Classic clickbait headlines often use hyperbolic and formulaic language to create information gaps that arouse the curiosity of readers. Such headlines are stylistically distinct from the headlines we find in traditional news media, and, as such, are easily recognisable as clickbait. However, a new type of clickbait headline has emerged which appears to have more in common stylistically with traditional newspaper headlines. Jodłowiec (2022) identifies and discusses examples of this new type of headline, referring to them as “deceptive clickbait”. She uses relevance-theoretic pragmatics to show how these headlines guide the readers to an interpretation which arouses their curiosity. On clicking, however, the readers find the content is mundane and trivial. Although these headlines are deceptive, Jodłowiec concludes that the writer has not lied, and that responsibility sits with the readers. In this article, I argue against these conclusions. I use relevance-theoretic pragmatics to show that the reader is entitled to take the high news value interpretation as the intended interpretation. Responsibility for this lies with the writer. I then consider two characterisations of the distinction between lying and misleading and show that in both cases at least some of the deceptive headlines can be considered to be lies.

经典的点击诱饵标题经常使用夸张和公式化的语言来制造信息差距，引起读者的好奇心。此类标题在风格上与我们在传统新闻媒体中看到的标题不同，因此很容易被识别为点击诱饵。然而，一种新型的点击诱饵标题已经出现，它在风格上与传统报纸标题有更多共同点。Jodłowiec（2022）识别并讨论了这种新型标题的示例，将其称为“欺骗性点击诱饵”。她利用相关性理论的语用学来展示这些标题如何引导读者做出激发他们好奇心的解释。然而，点击后，读者会发现内容平淡无奇。尽管这些标题具有欺骗性，但约德沃维茨得出的结论是，作者没有撒谎，责任在于读者。在这篇文章中，我反对这些结论。我使用关联理论语用学来表明读者有权将高新闻价值的解释作为预期的解释。对此的责任由作者承担。然后，我考虑了谎言和误导之间区别的两个特征，并表明在这两种情况下，至少有一些欺骗性标题可以被视为谎言。