"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

It's irrelevant whether Soros is the puppet-master behind Huffington. In
my view, castigating Huffington because of its funding or NewsMax or Fox
or anybody else has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their
reporting.

"Follow the money" is always a wise policy. If your doctor prescribes an
expensive medication instead of a far more affordable generic drug, wouldn't
it be useful to know the expensive drug's maker has underwritten his
participation at medical conferences? If a contractor wants to use a
certain brand of hardware, wouldn't it be useful to know he gets a kickback
from the mfg.? And if a certain news source is consistently sympathetic to
one political stance and/or party, would it not be nice to know who pays
their bills and what their agenda is? So I would be interested to learn
that George Soros really was the money behind Huffington Post, just as I
like to know that Richard Scaife (among others) bankrolled Newsmax.

The things - the reports - should stand on their own.

Should, but sometimes they don't. Fox got caught using old video to make it
appear that a Tea Party rally in D.C. was far better attended than it really
was, are we supposed to believe that was a casual accident? I have no doubt
that NY Times coverage of the Duke lacrosse team rape case was influenced by
the paper's politics, so why should I not judge Fox by the same standard
given the blatant bias shown in their news coverage and editorializing?
Since when is ignorance a good policy?