Not really. Headlines have always been written to be eye catching and to entice one to buy/read the publication.

I thought there was a time like that too, but then I found chapter titles in "How to Win Friends and Influence People" like "A Formula That Will Work Wonders for You" (published 1936).

Are you suggesting Yellow journalism is some new phenomena? It seems quite a stretch to associate this article for some cheap readership trick.

There is nothing misleading about this headline

What's dishonest about it?

It is also saving farms too:

Critics say that the approval process proceeded without adequate data and under enormous pressure from state agriculture departments, industry groups and farmers associations. Those groups said that farmers desperately needed the new herbicide to control glyphosate-resistant weeds, which can take over fields and deprive soybeans of sunlight and nutrients

--

So a more honest headline would be:

"This miracle weed killer is saving farms as well as sometime devastating their neighbors"

The primary focus of the post is the negative effects of the pesticide that was allowed through _because_ it was able to be pushed through the typical protocols. It's a breakdown of the very regulation meant to protect people.

> A better title would be: "This miracle weed killer is saving farms as well as sometime devastating their neighbors"

Maybe the intent of cramming this pesticide to market was to save farms, but perhaps doing so was a bit hasty. Should we prioritize profits over healthcare and safety?

I think what you mean is "The miracle weed killer is saving the chemical pesticide executive's pensions, while often devastating neighboring farms". That's the real honest headline.