It isn't; you just really fucking suck at reading and want to blame that on professional writers. Not just reading as a skill but reading as a casual interest, given you again intentionally didn't even check the article.

I understand what you're saying, and it's at that point any media-literate person (you) thinks: "Hmm, I'll just check the article and clear this up." To even get to that point, you'd not just have to buy Trump would try to do that (I don't, but I see how someone could); much more importantly, you'd have to assume the headline, for some godforsaken reason, isn't taking into account how unusual it is and therefore being crystal clear that Trump is trying to insert himself in the role.

Reading the headline that way is already an enormous leap that basically only makes semantic sense, but refusing to follow up on that interpretation is where I draw the line between someone who didn't understand at first and tried to and someone who actively chose not to understand. The latter I've run out of patience for over the last decade; the former show strong character through how they respond to a mistake.

Going back and reading the thread it doesn't look like you were the one to point out the ambiguity, champ. Reads more like you were initially confused and then got defensive about it.

Probably could have been written a bit more clearly so that it was less ambiguous, champ.