Decision 2012
Quote: Beethoven9thBut seriously, why are you even bringing up the Fairness Doctrine out of the blue?
You're complaining the media is not objective. That's about fairness, isn't it?
Quote: rxwineYou seem worried that broadcasters dictate the reportage as they see fit. That's perfect for bringing up the Fairness Doctrine. It's so related, it's almost the same thing, in fact.
Like I said earlier in this thread, you like going off on complete tangents. I never brought up the Fairness Doctrine, and I don't support the Fairness Doctrine at all. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
OTOH, I did bring up the fact that the media ran stories about how Kerry was smarter than Bush, yet they rarely mentioned the fact that Bush got better grades in college. Now I attribute this discrepancy to media bias (however big or small), yet 24Bingo defends the media and claims that college grades are ethically dissimilar to.....well, whatever the hell he believes. *headshake*
I also mentioned that the media always highlights the fact the gay Catholic child molesters are Catholic, yet they never highlight the fact that gay Catholic child molesters are gay. But once more, 24Bingo defended the actions of the media and claimed that being gay and being Catholic are ethically dissimilar (his term, not mine); therefore, the media is justified in ignoring the fact that gay Catholic molesters are gay. *facepalm, headshake, looks up, looks back down, another facepalm & headshake*
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't know why you keep talking about it.*
Right. YOU don't know why. LOL.
Quote: rxwineRight. YOU don't know why. LOL.
...hardy har har.
Typical liberal response, so it shouldn't surprise me that you ignored the rest of that post. You obviously like participating in this thread, so can you address my points this time?
Quote: rxwineYou seem worried that broadcasters dictate the reportage as they see fit. That's perfect for bringing up the Fairness Doctrine. It's so related, it's almost the same thing, in fact.
That was my response, I sure don't withdraw it. Nor did I make a mistake. Nor am I reconsidering.
The news companies could start by making sure that their staffs are as diverse politically and socially as they are ethnically and sexually. They have been and remain scandalously lopsided in their coverage and views. The explosive popularity of Fox News Channel is a wake-up call to an entire industry.Quote: rxwineHow would we get objective coverage? People have a hard time seeing their own bias generally. You usually have to subject them to tests to show them what they didn't notice. As I said, I think more people should get their say. I'd never vote for Ron/Rand Paul but would like to see more viewpoints get more coverage.
Quote: rxwineThat was my response
No, this point:
You brought up the Fairness Doctrine in response to this.Quote: Beethoven9thOTOH, I did bring up the fact that the media ran stories about how Kerry was smarter than Bush, yet they rarely mentioned the fact that Bush got better grades in college. Now I attribute this discrepancy to media bias (however big or small), yet 24Bingo defends the media and claims that college grades are ethically dissimilar to.....well, whatever the hell he believes. *headshake*
I also mentioned that the media always highlights the fact the gay Catholic child molesters are Catholic, yet they never highlight the fact that gay Catholic child molesters are gay. But once more, 24Bingo defended the actions of the media and claimed that being gay and being Catholic are ethically dissimilar (his term, not mine); therefore, the media is justified in ignoring the fact that gay Catholic molesters are gay.
I don't agree it was off point, but you still don't need to answer it, instead you conveniently pull that card out when it suits you to do so, which is now.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe news companies could start by making sure that their staffs are as diverse politically and socially as they are ethnically and sexually. They have been and remain scandalously lopsided in their coverage and views. The explosive popularity of Fox News Channel is a wake-up call to an entire industry.
facepalm
Wow, so I cordially address you, but now you're telling me I should have just rudely ignored you instead? WOW...Quote: rxwineIf you don't like anyone's response as off point, don't start answering it if it's off point unless you want a response to it.
Quote: Beethoven9thWow, so I cordially address you, but now you're telling me I should have just rudely ignored you instead? WOW...
WWJD?
But I ain't him. It's what I'd do, anyway. (when inclined)
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's funny. So basically, your view is that the media should only report what you feel they should. In other words, the media should report that Kerry is smarter than Bush because 24Bingo feels that's fair. But they shouldn't report about Bush's superior performance in college because 24Bingo feels that's out of line. Scary.
