Serious question, what is wrong with the headline? The article is only 4 paragraphs long and the headline basically sums what is written in the article. Id get it if you thought the article itself was shitty but I stared at the headline long enough without seeing anything wrong so I gotta ask, what am I missing?
The headline reads as if by voting against the embargo, they were recognizing a Palestinian state. Of course, with a bit of general knowledge about the situation, it should be clear that that is not the correct reading.
It’s an example of “headlinese”, the odd rules used to shorten headlines. It’s at least decades old and comes from newspapers where space was limited. In this case the comma subs in for “and”.
That said, I agree it’s old-fashioned and confusing, and wouldn’t be missed if news sites collectively agreed to stop doing it.
Come on now. For which Democrats and which country don’t be naive. Intellectual dishonesty is never been helpful for anyone ever and you should stop practicing it. As for the other two questions that’s not necessary for a title that’s what the article is for. That’s the context you’re supposed to get from reading articles not skimming titles.
Look, “Times of Israel” is not a source that I know or trust. So I’m not going to waste my time clicking through and reading the article, unless I’m convinced this is a really noteworthy story that’s worth reading.
So in that sense, the headline writers have failed to convert me into a reader. Because I can’t tell if this is the entire House Democratic caucus; or if it’s the Democratic party convention of Putnam Co., GA; or if it’s democratic reformers in monarchical Saudi Arabia.
A headline is supposed to convey a simple straight forward summary of the article, without any question or confusion about the content.
This headline is anything but straight forward … it can mean multiple things to multiple different groups of people … and the writer and news agency can feign ignorance and call it all a misunderstanding if anyone reading it questions the headline.
A sign of a bad news agency or an unreliable source is when they produce headlines that beg more questions about the presentation, journalist, writer, or news agency than the actual article they shared.
Democrats voted on a resolution for an arms embargo, and the vote failed
This could mean the Democrats voted for the resolution, but it failed. It could also mean the Democrats voted against the resolution, making it fail. All we know is the Dems voted, and the vote failed. The statement isn’t clear which way they voted.
My first assumption was that it was only the Democrats voting, which seems to have been the case, as it was a DNC internal vote. If there were more than democrats voting on it, then to say that it was the democrats who were voting would seem to me to be unnecessary or misleading.
They certainly could have mentioned the DNC in the title to make it more more clear, though.
Serious question, what is wrong with the headline? The article is only 4 paragraphs long and the headline basically sums what is written in the article. Id get it if you thought the article itself was shitty but I stared at the headline long enough without seeing anything wrong so I gotta ask, what am I missing?
The headline reads as if by voting against the embargo, they were recognizing a Palestinian state. Of course, with a bit of general knowledge about the situation, it should be clear that that is not the correct reading.
It’s an example of “headlinese”, the odd rules used to shorten headlines. It’s at least decades old and comes from newspapers where space was limited. In this case the comma subs in for “and”.
That said, I agree it’s old-fashioned and confusing, and wouldn’t be missed if news sites collectively agreed to stop doing it.
Fixed headlinese:
Democrats vote down resolution calling for arms embargo on Israel, Palestinian state recognition
It just hit me that I use “headlinese” in pull request titles at work.
Can you really count “Fixes” as headlinese?
Thank God I don’t commit like that. Or worse, all downcase.
The main problem with the headline is: which Democrats where? Which country? Is this an important bill with grave consequences or an opinion poll?
Come on now. For which Democrats and which country don’t be naive. Intellectual dishonesty is never been helpful for anyone ever and you should stop practicing it. As for the other two questions that’s not necessary for a title that’s what the article is for. That’s the context you’re supposed to get from reading articles not skimming titles.
Those are answered in the article.
Look, “Times of Israel” is not a source that I know or trust. So I’m not going to waste my time clicking through and reading the article, unless I’m convinced this is a really noteworthy story that’s worth reading.
So in that sense, the headline writers have failed to convert me into a reader. Because I can’t tell if this is the entire House Democratic caucus; or if it’s the Democratic party convention of Putnam Co., GA; or if it’s democratic reformers in monarchical Saudi Arabia.
A headline is supposed to convey a simple straight forward summary of the article, without any question or confusion about the content.
This headline is anything but straight forward … it can mean multiple things to multiple different groups of people … and the writer and news agency can feign ignorance and call it all a misunderstanding if anyone reading it questions the headline.
A sign of a bad news agency or an unreliable source is when they produce headlines that beg more questions about the presentation, journalist, writer, or news agency than the actual article they shared.
I thought it was straightforward.
Democrats voted on a resolution for an arms embargo, and the vote failed.
Your explanation isn’t straightforward though.
This could mean the Democrats voted for the resolution, but it failed. It could also mean the Democrats voted against the resolution, making it fail. All we know is the Dems voted, and the vote failed. The statement isn’t clear which way they voted.
My first assumption was that it was only the Democrats voting, which seems to have been the case, as it was a DNC internal vote. If there were more than democrats voting on it, then to say that it was the democrats who were voting would seem to me to be unnecessary or misleading.
They certainly could have mentioned the DNC in the title to make it more more clear, though.
That’s actually less straightforward
Yeah I still don’t understand the people having a problem with this?
The comma does the heavy lifting and is unfotunately ambiguous.
This could easily mean:
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel while recognizing Palestinian state
In the case the resolution is unnamed in the headline:
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel, recognizing Palestinian state in the process
What things? How are you reading it that’s what I’m not understanding either. You say it can convey multiple things but I’m not seeing it.
I replied to someone else with this but I’ll post it here as well.
The comma does the heavy lifting and is unfotunately ambiguous.
This could easily mean:
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel while recognizing Palestinian state
In the case the resolution is unnamed in the headline:
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel, recognizing Palestinian state in the process