They shouldn't have to, I wasn't saying they should. I was responding to the comment "
Also, people forget there's like, 10 different people writing for RPS.". I am not asserting a guilt by association argument or demanding a response "for shits an giggles". I am just pointing out my lack of awareness about anything they might have stated or implied in opposition to Walker, which a person could then logically determine whether or not a special consideration should even be applied to any remarks about RPS that notes that not everyone is approving of that specific editorial push. I assume that not everyone fits into the same exact mold as Walker, I don't feel the need to constantly mention that fact whenever a criticism is made about "RPS", because as a whole, that is what is being publicly represented,
AFAIK.
I would think that the usual norm would apply and that editorials would represent the views of a site or news outlet as an institution, as determined through debate/discussion amongst the members of an editorial board/staff.
Condescend away.