There’s a standardized AP style. Most news sources use a version of that, along with, like you said, differences that are decided internally according the the culture of the newspaper.

Not only do various organizations have internal standards, but there's broader standards for whole fields that most try to adhere to, and the public used to pick up on these by simply reading the newspaper a lot or **being explicitly taught about them in school**.

So much of the current problem people have reading headlines is they're just bad at parsing "headlinese". If I had a dollar for every chucklefuck getting upset about a headline that is actually 100% truthful but simply doesn't carry every detail in the story--THOSE THINGS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO READ THE ARTICLE FOR--then I could fire them into the sun. No, motherfuckers, it isn't a "misleading headline", you're just running off half-cocked and getting angry at something you made up in your head! No one lead you anywhere, you just started *going*.

But we stopped teaching this stuff and people stopped reading newspapers, so even though there hasn't been much of a change with how headlines are written (they're just as "clickbaity" now as they were in my era), folks whose only interaction with news is their social media headline feed are convinced something is going on. Yeah, dudes, the media's manipulating you, but there's totally no other folks looking to manipulate your rabid distrust of all media, don't worry.

> Are there standardized news style guides online that everyone tries to follow or it is it mainly internal stuff that is grown and developed from within?

It's both. They're called "Style Guides." Sometimes they're "internal" like the *Associated Press Stylebook* but get adopted by outside companies and sometimes they're more generalized like the *Chicago Manual of Style* or *MLA Style Guide*. Sometimes specific topics/industries have a style guide they prefer, like the American Phycological Association. (APA style)

Real world example: Magic The Gathering uses "Chicago Style" and prior to 2016(iirc) cards **had** to say "his or her" in the rules text according to the style guide. Post 2017'ish they switched to the much less clunky singular-"they" because the *Chicago Manual of Style* started allowing singular-they.

"Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Singular they is older
Than singular you."

Absolutely. I’m kind of surprised I forgot my usual disclaimer… Do not follow internal news of a country on its national broadcaster. It’s *impossible* to be completely unbiased about shit you’re personally involved in, so look for fresh eyes and an outside perspective. When shit’s going down it the US I look to BBC and CBC, for example. Of course the real way to do things is to check all the wire services and not-for-profit broadcasters, and look at what they’ve all independently verified (or haven’t). It’s not The Truth but it’s close enough that you won’t be caught off guard by what’s happening in the world.

The sentence intially reads like it will be about the first victim, when it is really about the killing itself.

Majority of forest fires involve humans. Some like to literally watch the world burn.

https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/human-caused

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-shows-84-wildfires-caused-humans-180962315/

That's part of the issue. People who are planning mass shootings to become famous, they see those names when they google mass shootings. They think that their names will live forever. That's why it's important to not list those names.

Whether you recognize them or not, people can still find them. People can still look at those names and think "Everyone will remember them forever. I want that".

Not using their names isn’t censorship. That’s just a buzzword. Not using their names should be the law - these people should not be given any attention or notoriety and others who want to follow in their footsteps should not be given idols for inspiration. It’s the same reason the US didn’t bury Bin Laden.

I know people hate facts.

I don’t think you quite understand.

Innocent bystanders are shot in cities every day due to indiscriminate mass shootings.

Yes this one was motivated by mental illness, but the rest are not “gangs”, many of them are just instagram disputes or something equally as stupid that end up with bullets flying