Yes, I see your point and I do agree with a lot of what you're saying.

Humans as social animals need to voice their opinions and get feedback to those opinions from their peers - mostly probably to gauge their own perceived self-worth. That's probably why so many of the reporters, bloggers, etc. are so keen on trying to "brake the news" with often times flimsy or even fabricated evidence to back them up. Also, going "against the grain" is another popular strategy whereby one makes opposite claims to the majority view just so that they can say that they were one of the few who saw the truth if the chips happen to fall that way.

Now, I'm not saying that people making ridiculous claims without any real evidence to back them up shouldn't be called out on it. I'm just saying that there's a fine line between doing that and suppressing others' opinions. The right to question the establishment with power is a cornerstone of a democratic society, and to silence anyone trying to do that by saying the said establishment knows better, and therefore is above reproach, is to me socially unacceptable. To me it doesn't really make a difference whether the venue happens to be social media, a public debate on TV or a townhall meeting.

Ok. Rant over. Time to take my soapbox and turn in for the night.


How about that Cameron Jordan fellow..?

I hear he's pretty good...