I think an interesting show was Buchanan and Press, and Sliwa and Kuby. I really liked the shows and they were fairly balanced. Think they were on MSNBC.

To me they were fairly moderate. When one would get radical the other would start getting radical and they'd get back to moderation. Guess the shows weren't radical enough to sell. I admit I usually agreed with the liberal takes but Sliwa and Buchanan could make good, fair arguments without insulting one's intelligence or other people.

I actually miss those shows.

Of course, what do I know I kind of like Springer's radio show.

Just goes to prove that you'll seek out the news source and shows that most represent you. If there is a liberal bias it is because that is what sells and makes money.

The media is in business to make money and they give the people what they want. If you are Conservative you have Limbaugh, Fox, Rev. Moon's News services, Pat Robertson's news, Clear Channel, Salem Communications, most of talk radio, and so on. You like liberal you have the NY Times, Time, CNN, and maybe a few other choices.

They all know their audiences and they all take the side that will sell to their target audience. Who cares?

If you truly want the truth I seriously doubt you'll get it from Corporate news, and one side only. If you read the NYT then read the WSJ and balance it out. If you listen to Limbaugh then listen to Springer and it balances out. You can find the truth somewhere in the middle of all those. But you will only believe whatever your slant and biases are anyway so it doesn't matter.

After really looking at the site, its completely left wing biased.

So let me get this straight, we are going to dismiss a university study (most university studies tend to be reviewed somewhat well) because a VERY left wing media info site calls it flawed?

:crazy:

Welcome to Bizzaro world.

The media is against those in power. I would like to see this test again when we have a democrat for President.