This Salon article is fascinating but the use of "radical right-wing" twice in the article and once in the title is self-defeating. It's trendy these days to be as hyperbolic as possible and perhaps it helps attract attention but the article makes clear that the gentlemen at the heart of the story are indeed "radical right-wing"ers. Further, while the use of the term may serve to compel individuals predisposed to dislike Palin to read it it compels others to simply dismiss it as part of the "liberal mainstream media"s agenda.
As a journalism school graduate who has personally witnessed the liberal bias among many of those who aspire to work in media, I'm always shocked at the excesses of supposed responsible, objective journalism. Journalists who have strong political opinions should recognize that they needn't radicalize their stories with unnecessary language. If the story alone doesn't prove their point then they either need to re-examine their beliefs or realize that the story isn't worthy of publication. If it does reinforce their beliefs then they should let the reader come to it on their own. Otherwise the reader already shares that believe or has stopped reading before they get to the nut of the story.