Yeah, I also read that part and got the distinct impression that the journalist is deliberately trying to misinterpret some facts to push their preferred narrative (electric cars not that great, Tesla overvalued).

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but I don't think the fact that 17% of Cadillac dealers can't afford a $200,000 upgrade supports that hypothesis all that well.

If it's high up in the article, and the headline is misleading, that means the problem lies with the editor rather than the journalists. Journalists do not write their own headlines.

It's not just the headline. After stating that most of the dealers who took the buyout only sold a few Cadillacs a month, the article goes on to say that they took the buyout because of skepticism about the prospect electric cars. I don't see how they draw that connection instead of the more obvious conclusion that making a massive investment to support a brand that you don't sell a lot of is not financially feasible.

But clearly intentionally left out of the headline, which is the real problem

A regulation requiring headlines to reflect article content would solve about half of the problems caused by social media.

> A regulation requiring headlines to reflect article content

That is literally asking the impossible of journalists.

Unless the headline is as long as the article, there will always be some nuance from the article left out of some headlines.

But too often the headline is contrary to the article, like this.

The headline suggests some animosity towards electric cars where no such animosity is in evidence.