It's a strange attributional convention used in headlines and links by some publications. I've never understood why, as it reads so confusingly, snd the reverse usage (source: topic) seems readily and intuitively available instead. But it's still common to see (topic: source) in certain house styles.
This should not be downvoted. One sees the source before the colon more often than after the colon, but it is common to see the source after the colon in some publications. I see several instances (e.g., "Corporate lobbying helped derail border tax: senior Republican") on the Reuters homepage right now.
> The feature is likely to allow publishers to create a paywall on Facebook's Instant Articles and guide readers to a publisher's home page to opt for a digital subscription
This HN entry is actually a Reuters article about the TheStreet article about the product. [2]*
* I'm not sure this is exactly what's being referred to, because TheStreet appears to publish somewhere between 1 and 14 articles mentioning "facebook" every hour [3], so this was the first mention I saw as I scrolled through.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/14233293/1/facebook-s-campbe...