This is an egregiously editorialized title.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Submitted title was "FBI director's defense of mass incarceration".)
"Defense of mass incarceration" seems like a neutral summary of the content of the speech. The author's main point, from the content: 'to speak of “mass incarceration” I believe is confusing, and it distorts an important reality.' But the literal words "mass incarceration" seem simply factual, although "mass" might be more neutral as "large-scale."
Replacing this summary of the content with the author and location, as above, replaces it with an irrelevant, content-free title, which couldn't be better designed to go unread. How many HN posts are labeled "Article by Walter Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal?"
It seems better to simply describe the link as inappropriate. But many pieces on this subject appear on HN...
The article is probably going to go mostly unread anyway, since most people never bother to RTFA to begin with, but at least the title doesn't have to be snark bait.
I do know it was being strongly upvoted under this title, which might be objective proof of linkbaitiness...
But I still think that title was a mistake. "Mass incarceration" has become a pejorative that signals a certain position (or cluster of positions) on this controversial issue, so saying "defends mass incarceration" comes across as a provocative critique, a la "defends wife-beating". For a really neutral title, maybe "FBI director's speech defending current prison policy" or some such would have worked—assuming that's what the speech actually is.
Certainly the title we hastily gave it wasn't great, except as a cooler-offer. It's actually rare for an article to be quite so unhelpful at indicating what a good title for itself might be.
There's a standing invitation, btw, for any HN user to suggest a better title if they don't like the one that's up there. When people do, we often use them.