Were you in the newsroom? How do you know the purpose was to "create a more sensationalist headline" (which wasn't sensationalist). >First, this is needlessly

Were you in the newsroom? How do you know the purpose was to "create a more sensationalist headline" (which wasn't sensationalist). >First, this is needlessly insulting. Second, it is common knowledge that emissions standards are government regulations (because they are), so titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction. As insulting as assuming the motivations of an author? I don't think so. Emissions standards are also builder specs. What came first: builder specs, or government specs? >titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction. I disagree. The title was factually accurate. The current title is arguably inaccurate now, as I doubt Nissan even used the word 'internal' in their 'admission'.