The "Truthiness" election-ad fact-check project we’ve been publishing along with Newsdesk.org and Spot.Us is almost done, but suspicion from the public that anyone can remain dispassionate when it comes to politics definitely remains.That sets a high hurdle for a startup journalism project trying to break into coverage of San Francisco in a significant way.Though the series has been covered in a positive light in some corners of the blogosphere, notably in a thoughful column in PBS MediaShift by Mark Glaser and a blog post yesterday at SF Weekly’s Web site by Will Harper, the personal reactions I’ve gotten have been varied.Mostly, questions from several of my liberal friends who’ve gotten caught up in campaign fever swirl around whether the Public Press is taking a "progressive" or otherwise advocacy tone on the San Francisco ballot propositions were scrutinizing. The answer, unequivocally, is no.We’re not shooting for a liberal or conservative bent in our coverage because the principle we’re upholding is good journalism that has no sacred cows. The reason our vision includes fundraising from the public and public-interest foundations, and not income from corporate or political advertising, is that we want to be as free as possible to scrutinize all sides.That point of view didn’t entirely sink in for Harper, or the rude anonymous commenter on his blog post, who accused Newsdesk and the Public Press of being shills for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, which has vociferously advocated for public power and against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for decades now. As I pointed out in a follow-up comment:Yes, we have hired reporters with experience working at the Bay Guardian, but also SF Weekly, the Recorder, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle and other publications.