That is all fine and good as a quote in the body text of the article, but as a headline that is criminally poor editorial work from the Guardian. If it’s intentional clickbait, my opinion of that paper sinks even lower. To think, under Rusbridger it was my daily read.
I don’t. My comment makes it clear that I consider editorial oversight to be the most likely culprit.
As for the “why”: as an in-context quote it’s fine; out of context - as an article heading - there’s a high chance that the reader will understand it literally and be shocked by it. As pointed out in the other comments. A heading that is misleadingly designed to shock is the definition of clickbait. If, as I said, it was intentional.
7 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 28.8 ms ] threadI'm curious how the metaphor is so far from one's mind when reading.
How do you judge it as "clickbait"?
As for the “why”: as an in-context quote it’s fine; out of context - as an article heading - there’s a high chance that the reader will understand it literally and be shocked by it. As pointed out in the other comments. A heading that is misleadingly designed to shock is the definition of clickbait. If, as I said, it was intentional.