My patience has been tried for a long time by Guardian's online editorials. Here's the most recent example:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/obama-ignored-syria-rise-of-isis-military-action
Most of the comments hew pretty closely to the central ideology of the editorial - i.e., virulently, religiously anti-Obama and anti-American - but criticize the editorial from the position that the author's arguments are anti-Obama and anti-American in the wrong way rather than having anything fundamentally wrong with the premise. I do notice one comment that rejects the premise, albeit without saying a word about the editorial itself, just responding to another comment.
Some of the commenters also appear to be Assad dictatorship trolls, and are pretty blatant about it, but their comments are left up - same as with Putin trolls in articles about Ukraine. They leave up any level of egregious, heinous shit, but criticisms I tried to post about the editorial itself were quickly and efficiently removed, over and over.
It's really not the way that an organization concerned with journalism would operate a comment section. It is the way that a thoroughly corrupt business would operate a comment section though.
= new reply since forum marked as read
