I was furious at the protesters until I read the article. Now I'm furious at the headline writer for scaring me (whether that's the HN submitter or possibly the NBC writer, if the HN title reflects an older version of the NBC title).<p>I think this goes beyond sensationalism and into <i>lying</i>. It sounds like this will have no long-term effect, much less one that would count as "damage", but who knows. Regardless, obviously the word "damaged" is very inappropriate at this time.<p>Edit: In case it's not obvious, none of this is a commentary on the protest itself.
This is the natural result of our media’s and society’s preference for flashy, sensationalist news. I’m certain these protestors have been doing peaceful protests for a while but have you ever heard of them before? Peaceful doesn’t get views.<p>They took advantage of an upcoming event to raise awareness in a way that is ultimately harmless. Had they not done this I wouldn’t know about the labor party’s lackluster climate plans.<p>Mission accomplished.
The article says the opposite of this invented headline.<p>EDIT: HN guidelines are to use the original title. It is: "Climate protesters arrested after painting Stonehenge monument orange". It does not claim damage was done and the article is vague on damage and so I think the HN headline is unjustified.
Nothing to see here. Climate nutjobs artistically protesting at monuments (without damaging them) and risking their futures to raise awareness of an impending doom because they have lost hope there is a future for the planet that is selfishly worth investing in.<p>Paint will come off in a couple of days. Some bits will remain as their mark on its history.
> According to Just Stop Oil’s website, the pigment was made of an “orange cornflour” that would wash away in the rain.<p>Sensationalist title. It also doesn't match the current title of the actual article:<p>> Climate protesters arrested after painting Stonehenge monument orange