[bee_rider]

Based on the article, I think the journalist basically understands the situation (and if they don't, they should investigate further, that's the job). The headline is just intentionally over-dramatic to get clicks. This shouldn't be treated as a good-faith error, more guidance isn't required and wouldn't help.

[rmbyrro]

It's sad that we reached a point where assuming bad faith from public informers is acceptable and, worse, reasonable.

[jonathanwallace]

Worth noting that someone else usually writes the headline for the articles, not the journalist / the author of an article.

[thereddaikon]

OK, but that doesn't excuse things. There's a problem with journalism and its mostly about how they are incentivized and compensated. I don't know what the fix is but its clear that trust is so low, and rightfully so that journalism has largely failed as an industry at its job.

[not2b]

Journalism is paid for by ads, mostly. For online journalism, unless people click there is no money to pay the producers. Hence clickbait. This is a problem but there are worse problems.

[resters]

In my opinion the requirement that HN submissions match the article's title is quite absurd because of this phenomenon.

[bscphil]

Uh, that isn't the rule, for exactly that reason.

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Aeolun]

Expected, yes. Reasonable or acceptable, no.

But what can you do about it?