Stop the cherry picking. Let the people decide for themselves which stories are important, not you.
Well, lookie lookie, someone's been doing it without me. I must be psychic.
These stories are non-starters for the reasons I and others, including some ardent Obama critics, have been outlining in this thread, not because of some ridiculous partisan bias. Objectivity doesn't mean equal coverage of ridiculous stories just because you don't have any dirt on one side (incidentally, something you seem to be tacitly asserting by bringing up this bull and admitting it's bull). While Obama's "brother" bears some coverage (about the amount he got), I don't know how many people one could find to disagree with the following statements:
-Comparing the intellects of men in their fifties and sixties by their college grades is ridiculous.
-Regardless of what you believe the moral value of a fetus is, that abortion doctors perform abortions is not news.
-In a story that's primarily about a coverup, however salacious what's being covered up, there should be some time spent on the people doing the covering up.
This next one many would disagree with, but it's an objective matter, and all evidence suggests they're wrong:
-Attraction to prepubescent boys has jack-all to do with sexual preference in adult partners.
Quote: Beethoven9thFirst off, saying that it helped Reagan is just more liberal propaganda. But, for the sake of argument, let's just say it's true. Reagan STILL opposed it. Did you notice Reagan wasn't a liberal?
If anything, it's conservative propaganda. Reagan made something of a show about the fact that the fairness doctrine had been helping him.
Also, how did you come to this obsession with the phrase "ethically dissimilar"? I used it once to describe two "scandals" that were, well, ethically dissimilar, and since then you've been using it to paraphrase every time I've pointed out what was wrong with your, frankly, flippin' bizarre equivalences, as this smurf-like placeholder for whatever you've opted to ignore. Have you never encountered these words before? Is that it? Because they seem like fairly common words to me, and the construction of adverb + adjective does not seem like it should change their everyday meanings all that much. Is there just some resonance to them that's stuck in your mind? I'm not even joking, I'm just really not sure what to make of this fixation.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe news companies could start by making sure that their staffs are as diverse politically and socially as they are ethnically and sexually. They have been and remain scandalously lopsided in their coverage and views. The explosive popularity of Fox News Channel is a wake-up call to an entire industry.
Won't happen, they will keep putting out the same slanted coverage until there are so few viewers that one of the big 3 networks has to abandon news coverage altogether.
The Fairness Doctrine is a silly idea. The whole premise is that the stations are "given" the airwaves so should serve the public interest. "Given" as if they do not have to pay for the license; pay for the broadcast talent; pay for the cost to transmit; and hustle to sell advertising on what they put on to cover it all.
Quote: 24BingoWhile Obama's "brother" bears some coverage (about the amount he got), I don't know how many people one could find to disagree with the following statements:
-Comparing the intellects of men in their fifties and sixties by their college grades is ridiculous.
Their intellects, based on college, was discussed. Well, it was until they figured out that Bush did have higher grades.
Does it really matter? Not their grades, of course. Just the minor fact that the press talked about how much smarter certain candidates were based on the colleges they went to and then dropped the story when Bush's grades in college were higher. They used the college argument until it was proven wrong. Bush didn't bring his grades up, the press did.
Quote: 24Bingo-Regardless of what you believe the moral value of a fetus is, that abortion doctors perform abortions is not news.
Goznell is not simply an abortion doctor. He is an abortion doctor who routinely violated the laws and did unethical things. huge difference, and a story that should have had more coverage.
Quote: 24Bingo-In a story that's primarily about a coverup, however salacious what's being covered up, there should be some time spent on the people doing the covering up.
The story should include the people doing the cover-up and finding out how far it reaches. There is a story out that the a person in one position in the IRS visited the White House 60 times while the person in the same position under Bush only went once in the same amount of time. Interesting? Yes. Meaningful? Who knows. Someone needs to find out if the story is true and dig more into this. Maybe he had a friend there and never saw the President. Maybe more. We won't know unless people dig.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Fairness Doctrine is a silly idea. The whole premise is that the stations are "given" the airwaves so should serve the public interest. "Given" as if they do not have to pay for the license; pay for the broadcast talent; pay for the cost to transmit; and hustle to sell advertising on what they put on to cover it all.
