A common occurrence that we commonly encounter on Skeptics† is when the headline of a newsaper or magazine article contains a claim that is not supported by the rest of the article.
† That clause would be far more powerful if I included real examples. Let me make up a fictional example:
A scientific paper notes a correlation between longevity and investing in diamonds. The paper expressly points out it merely a correlation, and confounding factors such a wealth probably account for it.
A journalist writes-up the journal article in a much smaller newspaper article. The journalist is careful never to claim causation.
An editor writes the headline for the paper. (I am told it is rarely the original journalist who writes headlines - it is assigned to an editor someone who specialises.) The editor skims the article, and writes a click-baity headline: "Buying diamonds is healthy!" or "Could your fiancé save your life with a diamond ring?"
If we accept such headlines as notable claims, we get the silly situation of just pointing to the carefully-written article underneath the headline to debunk it.
Should we accept headlines that don't match their articles as notable claims?