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.
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.
Say what, exactly?
“House GOP Moves to Budget Project 2025 Efforts”
?
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.
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.