> further dramatize their own dramatization of a rather innocuous situation. That's exactly why they included it. It's the internet equivalent of when journali

> further dramatize their own dramatization of a rather innocuous situation. That's exactly why they included it. It's the internet equivalent of when journalists go out and interview random pedestrians to get their reactions/commentary to some event. They want a soundbite that will stick in your mind after reading/viewing the news segment, regardless of how useful the commentary really is. As long as most news is for-profit, and therefore their incentives lie primarily in maximizing engagement/ratings/ad revenue, they will continue to optimize for those things with different iterations of what is essentially clickbait. Even here on the relatively intellectual HN, I regularly see articles posted that have very clickbaity and misleading titles.