[jumhyn]

Honestly, I feel better if an author makes their personal biases known rather than try to conceal them beneath a facially impartial analysis. It naturally invites more scrutiny on the claims being made, but IMO it’s more intellectually honest to invite that scrutiny explicitly. Those with an axe to grind about any given topic who are reasonably rhetorically capable could write an ostensibly nonpartisan account which nonetheless leads readers to the authors preferred conclusion.

[mrkstu]

Maybe it's my time on staff at a college newspaper in the early 90s. Neutral voice reporting was drilled into us pretty mercilessly.

When it is a pretty straightforward recounting of an event, just give me the facts please.

Its his own site, so understandably the editorial voice is his to do what as he wills, but again, in the end I believe it undermines his own credibility with his readership, or at least sprinkle more of the opinionated voice at the beginning so I can read it in that mindset, rather than having to recast my view on the reporting post hoc.

[jumhyn]

Yeah, I suppose I went in primed for a more opinionated style just because of the fact that I was reading an unknown author’s Substack rather than something that purported to be news. I definitely take your point about moving the partisan comments up front.