4 ms·
> It says nothing about the CIA covering up an involvement in 9/11 The title doesn’t say that the CIA was involved in 9/11.
by cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
> It says nothing about the CIA covering up an involvement in 9/11
The title doesn’t say that the CIA was involved in 9/11.
- jborden13 3y agoBut it's implied. Should be rewritten to '9/11 mishandling coverup' or some other noun to negate the click bait.
- philosopher1234 3y agobut lets not pretend that's not on peoples minds when they read the title. it seems like it ought to be going out of its way to avoid that implication.
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoI did not interpret the headline that way. I’m not sure why someone would jump straight to that aside from the “Bush did 9/11” memes that get circulated every now and then.
- philosopher1234 3y agoYa thats one reason. It's an incredibly well known conspiracy theory. I think most readers would've passed over the thought when reading the title and assumed thats what it was referencing.
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoI’m still not buying that “most readers” are so familiar with that conspiracy theory that they would jump to “FBI agents have taken it upon themselves to publicly accuse the CIA in involvement in 9/11” There is so much room for discussion about incompetence and bad systems when talking about 9/11. There was even a whole tv show with Jeff Daniels a few years ago that managed to talk about it without reading like lyrics from an Anti Flag album.
- philosopher1234 3y agoThey might not settle on that as the most likely interpretation, but I would bet money that it was one of if not the first interpretation that came to mind for most. I think title authors are accountable for such things, and less discriminating readers will not make their way all the way to more reasonable interpretations.
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoIt is not the author’s job to proactively search out and adjust for crazy interpretations of mundane sentences. That rule would be funny. “NOAA reports record hurricane activity — BUT DON’T WORRY HAARP ISN’T INVOLVED” would be a hilarious but pointless headline.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoBut he did. Maybe. (Bandar) "Bush". :p
- GavinMcG 3y agoNo, not literally. But a "9/11 coverup" suggests a coverup about the substance of the events on 9/11, rather than a coverup about the extent or manner of intelligence operations that preceded it. Calling it a "pre-9/11 intelligence gathering coverup" would be more helpful.