- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
...is that it's a forcable tilting of the scale of credibility. No matter how much one side might be focused on the facts, both sides represented are given the same amount of credibility. And that benefits only the side that doesn't have the facts. Whereas objectivity presents both sides arguments, they lays out the facts, "balance" presents both sides, then ends it there and lets you choose, without actually INFORMING you of the facts on the issue. It leaves you with the assumption that both sides are equally credible, and it's just a matter of opinion.
And I think it's a great point that someone brought up that they tar liberal writers with accusations that they're "Just like Limbaugh or Coulter". But when it comes to covering Coulter, they're totally adulatory. So...they're just as bad as the people they gush over. So...why are the people that are being compared to Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., the ones that these reviewers seem to just adore, the bad ones for being just like them?