The premise was the electorate is shortchanged when it is served by too few big interests. It may be less relevant with more sources of news now, but it was never silly.
Silly is unwavering support of free markets and then complaining about what it served up for years -- slanted news (according to conservatives).
This statement proves that you would rather just argue for the sake of arguing. Please google "kermit gosnell". The fact that you don't know who he is shows that there is some degree of bias in our news coverage.Quote: 24Bingo-Regardless of what you believe the moral value of a fetus is, that abortion doctors perform abortions is not news.
Oops...my bad. No media bias. The media has given less coverage to Gosnell because his story is ethically dissimilar [your term, not mine] to the Eric Rudolph story. (An explanation that makes no sense at all, but whatever)
You know, you never did answer my question. Let's say that the presidents of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX held a joint news conference and said, "We are going to suspend all coverage of the Benghazi and IRS scandals because they are ethically dissimilar to Watergate."Quote: 24Bingo-In a story that's primarily about a coverup, however salacious what's being covered up, there should be some time spent on the people doing the covering up.
Based on what you've said earlier in this thread, you'd support this action, right?
Ah, so I was right.Quote: 24Bingo-Attraction to prepubescent boys has jack-all to do with sexual preference in adult partners.
So let me get this straight. Fact: The media always plays up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are gay. And there are two explanations:
(1) Beethoven9th: The discrepancy in news coverage can be attributed to some degree of media bias.
(2) 24Bingo: No media bias. The media is justified for this discrepancy because being gay is ethically dissimilar to being Catholic.
People can judge for themselves which explanation is more logical.
Because, frankly, it's a stupid term that was used by somebody who wanted to sound intellectual.Quote:Also, how did you come to this obsession with the phrase "ethically dissimilar"?
But anyway, please answer my question this time. Let's say that the presidents of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX held a joint news conference and said, "We are going to suspend all coverage of the Benghazi and IRS scandals because they are ethically dissimilar [or whatever term you want to use next] to Watergate."
Would that show any bias to you?
+1Quote: RonCJust the minor fact that the press talked about how much smarter certain candidates were based on the colleges they went to and then dropped the story when Bush's grades in college were higher. They used the college argument until it was proven wrong. Bush didn't bring his grades up, the press did.
+1Quote: RonCGoznell is not simply an abortion doctor. He is an abortion doctor who routinely violated the laws and did unethical things. huge difference, and a story that should have had more coverage.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo let me get this straight. Fact: The media always plays up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are gay. And there are two explanations:
Don't respond unless you want a response. ; )
There are more than two explanations.
One has to do with catholic churches systemic problem of ignoring or dealing with kid gloves (pun intentional) of abuse across its network of church affiliations.
It's the same reason to point out as the press is currently doing that the military has a problem with rape, and mentioning it's the "military. It's not isolated.
Also, the sex preference of most child offenders is usually not needed to be pointed out. We just look at the sex of the child the person prefers. Why would you need to bring up gay or heterosexual at all, unless you're doing a survey or study.
Quote: rxwineDon't respond unless you want a response. ; )
Since you missed the overall point, I won't. ;)
Quote: rxwineThe premise was the electorate is shortchanged when it is served by too few big interests. It may be less relevant with more sources of news now, but it was never silly.
Silly is unwavering support of free markets and then complaining about what it served up for years -- slanted news (according to conservatives).
Forcing a news outlet to cover something their viewers do not care to watch is silly. It would be as if hey required CBS to cover the women's bb tourney as prominent as the men's despite the later commanding 100 times the viewer interest.
As for what the free market delivers, the fair and balanced channel is knocking the crap out if the biased channels. No fairness doctrine needed, FNC shows if you put out balance on your own it attracts viewers.
Quote: AZDuffmanFNC shows if you put out balance on your own it attracts viewers.
That's so true. What I find amazing is that I can list 100 examples of media bias, yet there are guys like.....well, I'd better not mention any names.....but there are certain people here who (instead of admitting media bias) would rather give 100 different excuses as to why the examples aren't bias at all.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs for what the free market delivers, the fair and balanced channel is knocking the crap out if the biased channels. No fairness doctrine needed, FNC shows if you put out balance on your own it attracts viewers.
