on bad headline writing

Here’s what it says on page 1 of the New York Times right now:

“With the loyalists’ advances, there is growing consensus in the Obama administration that a no-flight zone over Libya would no longer make much of a difference.”

When I read that, I nearly kicked the floor in disgust. It sounds like they’re rationalizing a sell-out, doesn’t it?

But what it actually says inside the article (which is suddenly behind a sign-up firewall since the first time I read it, and I don’t feel like signing up again right now) is that a more aggressive tactic is now being considered: a “no-drive zone” for tanks, and possibly even airstrikes against Qaddafi’s tanks.

That’s big news. And there’s no trace of it in the headline on page 1.

Libya would be the #1 news story right now if not for Japan, I think. The opposition has been very unlucky in that respect.