Journalists forgetting the difference between news and opinion pieces

A significant number of journalists' articles today actually are opinion pieces posing as news or are Democrat talking points.  A good example of this is an article from the Associated Press on Clarence Thomas.  In it, the writers use dog-whistle terms for leftists and progressives by saying Thomas was involved in "pretty radical decisions" and that he is on the far right.  Those are obviously opinions of the journalists, not facts.  They should list his decisions and let the public decide for themselves if they are extreme or radical. 

Justice Clarence Thomas' moment may finally have arrived

 Thomas is now the longest-serving member of a court that has recently gotten more conservative, putting him in a unique and potentially powerful position, and he's said he doesn't plan on retiring anytime soon. With President Donald Trump's nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now on the court, conservatives are firmly in control as the justices take on divisive issues such as abortion, gun control and LGBT rights.

Thomas, for the first time, is on a court where there are at least four votes for some "pretty radical" decisions, 

Thomas is consistently on the court's far right.

I do not recall most journalists ever calling decisions by the four liberals on the court, who almost always vote in lockstep, radical decisions or on the far left because they agree with them.

Wasn't Roe v. Wade radical and extreme?  When Democrats in states and in Congress call to deny health care to babies born in failed attempts to kill them, isn't that radical and extreme?  Very few countries in the world allow late-term abortions, so why is it radical and extreme to block them or require parental notification?

Federal law does not allow taxpayer money for abortions, so why is it radical or extreme for states to block money to Planned Parenthood when a significant majority of their revenue comes from abortion services?

Isn't it radical and extreme for the court to block voter ID laws by states when the government at all levels imposes photo ID laws for so many other things people are required to do?

How is it radical and extreme to recognize what the First Amendment says about speech?  Isn't it radical and extreme for Congress to continually try to limit what the public can do as it relates to campaigns?

How is it extreme and radical to believe that the people have the right to own guns when the Constitution specifically gives them that right?  America would not be free if in the Revolutionary War only the loyalists to the British government had the guns.  Throughout history, dictators and tyrants have taken guns away from their citizens, and as far as I can tell, that never made it safer for the people.

Wasn't it extreme and radical when the majority of the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare to call the individual mandate penalty a tax when Obama and Democrats specifically said it wasn't?  Wasn't it radical and extreme when the Obama Justice Department sued the Little Sisters of the Poor because they wanted to exercise their freedom of religion that the Constitution affirms?

Isn't it radical and extreme that sanctuary cities and states say they don't have to enforce the immigration laws Congress passed?  Aren't judges who support this lawlessness radical and extreme?

Aren't policies and people who support open borders radical and extreme?

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act almost unanimously, and Bill Clinton signed it in the 1990s.  I must have missed where Democrats who supported that law were called far-right extremists.  Were Hillary and Obama ever called far-right extremists when they supported marriage only between a man and a woman in 2008 when they were running for president?

Here is a poll most people will never read about: the Senate Democrats recently sent out a Twitter poll asking whether people would prefer a judge like the sensible (my word) Kavanaugh or the radical (my word) Ginsburg, and the result was:

Kavanaugh 72%

Ginsburg 28%

Last week, when Facebook was censoring free speech, the Washington Post labeled Louis Farrakhan far right when he is as far left as you can go.  Over the year, we have also seen Hitler and Nazis labeled as far right when they were socialists on the far left.

Other dog whistles we see frequently in "news" articles: the racist term "white privilege"; articles about Charlottesville where journalists intentionally lie about what Trump said to gin up racial hate and violence; people equating sensible voter ID laws with Jim Crow laws; labeling Trump a racist for seeking to enforce laws that Congress has passed and by saying exactly the same things that Democrats have said in the recent past.

A significant number of journalists' articles today actually are opinion pieces posing as news or are Democrat talking points.  A good example of this is an article from the Associated Press on Clarence Thomas.  In it, the writers use dog-whistle terms for leftists and progressives by saying Thomas was involved in "pretty radical decisions" and that he is on the far right.  Those are obviously opinions of the journalists, not facts.  They should list his decisions and let the public decide for themselves if they are extreme or radical. 

Justice Clarence Thomas' moment may finally have arrived

 Thomas is now the longest-serving member of a court that has recently gotten more conservative, putting him in a unique and potentially powerful position, and he's said he doesn't plan on retiring anytime soon. With President Donald Trump's nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now on the court, conservatives are firmly in control as the justices take on divisive issues such as abortion, gun control and LGBT rights.

Thomas, for the first time, is on a court where there are at least four votes for some "pretty radical" decisions, 

Thomas is consistently on the court's far right.

I do not recall most journalists ever calling decisions by the four liberals on the court, who almost always vote in lockstep, radical decisions or on the far left because they agree with them.

Wasn't Roe v. Wade radical and extreme?  When Democrats in states and in Congress call to deny health care to babies born in failed attempts to kill them, isn't that radical and extreme?  Very few countries in the world allow late-term abortions, so why is it radical and extreme to block them or require parental notification?

Federal law does not allow taxpayer money for abortions, so why is it radical or extreme for states to block money to Planned Parenthood when a significant majority of their revenue comes from abortion services?

Isn't it radical and extreme for the court to block voter ID laws by states when the government at all levels imposes photo ID laws for so many other things people are required to do?

How is it radical and extreme to recognize what the First Amendment says about speech?  Isn't it radical and extreme for Congress to continually try to limit what the public can do as it relates to campaigns?

How is it extreme and radical to believe that the people have the right to own guns when the Constitution specifically gives them that right?  America would not be free if in the Revolutionary War only the loyalists to the British government had the guns.  Throughout history, dictators and tyrants have taken guns away from their citizens, and as far as I can tell, that never made it safer for the people.

Wasn't it extreme and radical when the majority of the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare to call the individual mandate penalty a tax when Obama and Democrats specifically said it wasn't?  Wasn't it radical and extreme when the Obama Justice Department sued the Little Sisters of the Poor because they wanted to exercise their freedom of religion that the Constitution affirms?

Isn't it radical and extreme that sanctuary cities and states say they don't have to enforce the immigration laws Congress passed?  Aren't judges who support this lawlessness radical and extreme?

Aren't policies and people who support open borders radical and extreme?

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act almost unanimously, and Bill Clinton signed it in the 1990s.  I must have missed where Democrats who supported that law were called far-right extremists.  Were Hillary and Obama ever called far-right extremists when they supported marriage only between a man and a woman in 2008 when they were running for president?

Here is a poll most people will never read about: the Senate Democrats recently sent out a Twitter poll asking whether people would prefer a judge like the sensible (my word) Kavanaugh or the radical (my word) Ginsburg, and the result was:

Kavanaugh 72%

Ginsburg 28%

Last week, when Facebook was censoring free speech, the Washington Post labeled Louis Farrakhan far right when he is as far left as you can go.  Over the year, we have also seen Hitler and Nazis labeled as far right when they were socialists on the far left.

Other dog whistles we see frequently in "news" articles: the racist term "white privilege"; articles about Charlottesville where journalists intentionally lie about what Trump said to gin up racial hate and violence; people equating sensible voter ID laws with Jim Crow laws; labeling Trump a racist for seeking to enforce laws that Congress has passed and by saying exactly the same things that Democrats have said in the recent past.