Lately I have noticed thread titles, especially political ones, that make claims that are not born out by the content of the OP.
A recent example is this thread in which the wife of a Presidential candidate is accused of saying something that she did not actually say.
Another example was a thread in which a Doper said that someone was comparing one of the Presidential candidates to Jesus. Again, totally false.
There are thread topics that are pointedly biased on both sides and that is understandable. But what are the rules governing deliberately misleading titles that are phrased as accusations but unfounded by the quoted material?
It’s probably happened on both sides, but it’s dirty politics no matter who does it.
Hmmm…THK says she doesn’t “know that Ms. Bush) ever had a real job.” and then the OP goes on with a brief bio of Ms. Bush indicating that one of her jobs was as a public school teacher. What tricked ya?
Sure the conclusion as stated in that OP depends on “if A=B and B=C then A=C” logic, and in real life such logic doesn’t always apply, but neither is the OP precisely out of line. Especially in The Pit.
Give me a fucking break! The title said, “Teresa Heinz Kerry says being a teacher is not a real job.” She never said that. She didn’t even infer it. The inference was made by the OP, and then wrongly attributed to Teresa as an ostensibly direct quote. Why is that not out of line in the Pit? The Pit is the place to flame people; where does it say it’s the place to be misleading?
I disagree. The vitriol can quite properly be directed at the OP in the thread in question. Also, there are many threads whose titles are plays on words - where does one draw the line. I think that with enough mocking of the OP in these situations, it’s a self-correcting issue.
Thread titles are often chosen for sensationalism. I don’t think we should hold them to the same standards we hold post to. If the OP misattributes a direct to quote, then that’s a problem. If the OP uses faulty logic, he/she will be brought to task quickly by the many sharp posters who inhabit this MB.
Of course you are free to disagree, but I think it would promote greater harmony here if we can just choose to skip stupid threads that we aren’t interested in, rather than being goaded into entering a thread on false pretenses.
I would draw the line when the title is misleading. Simple as that.
See, I really disagree. That just promotes more fights and more thread meltdowns.
Sometimes it’s difficult to tell a misleading thread title from an idiot who doesn’t understand the content of the news story. In the two examples cited by the OP, I vote for idiot.
Mods don’t read every thread, and we’re not here 24/7. The way to get a Moderator’s attention is to hit the REPORT THIS POST button (the little exclamation point in the upper right corner of each post.)
I agree, that even in the Pit, a thread title should not be deliberately misleading. I have edited the thread in question, changing “says” to “infers” and adding a question mark to the end.
Yes, it’s a vicious election, and there are lies aplenty being spewed by both sides. There are also people who don’t read threads, but do skim and notice the title, and the title may stick in their minds, so I discount the argument that the posters will cream the OP for misleading titles. It’s the same as newspaper headlines – there’s an obligation that the title of the article be a fair reflection of what’s in the article or of reality. There’s a big difference between the titles “Life discovered on Mars” and “Arizona Hermit claims he was kidnapped by flying saucers from Mars” even if the story is the same.
> Sigh < Thanks, Liberal, I’ll fix it after I have my coffee. Laced with brandy, I think. (I learned the diff between imply and infer from reading Nero Wolfe, long long ago, and just had a mental hiccough because someone used the word “infer” in talking about the title.)
Not asking for anything to be changed, but since we’re already on this infer/imply sidetrack, does “implying” something not require intent? If THK says she doesn’t know if LB ever had a real job out of ignorance of the fact that LB was a teacher, then she is NOT making an implication, right? If she had known LB was a teacher, she undoubtedly would not have made the statement. The inference was made by a third party, and that’s why it’s disingenuous.
There really is no way to fix that thread title the way it is presented, because the OPs entire concept is dishonest. If it were honest, it would have to be something like, “THK was unaware of LBs previous teaching experience,” which is considerably more dull, and rightly betrays the fact that this is a total non-issue.
blowero I think you are wrong. The problem is misleading thread titles not wrong posters. The OP in the thread in question was saying that Mrs implied the teaching wasn’t a real job. That was incorrect and should be refuted by other posters. The thread title was not misleading because thats what the OP meant, that he was wrong is irrelavent.
