[cogitoergofutuo]

I’m still not buying that “most readers” are so familiar with that conspiracy theory that they would jump to “FBI agents have taken it upon themselves to publicly accuse the CIA in involvement in 9/11”

There is so much room for discussion about incompetence and bad systems when talking about 9/11. There was even a whole tv show with Jeff Daniels a few years ago that managed to talk about it without reading like lyrics from an Anti Flag album.

[philosopher1234]

They might not settle on that as the most likely interpretation, but I would bet money that it was one of if not the first interpretation that came to mind for most. I think title authors are accountable for such things, and less discriminating readers will not make their way all the way to more reasonable interpretations.

[cogitoergofutuo]

It is not the author’s job to proactively search out and adjust for crazy interpretations of mundane sentences. That rule would be funny.

“NOAA reports record hurricane activity — BUT DON’T WORRY HAARP ISN’T INVOLVED” would be a hilarious but pointless headline.