY!"

12 Gauge

Yes, I've seen bigots attempt this drivel before. It's still stupid. Start on page 4 and learn history the way it actually happened;

The Democratic Party Owes Blacks An Apology http://bit.ly/sC4KJ

Bravo. Excellent post. You are 100% factually correct. I find it amusing that WH resorts to the most obscure or rightwing mouthpieces to support his view. I wonder why that is?

E: Again spot on.

This degenerate GOP also claims lineage from Lincoln's Republican Party, when in fact Republicans switched sides when Lyndon Johnson signed civil rights legislation.

NOTE: About 10 years ago, this Republican Party installed a portrait of Senator Hiram Revels from Mississippi — the first black senator in American history, who was a Republican. That was an attempt to claim the lineage of Lincoln and Frederick Douglas for a party that is far closer in spirit to the Knights of the White Camlia.

Everybody know that but Wingnutter who has special fringe sources of "information." He is correct in one way. The Democratic Party has its own White-Supremacists, who are more subtle in their racism, which has had pernicious effects on healing the stain of bigotry in America, but in the Democratic Party they represent a minority. As always, nothing is simple, when closely examined.

Hey Joey, here's your racists;

The Black Code: Why Obama Still Owns The Black Vote http://ht.ly/5FWxk

Plan on reinfesting America again?

Don't go away mad, just go away, Comrade. Take your mirror with you;

The Liberal Mind: Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Dr. Lyle Rossiter http://bit.ly/a4RTOS

E: Well & clearly stated.

As you correctly analyzed, this conflict is about the continuing historical struggle for the soul of America, between those who embraced free labor and those who were willing to die to preserve their Christian, Bible-justified right to own, buy and sell human beings. Attacking the right to politically organize free labor was the agenda of the Klan and the other groups of racist terrorists who operated across the former slave states and among slavery sympathizers in other places, like Indiana. Keeping people down was their agenda; that's why they burned the Black schools rather than raise the pathetic literacy rate among White people.

PS. Wingnutter does not know enough about American history to re-write it. He just uses his rage to repeat the pooled ignorance that passes for US history among far-right-fringe-groups. The core concepts of this disinformation were largely written during Reconstruction. They have been passed around reactionary circles, in one form or another, ever since.

So brainwashed that you don't recognize the truth when you see it then fall into denial and projection. It's pathetic really.

The Democratic Party Owes Blacks An Apology http://bit.ly/sC4KJ

Skeletons Inside Democratic Party Closet http://bit.ly/cJcnx3

WN, you realize that linking to essays of the bonafide fringe Right does your cause absolutely no service, right?

That's not how you pull yourself from denial, Marc. You actually read what's in the links and then make your pitiful attempt to refute what was said. I realize that sounds like work to you but, deal with it.

It's truly amazing to see a despicable worm so lazy that he only parrots what he sees having no knowledge of a term at all. Isn't that right, Comrade??

I actually did read both, in full, and they're absolute rubbish. They are glorious conflagrations of the "Best of" list of logical fallacies -- interpretations of the past, and with regard to the Democrats history absolutely true interpretations, with the intended and entirely illogical end being that this had anything whatsoever to do with the present. And in terms of the article about blacks supporting Obama, I've seldom read anything so entirely insidious, ridiculous and indeed RACIST, in a long time. I actually thought it was an Onion article at first.

Joey Marx: ""The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind" Albert Camus

"At my age, it is no longer surprising that those who know the least speak the loudest"

Don't tell me, you see no hypocrisy there at all.

AND the '12 elections will be just as big a surprise to the ignorant, bigoted and treasonous fring-group as it did for them in 2010.

It's not a slow news day. It is part of the beltway mindset that the Tea-Party is important — this is their 'social movement of the decade' —so they react as if something significant is happening, when it isn't.

We've organized marches to demand better treatment for infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis, etc that attracted, literally, a hundred times that many demonstrators without getting that much press.

It's like the guy looking for his car keys under the street light, when he knows that he lost'em in a dark alley, because... "I can't see anything over there."

Hey genius, It never occured to you that reporting a division (no matter how small) in the opposition is the intent.

You should let that roll around in your head for about a month just to see if it causes a spark or simply drop out of your ear.

Racist much, Behar??

Wingnutter, if you're looking for a racist, just find a mirror.

Here's your mirror, moron;

The Liberal Mind: Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Dr. Lyle Rossiter http://bit.ly/a4RTOS

Tony: Sorry for my being unclear, I was addressing national coverage. I learned about this from a headline on Huffington post. Actually, because I live in France, it was international coverage of your reporting to which I referred.

