When you hear some pundit say something, unless you have listened to the same pundit for a fair amount of time you have no context. You’ll be better off assuming you have not fully understood what they said.

Penn Jillette illustrates this beautifully in a speech to an atheist audience (source, starts at 24’):

Glenn Beck does four hours of radio then one hour of TV every day.
Now what people do not understand is that if you do talking for a living and you talk for two hours a day in public for two weeks you’ve exhausted every single thing you have to say. And then your career will go on probably another 25 years. In that 25 years you’ll be talking out your ass.
That’s true for Howard Stern, it’s true for Bill Maher, it’s true for everyone that sat in front of a microphone. It’s also true for Glenn Beck.

So Glenn Beck will get himself into convoluted corners, just like Howard Stern does, and I have this strong feeling that anytime you hear something from someone who’s on radio or TV a lot, when you hear what they’ve said it is automatically out of context. I don’t care how long you listen to it, if you listen to a full half hour that’s around that sentence it’s still out of context.

Because what people do (who are on radio/TV a lot, Howard Stern and Glenn Beck are good examples) is that they develop a relationship with their audience that is not purely artistic, it’s not a play, it’s not an essay. It’s a little more of an emotional relationship. It’s a little more like your batshit crazy uncle.

Anything you pull out of there does not include that whole long story of all the favors he did, all the things he said that were right, all the things that touched your heart, all the relationships you have.
So I don’t ever listen to Glenn Beck, and I don’t ever listen to Howard Stern, but I do know that when someone tells me something that they said I just dismiss it instantly, because if I wanna judge what they said I kinda-sorta have to listen for at least a year.

It doesn’t matter if you’ve read their Wikipedia page summary, unless you’ve consumed a fair amount of their content you don’t really know their position.

This might sound like an extreme benefit of doubt for pundits you disagree with, but it’s an equally extreme scrutiny for pundits you agree with.

By doing this you won’t have the knee-jerk reaction of accusing anyone that might be right, nor will you mindlessly forward links around for someone that said something you agree with but might have a dishonorable position.

Unless you’re familiar with a big enough body of work of the person in question you’ll be better off assuming you have no context.