[esoterica]

There is no canonical neutral in politics. “Neutral” is just code for “stuff I agree with”. You don’t really want neutral content, you just want content that validates your existing beliefs.

The article lists a bunch of facts and numbers, why do you consider it “non-factual”?

[filoleg]

They probably meant that they want factual content that either leaves out the narrative completely or equally covers all sides of the story with equal regard. I.e., content that focuses on facts and supplements it with narrative when needed. As opposed to the majority of the current political content, where the narrative takes the first and foremost place (usually very one-sided narrative too), and then facts just act as a supplement for the narrative (i.e, facts end up buried deep inside the article somewhere or just straight up linked somewhere without even being directly mentioned).

[fzeroracer]

Where does the buck end, though? What if people demand you cover evidence of a flat Earth whenever you talk about the planet? Or climate change denial when talking about record-breaking heatwaves?

Avoiding politicized content is impossible because anything can be politicized. As the above poster here put it, neutral articles effectively means articles whose politics you agree with and/or articles that reinforce the status quo.

Now we can argue about intellectually dishonest articles and ones that bury the lede, but the article in the OP does back up the assertion with data.

[cheald]

I'd settle for "arguments which steelman their opponents" (at least, within the Overton window).

You can't have a genuinely neutral political take, obviously, but you can have one which makes a best-effort to honestly understand, present and address the strongest opposing arguments.

The vast, vast majority of political ink spilled these days is just worthless cherry-picking bias-confirming ingroup-good-outgroup-bad let's-all-dunk-on-each-other dreck.