Agreed it's totally clickbaity and misleading, especially for reuters. I could see if it said cold war, otherwise I was concerned that something real had happened for a moment.
Who is calling it so? This practice of using "so-called" to manufacture unsubstantiated descriptions of events or people is poor journalism at best. See also a more notable and previously-critiqued use of this langauge: https://www.ft.com/content/ac7389f1-41d8-46b6-bc42-32ac603b7...
Did she make a mistake when reporting? Seems like an editor should have caught the error in the headline.
Meanwhile, maybe it's an effort by this media outlet to downplay, and run interference in favor of government entities, so that people roll their eyes at the misinformation and simply presume the government as incompetant.
That's quite a bait-and-switch of a news article. The headline claims something, and then the article body says that, actually, they have no idea if their headline is correct or not, and their only sources were a deleted tweet and another tweet making vague reference to an apparently nonexistent newspaper article.
It's clear if you read carefully and pay attention to the dates, but this is the kind of thing that seeds fake news and forwards. Disappointed that shock value and clickbaity titles are being used by a rights advocate group.
Yeah, reads like clickbait that is intentionally confusing "Germany, the country" with "Germany, as represented by these six people who were heard by a parliamentary committee yesterday".
This article is in the NYPost. Not exactly known for their careful accurate news gathering. It quotes a couple of Reddit posts without even tracking down the people behind the posts for clarification. It's basically clickbait.
Saw this same article on a Finnish news site last week and it indeed feels like clickbait / bullshit reporting with no concrete proof of any of this happening.
So does that mean the article's title is clickbaitish?
I think I might need some more coffee
reply