The NYtimes investigates the history of shellshock and the future of code quality

I understand that rewriting titles to make them more sensational is definitely undesired. We want titles that accurately reflect the article.

With that in mind, I have a question. Sometimes the most salient aspect of an article from a HN perspective is not mentioned in the title. This often happens because a NYTimes title has to be less technical for their readers. Thus, they title the article more broadly but the actual content can be a much more specific perspective.

In the case of this article, the real focus is how collaboration in the open source community often lacks the structure required for ensuring code quality.

Given that the average HN reader is starkly different from the average NYTimes reader, why isn't is sometimes appropriate to change the title to reflect these differences in technical knowledge or perspective?