It's good to hear there is no real news bias as FOX is on the job. And unless you can't get the channel you've got no real complaints.
Typical conservative blather about bias should go unheeded. No story here, as usual.
I am in a good mood now.
If you can cite bias in straight news programs like Bret Baier or Shep Smith's, this would be a suitable juncture to do so. Please do not say that programs like O'Reilly or Hannitay's are "news" per se. That would require calling MSNBC a legitimate straight news channel, and virtually no one could point to a single example of that.Quote: rxwineIt's good to hear there is no real news bias as FOX is on the job. And unless you can't get the channel you've got no real complaints. Typical conservative blather about bias should go unheeded. No story here, as usual.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf you can cite bias in straight news programs like Bret Baier or Shep Smith's, this would be a suitable juncture to do so. Please do not say that programs like O'Reilly or Hannitay's are "news" per se. That would require calling MSNBC a legitimate straight news channel, and virtually no one could point to a single example of that.
I doubt a lib would take you up on that. I can point out that CBS hurried The Monica story and outright made up fake docs on Bush. That journalists were caught conspiring to kill the Rev Wright story. But when it comes to FNC they cry that Hannity is a conservative show, though it never tries to hide that and when news breaks they break from the opinion shows clearly.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf you can cite bias in straight news programs like Bret Baier or Shep Smith's, this would be a suitable juncture to do so.t.
Quote:Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. media empire is in the midst of its biggest scandal ever, involving illegal phone-hacking in the U.K., alleged police bribery, potentially endangering the royal family, and other morsels irresistible to most media organizations. News Corp.'s stock has tanked, and Murdoch has given up his bid to take over British cash-cow broadcaster BSkyB. And yet, the scandal is not headline news at some of News Corp.'s prominent media outlets, including the New York Post and Fox News.
Do I win any anything?
here
Quote: Beethoven9thHe cites one example from 3 years ago, yet he pooh-poohs a boatload of current examples. LOL
If they did report on their own orginazation they would whine about it being their own organization.
I'm waiting for them to use the example of FNC hurrying the GW DUI story in 2000.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf they did report on their own orginazation they would whine about it being their own organization.
You know, that's a damn good point. I didn't even think about it that way.
I love how the libs deny media bias. If I posted 100 instances of pro-liberal/anti-conservative bias, I would surely get 100 responses like: "The media was justified in ignoring [insert anti-Obama story here] because...............blah, blah, blah.
More eyeballs reading or watching their stories, more advertisers.
Thats the bottom line, not honesty, not unbiased, its eyeballs period.
Now they also realize that dishonesty, huge biases may mean less eyeballs but thats it. Its a business. Its hard to believe that the right , so pro-business, doesn't treat the News business as a business.
Now I hear alot of whining on the Right about Obama.
What is exactly the Right doing to make sure they can win presidency in 2016, absolutely nothing.
In fact Rubio is actually backing out of his own Immigration proposals due to attacks on him from his own party.
Looks like a landslide for Demos in 2016 for President. The hispanic vote is growing, Republicans old white voters are dying off with nobody to replace them.
Cmon right, do something to get votes or be a small southern regional party.
However, here Fox news has an interesting way to present its headlines. In effect, it's about Obama's glass is half-empty, never half full. (metaphor)
Several examples here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines
Quote: rxwineWell I met the challenge as presented.
However, here Fox news has an interesting way to present its headlines. In effect, it's about Obama's glass is half-empty, never half full. (metaphor)
Several examples here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines
Romney: I do not believe in mandating free birth control
Obama: Romney has declared a war on women!
Sorry, Obama does not get my sympathy because one outlet doesn't act like his poodle
And we all have heard the boilerplate lame stream media headline:
"NASA predicts world to end tomorrow, women and minorities to be hardest hit"
Quote: rxwineWell I met the challenge as presented.
However, here Fox news has an interesting way to present its headlines. In effect, it's about Obama's glass is half-empty, never half full. (metaphor)
Several examples here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines
Can you please tell us who decided what the "actual news headlines" were and why the FNC headlines were not "actual news"????
Quote: timberjimCan you please tell us who decided what the "actual news headlines" were and why the FNC headlines were not "actual news"????
