Thanks. But I did recognize that. However, rather then a "no-no", I would say it was an example of a journalistic bias.
Yes, you recognized it as an example of bias.
I recognized it as a violation of a rule journalists follow (it's actually in their handbooks). The point of that rule is to prevent bias, like in this case, when charged words can be used to make an individual's speech look good or bad.
Not everything journalists do to be biased actually breaks their own rules (for instance: downplaying the importance of things they don't like can't be covered by a rule because judging importance of things is somewhat subjective). So when journos actually break their own rules just to get a little bit more bias into their articles, it's interesting.