" 

 ::::::I see two passages in the article that have a similar problem, namely, stating a fact but in a context that implies a criticism, without attributing the criticism. 
 ::::::*One of them is the one you mention about the allocation of time in the health-care show.  I suggest rewriting it along these lines: ""MMfA criticized Stossel on the ground that he gave nearly four times as much air time to free-market advocates as to supporters of a single-payer system. [citation]"" 
 ::::::*The other is in the ""Awards"" section.  After noting his collection  of Emmys, our article states: ""However, since his economic views have swung towards libertarianism, the stream of awards has dried up.""  As an objective fact, that may well be true, but the selection of that fact clearly implies an opinion.  Maybe the stream dried up since he got married and it's his wife's fault?  We can retain that passage, with proper attribution and citation, if some notable source, similar to MMfA, has said something like, ""The industry is biased against libertarianism, and Stossel's adoption of that POV has caused the industry to shaft him when it comes to awards.""  If we don't have a notable source expressing that opinion, then the statement should be deleted. 
 ::::::Overall, I don't know what you mean about ""context"".  The context is that Stossel continues to generate controversy.  If he stays on the air, we can be confident that, sometime in 2008, he'll air a show that draws a significant amount of flak.  Any such notable controversies that he's involved in belong in the article.  There's no artificial maximum number.  Let's give the readers the information, including the pro-Stossel information that I keep suggesting (fruitlessly, it seems) be developed and added.    "