How is it misleading? Scripps is the responsible party now and they were fined. Article literally says "Scripps fined."Kind of misleading since the company that was actually in violation was Cordillera Communications and those violations occurred prior to Scripps taking over the 10 subsidiaries of Cordillera Communications. It wasn't actually Scripps that was in violation, they just agreed to pay the fine as part of the purchase.
I suspect he meant the headline is misleading, not that you were. I mean in one way it's accuate, because Scripps was the company that was fined, but on the other hand it's misleading because it implies that Scripps was at fault when clearly the tower lighting on towers they did not own at the time was beyond their control. This is one of those cases where the headline is just too short to convey the nuance, and without knowing the background the reader could get the wrong impression. It would have been more accurate if they'd added the words "by company acquired by Scripps" to the end of the headline, but in this case it looks like accuracy was sacrificed for the sake of brevity.How is it misleading? Scripps is the responsible party now and they were fined. Article literally says "Scripps fined."