In my most recent syndicated Cagle weekly column, I offered a flip side interpretation of the developing conventional wisdom on the 2012 Presidential election. But what those of us who try to read information explaining the race have to deal with also is this: the dominance of ideologically-based punditry that often becomes a virtual mirror of the other side.
(I’m already getting a “false equivilancy” alert which I get each time I dare to note something that exists on both sides). Each side can take the same facts and then insist it shows something favorable to them. Or they can disdain the source of an analysis or facts since it doesn’t favor their side (but they’ll later quote that source and even praise it when it favors their side).
GO HERE to read a post so letter perfect on the subject that nails it and gives you examples that I will not quote it. You need to read it all and check out all the links.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.