Per HN policy, stop editorializing the headlines.
Here's the actual headline:
> Gamblers trying to win a bet on Polymarket are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
Here's the actual headline:
> Gamblers trying to win a bet on Polymarket are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
echo -en 'Gamblers trying to win a bet on Polymarket are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story' | wc -c
107
I'd trim the bit about Polymarket to get under the cap.
> Gamblers [...] are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
You'll lose a little topical/karma sizzle (with no "Polymarket" keyword), but it's higher fidelity.
Heck no, that's removing the important part of the news! Specifically, that a new kind of unregulated anonymous bet-making is leading to new kind of violence against journalists.
In contrast, the piece isn't really about Iran, or about Missiles, although those underscore the gravity or perversion of what's going on.
_____________
Such a cut isn't necessary either, compare the original versus this 79-character version:
Gamblers trying to win a bet on Polymarket are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
Gamblers on Polymarket vow to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
(To be clear, this whole story is horrifying. I hope there's a way to identify these bettors and bring them to justice.)
> Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me over Iran missile story
These carry the same meaning. No editorializing happened.
A priori, you'd get different impressions between a regular journalist death threats and someone engaging to re-write an article leading to death threats.
Honestly kind of crazy that you call such an ultimatum a "rewrite option", as if that diminishes the fact that it's a death threat in any way whatsoever.
It's crazy for me to use the first person's own words? That's crazy?
Journalists get threats all the time. You just made my point on why it's more nuanced that this author engaged and was offered a chance to re-write.
I have no idea what your point is.
Certainly not an exculpatory one.
Do you get that point?
You're confusing yourself.
As the article clearly explains, the author replied ("engaged") without knowing why his interlocutors were interested in the minor details of the story.
His initial interlocutor ("Aviv") seemed to be engaging in good faith: "Alternatively, if you have information that it was indeed a full missile that was not intercepted, I would be glad to be corrected."
The author was naturally interested in getting the story right, and wanted to understand what his interlocutors might know about it, how they might be misunderstanding it, or why it might be so important to them.
> … and was offered a chance to re-write.
Do you truly believe that an "offer" to rewrite a story in a way that the author believes to be inaccurate—accompanied by death threats—is an important "nuance" that must be conveyed in the headline of a posting about this?
That's wild.
It's the author's own language.
Why did the author use if not important?
> Why did the author use if not important?
The headline cannot possibly convey every detail that's in the story.
The headlines chosen by the author of the TOI story, and by the author of his HN post, both adequately summarize the story.
After reading it in full, I found absolutely nothing misleading about either headline.
I said the author chose to put that language in their own title, otherwise they wouldn't have deemed it important.
Your position doesn't make any sense.