In something like 99% of subs that would be totally acceptable. I myself often include the answer to clickbait titles in parenthesis. I specifically use the parenthesis to highlight my own addition. Occasionally I'll even rewrite the title to be more informative if the author just shat out word salad. But during the instances neither is against the specific sub rules. s/news is a default and consistently one of the largest subs of any forum board. I think the rules should be a bit more strict due to this factor.
My strawman argument for this is that "Because Australia" Could just as easily be "Because Nigs gonna nig" when discussing black crime. In that case someone must judge which editorial is acceptable, where is the line, who should make the call etc. this just snowballs into a whole shit show and I don't think there's many here that truly want to open that can of worms. It's just easiest to put a blanket rule in place like this and enforce it. That way everyone is treated equally and no one has a precedence to argue about.
My strawman argument for this is that "Because Australia" Could just as easily be "Because Nigs gonna nig"
I don't know if that is a strawman, as it is exactly what you see on voat, so it's not like it is an exaggerated position. But, over there, I know that I don't need to read that article and can continue to peruse past without stopping.
Voat is a perfect example of why this rule exists and why much of this community supports it.
No offense, but why can't someone change a headline, especially if the headline is clickbaity BS to begin with, but the article is interesting, as the poster of the article, MY interpretation of the headline could be used to better convey the purpose of the post to garner more feedback.
If people are responding to headlines, and not the article, then that means the publisher's POV is considered "correct", while the layman is considered "null and void." As a place for people to discuss things, shouldn't it be the OTHER way around?