But K's job is opinion. Media Matters seems to portray itself as a media watchdog. (though it's agenda is hardly subtle) That's rather different.


>I'm not equating anything. My point was simple. MM is a biased source. Krauthammer is a biased source. The pot should not call the kettle black. If you want to talk degrees of biasedness (if that's a word), then you can argue that, but Charles simply accused Srdjan of using a biased source as if Krauthammer is not a biased source.
>
>And again, I say that in general, the sources one finds the most informative and believable are those sources with whom one already agrees.
>
>>Alan,
>>
>>To equate MM with Krauthammer is a serious insult to Krauthammer. Krauthammer is a conservative commentator who (what a surprise) leans conservative on issues. MM is biased to the point of criminal insanity and will do anything and everything to destroy conservatives. MM takes quotes out of context, obfuscates, and outright lies to get their message across. MM is a pimple on the tail of rational political discourse.
>>
>>I don't think it's remotely fair to paint Krauthammer with that equivalence.
>>
>>>
>>>My point was to your comment that "Media Matters" is not an impartial web site and has its own agenda. Substitute Krauthammer for "Media Matters" and drop the website verbage, and the implications stay the same. Whether one agrees with Media Matters, or Krauthammer, it is not useful to imply that the other person is using a biased source, when in fact, both sides are.