Not all comments need to be about contributing to the discourse. Jonstewart is not trying to rebut an argument or to make a different argument. All they are doi

Not all comments need to be about contributing to the discourse. Jonstewart is not trying to rebut an argument or to make a different argument. All they are doing is giving some background on the organization that might be relevant to their motivations for writing the article. If you have a position on academic admin reform that you would like to discuss, this is not the comment thread for you. Instead, this is the comment thread for me, who read the title and was vaguely interested in the implied subject matter, but decided not to read because I expect the source to be pushing an agenda that I wouldn't agree with. It is just not that important to me to be informed about this, so I am not going to choose a source that I expect to be biased as my only source of information. Now, I could picture a different situation, one where, say, I have thought a lot about academic administration, what purpose it serves, how it could be better. Where I have studied the available data on the topic and formed opinions. Then, I would read the argument despite the expectation of bias, because I want to use all the information I can find, and engage with all the arguments that other people are making, even the ones that are pushing an agenda I disagree with. Maybe I would even read it and find I agree with the argument, and update my beliefs. Maybe I would come to the comments to post how my experience and knowledge fits the argument, or conflicts with it. But that is not me, so I'm trusting the expectation of bias and moving on.