Not limited to reporters

Claudia Rosett:

It’s an old rule of thumb in the reporting trade that when someone answers a good question with a bad attitude (especially someone as seasoned as the chief diplomat of the world), there is probably something there that deserves a closer look.

It's a good rule in any kind of argument or investigation. I've noted a similar hostile response to people who ask why scientists don't talk more about the holes in evolution theory. It seems that scientists should always be openminded, especially when they're probing the fabric of the universe and talking about other dimensions, branes, black holes, etc.

They readily resort to Intelligent Design argument when they claim that some rock found in an archeological site is an "artifact," i.e. a man made tool. Nobody is bothered by that, but to say that nothing found in nature can be said to show engineering or design strikes me as odd, especially when they refer to evolution "designing" things or attributing reasons for a particular structure of function as they do incessantly in science documentaries.

Another example of this phenomenon, rage masking embarrassment or guilt, seems to be the reason why the moonbat left is so full of rage, hatred and profanity toward George Bush and his policies. These people proceed from a lot of a priori assumptions that narrow the rules to help their side. "All wars are evil. For Americans to engage in war is evil, but killing Americans is understandable and excusable. Socialism is the best system. America is cruel and greedy. Conservatives like to see the poor suffer and are cruel, as well as stupid. The debate should focus on these assumptions but the angry left just spout them as though they were obvious. It's easy to argue when you get to pick your own facts. We see the same tropes over and over coming from the left, with never a shred of evidence or proof. Only suspicions and assumptions. Once an accusation is made, it is immediately accepted as proven, without reservations.