We all know, by now, the rule that if the headline is a question, the answer is probably no. (‘Was the Mona Lisa painted by aliens?’, ‘Are immigrants eating YOUR begonias?’, etc.)
I believe when implausible questions are used in television "news" as teasers or intros, such weasel words are known as a "cavuto."
It allows a dishonest "journalist" so-called plausible dependability - I don't SAY it was true, I only ASKED if it WAS!
You can leave absolute nonsense hanging out there with no evidence, no rationale, but it's going to stick in the gummy residue some people have instead of minds, and that's all the propagandist wants, to stick in a few places at a time.
Lather, rinse, repeat. But I digress.
(Bloggo, ergo digresso.)
Back to the original item - then the Pulse has to go and ruin it, by continuing,
I wish to propose a corollary to that rule: if the headline begins ‘Could red wine help…’, the answer is definitely no.Usually the end of the sentence is ‘cure cancer’, or ‘prevent heart disease’. But this time, it’s ‘Could red wine help improve your skin?’
I don't care.
I prefer to think the answer to "Could red wine help....?" will , always be, at the very least, it could happen.
And I, for one, will do my part to cure cancer, ban auto-tune, put an end to all sitcoms featuring Charlie Sheen, and bring about world peace.