[unclebucknasty]

>One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.

Or background check any facts they present in making their case, then form your own opinion.

[mcknz]

Of course. I've just been confused in the past at the wide swing of opinion, having noted the objectivity of The Hill's news reporting.

[unclebucknasty]

Not to nitpick, but isn't news supposed to be objective and opinion not?

It seems kind of weird to wander into an opinion piece, then seem put-off that its author might be biased. Yes, it is very likely that if you check the author's background, then you will find threads that are consistent with the opinions expressed in an article that he/she produces. In fact the article itself is an expression of that background.

Again not being a pedant here. Just don't understand the admonition to check the background as the basis for dismissing a writer's opinion.

[mcknz]

Yes, but I suppose it's a matter of expectation. When I read NYT or WSJ or Slate or National Review I will get a fairly consistent message.

We don't see a lot of extreme partisan publications linked in HN, probably for good reason. Just wanted to note that although The Hill is not on the MSNBC/Fox spectrum, its editorial content may well be.