Thanks Steve.The screengrab you sent me shows three articles (in an AOL news feed, viewed on a mobile phone app) that you can click on, the first an advertisement for supplements, the second a Guardian article titled "Households face shock increase in energy bills from January" with a cropped version of a photo that was in the online guardian article. The third article was a press association article about Ben Stokes and the cricket.What AOL appear to do is take the source article and re-format it e.g.Here is an independent article I found on AOL News today in its original online versionhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/israeli-benjamin-netanyahu-palestinian-west-bank-jerusalem-b2869931.htmland here is the AOL 'version'https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/netanyahu-convenes-cabinet-settler-violence-110529377.htmlThe above two articles look similarish (but clearly different) when viewed on a PC. It doesn't automatically follow that something viewed on a mobile would look exactly the same as on a PC - content will often be displayed differently due to the differences in size, screen layout etc between PCs and mobiles.Why there is a difference in title between what the original guardian article was headlined i.e. "Households in Great Britain face a surprise rise in energy bills from January" isn't something I would know.I could hazard a guess that if you are looking at AOL on a mobile phone, then AOL might change the leaders to make something shorter and snappier e.g. removing the words Great Britain, and in this case the word surprise seems to have been changed to shock, significantly changing the headline.I stress this is just a guess on my part, but I'm not convinced that the Guardian used the word shock in their original article. They might have done, and then changed it of course, but it seems more likely (to me) that the change was made by AOL.
Andrew Jones ● 22d