That is all fine and good as a quote in the body text of the article, but as a headline that is criminally poor editorial work from the Guardian. If it’s intentional clickbait, my opinion of that paper sinks even lower. To think, under Rusbridger it was my daily read.
That is all fine and good as a quote in the body text of the article, but as a headline that is criminally poor editorial work from the Guardian. If it’s intentional clickbait, my opinion of that paper sinks even lower. To think, under Rusbridger it was my daily read.
It summarizes the point of the article using the words of people interviewed.
How do you judge it as "clickbait"?
Not to diminish the severity of the situation, but I believe this is a figure of speech… In case that wasn’t clear.
Blood <=> Suffering/Violence/Death is standard English.
It's actually definition #2 on google "Blood: 2. violence involving bloodshed."
...it was pretty obvious. Did you assume it was literally dipped in human blood before export or something?
I'm curious how the metaphor is so far from one's mind when reading.
Pretty powerful headline. My first thought was “literally? How?”
> My first thought was “literally? How?”
The ones sent to go swimming with the fishes
[dead]