Not really, no. More about not letting ideology shade their reporting. It's pretty cut and dry.
Really, yes. It's not at all "cut and dry" (sic).
Ideology shades all of us, whether we let it or not. And kylinrouge asks an important question about facts. As long as the facts are present and interpreted correctly (ie., not twisted horribly to become completely wrong, ala Brit Hume), the reporting should not be dismissed.
So where's the evidence?
I was unaware that I needed to rehash old news any time someone trivially drops a glove. I've got an email into a friend who might have the particular articles that come to mind, so we'll see.
Ideas didn't follow the money, money followed the ideas.
That's how it starts; how much the ideas follow the money, though, quite often depends upon the amount of money at stake. This is beyond obvious, it seems, to anyone with whom I've ever discussed this issue . . . except you. You are, sir, a complete outlier, a money apologist/denier.
As Freneau wrote:
The sun's in the west, And I am opprest, With fellows attempting to blacken my muse, Who hardly have genius to blacken my shoes.
no subject
Really, yes. It's not at all "cut and dry" (sic).
Ideology shades all of us, whether we let it or not. And
So where's the evidence?
I was unaware that I needed to rehash old news any time someone trivially drops a glove. I've got an email into a friend who might have the particular articles that come to mind, so we'll see.
Ideas didn't follow the money, money followed the ideas.
That's how it starts; how much the ideas follow the money, though, quite often depends upon the amount of money at stake. This is beyond obvious, it seems, to anyone with whom I've ever discussed this issue . . . except you. You are, sir, a complete outlier, a money apologist/denier.
As Freneau wrote:
The sun's in the west,
And I am opprest,
With fellows attempting to blacken my muse,
Who hardly have genius to blacken my shoes.