Originally posted by Wien_Sean:Both try to make arguments without presenting the other side.
Why would anyone want to do this? Why would someone waste time and space in 'presenting the other side' when theirs is the one they want the reader/consumer to understand? I don't understand how some people use your angle to try to discredit someone. Michael Moore's problem was that he left out important facts of his stories and changed things when changes suited him well, not that he didn't 'present the other side'.
FWIW, I've read a couple Coulter books and found them quite informative and entertaining.
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
