I'm just curious: was I the only one annoyed by the author's tone and style? I agree with the sentiment behind the article, but the tone makes it come across as extremely partisan. I like reading news without someone shoving their opinion down my throat, even if I agree with said opinion.
The Telegraph is sometimes colloquially known as the Torygraph. It is indeed decidedly opinionated, in both the opinion it publishes, and the news stories it chooses to cover and the space it gives over to them. It's particularly anti-EU, for example.
But then, news publications have to use some algorithm for story placement, so there's always some kind of bias. A po-faced "objective" newspaper that pretends to no bias at all can be the most insidious.
No, you are not the only one annoyed by the author's tone and style. I find it very tiresome. I also didn't care for his attempt to use a column about internet censorship as a platform for propagandizing about global warming, nor his apparent belief that he and others like him would be the likely targets of censorship (thus limiting his freedom of speech to, er, having a column in a major national newspaper, OH NOES) when historically the people picked on in this way have generally been of quite a different political persuasion.
Which, apparently, cannot be said for the ability to refrain from lashing out with a snarky comment. I specifically said that I agree with the author's opinion and that I was asking out of curiosity whether there were other people who shared my dislike of his tone. Just because you're capable of reaching your destination through a traffic jam, doesn't mean you have to like it.
Partly answering your question, I neither like nor dislike the style. I have learned to ignore it. I perceive no slowdown in parsing an opinionated piece when compared to purely factual reporting. I notice a lower interesting information density, as part of the content is being used by the opinions of the author and are thus discarded and I would prefer a more concise report.
There's nothing wrong with being partisan. In fact, it's wrong to be non-partisan about important issues like freedom. If you're non-partisan about free speech, what are you partisan about? What freedoms would you have to lose to become partisan?
What's there to disagree with? It's one big glittering generality and I wouldn't be at all surprised that the author is grievously misrepresenting the positions of his opponents.
