No, the street performer was the subject (of the old headline, it's changed now). There was an action, and he was the one who took the action.
"From a functional perspective, a subject is a phrase that conflates nominative case with the topic."
"The nominative case (abbreviated NOM) is one of the grammatical cases of a noun or other part of speech, which generally marks the subject of a verb or the predicate noun or predicate adjective, as opposed to its object or other verb arguments. Generally, the noun "that is doing something" is in the nominative, and the nominative is the dictionary form of the noun."
So reverse the question: If tomorrow the TSA stopped checking your person, stopped checking carry on bags (except for a cursor run though a metal detector) and let people carry on almost anything, would you feel safe to fly?
I would, because I don't see any evidence that all this no-liquids-take-off-your-shoes-nude-scanner stuff is actually stopping anything. And it's been proven that it's still quite possible, perhaps even easy, to get weapons past security. And security issues on planes before 9/11 were a microscopically tiny problem. The only reason people are so freaked out about it now is because 9/11 was so horrible, not because it's so much more likely now. Reinforce and lock the cockpit door, use air marshals and metal detectors, and leave it at that.
Do you remember what it was like when people could walk with you right to the gate
Yeah, that was nice. Too bad we won't ever see that again. Remember how people could walk their kid to the gate, and grandma and grandpa could pick them up at the gate at the other end? No more of that.
Well, no, I don't, but then again I'm not the type to get a full head of steam over a headline that might have confused 2% of the population before they bothered to read a couple lines of the post....
It's not an issue of confusion, the issue is that the headline doesn't match the story (or reality). I find it strange that you think it's not a problem for the headline to say one thing and the story something else, just because it will all be clear after reading the story.
At the risk of a bad analogy, if some news organization ran the headline "Chris Christie shuts down traffic on GW Bridge" and the story was about how somebody who isn't Chris Christie shut down the GW Bridge, would you think that was no problem that the headline describes something that didn't actually happen, because all the right info is in the story?
I fail to see how he's mentioned in the headline which implies that he was responsible for taking the video down.
The headline is a simple subject-verb-object construction. The subject is the street performer. The action is getting something taken down. The object is the video. I don't know how you can miss it. It clearly states that the performer took an action that resulted in the video going down.
Which is kind of depressing - such a ridiculous story, and the only thing we can find to question is the wording of a headline?
You're making the classic mistake of assuming that the thing I mentioned is the only thing I'm thinking about the issue. I don't need to point out every single thing that's noteworthy about the story in order to make a comment about one issue. I don't even have to comment on the part of it I think is most important.
The headline is completely disingenuous. The street performer had nothing to do with getting the video taken down. I don't think this is consistent with TD's usually high standards and I hope you'll change it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Must stick to the rules of the game!
Or is this typical for SCOTUS?
From what I hear about SCOTUS, it's new. They used to be willing to take issues on and rule about the core of what's being contested. Since Roberts, it seems to me, they've tried to rule as narrowly as possible, and try to make their decisions based on a technicality around the margin to send it back to an appeals court without actually ruling on the substance of the case.
We might take a relatively loose definition of porn here. If you are posting something and then asking for payment to remove it, then that 'it' is pornographic, at least to the target of the extortion.
That would be a terrible definition of pornography.