Obama and the US history of keeping chemical weapons

[Simon_Jester]

Is he saying the Guardian as a whole is reverse Fox News, or that this story is like the mirror image of a Fox News story?

If it's the former, then I have no idea how that would be supported.

If it's the latter, that would be rather easier to support. The main thing you'd need is a well defined list of feature you expect in a Fox News story.

I don't know what that list would be, but I can guess. Say, editorializing under guise of news, attributing evil motives to one's opponents without adequate evidence, identifying changes of position, opinion, or attitude as hypocrisy regardless of context [1], relying on ill-defined and unspecified "experts" [2], reliance on controversial claims to provide support for a position as if they were firm and established facts...

Does the article do those things?
______________

[1] As in "This man was antiwar in the 1970s on Vietnam, opposed invading Iraq in 2003, but supported invading Afghanistan in 2001 after 9/11! He is a hypocrite!"

[2] As in "experts believe that Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions did not end with the destruction of the Osirak reactor, and that he continues to seek nuclear technology to this day." I'm sure you could have found someone legitimately labeled an 'expert' who believed that in 2003, probably even a lot of them. But there's no accountability when the statement is sourced that way, so "experts believe" just becomes a proxy for "I know what I'm talking about, believe me."