Changes

4) On the same line of questioning, would you acknowledge that the neutrality of Conservapedia's position is not only contentious, it is merely the opinion of contributors?  The entry on Fox News for example, as of today, contained significant editorialising ("Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.").  Again, how does this square with being an information source one can "trust"?   

4) On the same line of questioning, would you acknowledge that the neutrality of Conservapedia's position is not only contentious, it is merely the opinion of contributors?  The entry on Fox News for example, as of today, contained significant editorialising ("Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.").  Again, how does this square with being an information source one can "trust"?   

'''The opinions and biases of journalists are a matter of fact.  This can be studied, polled and analyzed.  No one credibly disputes the existence of journalistic bias.'''

'''The opinions and biases of journalists are a matter of fact.  This can be studied, polled and analyzed.  No one credibly disputes the existence of [[journalistic bias]].'''

5) How would you respond to the comments of Tom Flanagan (described as a fiscal and social conservative) in the same article, who is quoted as saying:  

5) How would you respond to the comments of Tom Flanagan (described as a fiscal and social conservative) in the same article, who is quoted as saying: