Certainly the authors of that story put in a lot of spin and opinion that did the article a disservice- Should have stuck to the facts.
For example, take the following paragraph; "The Fukushima Daiichi reactors suffered a disaster in 2011, causing dangerous radiation leakage. Even six years later, radiation levels are high enough to be instantly fatal. Even brief exposure can cause genetic damage leading to cancer. The radioactive dust from the disaster has been carried eastward, and has been detected throughout the United States. This radioactive dust has likely been deposited in millions of houses across the country. However, the United States has no plans to initiate a domestic cleanup."
There are only facts in that paragraph, but it paints a very misleading picture of a domestic emergency that simply doesn't exist (the domestic radiation levels are so low as to be harmless to humans). Pure "fact" reporting doesn't solve this problem.
How the hell do you report ALL the facts in any scenario?
Any publication in existance will have to pick and choose what to report in order to keep a article to a manageable level.
Do you think Scientific Abstracts are all factually correct? Hell no. There is actually a very well known issue with scientific experiments and articles where scientists will simply repeat experiments until they get a result that is within acceptable p-values and simply submit an article on that one experiment, ignoring every single time it was wrong.
Remember to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
But that has no bearing on the truth. It's omitting key facts to be true, and creating a social situation like 'reacting to a non-existent threat'.
So to me and you, ridiculous paragraphs like those above are In Error, because they are Unfinished and Missing Info. But to others, they point to the paragraph above as some kind of 'sole entity' that exists on it's own.
No one cares about a paragraph that omits critical facts to portray the reality of the situation. But apparently, on the Internet, some do.
Chuck that incomplete paragraph in the trash and try again, that's my response to their nonsensical verbal antics.
True the headline not, but the rest seemed factual.
Spin perhaps was high, but it wasn't opinion. They seem to have been careful and specifically only stated facts. "He looked", "it's believed" etc
Your comparison here is dangerously wrong.