Unless they changed the history of journalism this morning, a news article is supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to report facts, events, etc. without expressing opinions. Opinions are reserved for the editorial and op-ed pages.
With that in mind, here is the headline for Josh Meyers’ article in this morning’s edition of USA Today:
House Republicans issue new report on Joe Biden corruption… that again offers no evidence
Does that look neutral to you? Does that give you any reason to bother reading further?
But if you do decide to waste your time reading the article (despite the headline telling you there’s nothing worth paying attention to), here is the first paragraph:
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee issued another report Wednesday criticizing President Joe Biden and his family for allegedly corrupt international business dealings, but critics – including the White House – said the report is a political hatchet job that offers no proof that Biden was involved.
Uh….wait a minute.
That doesn’t say there’s no evidence. It says that critics – including the White House (as if that were some kind of a surprise) – say there’s no evidence.
In other words, Republicans have put out material that they say is evidence and critics dispute (what a surprise).
But that is not what the headline says, is it? The headline tells you in so many words that not only are the critics – including the White House (I love that USA Today thinks there is a need to specify this) – correct, but it’s not the first time Republicans have put out unevidenced attacks on Biden, it’s just the latest of the series.
Based on that headline why would anyone feel the need to read the article?
So there you have it. Mainstream media “neutrality” at its finest. Can a Pulitzer Prize be far off?
