you're right, its hard to know. that's why I linked an example of a reasonably good empirical study examining editorial bias in a NYTimes article. criticism of

you're right, its hard to know. that's why I linked an example of a reasonably good empirical study examining editorial bias in a NYTimes article. criticism of this kind is important in revealing those kinds of flaws. in many instances its not actually the journalist doing this, but the editors. NYTimes, for example, has recently begun the practice of making undocumented changes to online articles _after_ initial publication. here is a recent example of that practice: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-t... and the times public editor's response to the controversy https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/ https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-t... so why am I pointing this out? is it to undermine faith? I find it shocking that you would have any faith left at all. What is there to even be undermined? in other words, who is responsible for convincing you what is true and what isn't? if you take things on faith you are demonstrating an attitude that you are ambivalent about the truth. that attitude displays a preference to have certainty in your dogma and to not be challenged about the trustworthiness of the sources of that dogma.