Charles Matthews wrote:
Ed Poor wrote
So we really need to use this example in an article about how the liberal media goes out of its way to discredit "the right" while NEVER conceding any error of its own and even DELIBERATELY deceiving the public.
We need to do no such thing.
If this article is written from a NPOV, the facts of the case can be clarified. Elephantine generalisations like 'liberal media' need not appear. Readers, if provided with facts, can draw conclusions about whether this is about more than professional loudmouth columnist meets ill-prepared interviewer (whatever - on a scale of 1 to 10 this is about at -6 for most people's threshold of interest, I suppose).
Ed, your agenda is showing.
Well put. Ed's statement would read as well if "liberal" were changed to "conservative" and "right" were changed to "left". If the opposite is as meaningful for a different cohort of people, the likelihood is that the truth is somewhere between.
Ec