>I did not say opinions are bad at all. and your analogy
>about educating someone about CF doesn't really hold water.
>When you are 'educating' someone, you are essentially saying
>that they are ignorant.

People *are* ignorant. Whether or not they will admit it doesn't change the underlying fact. You are saying that what, it's ok for them to be ignorant? Or that me saying they are ignorant is wrong? How much do you know about, say cosmology? Do you know more than Stephen Hawking? Have you read what he has written? Do you have scientific basis for refuting his conclusions? Then you are ignorant. Let me point you to this: The greatest super power ever (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/11/the_one_problem.html)

I can't give out this power, but people already possess this ability, they just don't use it much. Even the most stubborn of people can probably recognize that an expert in something knows more about it than they do, they just aren't presented with these primary sources in their everyday lives, so they don't know what experts actually think.

>There are certain things that most
>people are willing to admit they are ignorant about,(CF being
>on that list for most people) and certain things that people
>are not willing to admit they are ignorant about(their
>political views).

If your political view is that immigration is wrecking the economy, but the opinion of experts (economists) is that it has very little effect, then you *should* be educated. Facts are overpowered.

>Most people are more than willing to
>'discuss opinions' on political views, but are very opposed to
>being 'educated' about them.

Actually no, most people are willing to argue about their political viewpoint, very few (in the US) will discuss. It's a problem with our society.

>As far as the conspiracy theories about all of the news
>companies intentionally giving out false information, I don't
>buy into it.

Did you read what I linked to? That isn't conspiracy theory. That is a JUDGE saying that it isn't against any rule or regulation to falisfy the news. That you gain no whistleblower status for reporting that your employer is falsifying the news.

>Sure, it is sometimes easy to think 'The Man'
>somewhere is keeping you down, oppressing you with untruths,
>keeping you ignorant, and you are raging against him by
>looking for alternative means of information. You do realize
>that these are competing companies, and it is in their best
>interest to present factual statements rather than false ones,
>because if they present false ones, their competitors will
>jump on that opportunity.

If by 'The Man' you mean large companies with billions of dollars of advertising, then yes, I expect them to "oppress me with untruths", like say that Monsanto isn't one of the evilest things on the ####ing planet. Tell me, if every news program is collecting large advertising dollars from a company that they are going to run negative stories about that company. And as far as alternative means of information, I don't consider going directly to the source (like that judge's ruling) an "alternative" means of information. The reports of the news though didn't mention that lying in a news program is totally legal, they said they were vindicated.

I'm talking about providing summaries of scientific/legal expert writings with the sources readily available for review a la Groklaw. That isn't alternative news, that is the way a news site (in today's age) *should* cover a story.

> It happens from time to time) I
>will make a small addendum that many news companies will
>present an opinion about the facts, but those can be taken for
>what they are worth by any intelligent person. (either by
>viewing them as valid or invalid)

Ahh, so you can easily filter out that which is factual, from that which is only opinion without checking primary sources? I think not.