Brtsasqa

Brtsasqa t1_iqs8bml wrote

Your lack of literacy made you misunderstand a perfectly adequate headline, and instead of learning something from it, you decided that no, it must be the headline that's wrong.

The headline is accurate. It provides a short introduction into a topic that is further specified in the article. You could add any number of words to include more information in the headline - the number of cars, where it occurred, the fact that the shots have been fired from close range, Russia not acknowledging the event, some of the victims being children - but if you want anything readable, you have to leave some details for the article itself. Some illiterate dude making wrong assumptions about details that were not specifically mentioned in the title does not make a trash headline.

−1

Brtsasqa t1_iqqduz9 wrote

I mean, stick to newsweek if you want a clickbait title like "Russia brutally murdered civilians once again" with no article to speak of so there's no additional information that's not already in the title. To each their own and all that. But I'm going to go ahead and say that aljazeera's reporting is 100x more fitting of the term "quality journalism" than whatever you seem to be expecting of your newspaper titles/articles.

0

Brtsasqa t1_iqpcotm wrote

>A convoy can be civilian or military, it's pretty much just any traveling group.

Exactly. Meaning a headline calling a group of civilian vehicles a 'convoy' is neither incorrect nor confusing - and as such, the exact opposite of a 'trash headline' for anybody who knows what 'convoy' means. Which brings me back to your clearly incorrect initial comment and my response to it...

> Trash headline. 'Convoy' makes it sound like soldiers got hit evacuating.

Just because you don't know what convoy means, doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't know what convoy means.

Don't project your illiteracy onto others...

11