this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
217 points (99.5% liked)

Economy

2045 readers
86 users here now

Lemmy Community for economy, business, politics, stocks, bonds, product releases, IPOs, advice, news, investment, videos, predictions, government, money, politics, debate, current trends and more.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] adam_y@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it is traditional newspaper language.

For instance to "kill a story" or "catch and kill".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_kill

I think they expect most people to get that.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is not the same as "[name] killed".

[–] adam_y@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It sort of is.

He used his executive position to kill the story.

Could they have written the headline, "Washington Post Endorsement Killed by Bezos"?

Sure. But tradition dictates you lead with the person. People are interested in people.

You are right. It is click-baity, but that's because it is a newspaper headline and all newspaper headlines are "click bait". They literally invented it. That's why we have headlines. Often in bold and large type.

I disagree that this is misleading though, especially if you expect folk to read the whole sentence.

Who do you imagine killed the story then?

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're right and that's not what's written there. It is "killed [object/action]" i.e. the endorsement.

To me this thread sounds more like ragebait than the original title.