I have nothing to do with that site. But regardless of the labeling "actual news" it still shows how Fox has taken a definite slant when it comes to certain non-conservative news.
Someone asked if Fox was slanted like the rest. That's all I aim to show. Perhaps they are better than the rest, but not slanted, --- that's a stretch.
Is this who decided that FNC did not have actual news headlines?
Quote: timberjimI never heard of buzzfeed, but a quick search showed me what I needed to know. I suggest others do their own research on buzzfeed and draw their own conclusions on whether or not it is an "actual" news source that presents an unbiased news.
Is this who decided that FNC did not have actual news headlines?
Well, I could be wrong. But unless those pics are all photoshopped, those are copied from Fox news.
If you choose to interpret as unbiased reporting, that's par for the course around here.
Quote: timberjimIs this who decided that FNC did not have actual news headlines?
According to some people here, there is no liberal bias in the media. Only conservative bias (i.e. Fox News). lol
One must recognize the source of what they read/hear/watch before making any judgements. It's easy to recognize bias in news reporting because it is obvious when someone is stating an opinion over a fact, but one's critical ear must be open to recognize the difference between the two.
In fact, when the first opinion is uttered, it justs destroys the credibility of the source, because it is no longer news. In some ways I don't mind FoxNews because clearly, about 1/2 of its broadcasts are opinion shows and not news broadcasts. Hannity and Bill O'Reiley are not journalists. But when you put opinion shows on a "News Channel", it tarnishes the credibility of the entire network. I feel the same way about CNN as well. Each source must be taken with a grain of salt. The CBC here in Canada is biased left.
If a news story does interest me, it's a matter of me actually going beneath the news to the source to figure out what is true and what is not. Of course, it becomes more insiduous when the fourth estate ignores a matter entirely.
Quote: rxwineWell, I could be wrong. But unless those pics are all photoshopped, those are copied from Fox news.
If you choose to interpret as unbiased reporting, that's par for the course around here.
I simply want to know who decided that the FNC headlines were not "actual news headlines"? I cannot state it more simply than that.
You made the declaration that FNC provided biased headlines that were not "actual" which in my book means false. You provided buzzfeed as your source.
If you are unable to answer the question, that's par for the course around here too.
Quote: Beethoven9thThis statement proves that you would rather just argue for the sake of arguing. Please google "kermit gosnell". The fact that you don't know who he is shows that there is some degree of bias in our news coverage.
Oops...my bad. No media bias. The media has given less coverage to Gosnell because his story is smurfy [your term, not mine] to the Eric Rudolph story. (An explanation that makes no sense at all, but whatever)
I knew the story, but I'd forgotten the name. After the rest of that list, I'd assumed you were talking about someone injured in the bombings. I might say the two stories differ, because such overt, striking violence as bombings, especially when political, does get more coverage, plus the manhunt afterwards dragged it out over time. I wouldn't call it necessarily evidence of media violence, especially since that case did get a fair amount of coverage.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou know, you never did answer my question. Let's say that the presidents of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX held a joint news conference and said, "We are going to suspend all coverage of the Benghazi and IRS scandals because they are smurfy to Watergate."
Based on what you've said earlier in this thread, you'd support this action, right?
I didn't answer it because it's a damned stupid question and you know it.
Quote: Beethoven9thAh, so I was right.
So let me get this straight. Fact: The media always plays up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are gay. And there are two explanations:
(1) Beethoven9th: The discrepancy in news coverage can be attributed to some degree of media bias.
(2) 24Bingo: No media bias. The media is justified for this discrepancy because being gay is smurfy to being Catholic.
People can judge for themselves which explanation is more logical.
Pure goddamn lead solder.
The media is justified for this discrepancy because:
1. Most people who study such things would not consider them gay.
2. The point has never been that priests are molesting children - any kind of authority, some percentage are going to abuse it - but that the church opted to keep it an internal matter. Therefore, it's the church that becomes the focus of the story.
Of course, I'm sure the same subroutine that caused you to be unable to parse a two-word phrase will filter that into the sentence "gays and Catholics are smurfy!" so I'll just take that to mean this from now on, rather than explain it again.
