I read with amusement an article on the front page of The Sentinel Sept. 15, headlined: “Democrats turned out at three times the rate of Republicans.”

The article continued on Page A2 with another headline, “Democratic turnout was strong on primary day in NH.” It was a reprint from the Concord Monitor authored by Ethan DeWitt and was a story about primary voting stats of Democrats vs. Republicans.

The headlines are so misleading it makes one question if the intent wasn’t to abuse the fact that many people only read the headline and not the entire article, where one would expect to find the supporting information spelled out. In this case, the supporting information simply reported that Democrats voted by absentee ballot at three times the rate of Republicans; yet both headlines listed above would have us believe the Democrats voted overall at three times the rate of Republicans.

Is this an example of what people mean when pointing to the news media as corrupt and horribly one-sided? How’s it possible that two editors from two separate papers would allow these headlines that, in my opinion, are intentionally misleading?

Is this the new style of activist journalism? Free and fair press? Not this article.

MICHAEL BLAIR

175 West Surry Road, Keene

(The article referenced came via the Granite State News Collaborative with the front-page headline that was run in the Monitor. The headline was misleading, as we noted in a correction published Sept. 17. The A2 headline is accurate, based on the facts reported in the story.)