And is the stated purpose there to be as misleading as possible? Because it's become something of an epidemic.

Here's the latest: “Latinos unhappy with Obama picks.”

Now, if you're a Politico novice, you might see that headline and think the article, written by Gebe Martinez, will detail how Obama's early key picks for his new administration have angered Latinos and that the article will include relevant quotes to back up the headline's crystal-clear claim.

But if you're a Politico veteran, you understand that headlines often have little to do with the article's content and that specifically in recent days/weeks headline that try way too hard to gin up conflict regarding the new Obama team usually fall flat.

Well, add this “Latinos unhappy with Obama picks” article to that pile because there is virtually nothing in the piece to justify the headline. Zero.

No joke, this is as close as the article comes to substantiating the “unhappy” headline [emphasis added]:

But at this early stage in the appointments process, there is a trickle of disappointment running through the Latino community.

We understand that in the click-through world headlines can make or break a story. But is maintaining some semblance of journalistic guidelines when hyping stories asking too much?