Media commentators may consider the meaning of the things said in the context and cotext (prevailing discourse at the time), and just like when we decide “is this or that post suitable material for readers and viewers at work?”.
We should be able to decide whether when a journalist from a (reputable) newspaper calls people morons for being left of centre, that maybe that is rude or not neutral; and so to admit to it and issue a tag at the authoring or editing phase.
This way, people who do not want the aggression of those ‘playing the man not the ball’ can avoid the uglier side of newspaper-pundits, politics and pap.
Logically extensible, should we not also- like the censors, earmark a film that contains, say, “strong language” or “mature concepts” – and have journos rate their own work? We could let the viewers or listeners decide whether they are going to read it at all, and if so how close? ie. is the rating is close to the mutually agreed meaning.
Opinionists, Politicos and Journos everywhere should self regulate along the lines of these earmarks with meaningful titles such as “contains personal name calling”, or say, like this paragraph you are reading of mine, “50% opinion”, ie. unsupported by references which the reader can link to, to check the validity or selectivity of the reference used. After all the ‘worm’ during debates, the Facebook ‘thumb’, and ‘+1s’ of Google have been thoroughly absorbed into the linguistic framework of assessment and criticism of those seeking feedback.