My criticism is of the word "can" which implies 'it is able to' and of the word "your" which shows application to everyone who reads the headline which is factually untrue.
The rest of my comment then applies. And I did not comment upon the sources as they do appear to be legitimate in their concern, however, headlines should be based on factual context and not attempt to draw people in through misdirection.
Thanks for dropping by, I hope this is a better attempt to explain. In all sincerity, as a lawyer, would that headline stand legal challenge?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't see any legal problem with it. It is not defamatory nor misleading and deceptive in trade or commerce.
Pretty typical Tabloid headline.
Thanks for that :-)
That sums it up for me, and the reason I expect independent journalists to have far higher standards than 'Freddie Starr ate my Hamster' ! They have to overcome the mass read media to present important topics in a fact based manner in their attempt to coerce readers into examining alternative viewpoints. I just feel using the self same, loathsome mechanisms to achieve this is self-defeating.
Best wishes and good luck with the ongoing legal battle.
It would be nice if my Hive Blog was the number one alternative media news source. :-)
But the reality is that Alex Jones is!!
Given the amount of censorship of anyone challenging the orthodoxy I'm happy to put up with some sensationalism from alternative news sources.