[Deb]

No, taking a benign fact, twisting it and implying he did something dishonest or unethical...is taking a cheap shot and throwing dirt.

[fightinJAG]

So what you are saying is if you disagree with the author’s analysis and conclusion, his analysis and conclusion is a cheap shot and throwing dirt.

Can’t it just be a difference of opinion?

All “benign facts” (a sort of LOL term in the world of politics, to be sure) are subject to the whole spectrum of interpretations.

If you disagree with an interpretation, say so. But if the facts are what the facts are, the author has done nothing wrong.

[fightinJAG]

Okay, let's talk about what the article actually says. Where, specifically, does it "twist facts" or "imply" (as opposed to report "allegations" and the rejoinder from the campaign] that Gingrich "did something dishonest or unethical"?

For example, the headline:

Gingrich cashed in supporting subsidies for big business

Is that factual?

Does that headline in your mind "imply something dishonest or unethical"? If so, how are the author's words responsible for your reaction?