Originally posted by SwissGambitOK, I think I see what you are referring to. However, do these "slams" really effect the content of the article in terms of having relevance to our debate?
The article sucked, too. The last two paragraphs show the author\\\'s bias and desire to slam those he reports on. They should at least be honest and admit that it\\\'s an opinion piece and not a news article.
Originally posted by whodeyGood question. When enough evidence of bias piles up, one starts to doubt whether the article was reported fairly. It's so easy for a 'journalist' to quote someone out of context, or focus on some trivial thing they said at the expense of the main point, etc. etc. to make the opposition look bad.
OK, I think I see what you are referring to. However, do these "slams" really effect the content of the article in terms of having relevance to our debate?
Now, I've heard enough about Dawkins to believe that he is probably as rabidly anti-religious as CNS depicts. But overall I wouldn't buy what a site like CNS claims without checking other sources first.