you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (18 children)

You'd think a world-class corporate news organiztion like Associated Press would be able to shoehorn that into the title somehow. And yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It's literally the second paragraph of the article. You'd think a literate person with time to write inane comments would be able to read the article. And yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    FYI, it seems like you are marked as a bot. You might want to change that (assuming you aren’t a bot)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    We’re gonna do this again?

    Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are two different things. Can you grasp the concept?? Does your inanity know no bounds?! Have you, at long last, no sense of decency, sir?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are part of the same body of work. If you want all the context, read all of the work.

    If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Indeed. The Title of the book and the Entirety of the Book are part of the same work! If you want to comment on the title of the book you MUST read the entirety of the book!

    The trailer for the movie and the entire movie are part of the same body of work. If you want to comment on the trailer for the movie you must see the entire movie first.

    The appetizer and the dinner are part of the same body of work if you want to comment on the appetizer you must eat the entire dinner first.

    Etc, Etc.

    If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.

    The title HAS a context without anything else being done. That is the point. The title (while being part of the same body of work) is alone. And here's the thing: most people don't see the whole movie before taking something away from the trailer. (Super-seekrit PRO TIP: The people who create the trailers know this and use it to their advantage.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Comparing a movie that takes an hour+ to watch to an article that it would take you 5 minutes to read tops to get enough context to not make dumb comments. Yeah, totally comparable.

    People like you are why I have to send multiple work emails after I've already mentioned all the relevant details in the first message, all because I didn't put the whole gods damned message in the subject line.

    Take a hooked on phonics course if reading is that hard for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    FFS I’m not talking about the article for a reason. How (or why) you refuse to understand that is beyond me.

    Yeah yeah hooked on phonics, ace repartee. Anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    If you’re not going to read the article or have any interest in it, why bother interacting on the subject at all? The fuck are you even talking about then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you are ignoring point they are making. If the headline and article tell two different stories, those who just read the headline can come away with a different impression of what's happening. You can argue people that just read the headline shouldn't exist, but they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's a lot of information the shoe horn into the title when it seems perfectly reasonable just put it in the article itself. That's what articles are for after all, the context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "as per NY law" ?

    four words? none longer than three letters? That's a lot? Really?

    No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Man I don't think you understand what the point of a title is. It's not to give you all the information you need. That's what the article is for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Does a title affect people? Just reading one sentence about something "newsworthy"? Do you think titles alone can have an effect on the political nature of a country, or a social group?

    I don't think you understand what the point of a title is. Or what I'm talking about. Despite it being painfully obvious.

  • source
  • parent