[robroys woman]

When I read the title, I was really surprised. It is extremely rare for men to sexually abuse their own daughter. It is usually a step-daughter or some other child that is not his daughter.

So I read the article.

Sure enough, it was an inappropriately truncated sentence that completely changed the facts of the case. The title should have said 6 year old girl, not six year old daughter. All girls are someone’s daughter and this girl was the daughter of one of his men, not his daughter.

Are the guys who write these articles really that stupid?

[wyowolf]

true, you have to read that is wasnt HIS daughter... not that it makes it any better??

[wastedyears]

Are the guys who write these articles really that stupid?

My answer is 'yes'.

[stylin19a]

You are right about the headline, but it was poorly written in the thread starter's extract:

...Decorated married Marine colonel, 56, who sexually abused daughter, 6, of one of the men serving under him,...

[SkyDancer]

"Are the guys who write these articles really that stupid?

Yep, a product of today's journalism schools.

[Bigg Red]

Are the guys who write these articles really that stupid?

(((
Yes.

[Bigg Red]

Are the guys who write these articles really that stupid?

(((
Yes.

[FrdmLvr]

I think they have headline writers. They’re probably unpaid interns.

[Moltke]

It’s the Daily Mail! Headlines longer than the Iliad and just short of War And Peace! Unfailingly too long for the FR title character limit. (Never mind the generally sloppy reporting.)

In this case, an unfortunate attempt at truncating to make the headline fit, distorting the facts at the same time. (Of course that can be fixed in the top post by “Full title:...”)