The medium is the message on fraud stories

In today's paper edition of the New York Times, the headline reads,

Few Cases of Fraud Involving Stimulus Money Have Been Detected, Officials Say

Oddly, the electronic edition of the same story is headlined,

On the Lookout for Stimulus Fraud

The messages convey vastly different notions, as the latter seems to imply that fraud is rampant. The story -- whether on paper or gamma rays -- remains the same.

Compared with the immense size of the stimulus program, the actual number of arrests so far has been microscopic. Earl E. Devaney, the chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the watchdog for stimulus money, said recently that federal prosecutors were looking at only nine stimulus-related cases, including accusations of Social Security fraud and of businesses improperly claiming to be owned by women and members of minorities.

“Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised it’s that small,” Mr. Devaney testified recently before the Senate, explaining that his office passes along questionable expenses to the various federal inspector general offices following the money, as well as to the Department of Justice. “I know, from talking to them, they’re very interested in sending some very loud signals early, as often as they can, with this money.”

The small number of cases is partly a function of how much stimulus money has been spent so far, and how it has been spent. While more than $150 billion of it has been pumped into the economy, according to a recent report by the White House, some $62.6 billion of that was in the form of tax cuts. Of the rest, $38.4 billion was sent to states for fiscal relief; $30.6 billion was spent to help those affected by the recession by expanding unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs, and $16.5 billion was spent in areas like infrastructure, technology and research.

The biggest accusations of stimulus-related fraud so far have not involved the theft of public money at all. Rather, they have involved con artists fleecing gullible people and businesses hoping to profit from the stimulus.

Is the difference in headlines the result of the different places these stories appear during the "purchase cycle?" After all, if you're reading the paper, you've already paid your $2.00. If you're perusing on-line, the headline needs to hook the reader to click on it. Or is it just sloppy journalism by the online edition?