As I've dug out of various RSS feeds getting back, one of the ones that amused me was the discussion about Walmart attempting to put their own spin on the Walmart page at Wikipedia. This has led to "neutral point of view" arguments going back and forth. Discussions about the left media versus the right. I've seen this argument on various portals a lot in the last couple of years.

The thing that always amuses me about these discussions is the naive thesis that "if people would just tell the facts." There's this notion that there's people who stick to the facts, and then those that spend a lot of time spewing opinionated vitrol, sprinkled with a little bit of "fact."

The fact about facts (the MetaFact even) is that they're amoral. One still has to make a value judgement on how important, or relevant, any fact is, in any discussion. Two people can talk about the same issue, both can use facts, but present two apparent different points of view. It's all about what order they're presented in, which are omitted, which aren't. In the end, there's no hiding behind the facts, we all still have to have an opinion.