Note for MrMobodies:
I wouldn't think you should tear yourself up, about a little glitch.
For what it's worth, I've been trying to set this thread up in a 'Metadata' sense, where (mostly) any actual party, or even the country is discussed free of names or party affiliations. Funny thing, you've just mentioned a situation that relates to the 'metadata' here: Mention was made, perhaps casually, of the 'Political party, of Such & Such Newspaper'.
Interesting (and perplexing) thing to say. My guess is that the Newspaper Enterprise, itself, would never say that. Indeed the opposite, as the usual claim is of being 'unbiased', and, ironically, claiming that the 'other side' is the one that is completely (and unredeemably) biased, politically. In a generic sense, we could start calling (the political parties)
the Apple Party vs. the Fig Party, and then proceed with the discussion, using a more indirect language. Problem is still that (I bet) the whole of the readers is usually going to include some individuals that want to violate forum rules concerning refraining from attacking / confronting other forum participants.
It's important, at least in my own evaluation of all this, important to not forget the denial that occurs, when someone points out the obvious, bias, or worse, when it's stated without any sense of uncertainty.
Somebody says 'Trust me, not him', well that's a red flag right there.
I don't care if that's the 'Apple' party, or the 'Martian' party, that's a red flag right there.
Metadata can suggest results like 'The Apple Party uses unpaid volunteers, mostly.'
That maybe allows discussion, while bypassing offending anyone. In theory.