• littlewonder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Every time I see a question in a news headline, I just answer it with “no.” in my head and move on. 90% of the time it’s the same answer the article arrives at and the other 10% of the time, I’ll see a real headline about it from other sources anyway–with the actual lede in the title.

    • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It might be beneficial for some to understand the “what” and “why” behind the “no,” no?

      • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sure, but why not just lead with a negative assertion instead of implying that there’s an open question? The question implies that there is controversy, even when none exists.

        Fact Checking RFK Jr’s False Claims About Fluoride

        Would be a perfectly acceptable headline.

        • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The title poses the claim in question from a neutral standpoint, and presents it’s fact checking case in the article. I don’t agree with the idea that a controversy is implied simply by doing that, or that there is an open question implied either. That is not apparent to me whatsoever, and I think this is a personal opinion rather than anything concrete. By reading the article, that is confirmed, and the reader also gains a lot of additional information on the matter.