of an op-ed that was published in that paper said. Most newspapers publish a wide range of op-ed opinion articles. Op-ed opinions do not necessarily represent the opinion of the newspaper or its publishers.

Just a clarification.

Fair enough but how often do newspapers speak for themselves, not so much. Everything is written by "someone".

of their publishers. For example, most newspapers will endorse candidates for office as an election nears. That endorsement represents the opinion of the publishers, therefore the newspaper.

All major newspapers, however, publish editorial opinions by a wide range of writers. Such opinions are not news, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of the publisher of the paper.

You will know the opinion of the newspaper about an election when it publishes an editorial endorsing one candidate or another.

you know what I'm saying. We're splitting hairs here.

This is a new dissection.

But I agree with the writer.

publishes opinion articles on its opinion pages. Those should never be confused with news articles. Major papers publish a full range of opinions from many different writers. They are the opinions of those writers only.

So, to say that the "LA Times says..." when referring to an editorial or op-ed piece is not accurate at all.

It's a distinction that should be remembered. Editorial opinion is not news. It is only the writer's opinion.

But the same attention to detail is sorely lacking when the h side posts from their sources.

That's all.

A new dissection.

Hillary did the same thing yet the author, mere paragraphs before, opines she "strains" to achieve it.

Double standard much?

It is what it is. And I think I'll post this as a new thread in GD-P

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2015/10/07/rise-of-bernie-sanders-attributed-to-authenticity

exactly WHY we're seeing almost a decade now of claims that Hillary is not. People have been trained to hit the "no" button when they see her name and "authentic."

Maybe...just maybe try to stay independent of these brain-suckers? Even get out the tin foil hat if that's what it would take?

Especially Hillary who is packaged as a 'product'. Nothing authentic about mimicking your opponent.

Women candidates are also seen as more honest and caring than male candidates. Thus, any time you see a female candidate you will typically see opponents' ads chiseling away at these perceived areas of superior virtue.

Nor is she seen as such. Like Palin and Fiorina, Hillary is a packaged product.

Please show your source, if one exists.

that we are entitled to act on just any opinion whomped up to justify what we want to think and do, though. Whatever.

In the meantime, I feel a little more acceptance of the honest evaluations of others is in order. It seems to me that for people who've never met Hillary even for 5 minutes to insist the right-wing media are completely right and all the people who like Hillary are completely wrong is at best delusional.

the career politician.

Sanders = Governing

Hillary = McGovernment™

Just like all the rest.

He states his beliefs from the heart, and makes speeches using only notes. Yeah, she is just like him.

one nearly all of his adult life.

This exemplifies why Bernie is seen as more authentic

we can use as coaches? how much time would it take for a full prospectus on an authenticity program?"