Slammed? Heaped in? The implication when a commentator (the type of journalist most bloggers really are) posts, quotes, or links to another's commentary without comment of their own is that they agree. To do so is to link yourself to that commentary.
Mark Steyn has opinions I can occasionally agree with, and he avoids hateful speech, focusing more on analysis and considered opinion. He tends to use news articles from (relatively unbiased) published and broadcast news media as his primary sources. I don't have a big problem with him, even though I don't see things as he does.
Right Wing News is typically written in an insulting, hateful manner. The blogger(s) for that site use some unbiased news articles, and many other sites carrying insulting or hateful rhetoric and commentary, for their primary sources. Even when I agree with an article there, I often find that I can't agree with the tone of its writing, or even more than a few specific points from that article. I avoid that site as much as I can.
Here's a test: When you read a commentary, try reading for just the emotional content therein. If you find that it is insulting and angry, and encourages you to hatred, then it probably is not a healthy thing to regularly indulge; follow up by looking for different points of view on the topic, to broaden your understanding of it. If you find instead that it enlightens and broadens you, and encourages you to fight with a good heart instead of an angry one, then it may be something to keep looking up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-26 04:06 am (UTC)Mark Steyn has opinions I can occasionally agree with, and he avoids hateful speech, focusing more on analysis and considered opinion. He tends to use news articles from (relatively unbiased) published and broadcast news media as his primary sources. I don't have a big problem with him, even though I don't see things as he does.
Right Wing News is typically written in an insulting, hateful manner. The blogger(s) for that site use some unbiased news articles, and many other sites carrying insulting or hateful rhetoric and commentary, for their primary sources. Even when I agree with an article there, I often find that I can't agree with the tone of its writing, or even more than a few specific points from that article. I avoid that site as much as I can.
Here's a test: When you read a commentary, try reading for just the emotional content therein. If you find that it is insulting and angry, and encourages you to hatred, then it probably is not a healthy thing to regularly indulge; follow up by looking for different points of view on the topic, to broaden your understanding of it. If you find instead that it enlightens and broadens you, and encourages you to fight with a good heart instead of an angry one, then it may be something to keep looking up.