|
I think it a fair rule for the opposition to not have to go chasing slanted references all over the place only to waste time finding out that the "facts" presented in a slanted article are shaky references at best (as demonstrated above-thread with the National Review). Information can be twisted into a variety of spins, even in the mainstream press, but at least the mainstream press irks both sides of the aisle equally and, to me, is the only type of reference that can be agreed upon by both sides.
Believe it or not, the left has been absolutely horrified by the press over the last ten years or so, especially television news.
The mainstream American press has no demonstrable liberal/conservative bias, but it certainly has a pro-media bias, a pro-sensationalist bias, and a tendency to protect those in power (to whom they wish to preserve access). Using the mainstream press minimizes the extra bias of blatant partisanship because even the partisan press is subject to all of the aforementioned shortcomings plus partisanship.
But I understand why some would want to see the biased sources and the facts within challenged. That is fine, but mind you, these types of sources tend to fall apart quickly under cursory analysis. In addition, entire think-tanks exchange the tit-for-tat on these types of talking points columns, which takes multiple full-time jobs. However, we are a bunch of people who spend a little free time on the internet entertaining ourselves (or at least I am). I can see how this would bog people down if over-indulged, and the end result is a loss of meaningful debate.
Besides, many of those that write for partisan publications are columnists, not journalists, and are held to different standards than journalists sensu stricto.
Lastly, I apologize if you feel lectured on your sources, Voice. It is not my intention to offend; only to entreat for some common, equal ground.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!
Zach de la Rocha
|