I was listening to this on NPR this morning and it really got my cortisol levels up. I’m not even trying to plug for Platner; maybe he’ll Fetterman us. But billionaire captive NPR continues to be disappointing.
*For clarity, this is a wall of shame post. An example NPR serving the interests of billionaires, and in no way an article I support or endorse.
“Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.”
Posted exact title: check. Added relevant context: check. Editorialized in the body: check.
Edit: it’s not very popular anyway. Pretty sure I did not successfully get my point across and now the post just feels inappropes.
The brackets are editorial comment, not context. 😉
Context would be like if it didn’t explicitly say “Maine” so you put up “Will [Maine] Voters…”
Hey now, I did not alter the title. And that’s what is clearly cited in the 1st rule. Altering. I added editorial context; the whole point of my post was to editorialize the title, and article contents. It was silly, I guess.
Anyways, I enjoyed this little exchange of ours. I’m gonna alter my title, just in case this develops.
“The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.” Same as it always has been.
You added your own editorial commentary in the headline which we do not allow. Thank you for removing it!
It IS allowed in the body or a top level comment, just not in the headline.
Well you should make it a rule then. I’m pretty sure you just enjoy gaslighting. Or you could remove the article for my aforementioned reason: the whole reason behind posting it is editorial/critical: please remove it for that!
It’s rule #1 written in plain English.
The vast majority of other submitters comprehend this quite easily, the multiple people reporting your post sure did!
Again it is literally not what you are continually stating in your comments: “editorializing the title” and even then I clearly posted the title and my particular bullshit afterwards. Rewrite the rule more carefully, or continue having this argument almost every single day with various parties (seems a common occurrence from my passive observation). Need not discuss it more; I’ve already altered my post to appease you. Just wish you’d understand your obvious and blatant error (and so do others).
“it should ONLY be to add context or be more descriptive”
Your addition was your personal editorial opinion and as such was not allowed.
So far, you are the only person not comprehending the difference so I’ll give you more examples:
Adding context: When a person is named in the headline, but it’s not clear who they are:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/02/politics/jimmy-gomez-house-ethics-investigation
“Exclusive: House Ethics Committee investigating Rep. Jimmy Gomez over sexual misconduct allegations, sources say”
You could say:
“Exclusive: House Ethics Committee investigating Rep. Jimmy Gomez [D-CA34] over sexual misconduct allegations, sources say”
You can’t say:
“Exclusive: House Ethics Committee investigating [piece of shit cheater] Rep. Jimmy Gomez over sexual misconduct allegations, sources say”
More descriptive:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/06/02/house-speaker-lisa-demuth-to-run-in-gop-primary-for-governor
“House Speaker Lisa Demuth to run in GOP primary for governor”
You could say:
“[Minnesota State] House Speaker Lisa Demuth to run in GOP primary for governor”
You can’t say:
“[Handmaid’s Tale fan] House Speaker Lisa Demuth to run in GOP primary for governor”
What you inserted in brackets wasn’t objective. It was you personally pontificating on the subject and as such was NOT allowed.