Bias!

The title of this article is "Google blamed for jump in high-tech pay." I think that's a strange choice of words and represents the executive point of view only; I doubt any IT engineer whose pay has gone up significantly in the last 5 years is cursing out Google (unless, of course, they're a rival into whose bottom line Google is cutting.) I think more neutral language would have been appropriate, like "due to" or "credited with." The opposite extreme would be "Google praised for jump" or something like that.

Am I a nit-picker, picking pickable nits?