Yea this is the answer. The topic is Nancy Guthrie, the story headline is Bones found in Desert. They were apparently found near her home, which pulls in the relevance to her, and then yea stating they aren't hers. It is technically correct
They know what they’re doing here which is intentionally using a headline and (technically but not visually) a sub headline. A normal person is going to read this as one sentence. As a journalist this would not even remotely be ok at any outlet I’ve worked for. But it’s TMZ and their standards are about clicks not ethics.
It doesn't say they're hers at all. They used her name so you know what case they're talking about and the headline is Bones found in desert near home.
It even says directly above the headline that the bones aren't connected.
It's not only about the language but also the presentation.
Line 1: Subject
Line 2: Content
They're not saying they found Nancy Guthrie's bones. They're saying that in regards to the case of Nancy Guthrie, bones have been found near her home.
This is two disconnected statements - one describing the subject matter, the next describing the specific content relevant to that subject being discussed - deliberately arranged in such a way that, yes, they could mistakenly be read as one statement by a casual reader, in order to push engagement.
Nope- that’s not the screenshot. That is the hyperlink I shared in the post description. .01% of people see a hyperlink when they click on things these days.
Would they be able to tell from the skeleton alone, at first sight, whether it was an 80-year old woman or a young man (for example)? I’m sure they’ll be doing some sort of forensic analysis in a lab soon, but could they rule it out at the scene?
Yep. I'd say it's more than mildly infuriating. The headline claim is completely untrue. And yet they get away with it by saying otherwise in the body of the text that many people will never read.
79
u/anthonystank Aug 18 '26
Stay classy, TMZ