The article is very negative, so I assume the study results are too.
Which will always -and completely independent of the topic- be wrong.
Articles are negative because it gets more clicks and that’s all that matters. If the underlying topic fits or needs to be totally misrepresented is irrelevant.
Click-, engagement- and rage-bait > facts
And as adequate auto-translation is widely available: here is the neutral 3-page summary of the study in German.
I don’t think the article is any more negative than the study summary you label neutral in terms of causes. Both list various issues, in a similar way.
Which will always -and completely independent of the topic- be wrong.
Articles are negative because it gets more clicks and that’s all that matters. If the underlying topic fits or needs to be totally misrepresented is irrelevant.
Click-, engagement- and rage-bait > facts
And as adequate auto-translation is widely available: here is the neutral 3-page summary of the study in German.
Thank you for linking the study document.
I don’t think the article is any more negative than the study summary you label neutral in terms of causes. Both list various issues, in a similar way.