4 ms·

This is an excellent counter-example. Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth". Likely

by tevon 3y ago

This is an excellent counter-example. Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth". Likely because the headline implies intent (or expects its audience to assume intent), where it doesn't appear any intent exists.

InSteady 3y ago
The truth is that anti-abortion states have made it extremely clear that they are willing to go to great lengths to criminalize personal healthcare decisions (one of the most important ones a person can make in their life). They will use this data to victimize the women unfortunate enough to live in those states and experience an unwanted pregnancy. It's not a matter of if, only when. The headline is exactly as accurate as it needs to be. If healthcare included the guaranteed right to a treatment where of adults spend therapeutic time at preschools, then a headline about providing healthcare to sex offenders would absolutely be relevant (as well as obviously truthful).
- laserlight 3y ago
  > The headline is exactly as accurate as it needs to be. I disagree. Here's a simple modification I propose that's more accurate: “Sacramento Sheriff is sharing license plate reader data with states, including anti-abortion ones, records show”
  - InSteady 3y ago
    Wordiness is not always a virtue. The absence of your specific phrasing does not imply what you seem to think it implies. If you read a headline and make a bunch of assumptions that is on you. This is beyond criticism of clickbait and getting into pearl-clutching over minor semantics. You can nit-pick just about every headline that is pithy enough to be fit for print for omitting important details and context from the story. That's why headlines and articles fill distinct roles within journalism. Go figure.

4 ms·

This is an excellent counter-example. Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth". Likely

by tevon 3y ago

InSteady 3y ago
The truth is that anti-abortion states have made it extremely clear that they are willing to go to great lengths to criminalize personal healthcare decisions (one of the most important ones a person can make in their life). They will use this data to victimize the women unfortunate enough to live in those states and experience an unwanted pregnancy. It's not a matter of if, only when. The headline is exactly as accurate as it needs to be. If healthcare included the guaranteed right to a treatment where of adults spend therapeutic time at preschools, then a headline about providing healthcare to sex offenders would absolutely be relevant (as well as obviously truthful).
- laserlight 3y ago
  > The headline is exactly as accurate as it needs to be. I disagree. Here's a simple modification I propose that's more accurate: “Sacramento Sheriff is sharing license plate reader data with states, including anti-abortion ones, records show”
  - InSteady 3y ago
    Wordiness is not always a virtue. The absence of your specific phrasing does not imply what you seem to think it implies. If you read a headline and make a bunch of assumptions that is on you. This is beyond criticism of clickbait and getting into pearl-clutching over minor semantics. You can nit-pick just about every headline that is pithy enough to be fit for print for omitting important details and context from the story. That's why headlines and articles fill distinct roles within journalism. Go figure.