3 ms·
The title states he is "broke" now, while the article explains "he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement". I don't want to play down
by elaus 6y ago
The title states he is "broke" now, while the article explains "he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement". I don't want to play down what he has done but for most people that is really far from being broke.
- graeme 6y agoWriters don’t write headlines. Neither the article nor the billionaire mention broke, other than “go for broke”....search the article. You fell for it, and this is why publications choose the headlines themselves. They know what riles people up.
- giantg2 6y agoAnd my opinion of Forbes journalistic integrity and accuracy has just plummeted. Why should I trust what they publish if they can't get the headline right or made it intentionally misleading?
- elaus 6y agoI'm not riled up, but this clickbait-y headline made me (subconsciously) question everything else in the article. If a billionaire gives away 99,9x% of his wealth that is fantastic news and I think Chuck Feeney is really great for doing so. No need for exaggeration. But you are right, I should have made it clear that my comment is really aimed at the Forbes editor and not the author or C. Feeney.