“Democracy sustains capitalism. Capitalism thrives in a democracy. And, right now, we are dealing with, as I called him at my speech on the Ellipse, a tyrant,” she said, referencing her rally last year on the White House Ellipse in Washington. “We used to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators. That’s what we’re dealing with right now in Donald Trump. And these titans of industry are not speaking up,”
That’s a lot of words for “I still don’t/won’t realize what your point is”. If you want to imagine enemies where there are none and waste energy argue against points no one you’re talking to is making, that’s your prerogative, but you’re not going to achieve much. Good luck with that.
Your argument is literally that you don’t like the editorialized title, that’s it’s lazy and unprofessional, that the title alone is somehow distorting facts, that you think your version is better, and that the writer is a hack because of it, even though the point is correct, and you claim that parroting a press release can be the job of a good journalist. And you’re trying to wiggle out of it by pretending that it’s not the point you’re making, even though I am quoting you. I am telling you that this way of splicing quotes used to be correct even if you don’t like it, and what your argument leads to, and you still want to stick to it.
Exact quotes can be in the article. The title can be an editorialized summary that gets the point across as long as it’s a correct interpretation that you give your argument for in the article.
Swing and a miss.