This one is a double edged sword, it matters not whether any given site has as an agenda, what matters is that the information that comes up is accurate or not. The trap that one "side" easily falls into is determining a news source has it in for "their" guy, and then they discount and rule out everything said as being bogus. That is the difference between being able to differentiate between fact and fiction with an open mind.
Just because someone or an organization has it in for someone doesn't mean that the information portrayed is false or true either. It takes an open minded and inquiring intellect to differentiate between the two.
So what if google has it in? It matters not as long as information sources are given open opportunity to tell it their way. You can get as many positive stories on Santorum written from the supportive side as you see the negative. Generally speaking the negative outweighs any positive because voting for someone who has any critical known negatives is idiotic. To vote for a negative to remove what is deemed to be a worse negative is voting for all the wrong reasons. Positives need to be looked at and carefully weighed before things can possibly head in a positive direction.
The voice of reason
