4 ms·
Isn't the title misleading? Article says there have been a vote, but the result was against removing him. Title leads you to believe that motion was accepted.
by fsniper 8y ago
Isn't the title misleading? Article says there have been a vote, but the result was against removing him. Title leads you to believe that motion was accepted.
- hspak 8y agoIt sounds pretty neutral to me.
- pvg 8y agoIt just says how BlackRock voted, nothing about the outcome.
- sincerely 8y agoDoesn't "voted to x" imply that x was the result of the vote?
- pvg 8y agoNo. It might seem like it because often the actor doing the voting is, for example, an entire legislative body. But that's not the case here.
- AJRF 8y agoIn the parlance of newspeak i've never seen it used any other way. Its misleading.
- brobdingnagians 8y agoAmbiguity of English language to logic in translation. `Congress voted to X` means that X is planned to be done. `I voted for X as President` does not mean that X is planning to be President.
- dragonwriter 8y agoNo, “A voted to Y” where A is a voter (or a subset of all voters) means “A cast its vote in support of position Y”, and doesn't say anything about the outcome of the vote. This is syntactically identical, though disambiguated by semantic context, from the same structure where A identifies the electorate rather than one or more voters that do not make up the whole of the electorate. In that case, “A votes to Y means that the electorate named held a vote in which Y was the winning alternative.” As this was a Tesla shareholder vote, “Blackrock voted to...” is an example of the first usage, while “Tesla shareholders voted to...” would be an example of the second.
- fsniper 8y agoI think it has been changed. It didn't involve Blackrock when I commented.
- pvg 8y agoIt was 'BlackRock voted to replace Tesla's Musk with independent chairman' when it was posted, it's still that now. What do you think a non-Blackrock-involving headline would have been?
- fsniper 8y agoI am not sure now. But my initial feel was not this. If the title was only about Blackrock, then I was mistaken.
- mirimir 8y agoYes. Especially because ... > More than 86 million shares voted against the proposal at a shareholder meeting in June, while fewer than 17 million voted in favor, Tesla said. ... and ... > BlackRock funds are a top-10 Tesla stockholder, controlling nearly 6.5 million of Tesla’s 170 million shares, according to Thomson Reuters data based on public filings. So who cares how BlackRock voted?
- pvg 8y agoThat might make it an uninteresting story but not a misleading title.
- sleepychu 8y ago> Isn't the title misleading > Yes. Especially because...
- mirimir 8y agoOK. But why do we care how BlackRock voted? What makes them newsworthy, regarding Tesla or whatever? I could google it, but the article doesn't make it very clear.
- pvg 8y agoIt's a big shareholder voting for one of those somewhat-off-the-beaten-path proposals that often get zero support from big shareholders. That's about it. It's a pretty basic newswire service report. Does it belong on HN? Probably not. I voted for it not being on the front page!
- mirimir 8y agoThanks. I could have googled that, I know. But I was rather expecting the article to make some argument. It did quote BlackRock about standing for "shareholder value", whatever that is. But I was wondering whether it was just a catfight, or stock manipulation, or whether BlackRock was standing for something fundamental.
- peteretep 8y agoI didn't read it like you did, fwiw
- Tomte 8y agoNo. The title says clearly that one voter voted against Musk. Additionally, it's clear the vote went the other way, because otherwise the headline would have been very different.