Because the Journal doesn't editorialize in its headline, it is somehow less objective and more partisan than the New York Times and the Washington Post? Gimme a break, man. Oh, and if you bothered to read the first friggin' paragraph, it says this:
Sorry, dude. But sometimes it's to get to the most important part in the headline (that the Republicans wanted to raise the debt ceiling) and then leave the analysis within the article itself. Your smugness is overwhelming, James Fallows. But if that weren't the case, you wouldn't write for The Atlantic (which, in all fairness, is my favorite daily outside the WSJ).
House Republican leaders Friday proposed extending the federal debt limit by three months, marking a significant shift in GOP strategy that could reduce the market-rattling risk of the U.S. running out of cash to pay its bills.
The Wall Street Journal is simply letting their readers know the most important part. The "reversal" doesn't matter. The fact that the debt ceiling will be raised is the important part. That's what investors and executives, the readership of the Journal, care about. You can argue about politics on your free time. But when you're on the clock, it's all about who, what, when, where. The why is for chumps.
That's what news is about. The fact that he sees this as a failure on the Journal's part reveals more about his own prejudice than the integrity of the Journal.