Newspaper editors should not allow reporters to write the headlines

This sentence tells us several things about "clever" headlines.

First, these headlines refer to "little-known information." In other words, the headline brings up some obscure fact that not many people know about.

Second, this-little known information is "familiar to the reporter." So, the reporter him/herself knows about this obscure fact.

Third, this little-known information is not mentioned in the story below the headline. This is where the "but" comes in: the reporter him/herself knows the obscure fact, BUT then the reporter doesn't actually bring it up in the story.

Is the example that you've provided clever? There's no way to know for sure, because we don't know how obscure the information is or whether it is discussed in the full story.

Consider this alternate example: there's a certain town with two rival high schools, one of which has a mascot of a hurricane and the other of which has a mascot of a bear. Let's say that this is an obscure fact: not many people know or care about the high school mascots.

Then, let's say that an actual bear cub gets caught outside in an actual hurricane and is stranded on a roof, surrounded by flood waters. A reporter might write an article about this situation, and get the story a "clever" title like "High School Rivalry Plays Out in Real Life." In the full story, the reporter doesn't mention anything about the high school mascots -- he/she just writes about the actual bear on the roof.

For most readers, this title is nonsense -- they have no clue what the connection is between the story and the high school rivalry, and the reporter doesn't connect those dots in the full story. So, maybe it's a good idea to not let reporters write these "clever" headlines that no one understands.

I hope that helps!