IMO though a lot of that comes down straight to perspective. To be honest, a lot of people probably wouldn't have those thoughts when they see the news. And a lot of it, of course, also comes to what people take from it and what they feel is implied.

And to be fair, I think there are a ton of omissions in news no matter the topic. A lot of stories have tidbits omitted that may have been important.

One is often told to tell the story and leave out the side stuff. If i were to write a story about why a French bard named Fasol is a moron, I won't need to write about him being Karn, just say why. ;) ;)

This is funny, americans seem to see CNN as too left? from my point of view most american newsstations ar a bit right, FOX is so far right that it hurts...

Especially after 911 and during the preperations for the war most newsstations were pretty hawkish and followed the "patriotic pull"

Yes, part of the problem is that much of mainstream news has been turned into headlines with accompanying five second soundbites, but I think that there is a genuine bias against legal gun ownership. Whether this is because of a fear to acknowledge that guns are often used in self-defense and do have a place as a means of self-defense, or whether it is a small part in a grand conspiracy to turn the US into socialist Europe's bestfriend depends on how much tinfoil one has laying about.

hahaha, who are you? :D

I agree.

I live in minnesota and i was always under the impression from the story that the auto mechanics who captured the kid were packing. Obviously they were legally carrying, otherwise they would have been arrested along with the kid. In fact, i remember at least one follow-up bio on the guy who owned the auto shop. It was all very positive. This in the "liberal" star tribune. I don't know how you think it was never mentioned.


Back to the main point:
I think that it is very shortsighted to get your news from someone who is trying to sell you things. Cable news, as it exists in america today, is a mechanism who finds much of its purpose in trying to sell you things. Or, more accurately, selling ad space to people who want to sell you things. If they can get away with informing you about the goings on in the world and sell you things, well, good for them. But when push comes to shove they won't let the rape of journalistic integrity get in the way of commerce. All they need is to be percieved as relatively objective and the majority stays happy.

This is further complicated by the fact that news, by its very nature, is a subjective beast. To complain of bias in something that is inherently biased is like complaining about rain being wet.

In other news, complaining about bias as if it only exists in opposition to your perspective is fucking silly.

Good points here. Sometimes I feel like the best information comes out of the op/ed section of major papers. The writers feel some pressure to be truthful, but their bias is out in the open. I especially watch the intelligent ones who piss me off the most, like Eric Alterman - then I follow up on what he says. You can learn a lot that way, and sometimes you'll even change your mind.

Today Democracy Now! interviewed the director of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" and played a bunch of clips from the film. The "Kerry is French" clip was hilarious. :lol:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../07/16/1442221

*edit to add*: He was also interviewed this week on CounterSpin.

I agree, then you at least know the direction the author is leaning.

What ever happened to showing the news as it happening? No, now they must have 2 men and a women sitting around a table talking and giving thier spin on the news.
Just show the building blowing up, don't sit there wondering why the building was blown up, who blew it up and why. Who cares, it was blown up. Let the viewer decide the who and why.

MoveOn has now filed a complaint with the FTC and started a petition. :)

http://www.moveon.org/fox/

No one watches C-Span? Nothing better than hearing it strait from the person saying it. Hardly ever is time spent on personal views. I happen to like it.

actually, i've grown to really enjoy Cspan. sometimes, they have some great debates, and sometimes, you get to see cheney drop the F bomb....


goodshit.

When I get my news fix from TV (which is very, very rare; I prefer the internet and sites like http://news.google.com), it's usually from C-SPAN. I might waitch Faux News, More Shit Now BroadCast, or Communist News Network, but I do my best to tune out everything but the facts presented. I can't stand stuff like Bill O'Reilly.

Honestly Fox News drives me insane with some of their statements. Any network that calls themselves "fair and balanced" or "the most powerful name in news" is just begging for attention. I'm also reminded of my favorite quote from a Fox News correspondant.

In regards to the sarin gas artillery shell found a few weeks back...

I lost my faith in humanity at about that time.

Since i stopped watching TV a few years ago my primary source of world info comes from the people that collect news and distribute them namely at Reuters.com and the AP.

The level of bias in those is relatively low.

It never ceases to amaze me that people watch CNN or Fox fully aware that they are biased. Thats no infotainement anymore just plain old entertainment.

For oppinions i surf the multiple blogs and skim the drudgereport

Im sorry, but al-jazeera... oops i ment CNN is a bit too left for me, concerning the 4 fox news employees, some of them never worked for fox news!!! its just the liberal media trying to justify their biased reporting.

sKerry can go to hell, G Dubbawa's got my vote.