I often end up playing devil's advocate when talk turns to politics. The usual reason is that the people I hang out with tend to be relatively left leaning politically but they sometimes end up supporting people and ideas that conform to their ideology without being critical of the specifics. I lean pretty strongly to the left myself on most political topics but I end up being frustrated by people's unwillingness to seek truth over success and I end up arguing against people who in theory are on my side.
I think the most obvious example is Fox News vs. Michael Moore. Fox presents an outrageously warped view of the news slanted to the right. It supports strong military, 'family values', punishment based criminal strategies and unrestricted free market capitalism among other right wing values. I don't like the values Fox News tries to support by and large, which isn't surprising since I find the right in the US to be not at all consistent with my views. Sometimes people end up being really angry at the things that right wing pundits like Fox News or Anne Coulter say and go on rants about how bad the right is and how they wreck everything. This is often accompanied by the assertion that on the left people don't do this sort of thing and bemoaning the lack of morals of those on the right.
While I don't agree with Fox News' interpretation of events I don't agree with Michael Moore's either, and I think that he presents just as ridiculous and warped a viewpoint. The big difference is that Michael Moore holds many viewpoints in common with me as we are 'on the same team'. That doesn't change the fact that his tactics are no less outrageous and his arguments no less reasoned that pundits on the other side of the fence - watch his videos carefully looking for emotional exhortation in lieu of fact reporting and you will see what I mean.
I regularly end up defending Fox News not on the basis that they are right, but rather on the basis that they aren't actually any worse morally than pundits on the other side. It is all too easy to ascribe people disagreeing with you to a lack of morals instead of admitting that the issues are complicated and people genuinely do have different goals and beliefs. When summarizing a vast landscape of organizations, people and ideas it is very common to use broad moral statements to describe them but this is one of the surest signs of falsehood. Summaries of political ideologies that include "is extremely complicated and intricate" and "it is difficult to be certain that" tend to win my support while "everyone who believes X does Y" statements can pretty much invalidate an idea on their own.
It is important to discuss issues and to expose agitators and charlatans with political agendas for what they are. Noticing that a particular source of information is incredibly biased to the point of being useless is good but we must be careful not to paint everyone on a side with the same brush. Just because someone agrees with many of your political views does not mean they are somehow more moral, nor does disagreeing with you imply immorality. While it does require more effort it is critical to the establishment and maintenance of dialogue and compromise that we consider those who disagree with us mistaken rather than evil - until they have earned that moniker with individual actions, of course.