“This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no.” The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.”
Yes, nothing I said contradicts that. It can be answered with a no. It could also be answered with something else. That’s why the word can is used instead of something like “should”.
Betteridges law doesn’t specify that a headline ending with a question mark should be answered with a no. Only that they can be.
My comment is a direct quote from the wikkipedia article:
Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
This is a direct quote from Betteridge:
“This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no.” The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.”
Source
Yes, nothing I said contradicts that. It can be answered with a no. It could also be answered with something else. That’s why the word can is used instead of something like “should”.