Yes. I actually stopped reading "news" and I only read people's opinions. Opinions are much more concise and it's far more informative to read two opposing op

Yes. I actually stopped reading "news" and I only read people's opinions. Opinions are much more concise and it's far more informative to read two opposing opinions than to read one long meandering piece that tries to avoid having an opinion. The recipe for "news" at the NYT is an exhausting example of this: "Some decision was made. Someone important said it was good b/c of A but others say it is bad b/c of B. 10 years ago when a similar decision was made, A was the result. But on the other hand it is very hard to measure B, and it's effects can be mitigated by C. An expert acknowledged the risk of B but said that the benefits of A made it worth it." Usually the reporter's actual opinion was whatever side he gave the last word. In this case A. I find it tedious to play this passive aggressive game. I would rather read two articles saying: This decision is good b/c of A. and This decision is bad b/c of B. Like Arrington said, at least I know where they stand and why.