Is Ann Coulter REALLY that stupid?

[Kasz216]

badgenome said:

richardhutnik said:

If someone goes to be informed to make a proper decision on something, you end up in a place where you are being sold to and spun, and the people with the agenda are being served, not the person going to get the information to be informed.  Markets have reviewers who are trusted to help filter through this in things as simple as videogames.  I would say that things far more important, like politics, also benefit from this also.

Much better, then, to get your news from a Sean Hannity or a Rachel Maddow or a Reason because then you know exactly where they're coming from and to take it with a metric fuckton of salt. The more information you consume and the more varied the sources, the easier it is to find the incongruities and thus the truth.

That's why whenever I read a news story I try and aggregate 4-5 different articles at least...

and if it's a huge controversy story I like to at least read one super opinonated piece from "That side".

So if a democrat has a huge gaff, i'm headed to the huffington post story to see their spin and defense, because if it's a context issue, they're probably going to post the context.

 

Intrestingly, i'd say the most "balanced" newspaper source I can find is funny enough, the "Christian Science Monitor."

Who'd of thought a Newspaper funded by a group most would consider a cult could do such award winning news writing.

Thankfully their funding came with only two preconditions

1) The name of the newspaper.

2) An article a day about religion, any religion.