[jimson8]

Originally Posted by kendo65

True, in that by my argument he was crossing the boundary. I would say though that in his particular case it was very much presented as a 'comment' piece unlike a lot of things today. Such was his authority that it carried a lot of (too much) influence. I would say that the direction of travel in the intervening years has been such that the situation has got much worse now though.

Also, does 'history show' what you say it shows? Note that the question about that moment in the Vietnam war is definitely a Class 2 one - it's not absolute indisputable fact in the same (simple) way that number of legs on a chair is - i.e. people could disagree with your interpretation.
I would say it is a subjective view, yes.



The tables thing was just an easy example - main point was a lot of stuff is not just down to one's personal opinion which was where you seemed to be in your post.

I was using the same metaphor. I still believe most things that are as B&W are reported as such.

Also, it can be difficult to know where exactly fact ends and opinion begins - and if your news media is distorting the situation from the very beginning it can be impossible.

Indeed.