Ouster of watchdog 'designed to protect' Pompeo

[GoodTaste]

The headline "Ouster of watchdog 'designed to protect' Pompeo" appears to raise two equal possibilities: (1) the ouster is designed to protect Pompeo; (2) the watchdog - this job was designed to protect Secretary of State (currently it is Pompeo).

Do you have the same feeling as you read the headline? Is it clear to you wthout ambiguity?


The contect shows that (1) is correct.

==================
USAToday's headline:

Ouster of watchdog 'designed to protect' Pompeo, Dems say

Trump administration's firing of watchdog 'transparently designed to protect Secretary Pompeo,' Dems say

WASHINGTON – Top congressional Democrats opened an inquiry Saturday into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's ouster of a government watchdog and accused Pompeo of trying to shield himself from an internal probe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...pector-general-smacks-retribution/5205913002/

 

[tedmc]

Without a comma after "watchdog", the latter is supposed to be read together with "designed to protect Pompeo", hence #2 applies.

 

[GoodTaste]

The word "design" might not be used that way. I am not sure. Let's see what native English speakers will answer.

 

[TheParser]

Is it clear to you wthout ambiguity?

NOT A TEACHER

Yes, it is, for I am (somewhat) acquainted with American politics. So I immediately make assumptions.

I think that your post reminds learners that headlines often leave out certain words. The complete headline should have been: "[The] ouster of [a] watchdog '[is/was] designed to protect' Pompeo."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

What was the ouster designed to do? It was designed to protect Pompeo.

The headline seems unambiguous to me, but I can see how it could be misleading. Headlines often are, for reasons The Parser explained.