Quick recap, because the news itself takes one sentence: US-Canada trade talks collapsed Friday night, Trump's 50% tariffs kicked in at midnight, Canada announced dollar-for-dollar retaliation, and each government blames the other for blowing up the deal. Now for the part we actually care about — the verbs. * Here's The New York Times on Saturday, packaging an interview with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer: "Trump's Top Trade Representative Details Offer That Canada Rejected." And the summary line under it: Greer "laid out details of what the United States offered to Canada before talks crumbled." * Read that headline slowly. "Details." Not "says," not "describes his version of," not "defends." You can only *detail* something that exists exactly as described — the verb comes with a built-in fact-check that nobody actually ran. Same with "Offer That Canada Rejected": a finished offer, and Canada walking away from it, stated flat, no seatbelt. * Which would be fine, except that finished offer is the entire argument. Greer's version: "Canada declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week," after being offered "the best treatment of any major exporter to our market." Carney's version: the Americans rewrote the terms in "the last hour," tried to restrict Canada's ability to sign deals with anyone else, and "asked too much, and offered too little." Two governments, two stories, zero referees. * Now watch how every other newsroom handled the exact same dispute. CNN: "Carney says US asked 'too much, offered too little' as trade talks collapse." Fox Business: "Canada's Carney says US made last-minute 'power play.'" NPR: "Canada says it'll strike back starting Sept. 8." Ottawa's account travels everywhere wearing its little "says" tag, like a visitor badge. Washington's account showed up at the Times and got handed a staff ID. * And if any offer in this saga deserved a hedge, it's this one. By Fox Business's own reporting, the collapse came just days after Trump had paused the tariffs and announced — his capitalization — a "DEAL!" Then the deal wasn't a deal, then there was an offer, then the offer was rejected, depending on which capital is talking. In this story, "offer" has been a moving object all week. The Times' headline parked it and poured concrete. * To be fair: it's an interview write-up, and interview write-ups headline what the interviewee said — the body has room for Ottawa's side. But most readers rent headlines; they don't buy articles. The one sentence they take away from this one is: there was an offer, and Canada rejected it. That's not a summary of the dispute. That's a verdict on it. * We've spent this whole week watching attribution verbs do quiet favors — the wire that heard "tighten" where the rule said "won't deliver," the one that heard "encouraged growth" at a whistleblower trial. Add this to the pile: "says" is for the side being quoted. "Details" is for the side being believed.