You can tell a pundit's tribal allegiance by identifying the issues on which they depart from detached rationality and turn into an irrational shouter. Of course, this means it's hard to tell the allegiance of pundits who are just irrational shouters by nature.
This also means that the key to being a truly objective pundit is to have a tribal allegiance that is almost never salient to the issues you write about. Like "furries", or "the city of Yekaterinburg".
The most objective pundits' timelines look like this:
"Actually the $40 trillion is over 10 years"
"That forecast of doom relies on a nonlinear extrapolation"
"Is that a between-country measure or a within-country measure?"
"HOW DARE YOU INSULT YEKATERINBURG!!!!1!!"
"Actually the $40 trillion is over 10 years"
"That forecast of doom relies on a nonlinear extrapolation"
"Is that a between-country measure or a within-country measure?"
"HOW DARE YOU INSULT YEKATERINBURG!!!!1!!"
