Screaming headlines often do a good job of amplifying whispered points in a newspaper article. The main objective may well be to spark further debate. But at times, it appears like the editorial input extends to adding salt or an insult, to drive the point way past home.
In the headline above, what exactly is the intention? To question the abilities of the subject in question?
Or does it also want to raise the possibility of the subject having personal attributes that don't augur well with the management of a public office?
I'm not sure any of these purported observations could entirely be within the confines of fair comment.
This kind of scrutiny of a public officer could also be crossing the line that offers a private individual protection from undue ridicule and public disaffection.
You can question the performance of bestowed duties, but personalising the attack may be wandering away from serving public interest, and result in being served with a lawsuit.
An offensive sentence could yield a sentence!