not sure you can entirely blame them for the 2023 one if they repeated a summary they received:

It appears that the error originally came from an email newsletter sent to specialist journalists by the academic publishing company, Elsevier. This newsletter, which is not available to the public, incorrectly summarised the findings of the report by saying short breaks were found to induce fatigue. The copy had been approved by Professor Brazaitis before it was sent.

The 2021 numbers aren’t great, but better than I expected tbh. 2% of complaints upheld indicates they are doing better, relatively speaking. Be interested in knowing the total numbers for 2022 since they’re quoted as saying they had no such judgements for the year at the time of the quote. I find it interesting that the example provided for 2022 apparently didn’t contain the offending material in the original copy, so it started out fine and apparently someone inserted bullshit in the online version. That could have been some unilateral dumbass acting without approval, idk obviously.

Again, I probably wouldn’t go to them for most of those stories anyway, but for a story about white people in NY spraying down black people having a party next door, where it doesn’t seem to be making excuses for those white people? Sure, I’ll read that as reasonably neutral, and then cross reference.

edit: in case it isn’t obvious, the word neutral above was used in regards to this specific article, and how it comes across. If I read an article like this on Fox News, it would have many indicators of victim blaming etc. I don’t get that impression from this article specifically.