Once the reader heads into the body paragraphs, there is an obvious lack of objectivity in the article. While he introduces the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's new Ebola policy that was announced by Frieden, McCaughey almost immediately frames the rest of his article around his own opinion. He writes "Sorry. The Obama administration's half-way approach is based on political correctness. It ignores science." McCaughey directly contradicts the idea behind the policy of being led by science, which guides the rest of the article.
While McCaughey may pose this as a news article, it's more of an argumentative essay. He positions the Obama administration's policies as wrong, without presenting both sides equally (those favoring the policy and those not). He ignores other opinions and fails to get feedback from these health care workers/CDC employees on their opinion of not isolating the workers. The only "evidence" he uses to support his one-sided opinion are what he believes the "science" is, bolstering the list with statistics of Ebola transmission that are not a direct effect of this policy.
In my opinion, there are benefits and negatives to this policy and McCaughey only provides us with the negatives, which are the risks of spreading the disease. He doesn't acknowledge the moral benefits given to these workers who are treated as pariahs when isolated for the disease they may not have. McCaughey views science as the only right answer, which narrowly frames the entire article, making this an example of unbalanced, biased "reporting."