The "Analysis/Bias" section of Washington Times basically boils down to: founded by religious people, uses language and SEO that they don't like, and publishes

The "Analysis/Bias" section of Washington Times basically boils down to: founded by religious people, uses language and SEO that they don't like, and publishes articles from scientists they don't like. I don't consider Washington Times as a paper of record necessarily, but I do think fact-checking is a much harder problem than people are willing to grant and the evidence listed in that section wasn't very edifying.