This isn't a substantive response to the article. This article isn't reporting on the complainant's allegations, which are a few years old at this point.
Instead, the article is reporting on a five-day-old decision by the US National Labor Relations Board finding her allegations sufficiently justified that the NLRB itself is asking Apple to give her specified remedies in a settlement, and is scheduling an administrative hearing as part of an official enforcement proceeding by the government against Apple.
While you're right that much journalism is just ghost writing for the wealthy, there's no evidence of that in this article. I think The Register would eagerly write about an NLRB decision against Apple regardless of whether anyone wealthy is pushing the story.
It’s not a response to the article, it’s a response to the headline which says “Apple ‘broke law’” when they haven’t been found guilty yet and is clearly utilizing quotes to make clickbait without getting sued, I may choose to read it to get one side of the story but I am not getting real journalism given that headline
my comment probably deserves downvote as it’s not related to the article, but I wanted to condemn a headline obviously meant to lure people who hate Apple and want organized labor to click on it, rather than real journalism
Although The Register isn't the highest quality of journalism, they're far better than the lowest quality, and they do a decent job in this article. The usage of quotation marks to report on allegations without directly asserting them is very common across the entire journalism industry, including the most well-respected publications. Both clickbait and non-clickbait articles use that convention.
Also, headlines are usually written by editors and not by the article authors. Headlines for use online do indeed focus on getting clicks, because they need the ad money to pay the bills, especially when they don't have a paywall. That's true even when the article content is high-quality and not clickbait.
Last thought: The Register actually has two titles for this article at the same time. The HN title is taken from the headline at the top of the page, which is fair enough. But the version of the title in my browser tab is "NLRB claims Apple broke law by terminating labor organizer". Would that make the journalism seem any more real than the shorter, snappier version using quotation marks and short-hand jargon like "dev"? It's the same article either way.
Instead, the article is reporting on a five-day-old decision by the US National Labor Relations Board finding her allegations sufficiently justified that the NLRB itself is asking Apple to give her specified remedies in a settlement, and is scheduling an administrative hearing as part of an official enforcement proceeding by the government against Apple.
While you're right that much journalism is just ghost writing for the wealthy, there's no evidence of that in this article. I think The Register would eagerly write about an NLRB decision against Apple regardless of whether anyone wealthy is pushing the story.