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

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(+1)
(+1)
Line 34: Line 34:
 
*[http://consumerist.com/2014/12/10/in-wake-of-target-ruling-will-retailers-scale-back-security-so-they-can-plead-ignorance/ "In Wake Of Target Ruling, Will Retailers Scale Back Security So They Can Plead Ignorance?"]
 
*[http://consumerist.com/2014/12/10/in-wake-of-target-ruling-will-retailers-scale-back-security-so-they-can-plead-ignorance/ "In Wake Of Target Ruling, Will Retailers Scale Back Security So They Can Plead Ignorance?"]
 
*[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112553966818328701 "Did Credit-Card Issuers Collude to Force Arbitration?"]--according to a 2014 decision by a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the answer is no
 
*[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112553966818328701 "Did Credit-Card Issuers Collude to Force Arbitration?"]--according to a 2014 decision by a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the answer is no
 +
*[http://www.mccarthylawyer.com/2015/03/13/is-credit-card-arbitration-a-lousy-deal-for-the-consumer/ Is Credit Card Arbitration a Lousy Deal for the Consumer?]
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{Reflist}}
 
{{Reflist}}
  
 
[[Category:Journalism]]
 
[[Category:Journalism]]

Revision as of 04:00, June 8, 2015

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

Possible examples

References