"Yes," I responded, "but the liberal articles in BuzzFeed are more genuine, more organic, while with the Huffington Post it's as though the liberal slant is part of a blatant editorial policy."

She agreed, conceding that if its content providers were so inclined, she could easily see conservative-oriented articles fitting seamlessly in BuzzFeed, but sticking out like a sore thumb in Huffington Post.

This article isn't meant to discuss the political leanings of media outlets. Rather, it's designed to lament the tendency of certain "researchers" to cast fiduciary issues in terms to support a partisan agenda.

This most famously occurred in the PBS Frontline episode "The Retirement Gamble" when the producer, perhaps unintentionally, presented a one-sided view of things that just so happened to support a particular advocacy group's position on the matter.

Well, what comes around goes around and, by that, I don't mean we now have the "anti" version of that Frontline episode, I mean we have a new set of voices echoing the same sentiments of that Frontline piece (see "Have You Seen this "'Vanity' Paper" Purporting to Solve 401k Fiduciary Issues?" FiduciaryNews.com, September 9, 2014).

Indeed, this is now at least the third time in five years these same "new" ideas have been trotted out (the first being the 2009 Congressional testimony of the people later featured in interviews on the Frontline show).

This endless repetition doesn't upset me, but two separate issues disappoint me.

First, the premises put forth in these efforts general contain some kernels of truth. For example, as a nation, we definitely have the potential problem of a large number of people in future generations without adequate retirement savings. This is generally agreed upon (although the definition of "potential" might garner some debate).

In addition, there's a consensus around the idea that current plan structures favor large firms at the expense of smaller firms. Finally, most people would not argue with the point that, as a nation, individuals can (and should) save more for retirement than they are.

But once we get beyond those points (the "babies," if you will), some insist on introducing a political agenda that muddies the whole argument (i.e., toss the babies into the bath water).

It's one thing for political solutions to arise organically, but too many of the ones being offered seem contrived. Worse, by sometimes stretching the facts to fit the agenda, it damages the credibility of the entire process, including the veracity of those very points everyone agrees on.

The second thing that disappoints me probably doesn't bother the bulk of the readers out there, but I think it's important they know.

As a reporter, nothing delights me more than presenting opposing views – a virtual argument, if you will – on whatever subject I am reporting on. News happens fast and all articles have deadlines (well, perhaps blogs don't, but news sites do).

Sometimes those deadlines make it impossible to get both viewpoints in the same article. That's OK, as there are generally ways to get around that. As an example, earlier this year FiduciaryNews.com ran a story on the controversial Curtis/Ayres paper. Neither Curtis nor Ayres were able to respond prior to the deadline. But Ayres did get back to us (with apologies for his tardiness) and we ran a complete "Exclusive Interview" with him a few weeks later.

This week, again, a different set of authors of a controversial paper failed to get back to us by the deadline. I extended that deadline in hopes I'd get a response in time for this article. I even asked a third party who knows one of the authors and communicates with him regularly to help me connect.

I was genuinely curious to find out if they were aware of the 2009 testimony that had already raised the points their paper repeated in spirit if not more directly. Perhaps they could have told me if they understood just how prevalent auto-enrollment, auto-escalation and single default options are in today's retirement plans.

More importantly, I wanted to know if they explored the concept of the MEP, an alternative that pretty much addresses nearly every issue they brought up.

The fact you don't see their answers at the end of this article tells you the rest of the story.

As a reporter, that disappoints me. As readers, you should be disappointed, too.