I reverted the title back after reading your comment, but on reflection, I think the edit is correct, so I'm going to put it back. I don't feel strongly about it, though, so if you all do, we'll restore the "disgrace" bit.
Generally we want HN titles to say what an article is about, not tell people what to think about it. This article is about media reaction to Hersh's story. For HN purposes it doesn't need to say more than that. The presence of the article near the top of HN already says a great deal.
Moderation decisions on HN aren't driven by political agendas (at least not that I know of). It should be clear from the fact that this article is currently #3 that we don't have a problem with critiques of dominant narratives, as long as they're substantive. I'd say this article clears that bar easily.
I have to disagree. The article is an unambiguous criticism of the media reaction to Hersh's article.
In the context of the media trying to control the narrative regarding Hersh's story, editing the title here really appears to be more narrative control.
While I can appreciate not wanting to tell HN readers what to think, this piece is an editorial and a criticism and deserves to be treated as such.
That said, thank you for your transparency and taking the time to respond.
No question it's a critique. IMO a devastating one. But I don't see why we should edit the front page differently? The standard for titles is that they be accurate and neutral. (Edit: it's the "neutral" bit that matters here.) HN moderation is about readers being smart enough to figure things out for themselves.
Generally we want HN titles to say what an article is about, not tell people what to think about it. This article is about media reaction to Hersh's story. For HN purposes it doesn't need to say more than that. The presence of the article near the top of HN already says a great deal.
Moderation decisions on HN aren't driven by political agendas (at least not that I know of). It should be clear from the fact that this article is currently #3 that we don't have a problem with critiques of dominant narratives, as long as they're substantive. I'd say this article clears that bar easily.