Difference between revisions of "Betteridge's law of headlines"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Possible examples: explain one headline as admitted satire)
(+1)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
*"Is the BLM breaking the Constitution?"
 
*"Is the BLM breaking the Constitution?"
 
*[http://consumerist.com/2007/07/23/are-aribitrators-punished-by-credit-card-companies-for-ruling-in-favor-of-the-consumer/ "Are Aribitrators <nowiki>[</nowiki>''sic''<nowiki>]</nowiki> Punished By Credit Card Companies For Ruling In Favor Of The Consumer?"]
 
*[http://consumerist.com/2007/07/23/are-aribitrators-punished-by-credit-card-companies-for-ruling-in-favor-of-the-consumer/ "Are Aribitrators <nowiki>[</nowiki>''sic''<nowiki>]</nowiki> Punished By Credit Card Companies For Ruling In Favor Of The Consumer?"]
 +
*"Did Obama set up an 'Constitution-exemption zone' within 100 miles of the U.S./Mexican border?"
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{Reflist}}
 
{{Reflist}}

Revision as of 05:47, July 28, 2014

Betteridge's law of headlines states that headlines that end with a question mark can be safely answered "no".[1]

Possible examples

References