As I read it, I felt enough spin to not fully trust the point about maids at the end. Was it cherry picked item from a whole slew of legal relaxations for its shame value or is it really an isolated, important and notable act presented dispassionately? I can't tell.

For example, have you ever heard of Google "baiting employees with free food"? I haven't. To do so is to describe setting up a trap. Instead its positive language: perks, incentives, benefits etc.

Journalism involves using colorful words to make the article colorful enough to read. Even the Chinese media does this, it isn't just an American thing. Articles that aren't read are worthless.

I strongly dislike the "journalism using colorful words" and China comparison as a defence of deception and manipulation. Our standards should be higher. Plenty of room for colour with good quality writing.

(edit: just to clarify the article is question raised my spin flags but only to a level that is within the lazy-writing/unconscious-bias zone too)

Journalists who write in the manner you prescribe don't last long if they exist at all. No one wants to read such sanitized drivel.