zlacker

That's like saying "The child was murdered by a Black man," vs "The child was murdered by a man wearing a hoodie and a scar on his left cheek." Both sentences use details that could be true accurate descriptions, but choosing which descriptors to use allow you to control the opinions of the reader and the associations to the bad thing (murder) with some traits. It gives the writer a powerful propagandistic tool. The question is what descriptors are important enough to be associated with the bad thing? Could any man, or even person, have murdered a child? Could the virus have come from anywhere? If so, then shaping opinions by associating with the trait of "Black man" or "China" is counterproductive.

Better descriptors could be: "Covid-19 ... wreaking havoc... came from laboratory with poor hygiene practices and safety measures."

"Child was murdered by insane person."

These titles stick to the point rather than trying to bias public opinion, and associate the bad thing with what the actual underlying cause was.

>>chrisc+(OP)
> That's like saying "The child was murdered by a Black man," vs "The child was murdered by a man wearing a hoodie and a scar on his left cheek."

Why do you think the latter is more "to the point" than the former?

>>alenti+57
That wasn't meant to be an example of a more on-point variant. It was meant as an example of a different set of potentially arbitrary details to focus on that changes the perceptions and associations. It works to associate hoodies, scars, and left cheeks with murderers.