Salon’s headline for October 16 said:

“Feminists—including Jane Fonda and Nora Ephron—are intensely ambivalent about Hillary Rodham Clinton. ”

I don’t know if others consider me a feminist—I’d guess no— but I do know that I have no strong opinions about Ms. Clinton and little desire to read the article; I also skipped the November cover article in The Atlantic about her. Still, the words “intensely ambivalent” caught my eye because they are an oxymoron—the whole idea of being ambivalent concerns not being intense about anything. Why would I pay for headlines that are outright wrong when I can read typo-prone polemics in the form of blogs (like this one) for free? Granted, Salon might just be aiming for cheekiness or some faux irony, but the phrase still jarred my attention away from the content and toward the expression.