2:55 AM
lol
It seems to me that nowadays more and more news agencies and reporters are pumping up their stories with headlines that are either biased or subjective. More likely than not, you'll be drawn in by an interested headline, read or watch the story and then realize that the headline was only slightly connected with the story.
I've seen many of these interesting yet misleading headlines in the past few days, but one stuck out to me for more reasons than one.
This story was posted to the "HealthLand" portion of the Times website.
In the times Twitter feed the article link is preceded by an eye-catching and even heart-wrenching line:
"Did veganism contribute to the death of this baby?"
However, once you get to the actual article the story is then titled:
Did Homeopathic Medicine, Breast-Feeding and Veganism Kill a Baby?
(the actual article can be found by following the title link)
Now what first bugged me about this variation in article titles is the imminent difference in immediacy between the two.
The first uses "THIS baby" and the second uses "A baby". Which one would you feel more inclined to read? The one that seems more personal right? Coincidentally, it was used as the bait in a twitter feed.
What bugged me second about this misleading title was the fact that the article provided NO PROOF that the baby's death was attributed to any of the three things accused: Veganism, Homeopathic Medicine, or Breast-Feeding.
Instead the article summed up a big fat case of child-neglect. The attribution of death should be rightfully placed with the parents.
This is one thing that will forever get on my nerves.
Anyone else feel this way?
Followers:
1. What do you think about misleading links?
2. How often do you find that a news article isn't what you think it is?
3. How about some examples you've seen in the last few days?
4. Sandwiches with or without pickles?
Posted in: 
