I think “Gun owner plays with his guns after drinking” is relevant to the big picture.
I also think “Man in resentment cult has views challenged, so decides to play with guns” is relevant to the big picture.
There is no exactly-right amount of background and context. If the story had just been “Man kills daughter, jury declines to indict,” you’d have questions.
I think the point us that the title may as well gave no context given that it’s more absurd given context. Like, what question did this actually answer? Obviously relevant but still
I think “Gun owner plays with his guns after drinking” is relevant to the big picture.
I also think “Man in resentment cult has views challenged, so decides to play with guns” is relevant to the big picture.
There is no exactly-right amount of background and context. If the story had just been “Man kills daughter, jury declines to indict,” you’d have questions.
I think the point us that the title may as well gave no context given that it’s more absurd given context. Like, what question did this actually answer? Obviously relevant but still
“The article is flooded with basically details,” he writes. He’s concerned with the contents, not the title.
He wants the drinking and the arguing eliminated because, golly, what could those have to do with anything? It’s not like guns and alcohol have ever led to bad outcomes before, right?