Many people on social media read only the headline, not the full article. (Including here on HN.) So, it’s arguable that this should be taken into account by f

Many people on social media read only the headline, not the full article. (Including here on HN.) So, it’s arguable that this should be taken into account by fact checking. A title that is misleading is a problem even if the article body itself is scrupulously accurate, since way more people will see the headline than read the article. This is known and weaponized. A site will intentionally publish an accurate article with an inaccurate or misleading headline. If it is flagged by fact-checking, they get several more cycles of engagement out of complaining about the “unfair” or “biased” fact check, and especially if they get it reversed, as in this case. In this case the original headline was “The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science.” That is misleading because a) the CDC considered far more than one study, b) which study “convinced” them is impossible to prove and a matter of opinion, and c) “junk science” is an uninformative pejorative. If the headline had been “One Study the CDC Referenced When Considering Mask Recommendations Had Problems,” it would have been more accurate and less likely to be flagged. But also less useful to Reason in attracting attention and advancing a narrative.