One word changes entire sense of article ? (Is it just me ?)

[SerendipityJane]

(Posted on another thread - this is my first thread here, please be gentle 😀)

What crucial change in reading is there between the headline in screenshot

"Migrants making false domestic abuse claims to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds"

And the very first line in the "article" (it's hardly reporting)

Migrants are falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in the country, a BBC investigation has discovered.

?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl19dzdd38o

there is undoubtedly a difference. it's too early in the day for me to establish exactly what this is (need to return to this once a few cups of coffee are 'on board').

by coincidence, i read the BBC article a few minutes before this. i suggest that one's response to the wording of the headline is influenced by one's response to the contents of the article. further complicated by the bizarreness of the appalling BBC incredibly running an article (in fact a short series of articles) critical of 'migrants' (a.k.a. illegal immigrants).

This look like a case where ambiguity is resolved by context. There are indeed two ways to read the headline, but only one way to read the first line. Or are there more ways which I have missed?

The headline suggests that asylum seekers who have lied to gain entry to the UK will be allowed to stay.

The article then says that asylums seekers are lying in order to gain entry to the UK without the Farage-friendly implication that those that have done so will be allowed to stay.

It passes the duck test for biased reporting.

I've long given up expecting a decent standard of English from the BBC. A great shame, because they used to be an organisation that set standards for spoken and written English.

But is this just the usual shit English you would expect ?

Or a more subtle choice to make the headline as inflammatory as possible ?

I don’t agree that the headline suggests that asylum seekers who have lied to gain entry will necessarily be allowed to stay.

It’s just the way they write headlines.
You often have to read more to find out exactly what’s meant. They can mislead, which I hate, but I don’t think this one is a particularly bad example.

You often have to read more to find out exactly what’s meant.

Hence the danger of a misleading headline.

Yes. I don’t agree that this one misleads, though I’ve seen ones that have, as well as ones where I really can’t work out what’s meant.

Or a more subtle choice to make the headline as inflammatory as possible ?

No, it's just ambiguous. I expect you can find similar lack of clarity in many headlines. I had to click to read a story the other day because I couldn't make head nor tail of the headline.

It's a holdover from the days of print journalism when headlines had to be bold enough to be eye-catching but also concise enough to fit into the space on the page.

Aside from the ramifications of misreading the headline, I still assert it is bad English and well deserving of pedantic oversight 😂

I don’t think the headline is misleading. The missing “are” is implied.

I think if they had wanted to suggest that those who had lied have been allowed to stay, they would have had to change the tense to say:

“Migrants who falsely claimed domestic abuse to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds”.

An “are” is implied whichever way you read it- migrants [are] making claims to stay or migrants making claims [are] to stay. Depends whether you treat “migrants making claims” as a noun phrase or not.

I love headline ambiguities. “Royals head transplant row” is a fave although probably apocryphal.

Coincidentally, this very subject is agreed with on this weeks SMH ...]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002v19f

Complain to the BBC. Complaints | Contact the BBC

It's not bad English but it lacks clarity.

"Migrants making false domestic abuse claims to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds"
It could mean:
BBC investigation finds that migrants are making false domestic abuse claims in order to stay in the UK
or
BBC investigation finds that migrants making false domestic abuse claims will be allowed to stay in the UK

I doubt that it was intended to be inflammatory.

I have them on speed dial.

But as this thread shows, I was wrong.

Contrariwise I am convinced it was meant to be inflammatory.

Not sure if that's the correct use of the word contrariwise but I'm a pedant.

I found it ambiguous, though not necessarily intentionally misleading:

"Migrants (are) making false domestic abuse claims (in* order) to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds"*

or even

”Migrants (are) making false domestic abuse claims (in bid) to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds”

Sorry my slow typing led to cross-posting with Pleasant

It still have my learner wheels on 😀

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/contrariwise

I'm going to be a pedant now.. this has nothing to do with asylum seekers.

These are people on a visa which is running out and cannot be renewed and are looking for an alternative option to remain here. They are not asylum seekers (if they were, their alternative option would be to apply for asylum!).

@SerendipityJane , I think I was pedantic from an early age.
One of my parents was a pedant so I'm not sure if it was nature or nurture.

I have them on speed dial.

I have complained about the same thing several times and I don't know if it was a coincidence but I've noticed that it seems to have been addressed.