Fact vs. opinion

A recent article on Politico.com provides a great example of how useful it is to separate fact from opinion when reading news on the Internet. 

The journalist on Politico took the angle that Rick Santorum has been increasing attacks on the press as part of his campaign for Presidency.  The journalist put Santorum's quotes in context of the campaign, giving specific details of when Santorum said what exactly.  The quotes themselves do add up to an attack on the press or the media.  But there is also quite a bit of editorializing in the article.

For example, the journalist calls one quote "the latest in a bitter string," writes that Santorum "blasted the media," and writes that "the limelight hasn't necessarily been flattering" (an underhanded way of saying Santorum doesn't look good when you shine a bright light on him).  The journalist also calls the media treatment of him "serious" without describing it or linking to it and describes a Drudge report headline as "a major hit." 

At the end of the article, the reporter cites other reporters' frustration with the candidate's travel schedule to back up her claim that there is tension between Santorum and the press, and quotes a Time magazine columnist as saying his column moved Santorum "to tears."  I'm not sure if Santorum's campaign confirmed the columnist's claim, but it is reported as fact, so maybe they did.

There are also opinions in Santorum's quotes and quotes from his campaign spokesperson that are certainly debatable, but go without comment from the journalist.  The story of the media attacks may be true, but it doesn't need to be shaded as negatively as this journalist views it.  All the editorializing or opinion in the article, after all, confirms some of Santorum's more direct attacks.