The subheading walks back the headline: “The golf clubs are temporarily allowed to continue to serve alcohol until a final hearing on the renewals is held in July.” Journalism in the 2020s. Could have been fixed by just changing the word “does” to “will.”
The New Jersey Attorney General has decided on Friday not to renew two liquor licenses at former President Donald Trump’s New Jersey golf clubs following his conviction on all 34 felony counts in his criminal hush money trial.
“The New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has an obligation to maintain integrity in the alcoholic beverage industry in the state,” said a spokesperson with the New Jersey Attorney General(NJAG).
There’s nothing wrong with the headline and the subheadline does not walk anything back. The liquor licenses were not renewed, and a final hearing is scheduled for July. Turns out, the problem with journalism in the 2020s is that you just need to read the article. Go figure…
I saw someone earlier today berated for using the original headline for the article as the rules state because the headline was a little deceptive. It was clarified if you just read the little preview blurb at the top of the page, you didn’t even need to read the article. Just incredible.
Yeah, during those reviews they are going to get their liquor license renewed. Why? Because those businesses have not abused their liquor licenses and have followed all appropriate laws.
The article sites a law that licenses cannot be issued to those convicted of ‘a crime involving moral turpitude’, but then does not follow up by demonstrating the license is being issued to Trump. It merely claims he would benefit from it being issued to the business. The law quoted does not state it can’t be issued to person x if some other person would benefit who has been convicted of such a rime.
The subheading walks back the headline: “The golf clubs are temporarily allowed to continue to serve alcohol until a final hearing on the renewals is held in July.” Journalism in the 2020s. Could have been fixed by just changing the word “does” to “will.”
There’s nothing wrong with the headline and the subheadline does not walk anything back. The liquor licenses were not renewed, and a final hearing is scheduled for July. Turns out, the problem with journalism in the 2020s is that you just need to read the article. Go figure…
You’d think half of Lemmy used to be editors the way everyone obsesses over headlines here.
I saw someone earlier today berated for using the original headline for the article as the rules state because the headline was a little deceptive. It was clarified if you just read the little preview blurb at the top of the page, you didn’t even need to read the article. Just incredible.
Whoa, whoa whoa whoa WHOA…reading the article explains the article???
Edit: Not a big fan of humour 'round these parts? That’s fine, I get it, it’s not for everyone. Take care, folks.
Yeah, during those reviews they are going to get their liquor license renewed. Why? Because those businesses have not abused their liquor licenses and have followed all appropriate laws.
The article sites a law that licenses cannot be issued to those convicted of ‘a crime involving moral turpitude’, but then does not follow up by demonstrating the license is being issued to Trump. It merely claims he would benefit from it being issued to the business. The law quoted does not state it can’t be issued to person x if some other person would benefit who has been convicted of such a rime.
But we all know its really change “does not” to “will.”