[h3throw]

It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it doesn't seem so deserved.

I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes to Trump. Otherwise, we all end up justifying Trump's and other Alt-Righties' claims of bias.

[matt4077]

Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story.

The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph.

If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head.

It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.

[h3throw]

It's all in my head?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995

I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete.

When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.