The subhead and the rest of the article make clear that more Senators voted for the bill than against it -- 50 to 49. It would have been 51-48 except for a parliamentary ruse by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who switched to a "No" vote so that he would later be able to call it up for reconsideration.
We have gone so far in recent years toward routinizing the once-rare requirement for a 60-vote Senate "supermajority" into an obstacle for every nomination and every bill that our leading newspaper can say that a measure "fails" when it gets more Yes than No votes. (For background on mounting abuse of the filibuster, see accounts from late 2009, early 2010, and late 2010.)
Again, the subhead and story make the real situation clear. So how about a headline that says plainly what happened:
"Obama's Jobs Bill
Blocked by GOP in
It would fit. And it would help offset the mounting mis-impression that the Constitution dictates a 60-vote margin for getting anything done.
(Update: here's an example of the right headline, conveniently at our own site. OTOH the story itself is not as clear about the realities as the NYT's is and had an unfortunate headline in its original version at our sister site.)
Bonus Update: Here is a much worse headline and presentation from the Daily Beast.
Update^3: Thanks to T.H., a screengrab showing the greatness of the BBC.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.