Ya think? By the way, this is an application of Keith's Law, which says that authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship. The more partisan you are, the less authoritative you are. This is a law, which means it applies always and everywhere (including in judging, umpiring, refereeing, doing science, teaching philosophy, and doing journalism).
Addendum: It's rich that one of the people quoted in the story works for the New York Times, for the Times ("All the news that's fit to print") has done more than any other news organization to skew the news in favor of progressivism. I'm not talking about editorial opinions, op-ed columns, or letters to the editor, which are expected to be opinionated; I'm talking about news stories. The rhetorical manipulation displayed in most news reports (especially those about politics, but not just those) is palpable and appalling. Many "reporters" are nothing more than political hacks masquerading as journalists. If you're wondering why I bother reading the Times (online), it's because I'm a philosopher. I want to see how bias works, and the ends to which it is put. Also, it's fun (in a perverse way) to see educated people make complete asses of themselves. I wonder sometimes whether regular readers of the Times even know that they're getting a biased view of the world. When you're a fish, you know nothing but water. Most progressives I know have never been anything but a progressive and have a cartoon version of conservatism. I know whereof I speak, for I was a progressive (about 20 years) for far longer than I have been a conservative (about 13 years). I occupy what philosophers call a privileged epistemic position. If you're a progressive who has never been a conservative, or even taken the time to understand conservatism, I know everything you know and more. You know only what you (think you) know. Your "knowledge," in other words, is rooted in ignorance.
