Credible concrete arguments for why some article might be flawed or biased tends to carry a lot more weight than just attacking the place it was published in for its political views.
That all depends. When it's been hidden, I think it's essential to know the ethos of the organization that paid for the work to be done and disseminated. It isn't plain in the piece that it was brought to us by the Manhattan Institute, which is one of many think tanks producing "journalism" that has never, ever found a problem that the "free market" wasn't the precise cure for.
Context is super-important.
Anyhow: I quite dislike it when articles and arguments are dismissed with simple labeling tactics ("they said this other thing before, so what they say now carries no weight").
I should have written "dismissed" rather than "attacked".
My own suspicion is that this "research institute" hasn't really done true research into whether crime is out of control and the homeless are to blame. Maybe it really is out of control, but I suspect that the authors don't truly care to investigate, seeing as they simply chose some anecdotes that fit the views they have held for decades.
Sorry you're getting downvoted.
> Sorry you're getting downvoted.
Thanks for that.
So let's cut the crap and be real here, this article is basically propaganda. The entity responsible for producing it will never produce a politically unbiased article examining some critical issue because their raison d'etre is to produce politically biased articles. What you're saying is that it's on us an individuals to line by line refute all the crap propaganda that gets spewed out. There's no way to do that in the 21st century, there's too much information. We need to be able to attribute and write-off when necessary. This article was written by a right-wing think-tank who's explicit mission is to promote free market ideals? Why would I read that? You and I both basically already know what is in it and that the writer is a complete partisan.
In this case, the article is about homelessness, and I found it interesting to know that the institute has for decades held a fixed opinion on individual responsibility.
I have no idea whether the rest of the institute's positions could be neatly categorized.