There are cases where removing "how" changes the meaning so much it's no longer accurate, but I assume the idea is that the submitter can always edit it back in. For example, a headline on nytimes now reads "How the 9/11 Plea Deal Came Undone". Someone who submits this as the title will feel compelled to reinsert "how" because "The 9/11 Plea Deal Came Undone" is too misleading as to the actual content.
Generally speaking though the rule may well be worth it. "How" and "why" are often overused in headlines to draw readers in by promising revelatory details about "how something works".
Comments
That's two front-page articles in one day where the auto-removal of "how" makes the headline confusing/misleading.
Is this auto-edit rule really worth it?
There are cases where removing "how" changes the meaning so much it's no longer accurate, but I assume the idea is that the submitter can always edit it back in. For example, a headline on nytimes now reads "How the 9/11 Plea Deal Came Undone". Someone who submits this as the title will feel compelled to reinsert "how" because "The 9/11 Plea Deal Came Undone" is too misleading as to the actual content.
Generally speaking though the rule may well be worth it. "How" and "why" are often overused in headlines to draw readers in by promising revelatory details about "how something works".
I'm not following how it made this headline confusing or misleading.
Seems like removing the "how" simply exposes the presuppositions a bit more without changing the meaning.
What’s the justification for it anyway?