Stupid Headline in the New York Times

"Unrest is persistent despite the death of top militant".  That was the headline in my paper copy of the Times.  But how many falsehoods and fallacies can you squeeze in one headline?  It implies that the one man was behind the unrest in Yemen.  It implies that the US killed him to end the unrest.  It implies that Salih has nothing to do with the unrest.  And so on.  Typically, as of late, the New York Times sneakily changed the dumb headline into this one.