There's no evidence of the union activity to prevent this crane from being used. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated leading the reader to conclude this. There is a very strong anti-union bias throughout the article, with zero support for the allegations and finger-pointing. But it's well done, because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof.
> because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof.
I did no such thing. A `TL;DR` is typically a summation of an article. The primary narrative in the article was the union stifling this businessman. Whether it's true or not doesn't really effect a summary of the content itself.
To openly state a summary without including the primary narrative of the article seems disingenuous to the article you're summarizing, in my opinion.
I meant "you're" in the universal sense as a reader.
In my opinion, a tl;dr that glosses over pointing out the unsubstantiated crux of an article's narrative is a major disservice. It's fine to sum up the narrative. It's just as disingenuous to fail to point out the narrative lacks evidentiary support whatsoever.
