Pop Quiz: You are a reporter and you are assigned to write a story about the Arizona Chamber of Commerce expressing concern over the long-term viability of the state government pension program. You need to write a non-biased lede. How's this?
Despite a fairly positive report on the stability of the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) earlier this year, a major business group with no direct involvement in the fund is expressing serious concern.
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, none of whose member firms has employees enrolled in a public pension plan, is calling for a major overhaul of ASRS to radically change how benefits are calculated for future retirees.
That's not an article, it's a rebuttal in the guise of an article. In fact, the first word "Despite" shows that the author is trying simultaneously cover the story and discredit the protagonist. The rest of the opening paragraphs consist of ad hominem attacks and scare tactics--there's no mention of the ASRS retirement system itself, but we learn a lot about the Chamber. We learn that it has "no direct involvement" (mind your own business), "none of its members are in ASRS" (ditto), and we learn that the Chamber is calling for a "major overhaul" that will "radically change" the system. And the Chamber-despite having no stake in ASRS is pushing these radical changes despite a "fairly positive" report on the stability of the system.
The rest of the article continues the attempt to simultaneously cover and discredit the Chamber's concerns. The ASRS public relations team itself wouldn't have been bold enough to even send out a press release that's this biased.
Journalism at its finest.