I see two passages in the article that have a similar problem namely stating a fact but in a context that implies a criticism without attributing the criticism One of them is the one you mention about the allocation of time in the health care show I suggest rewriting it along these lines MMfA criticized Stossel on the ground that he gave nearly four times as much air time to free market advocates as to supporters of a single payer system citation The other is in the Awards section After noting his collection of Emmys our article states However since his economic views have swung towards libertarianism the stream of awards has dried up As an objective fact that may well be true but the selection of that fact clearly implies an opinion Maybe the stream dried up since he got married and it s his wife s fault We can retain that passage with proper attribution and citation if some notable source similar to MMfA has said something like The industry is biased against libertarianism and Stossel s adoption of that POV has caused the industry to shaft him when it comes to awards If we don t have a notable source expressing that opinion then the statement should be deleted Overall I don t know what you mean about context The context is that Stossel continues to generate controversy If he stays on the air we can be confident that sometime in 2008 he ll air a show that draws a significant amount of flak Any such notable controversies that he s involved in belong in the article There s no artificial maximum number Let s give the readers the information including the pro Stossel information that I keep suggesting fruitlessly it seems be developed and added