Rescind, Decline, Whatever!—It’s Just Words Dude!—They're ALL The Same!

This shows the difference between a Google search for a CNN article, and the actual article. The difference seems to be caused by the fact that the original title of the article was "Condoleezza Rice rescinds invitation...", but somebody changed it to "Condoleezza Rice declines invitation...", which is what it should have been in the first place. However, the source code for the article page still shows the title tag as "Condoleezza Rice rescinds...", showing that was the original title. The difference is not merely semantical. It creates serious confusion about who did what to whom and who is really a victim, and who is really a perpetrator. This confusion does not impact the fact Rice stood to make $35,000 for delivering her speech at Rutgers, which is more money than almost 1/3 of American households take in for an entire year!
This is how bad things have gotten in the USA—a headline fuckup can infect and completely mangle the national political debate.

If you recall, in days of yore, a few weeks ago, the nation was bubbling over with dire warnings about free speech being endangered on college campuses, because poor, mistreated, war criminals and police-thug pushers were not being welcomed as prized commencement address speakers on the nation’s campuses.

The big star in this stupid narrative wanking-off of the half-educated was the story about Condoleezza Rice deciding not to deliver the commencement address at Rutgers. Rice, the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under George W. Bush, war criminal, had been invited to deliver the commencement address at Rutgers. Isn’t that nice?

Well, not so fast, protested a lot of students and faculty members, who pointed out that Rutgers had a responsibility to the class that was going to have to listen to this awful woman speak to them, to listen to the voices of that class who plainly did not want her.

Rutgers at no point decided to withdraw its invitation to Rice. Nevertheless, she ultimately decided not to speak there. 

For some reason—well for a “good” reason actually—people got it into their heads that Rutgers did in fact withdraw its invitation, or to use the technical language, people believed Rutgers had “rescinded” its invitation. However, that was not true. Rice “declined” the invitation, and that’s something very different.

In her "decline" statement, made on Facebook, on May 3, 2014, Rice explained that she understood she was a bad choice for a commencement speaker because, as she pointed out, commencement should be a "joyous" celebration for graduates, and that would be all fucked up what with a heinous war criminal like Rice delivering the commencement address (and getting $35, 000 and an honorary doctorate degree in heinousness).

However, if you go searching for articles reporting this story, you will quickly discover one, apparently quite influential headline, published at back on May 4, 2014, which today (June 9, 2014), reads:
“Condoleezza Rice declines to speak at Rutgers after student protests”
Well, that sounds accurate, huh? Problem is the article shows up in Google searches with this headline:
“Condoleezza Rice rescinds invitation to speak at Rutgers commencement”.
AND, if you look at the source code for the article, you will see the actual title of the article is still:
“Condoleezza Rice rescinds invitation to speak at Rutgers commencement”.
So, initially, someone at CNN decided to use the “R” word, either because they didn’t know the difference between “R” and “D”, or because some editor thought it would be cool to plant the notion out in the buggy blogosphere and twittersphere that somebody had RESCINDED something.

In fact, thousands of sites copied the original CNN wording in their own reports of Rice's decision.

Since, only three days after Rice declined Rutgers, the university was in fact reported to have rescinded an invitation to a paralyzed former Rutgers football player, Eric LeGrand, to speak at the commencement, the idea that somehow Rice got rescinded on by Rutgers too was widely accepted as fact.

If you go to Twitter, for example, you will find plenty of affirmations that "racist" Rutgers "rescinded" Rice.

Well, that isn’t true. But it is what people, especially conservatives, repeated, over and over again.

If the hopelessly daft and defective MSM are spewing mind-altering trash-reporting so irresponsibly, so that a story about students and faculty very reasonably protesting being blathered at by a horrible war criminal, becomes instead a story about the poor war criminal as the victim, what else are these rotten jerks doing to the national mind and its torrid, cacophonous, and largely vacuous, debates?