I use to think that any article should only be evaluated based on their worth of its arguments. I now check the biases of the person and organization which publ

I use to think that any article should only be evaluated based on their worth of its arguments. I now check the biases of the person and organization which publishes it, before reading. The difference of this approach from ad-hominem is that it's more a mental "test" than a "shortcut". "How intellectually honest is this person or organization? If new evidence or fact comes to light which disprove to some degree the position they are maintaining or expounding-- will they change their mind? Or at least be silent and move on to something else?" If "not really", then I pretty much ignore most words they have on that position. Taking partisans too seriously entails investing extra-thought into separating the spin from the "truth". Put another way: reading RushLimbaugh.com to determine what's wrong with America would probably melt my brain. Yes, everyone has biases: the key, at least for political understanding, is to determine how biased they are before engaging.