I'm actually a former military intel person. Most of the stuff we dealt with was factual evidence -- there are 50 tanks that moved to the border since yesterday.

But without the human intelligence from the foriegn government we had no idea whether it was a valid threat, or just trying to get attention (saber rattling) to enforce a position in negotiations.

But historically, especially dealing with foriegn languages, sometimes the data collectors can talk past each other because of subtle cultural and language differentials.

When dealing even in just U.S. politics and law you end up with a difference in viewing the same data, even before the filters that are done in by anyone. An example is the Martin/Zimmerman case. (Please do not post either side's views or argue it here. I'm just using it as a recent example.) If you look at the facts provided to the jury and the facts that the media filtered through you get different pictures.

Sandy Hook and the anti-gun media has done the same thing.

But I have seen it from both sides of the media.

Facts and opinion don't always agree.