Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 3
You can agree with piece on ideological grounds if you wish (I don't, but I have no problem with anyone else who does as long as they don't spit on me), but we can all agree it shows a clear lack of understanding/emphathy for alternative viewpoints.

Just curious: why's it important to you in a political piece for any one source to embrace both viewpoints? When I read a buy recommendation from a sell-side stock analyst, I don't want understanding or empathy for short-sellers. I do want an acknowledgment of counterarguments and a thorough and complete rebuttal of those counterarguments. But empathy? That'd make it so wishy-washy as to be useless.

That's not to say that *I* don't have empathy. But I much prefer seeing the source material from the two extremes myself, rather than having intermediary journalists spoon-feed their own synthesis to me in ways that reflect their own biases and views -- sometimes in a more subtle way that's harder for readers to perceive. (And don't think for a second I don't appreciate the irony in that view, given what I do for a living.)

best,
dan
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.