Just because something has a contrarian view doesn't make its good. What use is a contrarian view if their bar for quality is that low? Something like WSJ mak

Just because something has a contrarian view doesn't make its good. What use is a contrarian view if their bar for quality is that low? Something like WSJ makes sense as a counter balance to NYT, not some 3rd tier blog. The desire to see "both sides" causes people to lift up sources that are otherwise ignored for a reason. This isn't a justification for Facebook blocking them, but we sure don't need them either.