Maybe you feel she was editorializing? That might be a legitimate criticism.
Authors who present "dry facts" on human events are still presenting the findings through their lens, with biases that come along with them. But, since they are being "dry", the reader gets little to no information on the lens, the biases are hidden.
This piece makes the authors take on the matter bleedingly obvious. I know what she thinks these things mean. That's good for a critical reader.
Are you really this upset?
Mod Note:Not terribly, but for someone who's only been here for a couple weeks, you're making quite the impression. Trotting out tired anti media talking points is a great way to get people to stop talking about what's in this article, and unite in dogpiling on you for trollish behavior. Off to a great start!
A majority of time as an editor, I merely hoped to encounter a writer who didn't make me dive into a pail of gin.![]()