To me, clickbait is along the lines of "10 ways to lose 100lbs in 1 hour!" and it's an article about throwing out two 50lb weights. Or otherwise where the title is clearly not representative of the article itself.
But here we have...
>Effectively immediately, Heathrow has requested:
-the closure for sale of all flights departing from the airport until 11th September
- a reduction in the current passenger cap from 101,500 to 100,000
That seems to match the title exactly? Which part is clickbait? Or what has changed in the definition of clickbait that I'm too out of touch to have learned?
but the "clickbait" bit is the dramatic title, weak definition of perhaps, but its still excessive
example of level reporting: https://news.sky.com/story/new-summer-holiday-threat-as-heat...
I am genuinely perplexed as to how someone could get that from this title.
That usually leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of the reader.
Because the title is almost a word for word copy of the actual announcement, straight from the CEOs mouth.
Is this unprecedented at Heathrow, or normal course of action? Will the average Heathrow traveler or prospective traveler a face any consequence anything from this news?
Some of the items do seem like they would impact travelers and potential travelers, so I would not classify it as clickbait yet. Unless I found out this was every summer.
But if this article means that people should avoid Heathrow because the experience will be worse than prior years, then I would say this is relevant news to share with the public.
Should I flag this post? Feels a bit over the top. At the same time I can't downvote it. shrug