Watchdog rules on Hull Daily Mail 'porncoder' exposé
You killed a man once just to watch him die
At least it is the sort of thing that you might have done if you were that sort of person, and who is to say that you aren't?
Headlines can only be fully understood in the context of an article when read as a whole. Therefore it doesn't matter, apparently, if the headline itself is outrageously untrue, evenewhen it is likely to be the only part of the story that many people see, on account of it's printed much larger than all the rest.
* "Spilled it over her breasts" *
Furthermore I am assuming that the same principle applies to whatever you call the, um, sub-headings in larger and bolder type sprinkled through the text body and, so a casual reader might assume, indicative of the content as a whole. But it is the casual reader who is at fault if they do not read the article as a whole. It isn't the fault of the writers and editors who carefully design their output to create that impression to an incautious observer who may even be only browsing the paper in the shop. By the way, while you were distracted reading this, I have taken your wallet. So who is the wrongdoer there? You are! Obviously! I am not at fault at all!
