For me the headline was pretty straightforward: he doesn't have the authority, according to your analysis there was never any good-faith reason to believe that he did have the authority to do what he said he could do.
The administration's signature move is acting in bad faith then lashing out, so I really doubt they plan to change tactics now.
Most of us are just watching to see if there still exists a rule of law at all.
lyu07282 · 1d ago
> Most of us are just watching to see if there still exists a rule of law at all.
You are right! Thank God for the supreme court making everything he does legal. I was almost worried there being ruled by an illegal fascist dictator instead of a legal fascist dictator.
kerblang · 1d ago
A lot of news - arguably the majority - involves articles that are as bad as the headlines. If only the headlines were a problem, we'd be in great shape. The lack of effort is as bad as the bias.
The author's effort to clarify things is commendable, and yet, if anything, this article has a bad headline... but for the best reason, because it's more informative and specific than I expected.
k310 · 1d ago
Headlines are clickbait.
Is the referenced headline an example of same?
KevinMS · 1d ago
This is pretty much the front page of reddit. click bait titles rise to the top and then thousands of people comment on it without even realize its either wrong or out of context
hyperhello · 1d ago
The function, or goal, of news may not be to inform. One would have to decide by observation.
Systems are self-perpetuating entities that exist independently of the purpose one person or another places on it, and all the different people inside and outside of it all place different purposes.
That phrase the article is complaining about means that talking about a system purpose is meaningless babble. Only people know about purpose, systems don't.
That phrase has an author, that has made it patently clear what he means by it.
The fact that the article's author spends the entire time reacting to random people on Twitter instead of going after the author, and even dismisses the one person pointing to the original meaning with a no-answer doesn't make anything better.
polarix · 1d ago
Sure, those headlines are misleading.
But all of those other headlines are wrong and misleading as well, in their own way.
The "court"(s) cannot "block" Trump from doing anything. They don't control the military. All they can do is "say" something about the "legality" of the actions of the commander in chief of the military. The first two headlines that (according to the link) "beg to mislead" are closer to accuracy on this dimension -- the courts said something.
cadamsdotcom · 1d ago
Misleadingly broad title, what about this instead:
Headlines About Trump Tariffs Are Evil, And They’re Bringing Us Down
Scopes it more accurately.
paulpauper · 1d ago
Clickbait headlines are the worst. "Why America is doomed because of {X}" and then the article prevaricates.
ProfessorZoom · 1d ago
this article is about itself
hypertexthero · 1d ago
See also Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.
> Axios: “Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs”
Eh. The article's right that the president does have the authority to set tariffs in general, just not these specific ones. However, it's also universally understood that headlines are radically terse summaries of longer articles. They exist to help you identify longer content you want to read.
A more accurate headline like "Court says Trump doesn't have the authority to set these specific tariffs for the reasons he gave" still grossly simplifies the longer article, takes longer to read, and probably wouldn't fit the space allotted for it. It would be more accurate, strictly speaking, and yet worse.
tehjoker · 1d ago
This is such a 2011 vibe article. We are so far past this style of political discourse I have to chuckle.
The administration's signature move is acting in bad faith then lashing out, so I really doubt they plan to change tactics now.
Most of us are just watching to see if there still exists a rule of law at all.
You are right! Thank God for the supreme court making everything he does legal. I was almost worried there being ruled by an illegal fascist dictator instead of a legal fascist dictator.
The author's effort to clarify things is commendable, and yet, if anything, this article has a bad headline... but for the best reason, because it's more informative and specific than I expected.
Is the referenced headline an example of same?
— Stafford Beer
Systems are self-perpetuating entities that exist independently of the purpose one person or another places on it, and all the different people inside and outside of it all place different purposes.
That phrase the article is complaining about means that talking about a system purpose is meaningless babble. Only people know about purpose, systems don't.
The fact that the article's author spends the entire time reacting to random people on Twitter instead of going after the author, and even dismisses the one person pointing to the original meaning with a no-answer doesn't make anything better.
But all of those other headlines are wrong and misleading as well, in their own way.
The "court"(s) cannot "block" Trump from doing anything. They don't control the military. All they can do is "say" something about the "legality" of the actions of the commander in chief of the military. The first two headlines that (according to the link) "beg to mislead" are closer to accuracy on this dimension -- the courts said something.
Headlines About Trump Tariffs Are Evil, And They’re Bringing Us Down
Scopes it more accurately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu...
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Eh. The article's right that the president does have the authority to set tariffs in general, just not these specific ones. However, it's also universally understood that headlines are radically terse summaries of longer articles. They exist to help you identify longer content you want to read.
A more accurate headline like "Court says Trump doesn't have the authority to set these specific tariffs for the reasons he gave" still grossly simplifies the longer article, takes longer to read, and probably wouldn't fit the space allotted for it. It would be more accurate, strictly speaking, and yet worse.