Aren't headlines supposed to be descriptive?
Headlines in most of the UK national press (I shrink from calling them newspapers**) are designed to catch the eye, even at the expense of clarity or truth. And once you look inside our rags, it becomes worse. Someone writes a sensible commentary (not that this happens often) that wouldn't get people typing responses*** and either the headline or, worse, the standfirst (which most people assume is taken from the text of the article) state something that isn't supported by so much as a single word or phrase**** in the text.
** - In the UK's national press, there is little or no separation between straight news and comment, although some papers claim to separate them out. But what they're separating out are news stories chosen to fit a particular agenda (often news that doesn't fit the agenda is simply left out, even when***** it's on the front page in other papers) and written with a bias, and comments where (too often) facts are completely missing, replaced by illogical and untrue assertions.
*** - Unless dealing with matters of law, most of such articles are open to comments from the "readers", i.e. they're there to be, potentially, click bait. (I say "readers" because often those responding have read no further than that standfirst, and begin attacking the original author of the commentary for something they haven't said and don't believe.)
**** - Gone are the days of simply taking a comment out of context, although this does still happen, if only because it saves the writer of the standfirst from having to make something up from scratch.
***** - A certain major "serious" title in the UK completely omitted to mention (at all) a major financial scandal as it had a financial interest -- well, it had an immediate one, but also a much larger one that went, mostly, unnoticed (a huge loan from the institution in question) -- in the story going away, although how they expected it to not be noticed elsewhere, including broadcast news, goodness only knows.
