Ryan Tyler touched off a demonstration of how mixing reporting and advocacy into one article can result in readers missing his reporting. He and cowriter David Barboza assert that Apple enables a company in China to require inhuman working conditions for its employees. They make an interesting point using a contemporary version of the decades old, if not older, "workers' rights" argument. Instead of offering alternatives to the production of Apple products, some commenters about the article called each other names in defense of their own opinions about blaming someone for whatever. I appreciate Tyler's attempt to report from a non-traditional point of view. That is, the traditional view is to report the facts, not interpret them unless it's published on an editorial page. His effort would help me understand his point, if he would separate his descriptions from comparisons with the organic food political movement. This comparison makes his point to appear as all globalization of business is "bad." Tyler says he's an educator. Would his article and subsequent comments by readers make a good piece to analyze for discussing impacts of journalistic style on readers' reactions, say in a high school writing class?