As the OP, no it isn’t cryptic, and no, it shouldn’t be zoo bomb threats. “Bomb threat” is the action being performed on the subject “zoos”. Nobody is doing a zoo to a bomb threat. Coming up with a different example, people shoot fireworks, they don’t firework shoots.
I’ve never seen “bomb threat” used as a verb before.
If I had said “Hot new trend? Prank call zoos”, would you have thought it should be “zoo prank calls”? It is the exact same construction.
When you invent a new compound verb phrase, you might expect some people to miss it until it catches on and is all over the internet.
Hot new trend: bomb-threatening zoos.
Hot new trend: bomb threating zoos.
I wasn’t being controversial, it never for a moment occurred to me that would consider what I believed a straightforward phrase to be “cryptic”. It seems to be a clear and straightforward construction to me.
Verbing weirds language.
Yep. Especially if you use the infinitive form of your shiny new verb.
ETA: I don’t doubt @Darren_Garrison didn’t think he was over-clevering his headline. But he did over-clever it.
It’s very hard to write good heads and ledes that don’t assume some context the reader won’t have until later. After all, the author’s head is full of that context: "Of course it means [whatever]. How could it not?
Rudy Giuliani in critical condition in Florida hospital [Now in the BBQ Pit] sounds like Giuliani got moved from the hospital to a bbq pit, where he is currently roasting.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Oh, he will be, soon enough, not to worry.