You are right, although at least this article presented it more as a personal agenda thing than corporate interest, but it's getting hard to tell where the difference lies between them.

As opposed to CNN, WaPo, Bremain and Clinton's campaign?!

Which one of those runs stories that argue against observed scientific fact? Which one of those repeatedly stokes religious intolerance and anti-immigrant sentiments, to the detriment of a nation built on immigration and tolerance? There is no moral equivalence here.

Coming from Poland, where recently we struggle with news authenticity it took me less than 60 seconds to finds this:

www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/

> Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com

How this is not a fake news and misrepresentation of what the Pope have said? It's so bad that the story was removed from HN and even pro-atheist reddit didn't bough it...

The title is usually chosen by someone else than the author of the article. Other than the clickbait title, the article seems fairly normal?

So it's OK to have fake title that exposes people that did not read the article to false news, especially when most of the people will not click on the story and the untrue title will be everything they will ever see?

EDIT: I do not mean to start a war here, I've read facetube's comment above as "our side is always provably right and other side spreads misinformation" and it seemed as naive and untrue view to me. Here in Poland none of 2 major powers represents my views and both manipulate news, and I assume situation is similar in US. I may have read it wrong, but situations where HN-trusted media spreads propaganda definitely do happen.

I agree, that headline is sensational. What the pope actually said was little more than a restatement of Matthew 7. I'd argue, however, that the potential impact of a sensational headline like this – i.e. the foreseeable consequences of publishing it – pales in comparison to a Breitbart News headline like [1].

1: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right...

What he actually said (or rather quoted to have said) aligned with my take on the title's meaning.

Wait, where's the link between the remain campaign and Clinton's campaign? Did US news sites even care much about Brexit? Also AFAIK there's no monetary or commercial relationship between the UK government and any non-BBC domestic or foreign news network - am I wrong?