Reply #5: OK, here's the problem with taking the "it's neocon propaganda" tack [View All]

[0rganism]

While the assertion itself may be true, you are essentially "poisoning the well" without addressing the content of the article itself. Simply because a publication leans 90% or even 99% to a particular editorial viewpoint is no guarantee that there won't be an occasional unbiased reporting of facts.

For instance, The Wall Street Journal has quality news pages -- it's investor-class readership demands no less. They might be making investment decisions based on what they read in the paper that morning. Were its news proven to be pure neocon fantasy, the paper would lose long-time readers and underwriters. The really obvious bias occurs on the editorial pages, where the investors expect to have their materialistic world view upheld unquestioningly.

So when arguing against the Weekly Standard article, give it some credit where credit's due: VP Cheney wants the republican loyalists reading that paper, and especially that article. That means when you attack it, you're attacking the credibility of the administration. You'd better have something more substantial than "it's propaganda so there" ready to go.