And politics are increasingly becoming intertwined with identity, which makes it even less cogent.
From Paul Graham's essay about this:
Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.
...I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.
That literally isn't a possibility.
The article lists a bunch of facts and numbers, why do you consider it “non-factual”?
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.
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.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...
I'm a fan of Shields and Brooks. Mark Shields leans left and David Brooks leans right, but they're balanced and good at sticking to the facts.
Transcripts, podcast, and video available: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/shields-and-brooks
I would really like (not intended at HN, it's a general crisis in my life) to read more articles about politics that are neutral and factually oriented. It seems like 90% of the political content I read twists facts and build cheap, cherry-picked arguments to push for their opinions without any scientifical / logical humility (Discussing hypotheses, advancing honest counter arguments...). I am yet to find political writers / journalists raising questions without already knowing the answers to them. Real thinking instead of outrage porn (as another commenter wrote ; I like that expression)