Sure, but why not just lead with a negative assertion instead of implying that there’s an open question? The question implies that there is controversy, even when none exists.
Fact Checking RFK Jr’s False Claims About Fluoride
The title poses the claim in question from a neutral standpoint, and presents it’s fact checking case in the article. I don’t agree with the idea that a controversy is implied simply by doing that, or that there is an open question implied either. That is not apparent to me whatsoever, and I think this is a personal opinion rather than anything concrete. By reading the article, that is confirmed, and the reader also gains a lot of additional information on the matter.
Sure, but why not just lead with a negative assertion instead of implying that there’s an open question? The question implies that there is controversy, even when none exists.
Would be a perfectly acceptable headline.
The title poses the claim in question from a neutral standpoint, and presents it’s fact checking case in the article. I don’t agree with the idea that a controversy is implied simply by doing that, or that there is an open question implied either. That is not apparent to me whatsoever, and I think this is a personal opinion rather than anything concrete. By reading the article, that is confirmed, and the reader also gains a lot of additional information on the matter.