3 ms·
Flagged, the title seems to be “ Legal experts have criticised the government's proposed amendments to visa and citizenship laws” which is less inflammatory. T
by javagram 5y ago
Flagged, the title seems to be “ Legal experts have criticised the government's proposed amendments to visa and citizenship laws” which is less inflammatory.
The article is about a parliamentary committee hearing but the title makes it seem like it’s actually happening.
- zo1 5y agoI highly disagree. The original title has nothing to do with the contentious "meat" of the article other than being factually correct and "neutral"-enough to be ignored. It may as well be a Reuters article in terms of the headline. It's like having an article about a facial recognition surveillance law being enacted by government and the title being: "Privacy Experts Criticize Government Legislation on Surveillance"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- vermilingua 5y agoThe original title, aside from containing no useful information, was far too long to fit in the titlebox. And if you've been following the news, the average turnaround on our government having a "parliamentary committee hearing" on a bill and passing it into law is about 3 days.
- javagram 5y ago> And if you've been following the news, the average turnaround on our government having a "parliamentary committee hearing" on a bill and passing it into law is about 3 days. The article is dated august 27. If your estimate was accurate the bill should already be passed and this news story could be replaced with one about the final text of the bill.