3 ms·
Are you honestly suggesting that applies to WSJ headlines in general, and this specific instance in particular? I suspect not. In which case, what—exactly—are
by erichocean 6y ago
Are you honestly suggesting that applies to WSJ headlines in general, and this specific instance in particular?
I suspect not. In which case, what—exactly—are you trying to accomplish with your comment? Muddy the waters? Convince people there's no problem? Waste people's time on irrelevant info?
- dredmorbius 6y agoThe guidelines are absolutely general, not merely the WSJ. I'll let you work out the applicability of my suggested alternate, possibly comparing it with dang's editorial choice. I'm not sure what your specific beef is. The article, regardless of merits, would be better discussed with ... (checks and sees a changed title on HN) ... something other than the originally-submitted, WSJ-provided, headline. I'm distinctly not a fan of the WSJ. The argument that the recent, global, crash-course on distance learning has ... proved uneven ... should hardly be controversial. It deserves a fair hearing, whether the WSJ has done so or not, and the topic seems well within HN's remit.