The article's fine, in the middle.

But the beginning and the end of the article are terrible journalism.

First, appropriately, the beginning. The title of the article is Retired Officer Subdues Unruly Plane Passengers. At first, it appears nothing's wrong with it, but a closer, more critical look reveals it to be meaningless. "Unruly" could mean anything from preaching the Pentecost to ripping pieces of the plane off the wall. "Unruly" is a subjective characterization. In your headlines, you should tell us what they did, Mister big-time TV station, not what you characterize they are.

Then the article goes on to detail the actions of two men who screamed, fell down and other things. And two other men, who subdued them.

The article closes with "Both men were taken for a psych evaluation, and at this point, are not facing any charges. "

Which both? The disruptors or the subduers?

[H/T 2 memeorandum.]