controversy a litltle balance maybe i'm fully aware that most of the authors of this articles are pro kerry or at least anti bush but should it be quite so obvious to the reader actually the main part of the article while not always completely balanced has a fair amount of give and take attempting to lay out each side's statements and the other's responses it's clear that we have some very different opinions but we're making some good headway here but the controversy section is almost entirely attacks from one side about two dozen sentences the long list of allegedly significant ties and numerous often angry quotes from kerry's team and supporters including many in the media many of which add little or no actual information or argument for their position on the other side we find a few brief bush cheney denials and maybe two quotes fine if you're trying to sound like an la times editorial but i didn't think that's what we were after here and of course there is the insistence that certain responses to charges are not relevant even if these are the actual responses bush et al are making i didn't think it was our job to judge the strength of each side's argument simply to seek to represent it fairly could we afford to shorten and limit the number of quotes that add more heat than light and is it possible to resist the temptation to insist that every statement that might appear more favorable to bush or cheney there are precious few as it is must immediately be countered