Of course. It's explaining who the organization is that is filing it. That's basic journalism, right? It would seem a huge oversight to not mention it.
If it doesn't have a bearing on the story then it's the opposite of journalism.
> It would seem a huge oversight to not mention it.
I don't see how it would have any implications on the basic situation described, which is an internal CDC issue concerning their handling of documents during employee transition.
I think what you're basically saying is "it would otherwise be a missed opportunity to fling political mud." Which, to me, is _not_ journalism.
> “The Biden-Harris Administration was actively destroying the records of federal employees at the CDC in blatant violation of the law — and we are pleased that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered a stop to their illegal conduct,” America First Legal’s executive director Gene Hamilton said in a statement. “The Biden-Harris Administration’s politicization of records management must end.”
Even though the decision shows that CDC has likely been doing this since at least 2016.
That quote is actually in the article and so part of its context and substance. Maybe you meant to point out it was not the author that made the statement?
I used to believe left leaning reporting was more free of bias and manipulation until I realized they often use this tactic. They will not say something themselves, but find someone to quote that makes the point they want made.
They also use build up, where they go back in time and recant the past before moving to the present where they then show the reader what to see through the framing they want them to see it. Some outlets/journailists are better than others, and sometimes it's not what I'm describing. But this method of manipulating public perception of issues and events exists.
At least with sources on the right they are blatant and obvious, easy to pick out and pick apart what they are wrong about.
If you've seen promos for GroundNews recently, I'd highly recommend it. It doesn't solve the bias problem, but as an individual it starts uncovering the ways our news media put their fingers on the scales of society.
>That quote is actually in the article and so part of its context and substance. Maybe you meant to point out it was not the author that made the statement?
Correct; the article/author/Politico isn't flinging any mud it/themselves so long as it/they is/are simply quoting or journaling verbatim what someone said or what happened.
Of course it could be, nobody is compelling publishers. The question is should it be, and the answer has traditionally been: depends, is it relevant? Which brings us back to the original question of merit.
It also depends a lot on the standards of the publisher versus the expectations of the readership. Personally, I agree with your implication: I can't think of any papers today who wouldn't choose to include this information—as red meat is an important part of the modern news diet—but hey, in a world of unprejudiced readers who weighed legal matters solely on the basis of evidence, I can certainly imagine it not being brought up, and those readers still being well-informed.
