I think it's naturally easier arguing the pros, rather than the cons, but you can't get at one without pointing out the other.
The presumption of innocence should, in theory, always be the foundation of all the discussions on WS. Once you make that assumption and hold that as a truth, then the actual discussions should be read in that context. He/She is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but look at this... look at that... does this mean this or that?
We don't have all the facts, particularly the crucial ones. Some of what is discussed is cold hard fact, and some is deduction based on those facts. There wouldn't be much discussion if it was all fact.
Poster 1: She gave an interview.
Potster 2: Yup.
Poster 3: Interview confirmed.
Some are comfortable putting their opinions out there to be debated, and some are sensitive. It doesn't make any opinion less valuable. A lot of the disagreement or discomfort is more from how something is read, rather than how it is written. The best way to arrive at an objective viewpoint is to scan a vast horizon. The whys. The what do you thinks. It helps expand that relative perspective.
Poster 1: I don't see DN as BG.
Poster 2: Yup.
Poster 3: Opinion confirmed.
... Or would the discussion be more meaningful if someone asked why DN couldn't be BG?