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