[mc32]

Understood. Yet, this would still be an improvement over newsstories which try to read insight into something where what they do's more or less projection and speculation without saying so much.

"Amazon buys WF". vs "Jeff Bezos buys WF so you never have to talk to a cashier"

Or, "Physician runs over pedestrian" vs. "Physician accused of insurance fraud runs over pedestrian"

[Dylan16807]

I'm confused. Your first example seems to be adding pointless false commentary, while the second is adding real information about the person.

[mc32]

Right, but that information is irrelevant to the cause, it's there to color opinion. Accused (not even proven) fraudster, therefore adds to possibility of fault thru negative association.

[Dylan16807]

If it's the most notable bit of public info about the person, go for it. If they're cherrypicking out of dozens of factoids to make them sounds bad, then it's a problem. The same headline could be fair or unfair depending on how it came about.