• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    “Accused”?

    Look, say it or don’t. These aren’t criminal charges, you don’t need to allege anything. They’re public figures, they’re not going to sue. Why the chickenshititude?

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The author is not accusing them of doing it, they are reporting that someone else is. The author is supporting those accusations by showing the evidence.

          Common Dreams is a pretty shitty source, but this is actually reasonable journalism. They should report just the facts.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes I know. They’re using “accused” correctly - and limiting the impact of the article. The headline I offered changes no facts, presuming they show them in the article, and doesn’t limit the impact by offloading the premise as an “accusation”.

            House GOP is funding Project2025 efforts. Is it doing so because Project2025 told them to? That’s irrelevant. If that’s the focus of the article, it shouldn’t be.

            Saying “accused” is weak - it limits the impact because they’re not directly tying the budgeting and Project2025 together and they’re not saying who’s “accusing” them. It’s clickbaity.

            My main complaint against commondreams is their adblocker-blocker. This type of headline writing is not unique to them.