I often wonder what is more important to political types; pundits, commentators and the professional political agenda people; the advancement of their agenda or having credibility? I saw something in the media today where a story was written that seemed to deliberately leave of a very important factor that would have significantly changed the character of the story. Reading between the lines, this writer cares less about being a trusted source of unbiased information and is using the cloak of a supposed objective source of information to push a political agenda.
Sorry, it seems I accidentally forgot to check the poll box and it seems I can't add it in the edit option or delete this one and start over. Who cares about those silly color graphs anyway?
Is it more important to political types to advance their agenda even through less than honest tactics or maintaining their credibility?
-Pushing their agenda is most important even at the cost of their reputation.
-They are most interested in maintaining their credibility.
-The agenda is so blindingly important to them they are self-deceived into thinking everything they say in advance of their agenda is true and evidence to the contrary is therefore inaccurate.