I'm just going to politely refrain from further comments. I stand by the title, and not only was no clickbait intended but the first sentence was intended to reinforce this was about his presence on AM radio. I hope my good faith is obvious. That said, I appreciate the efforts at clarity.
> and not only was no clickbait intended but the first sentence was intended to reinforce this was about his presence on AM radio
That’s exactly what clickbait means. You have to click on the link to read the first sentence.
It leaves the important information out of the link text, and it uses ambiguous tongue-in-cheek language to suggest that the piece is going to be about something more interesting and engaging than it really is.
The fact that the title is debunked in the first sentence is a clear sign of bad intentions. You are literally being pranked: “Did you hear Leo Laporte passed away? Psych! Actually, he’s still alive! We only made you think he’s dead, just because we thought we could get away with it!”
If that’s your idea of “no clickbait intended”, I wonder what intentional clickbait would look like?
To make it clear why people are saying it’s ambiguous:
(A minor memorial for) (Leo Laporte on terrestrial AM radio)
vs
(A minor memorial for Leo Laporte) (on terrestrial AM radio)
The latter is not only just as grammatically valid as the first, it is also a sensible article headline, the idea that someone used AM radio to broadcast a memorial for Leo Laporte.
Can you not see why people would read it as the latter?