I'm a photojournalist. I understand local coverage, but your local reporting wasn't picked up because 25 or 50 folks showed up with three-corner hats to carry signs. It was picked up because editors in DC and NYC and LA (and through them London, Paris, Singapore, etc.) think that the Tea-Party is a much bigger movement that is more important, electorally, than I think it is. I think that the Tea-Party's domination of the GOP is setting the party up for a huge breakdown. Of course, for the sake of full disclosure, I'm all for that. Given the degenerate state of this Republican party, I believe they deserve to fail and maybe that's what the editors want to see... but, if so... that ain't journalism. That's what FOX News does — manipulate the ignorant — and I, for one, don't like it.

Actually the bottom lime is that we have an intransigent opposition party that has done everything in its power to ASSURE that the economy does not improve, and the lion's share of the blame goes to them, along with a good portion of the blame to Obama for being absolutely inept at fighting for any ideal. (Don't expect me to defend him - an an ACTUAL liberal, I'm increasingly alarmed by his utter lack of political skill.) And furthermore, there now is a RIght in this country who's entire raison d'être is that government does not and CAN not work - how the hell is that a strategy for governance? Well by the looks of things, clearly it is not. If you are happy being in support of plutocrats and the top 1/10 of 1% of the country, good for you, thats fine. But please, please do not claim, when regurgitating the talking points of those who don't give a shit about anyone but the elite, to be somehow in support of "liberty", or the general good, or any single worthwhile notion - because you are not.

Based on my above comment what the hell are you babbling about? It appears it is YOU who needs to get his meds adjusted.

I had my fears it was going to be over your head -- sorry to have strained your brain. Best of luck to you.

I think you're a legend in your own mind pal. Get some help please. Or, at best, move out of your mom's basement and get some air.

Our president remains far above the corporate-owned GOP whose goal is the permanent destruction of America's middle class.  I’ve been a critic of the president, I think he’s made too many compromises. I believe that, by not backing labor unions, he has weakened his base and strengthened corporate exploitation — unless of course you want to work for Massa Wal-Mart.  But for all my criticisms, of this president, I see his character & insight as so superior to the arrogant, self-dealing GOP, that it's foolish for us not to make 2012 the year for a showdown on the country’s future.

What made America the world's leading economy?  Innovation.  What made that innovation possible? Education.  California, is the model, after becoming a world leader, CA built more prisons  than universities. Where’s that society going?  Answer: nowhere.  

President Obama is about to propose a program of investment in infrastructure, education and research, that will bring jobs while providing a platform for a sustainable future.  The GOP has their mocking response prepared, but what have they done but pass anti-abortion laws & attack the New Deal...   This country is on the precipice of loosing its future yet a debate continues with people who are selfish & unserious... as if a prosperous future was guaranteed. Without investments in education and infrastructure in a society that both demands and rewards the discipline to pursue them, that prosperous future ain't gonna happen.

I think it's time to have your meds adjusted. Just sayin'.

There is an intelligent argument for dealing with debt & deficits, while controlling deficit spending is obviously important, it is hard to make the case that a period of economic stagnation is the appropriate time to implement those constraints. As Maggie Thatcher said so eloquently: "The trouble with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money." The goal of a liberal society, one that prizes elements of social justice above unfettered profit for the few, is to keep the ball rolling for the sake of the greatest good for the greatest number of people (the Utilitarian principal...), it is neither to kill the golden goose, nor to give away all the eggs.

FACT: All the Republican economic arguments pale into hypocrisy
when placed against two facts: #1 the Bush tax cuts #2 the War in Iraq.

None of the great free marketers ever founded a nation, both Friedman & Hayak wrote brilliant, inspiring books on the value fo self-reliance & individual effort --- good values but insufficient to sustain any community. There is no Jefferson, Madison or Franklin among the Libertarians... there is no balance.

As Rabbi Hilel wrote a couple of millennia ago:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?

yes!!

As they say in NH - "Live Free or off somebody else".

@ItBeMe - Is there a cogent thought in that brain of yours, or do you just spit out slogans and talking points? Are you a Sarah Palin-bot?? Also, www.dictionary.com is available if you need a definition for cogent.

Blah, blah, blah - what you said was still nothing but a slogan, and possesses nothing in terms or argumentation. You are seemingly just an angry person with venom to spew. If you want to make a point, write a few sentences and actually try to convince those on the other side...

I don't know what "other side" you're referring to? I think you've made your point and it's on your head.