Maybe it's just me, but the growing inconsistency between titles and posted content is really starting to grate.

It's not like Slate is trying to subtly influence public opnion or a reader's perception of what the article says ("Mission Accomplished!", or even more appropriately, the post-Enron "Corporate Accountibility" speech). No, we're talking about flat out complete misunderstanding of what the article is saying.

"Why most terrorists are so incompetent" only makes a secondary case that terrorists ARE incompetent, and doesn't even begin to explain why that's the case. In fact, the subtext seems to be that at least some terrorists can be competent individuals. (The study cited indicates that better-educated terrorists evade capture more often, and kill more people.)

Did Mr. Harford lose track of what he thought he was writing about? My bet is that he turned in an article about doctors being terrorists and some hack editor read the first paragraph and pasted the title on it. Insert snarky comments about the ongoing decline of Slate here. (Seriously, why do you even HAVE separate Style, Travel, and Sports sections any more?)

Oh, dear, it appears the subject line of my post here doesn't quite fit the true content that I've written. I really don't know why headline writers are so incompetent. At least I have the excuse of self-mocking irony.

-Ked