The people responding to you are missing the point you're trying to make, which is that the title of the article is clickbait.

Texas teacher fired for reading Diary of Anne Frank to class.

This headline is false, if not in the exact words then certainly by the implication. Anyone reading this headline would believe that the teacher was fired for reading The Diary of Anne Frank.

Texas teacher fired for reading Anne Frank's Diary: The Graphic Adaptation to class.

This headline is true. Notice how it is different.

Are either of these headlines good? Obviously not. Is it better to be fired for one than the other? Obviously not, and that is beside the point. Misinformation is a cancer and there doesn't need to be an agenda behind identifying and calling it out.

edit: and if you (reader) look at the second headline and think to yourself "why are you trying to downplay Texas' actions by making it sound less bad?" You need to point that question inwards - why do you think the second headline sounds better? And if a more factually correct headline changes your emotional reaction to the story, don't you think that's an important reason to advocate for accuracy?