[mywittyname]

I "really hate" how some "news" sites like to, "quote excessively" in headlines.

If you want to call some nonsense, or a bold face lie, have the damn courage to just call it that. Don't air-quoting some nebulous entity to make it sound more official.

[MonkeyMalarky]

It's to deflect liability? If you are quoting someone, you aren't the one who could be sued.

[Victerius]

Politician calls bill "horrible"

Vs.

Politician calls bill horrible

[secondcoming]

In the first, the politician actually uses the word ‘horrible’ and so it’s quoted.

In the second, the headline writer is giving their opinion/spin.

[blowski]

"Politican" calls bill horrible.

[NaturalPhallacy]

Journalists have done this for centuries. They're making it clear that they're reporting that someone else said that, and it's not the journalist's words.

[legitster]

It's slightly better than an editorialized summary.

[mywittyname]

I disagree, one/two word quotes can be used to drastically spin what a person said.

/u/legister: Headlines with mini-quotes are "better" than the alternative, since they aren't "editorialized."

[secondcoming]

Oh no. Is that really why you think people use quotes, or are you trolling? I hope you are.

[mywittyname]

Quoting entire sentences is fine. But anymore, news is quoting literally single words without any citations.

/u/secondcoming asks, "are you trolling? I hope you are."

Vs.

User "trolls" forum. Posters respond to "quotes" with "oh no."

Seriously, about 80% of FN headlines contain one or two word mini-quotes.

[secondcoming]

Right, but it's not "air quotes". Those have an element of sarcasm.