[hondo77]

You mean except this part:

> “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.

[icehawk]

That's "America First Legal’s executive director Gene Hamilton" as is pointed out in the section you quoted.

It's not the article writer, who is bringing it up in a section about how "America First Legal challenged the CDC’s recordkeeping practices"

[Dalewyn]

That's Gene Hamilton, executive director of America First Legal, flinging political mud.

The article doesn't.

[notjoemama]

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.

[Dalewyn]

>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.