The issue is that the opinion pieces by ommission obscure that there is an anti-Gay agenda. "Opinion" is in the URL of the link, and a reader can click on the link to see it is an opinion. You are just pulling stuff out of the air to try to discredit the article and misdirect the discussion away from the articles topic itself.
Opinions by design always have an agenda, and it's right that that agenda is called out and the light of facts is shined upon it. I was simply pointing out that when referring to published newspaper columns, there are major differences between a news article and an opinion piece. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
Your article is engaged in misdirection by explicitly calling an opinion piece an article. You are one of the reasons why news organizations are becoming fragmented and polarized. As I previously stated, calling out an opinion piece deceitful (and by extension the organization behind it) and backing it up with facts was the right thing to do. I am simply pointing out that your misidentfying the source as an article implicates the DMN as an accomplice to the misdirection, which is not factual.
Do you even know the difference between a newspaper article and an opinion piece? Many of your references are to opinions, which are just that.
The issue is that the opinion pieces by ommission obscure that there is an anti-Gay agenda. "Opinion" is in the URL of the link, and a reader can click on the link to see it is an opinion. You are just pulling stuff out of the air to try to discredit the article and misdirect the discussion away from the articles topic itself.
Opinions by design always have an agenda, and it's right that that agenda is called out and the light of facts is shined upon it. I was simply pointing out that when referring to published newspaper columns, there are major differences between a news article and an opinion piece. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
You are engaged in misdirection. They are entitled to an opinion, but by ommission they are engaged in deceit.
Your article is engaged in misdirection by explicitly calling an opinion piece an article. You are one of the reasons why news organizations are becoming fragmented and polarized. As I previously stated, calling out an opinion piece deceitful (and by extension the organization behind it) and backing it up with facts was the right thing to do. I am simply pointing out that your misidentfying the source as an article implicates the DMN as an accomplice to the misdirection, which is not factual.