• NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 day ago

    Sounds like it was the BBC that had omitted the context in the original headline. If anything this highlights how wild it is that Reddit titles still can’t be edited

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      The only reason I can think of for that rule is to prevent people from posting something that’s very agreeable and then changing it to something terrible once it has thousands of upvotes, and making it look like many people support the terrible statement.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Not even mods can do this in Reddit, though. Seems like an unreasonable restriction.

        If only there was a system that logged every moderator action into a public page that everybody can see. Maybe we can call it “modlog” or something like that.

      • Kache@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Only let the OP add new title candidates, but then use reddit voting to select the replacement?

        Probably still game-able, though

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean, it’s pretty standard for newsrooms to report who is making a claim. I read Reuters stories all the time that quote TASS (Russian news agency) without verifying the veracity of the report. I can’t recall a time the reports didn’t say something akin to “Reuters cannot verify the accuracy of the claim at this time”

        Def not cool of the BBC to originally bury the source of the claim in the headline though. Thats bad reporting.