[badRNG]

The word "may" here indicates that the facts of the case will need to be decided by US Congress, not the BBC. The fact that Congress is considering "criminal investigation" of Bezos over his testimony is both credible and newsworthy, regardless of what the facts of the case are decided to be.

[zcw100]

Yes, but too many media outlets have abused the "may" thing so badly that maybe it's just better to say, "Congress considers launching criminal investigation into Bezos testimony"

[nuerow]

> Yes, but too many media outlets have abused the "may" thing so badly that maybe it's just better to say, "Congress considers launching criminal investigation into Bezos testimony"

I don't agree at all, and your assertion contrasts with what is clearly stated in the article.

The BBC article quotes the letter signed by five members of the US House Judiciary Committee which states:

> "At best, this reporting confirms that Amazon's representatives misled the Committee. At worst, it demonstrates that they may have lied to Congress in possible violation of federal criminal law," the letter states.

BBC provides a direct quote. It was the committee members which stated that Bezos "may have lied", not BBC. It's as unambiguous as it gets.

[badRNG]

Generally I'd agree. But it is the BBC, and it directly quotes the letter from the US House Judiciary Committee to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, which is the source for this article.

[zcw100]

I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about the headline. Yes, the headline is a direct quote. It's still a bad headline.