[malz]

I don't see this as classic clickbait (as opposed to, say, "The shocking change at your kids' high school you absolutely must know about") so much as an attempt at cleverness, which is not uncommon for human-interest NYT stories even if it obscures the actual meaning.

[jccc]

I think a headline that intentionally implies something false, and more compelling than the truth, is comfortably within the definition of clickbait.

Cleverness would let us in on the metaphor without us having to read the article.

[Dylan16807]

> "The shocking change at your kids' high school you absolutely must know about"

In that case the superlatives are blatant puffery, and the factual part of the line is accurate. That's not nearly as bad as flat-out lying, like the title on this article.

[ghaff]

There are certain patterns of annoying headlines online. However, pretty much every headline written anywhere (online or off) is supposed to be clickbait in that it's supposed to grab you to read the article. And, if anything, SEO probably discourages the use of headlines that are too clever. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this headline but I get it if someone wants to argue for headlines that are "just the facts" followed by an inverted pyramid story.

[jccc]

There is exactly no one arguing for just-the-facts headlines to the exclusion of any with style.

The objection is to intentional misrepresentation of the story you get after you click. This one clearly does that.

Even the example given above ("Shocking!" "You wouldn't believe!!!") is the kind of headline that virtually always misrepresents the shock(!) and disbelief(!) one will experience upon giving it the click it so desperately wants.