Saw a series of articles saying how great Barr dropping the Flynn case was, & a series saying what an utter, corrupt catastrophe it was.
Decided to give each side a chance, read articles on both sides - only the pro-Barr articles had any actual arguments based on legal reasoning

The anti-Barr arguments were all just harangues (e.g. the NYT editorial) that did not address any of Barr's legal claims.
This does not surprise me, but it's always good to test our assumptions once in a while.