I'm digressing badly, but it's a character flaw of mine that I can't let this statement go.

The right-wing treatment of the market (i.e., the set of policies pursued by GWB and his ilk) is anything but "free market". The predominant Conservative policies are better described as "corporatist" in that they explicitly support corporate interests.

In some ways, a free market resembles this, because they both demand that consumer interests practice "caveat emptor", because there are fewer regulations that constrain what businesses can do.

But contrast to this, a free market system would also refuse to tilt the playing field in favor of the corporations, against the consumer or broader public interests [1]. So rent-seeking policies that institutionalize certain business interests would be avoided, for example. The "too-big-to-fail" idea would certainly gain no traction in a free market.

[1] While the Conservatives are usually the ones stereotyped as being corporatist, the Liberals are every bit as guilty. Consider such "left-wing" policies as ethanol subsidies, or the recent bailout, fostered by Democrats, of GM and Chrysler.

And that is your opinion :)

More seriously: it's not because two things are opposite that there both weight the same or are both valuable different opinions regarding the same set of facts.. it just may be that one of them is wrong. There are bad news reporting and good journalism.

I like the idea of your extension. But how would you decide who is to describe the article and how to asses its value and honesty ? Coulnd't this be easily subject to manipulation as comments in general ?