Quote: Beethoven9thBecause frankly, it's a stupid term that was used by somebody who wanted to sound intellectual.
Ah, so seeing two four-syllable words, even such completely everyday, unpretentious words as "ethically" and "dissimilar," next to each other set off emergency shutdown in your reading comprehension, becomiing a placeholder. So sorry.
Quote: Beethoven9thBut anyway, please answer my question this time. Let's say that the presidents of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX held a joint news conference and said, "We are going to suspend all coverage of the Benghazi and IRS scandals because they are smurfy [or whatever term you want to use next] to Watergate."
Would that show any bias to you?
Fine, no. The media shouldn't cover any scandal but Watergate. In fact, there should be no sports, or human interest, or financial news, or even entertainment programming, just an endless loop of All the President's Men on every channel.
Quote: timberjim
You made the declaration that FNC provided biased headlines that were not "actual" which in my book means false. You provided buzzfeed as your source.
.
You're confusing the author of the page with me. There's nothing to prove to you. I didn't write the page. yes, I did link to it. What's the problem?
Quote: rxwineYou're confusing the author of the page with me. There's nothing to prove to you. I didn't write the page. yes, I did link to it. What's the problem?
No problem. I accept that you are unable to prove your assertion.
Quote: timberjimNo problem. I accept that you are unable to prove your assertion.
Quote me then. You've already made a false statement as exactly what I said.
Quote: rxwineQuote me then. You've already made a false statement as exactly what I said.
I already did and then asked you to back it up. Still waiting.
What false statement did I make? Quote me then.
You had said: "...that abortion doctors perform abortions is not news."Quote: 24BingoI knew the story, but I'd forgotten the name.
Be honest. You didn't know about the Gosnell story.
Thanks for doubling down on your belief in #2.Quote: Beethoven9thSo let me get this straight. Fact: The media always plays up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that gay Catholic molesters are gay. And there are two explanations:
(1) Beethoven9th: The discrepancy in news coverage can be attributed to some degree of media bias.
(2) 24Bingo: No media bias. The media is justified for this discrepancy because being gay is ethically dissimilar to being Catholic.
People can judge for themselves which explanation is more logical.Quote: 24BingoPure goddamn lead solder.
The media is justified for this discrepancy...
Like I said before, people can decide for themselves which of our explanations is more logical.
Calm down. Remember, those were your words, not mine.Quote: 24BingoAh, so seeing two four-syllable words, even such completely everyday, unpretentious words as "ethically" and "dissimilar," next to each other set off emergency shutdown in your reading comprehension, becomiing [sic] a placeholder. So sorry.
Thanks, that says it all.Quote: 24BingoFine, no.Quote: Beethoven9thBut anyway, please answer my question this time. Let's say that the presidents of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX held a joint news conference and said, "We are going to suspend all coverage of the Benghazi and IRS scandals because they are ethically dissimilar [or whatever term you want to use next] to Watergate."
Would that show any bias to you?
Quote: boymimboOf course there is bias in the media, be it liberal (MSNBC) or conservative (Fox). However, the viewership of either is quite small compared to those who are still watching network and local newscasts. Newspapers are also guilty of slanting towards the views of its ownership.
One must recognize the source of what they read/hear/watch before making any judgements. It's easy to recognize bias in news reporting because it is obvious when someone is stating an opinion over a fact, but one's critical ear must be open to recognize the difference between the two.
In fact, when the first opinion is uttered, it justs destroys the credibility of the source, because it is no longer news. In some ways I don't mind FoxNews because clearly, about 1/2 of its broadcasts are opinion shows and not news broadcasts. Hannity and Bill O'Reiley are not journalists. But when you put opinion shows on a "News Channel", it tarnishes the credibility of the entire network. I feel the same way about CNN as well. Each source must be taken with a grain of salt. The CBC here in Canada is biased left.
If a news story does interest me, it's a matter of me actually going beneath the news to the source to figure out what is true and what is not. Of course, it becomes more insiduous when the fourth estate ignores a matter entirely.
News outlets have opinion pieces from the editorial pages to Hannity. The difference is when you report NEWS with bias, as in CBS making up the NG story on Bush
