"Pfizer Says It Won't Apply for Vaccine Authorization Before Mid-November" is the headline the New York Times put over its news article in print editions about the latest news from a pharmaceutical company testing a Covid-19 vaccine.
"Pfizer's Timetable for Vaccine Signals Availability This Year," is the headline the Wall Street Journal put over similar news in Journal print editions.
The comparison made me smile because it suggests that the Times headline writers are viewing the progress toward a vaccine more in terms of how it might affect the presidential election. The Journal article takes until paragraph eight to mention Trump or the presidential election: "Pfizer's timeline puts a pre-election clearance for its candidate out of reach." The Times gets to Trump right in its lead paragraph: "The chief executive of Pfizer said on Friday that the company would not apply for emergency authorization of its coronavirus vaccine before the third week of November, ruling out President Trump's assertion that a vaccine would be ready before Election Day on Nov. 3."
The Times may be serving its readers who view every bit of news in terms of whether it will help or hurt Trump's re-election chances. The Journal may be serving its readers who want the news straight, without a heavy dose of political commentary. There's also a good news/bad news dynamic, with the Times focusing on the disappointment of not-before-mid-November and the Journal focusing on the hope of "this year." Though for the Times readers really invested in defeating Trump, the bad news of a delayed vaccine application may be good news in terms of getting rid of Trump.
Reading more than just one newspaper is a good way to detect the spin that headline writers add.