I still say the paper's POV is irrelevant. They put the story out, someone passes it on and hopefully we can discuss without bringing the paper's opinion into it.
I disagree. First, in this case Paul didn't provide any commentary at all in his original post. Without commentary, I'm led to believe he agrees with the
Mail's position, and is letting the
Mail speak for him. So we don't begin by debating the issue with Paul, instead we debate it with
The Daily Mail.Second, the story reports the facts using descriptive words like "draconian" and "extraordinary," neither one of which are neutral, factual words; they express an opinion regarding the nature of the court's action, and the volume of complaints about that action.
So because Paul lets the
Mail speak for him, and because the
Mail uses hyperbole to make its point, we wind up debating with the
Mail, and pointing out the biases and slant the
Mail uses to state its position.
If you (not you particularly, AB, the generic you) want to have reasoned debate, you have to start by presenting the issue for debate dispassionately. If the issue is presented using language designed to stir people up, you can't get upset when people get stirred up.