re: #87 Buck

Let us change that hypothetical analogy, just slightly:

A website that constantly calls Jews living in parts of Israel “illegal”.
A website that constantly refers to Israel as apartheid.
A website that uses the common anti semitic dog whistle that the Jewish Lobby controls congress….

Hateful, vile and indefensible, as I’m sure we will all agree.

No wait, we don’t agree on that do we?

Oh well.

Ooh, that’s a first! I’m insufficiently pro-Israel now? Well, that’s gotta be a first for me. Swing and miss, Buck.
Oh and you know what? let’s agree on that, too. Now point me towards such a site being used as a source here - I don’t see it.
You do see a difference between a site providing a forum for discussion between several viewpoints which might not necessarily be it’s own (almost like the comments here, for example) and an ‘institute’ consistently pushing one and the same vile agenda, right?

re: #88 Buck

Or he doesn’t have to agree with everything the editors, or other writers have written in order to get his own views published.

He doesn’t have to agree with them on everything, and they don’t have to agree with him on everything.

That would probably be the most charitable way imaginable, and the simplest explanation.

Again, his writing, experience and background should cover this.

Ah. Let’s go with your little scaretale again - assume that violently antisemitic website has some mainstream cred (somehow) yet still keeps consistently pushing said agenda.
Now let’s assume, say oh I don’t know, Rachel Maddow for example, were to write a (much more reasonable) column on that site. Or some news article - doesn’t really matter. Just one. One freaking article, one time - as opposed to >100 over the course of four years. What would your response be? “Oh well, let’s trust her whole record and not make a fuss of this”? I rather doubt it.
(For the record: I’d probably be in on the very first anti-maddow crusade I could find were that to happen and really, I don’t like her to begin with - just so you don’t find some irrelevant tangent to go off on again…)