If you’re going to fabricate a headline to cast blame on the US, maybe at least use a claim that is contained in the article, no?
The article describes direct results of the Plaza Accord that destroyed Japanese economy. If you don’t understand how Plaza Accord caused the problems the article describes then go read up on that. This isn’t some big secret.
But that is your own opinion, not hers. I did read up on the Plaza Accords and I can see where you are coming from, but the headline you chose is still putting words in her mouth.
That’s not my opinion, that’s actual documented history. I’m simply providing context for the horrors she describes.
Then provide it in the comments maybe? All that I am saying is that you really should not be putting your words in her mouth in a way that suggests that it is coming from her. It is deceptive, whereas a comment makes it transparent where the analysis is coming from.
I’m not putting words into anybody’s mouth. If I titled it as Gayle says that US turned Japan into a modern hellhole with the Plaza Accord then you might have a point.
The title is generally assumed to reflect the contents of the article. There’s a reason many political communities have taken to requiring that posts only use the headline of the article for the post title. It’s because some users editorialize the hell out of the title. The title is to describe the submission. The comment section is to discuss it.
The title is often used to provide context and opinion associated with the linked content. The original title isn’t going anywhere, it’s present in the article itself.
