I am a reporter; I write the articles. The editors write the headlines. That is how most publications work: it is completely normal and plain and standard.
I've been both a reporter and an editor, and in some roles, combined both. I have done paid writing for nearly 20 different publications in Britain, Europe, America, and Australia, starting in 1995. This is standard industry practice.
I've been both a reporter and an editor, and in some roles, combined both. I have done paid writing for nearly 20 different publications in Britain, Europe, America, and Australia, starting in 1995. This is standard industry practice.
A person, their resume and a lot of irrelevant information.
It is not bad.
The problem here is your lack of understanding, and also your hostile confrontational attitude... and in addition, apparently, poor reading comprehension.
Yes.
It is not bad.
It is bad. Notice how you didn't give any reason that you can defend it, you just keep saying "nu uh", while also placing the blame on someone else.
It is bad because it contains no information on purpose, that's clickbait. Keeping as much information out of the title as possible.
The problem here is your lack of understanding,
If that were true you could explain it, but you haven't done any of that, you think you can just reply "No." without explanation.
your hostile confrontational attitude
Criticism with explanations and reasons behind it is not 'hostile and confrontational' just because you don't like it. This is projection, you getting upset over something you can't defend.
and in addition, apparently, poor reading comprehension.
Imagine calling someone 'hostile', then trying to just reply with variations of 'no, nope, nu uh' while flinging insults. The fact that you can't explain your opinion and for some reason think you don't have to while avoiding it with insults is very self righteous.
This is how the job is done, and there are good reasons, and it works. Since you are a random angry shouty man with a made-up name on the internet, I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you, as you will just shout insults at me from behind your silly offensive pseudonym.
You don't understand and it is very clear that you don't want to. You prefer to hide behind a made up name and throw insults.
I am not playing your childish game.
None of this is true. If it was true you could explain how and why and you haven't explained any claim you made.
You display shock and anger
This never happened.
the notion that different people have different roles in which they do different work
You are hallucinating this as some sort of back peddle. It has nothing to do with anything.
Since you are a random angry shouty man
Seems like projection since all your posts are you getting upset instead of being able to back up anything you say.
I am not playing your childish game.
All you ever had to do was explain exactly why this isn't a purposely low information clickbait title and you can't. Instead you try to say there is nothing wrong, which you can't explain, and that it isn't your fault.
I think childish is making up hallucinations about things that don't matter and getting upset instead of giving evidence. I would think someone who "knows so much about publishing" would be able to explain themselves better than making the same claims with no evidence over and over. It's like you have never been challenged before and don't understand what's happening.
> If it was true
Of course it is true. That is why I explained the length of my relevant experience.
> you could explain how and why
Why bother to an annoying troll?
ELI5:
My job is to understand complicated computer stuff and explain it in easy words.
My editor's job is to write headlines that will get people to read what I wrote.
I know the tech. The editor knows the readers.
That's not how things work. It's literally an appeal to authority fallacy.
Why bother to an annoying troll?
That's dismissive, but you've had so many chances and instead of explaining anything you have to resort to insults.
My editor's job is to write headlines that will get people to read what I wrote.
So just admit it's a terrible headline, stop trying to play both sides and say it's fine while also taking no responsibility.
If you want to pin it on your editor, at least admit it's intentional low information clickbait 'journalism'.
If you don't want to admit that then explain how it isn't true.
You can't do any of these things after so many chances and your 'journalism' skills seem like all they have taught you is school yard insults.