> The second title is objectively more descriptive
Is it? Probably most people who haven't yet read the story don't know who David Mirdanda is, since the story they haven't read yet is the thing they would most likely know him for. "Schedule 7" is meaningless without context. "The danger that all reporters now face" is meaningless without context -- they could just as well be talking about libel laws or piracy or some news about the Apple antitrust case.
The new title is objectively less descriptive because it gives the reader no clue as to what the article is actually about before reading it. The original title tells you exactly what the article is about. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write anymore." That's what the article is about.
No, second person "you" is less telling than third person "David Miranda." "Your debate" is not descriptive in the least. I chose the word "objectively" deliberately.
The first title doesn't correctly translate what the article is about. The quote might well be taken from a ranty essay, and without context hints at empty sensationalism.
This doesn't make the second title ‘objectively’ more descriptive, though. A person who happens to miss Miranda's name in news and isn't familiar with Schedule 7 term, such as myself, wouldn't find it descriptive at all.
Still, second title looks subjectively better to me. I'd say ‘all reporters’ is bad phrasing for HN (the article doesn't imply that every reporter, regardless of their country or what they write about, now faces danger), and HDD destruction may deserve mentioning (it seems central to the story), but overall this headline does better job at translating the spirit of the article and sets correct expectations for the reader.
Is it? Probably most people who haven't yet read the story don't know who David Mirdanda is, since the story they haven't read yet is the thing they would most likely know him for. "Schedule 7" is meaningless without context. "The danger that all reporters now face" is meaningless without context -- they could just as well be talking about libel laws or piracy or some news about the Apple antitrust case.
The new title is objectively less descriptive because it gives the reader no clue as to what the article is actually about before reading it. The original title tells you exactly what the article is about. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write anymore." That's what the article is about.