HRC Article:
WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.
Biden’s press release:
No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.
Apologies if it seems disingenuous, but if I’d copied the entire original title, it would have been about 30% longer, and it’s already relatively lengthy to begin with.
I did my best to ensure the title of my post matched the relevant content and context of the article and respective event.
We don’t allow editorialized headlines, but I’ll give you a chance to revert it before removing it.
“President Biden Signs Defense Bill Blocking Health Care For Trans Military Children, First Anti-LGBTQ+ Federal Law Enacted Since ‘Defense of Marriage Act’”
Reverted.
Thank you!
Isn’t that the definition of a headline? That someone was editorializing the content?
Summarizing by the OG news editor is fine.
So then all a bad actor would need to do is pick a source that has the headline that manipulates people the way they want to? Ie pick the fox story over MSNBC. Or pick some hate group like fox over hrc.org?
Nope. Bad actor sites like Fox, OANN, Drudge, Breitbart, etc. are also not allowed.
You have a VERY limited list of sites that editorialize their headlines to manipulate readers.
This is why we had the MBFC bot making bad actor sites immediately apparent. People hated that though.
You’re misunderstanding. It’s not just “bad actor” sites writing manipulative headlines. Fish around on a topic and you can find the headline you’re looking for from a mainstream publication.
The New York Times writes manipulative headlines. The solution isn’t to ban the New York Times, it’s to allow editing and clarification of bad headlines. Which will then need to be judged mod staff. There’s no rules bot that can produce that answer. You just have to make subjective decisions about clarity and objectivity, because either the users will do it with article selection or the users will do it themselves.