I choked up a little bit reading the headline. I have good memories watching him on Tech TV when I was a teenager. Kevin Rose, too.

He definitely helped kindle my early interest in tech.

First thing I thought reading the title. He's a bay area native. Glad to see he's not dead, but his radio show was terrible and hope that he can pivot to something more interesting.

He pivoted to podcasts a long long time ago: https://twit.tv. Tons of shows covering tons of topics.

This guy helped me find my love for computers and all things tech back in the late 90s. Call for Help and The Screen Savers sent my life in a very particular direction, and I regret none of it.

So yeah, the bs headline gave me a mini panic and quite frankly pissed me off. Sad to see the current state of what gets posted on HN.

(author) Why? He's not on AM radio anymore, so the radio show is indeed done.

Its not wrong, but its ambiguous. I'd have preferred less ambiguity in matters of life and death.

Thankfully, in this case this is neither the end of the world nor the end of Mr. Laporte.

That's right. It's a memorial for his AM radio show.

The way it's worded right now, it reads as a memorial for the person (who has not passed), rather than the radio show.

A different way to word it might be: A minor memorial for Leo Laporte's terrestrial AM radio show.

I'm just going to politely refrain from further comments. I stand by the title, and not only was no clickbait intended but the first sentence was intended to reinforce this was about his presence on AM radio. I hope my good faith is obvious. That said, I appreciate the efforts at clarity.

> and not only was no clickbait intended but the first sentence was intended to reinforce this was about his presence on AM radio

That’s exactly what clickbait means. You have to click on the link to read the first sentence.

It leaves the important information out of the link text, and it uses ambiguous tongue-in-cheek language to suggest that the piece is going to be about something more interesting and engaging than it really is.

The fact that the title is debunked in the first sentence is a clear sign of bad intentions. You are literally being pranked: “Did you hear Leo Laporte passed away? Psych! Actually, he’s still alive! We only made you think he’s dead, just because we thought we could get away with it!”

If that’s your idea of “no clickbait intended”, I wonder what intentional clickbait would look like?

To make it clear why people are saying it’s ambiguous:

(A minor memorial for) (Leo Laporte on terrestrial AM radio)

vs

(A minor memorial for Leo Laporte) (on terrestrial AM radio)

The latter is not only just as grammatically valid as the first, it is also a sensible article headline, the idea that someone used AM radio to broadcast a memorial for Leo Laporte.

Can you not see why people would read it as the latter?

Sorry but you can't stand by the title when it's wrong - you should readjust your understanding and fix it and move on.

First thing I did was check the wiki if he was dead. The key problem is "memorial for Leo Laporte" OK? Terrible title.

Sorry. I also had the same reaction when I read the title.

As Leo himself has posted a clarification, I've changed the title. I'll ask if dang can alter it here or simply remove it. I'm sorry for the turmoil.