[mcknz]

First Google result is a link to Fox News, and an article titled "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!"

People can agree or disagree with that, but The Hill does not appear to have a consistent editorial stance that is separate from individual authors.

I have seen moderate contributors as well as more extreme partisan ones.

[opmelogy]

"Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!"

This is enough to ignore the author and bury the article. Anyone that uses the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a way to drive a wedge between Americans in order to offend, distract, and "win" are not worth the time.

[sincerely]

First of all, a lot of people will self-identify as liberal or conservative, which usually lines up with whether or not they tend to support Republicans or Democrats. They're not incredibly loaded terms.

Secondly, writers almost never get to choose the title their piece runs under. You'll notice that often the headline of an article doesn't /quite/ seem to match the content.

[opmelogy]

Agreed on both counts. Although your second point just seems to feed into the idea of not just rolling in "journalists" into the ignore category, but news outlets if they are actively involved in this BS.

For the actual quote, it comes from here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-20...

"Liberals are outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census."

That's the first line from the article, which clearly pits liberals as being the problem here while implying that conservatives automatically disagree (or in this case, "you are on the right side if you agree with me."). It's basic manipulation. People that behave this way are not worth the energy. They just get in the way most of the time.

[rhizome]

For all of the aforementioned reasons I consider The Hill to be trash, even when I agree with an article's sentiment. I don't follow publications, I follow editorial policies, and The Hill appears to have none.