Re: first part - Agreed 100%. Often I've said, "Don't get mad at me for pointing out that something happened - it's a fact. Deal with THAT."
Re: second part - That makes sense. I hadn't thought about it that way. And bear in mind, I'm arguing (like you often do) from the standpoint of, "Show me a lack of bias to support your claim that they're unbiased", rather than "They're biased, and here's evidence of that bias." My point is, they DID avoid covering the skeptics' POV. But your argument as to the context makes sense - I can't argue that.
