http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Scare-Quotes.htm.Munir wrote:Bertilak: I do not understand the last phrase in your post "and don't deny it with scare quotes". I don't know what you are referring to.bertilak wrote:Pushing a political agenda at the expense of objective reporting IS poor quality, so there is no wonder it generates complaints.Munir wrote:Many of the negative comments above about CR complain of perceived "politics" of the organization. I wonder how much that has contributed to the negativity of the comments in contrast to just poor quality of the the content.
There is a tendency for people not to see politics where the politics on display agree with their own. We all have that tendency. I know I do, but I accept that some of my opinions are political and don't deny it with "scare" quotes.
My point was that I would like to judge a publication that recommends a product such as a refrigerator on the merits of the article's content in making that recommendation and not on what I choose to believe are the publication's political leanings. At least, I hope I can differentiate between those two spheres when I'm deciding whether or not I trust the recommendation about the product. I was questioning whether some people do not or cannot separate the two areas, and thus make a judgment not based on non-political hard facts in the article but on the perceived political leanings of the publication.
If someone has an agenda, especially if that agenda denied, one cannot trust that the discussion is unbiased.