The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Pro and Con
Pro and Con
Just because one person, host, guest, or speaker on RT expressed an opinion, should we assume that's the official opinion of the whole organization or editorial staff?
If "RT" "is in favor of this" and "against that" are they biased? Or are we being selective, and only quoting what one speaker said, instead of evaluating the organization as a whole?
Editorials and editorial comment is not supposed to be neutral. They should be allowed and encouraged. To smear the whole organization for being out of lockstep does not improve journalism.
The real question is, how well do they report the news? Do they get their facts straight? Do they report the important stuff? Do they allow opposing views when appropriate?
They sure did a better job covering the GOP primary than anyone else besides the DP, or Ben Swann, in my opinion. Our own journalists are too inside.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/