check it out I can't post the link from my pda. but here's the site.

www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

Is it always bias if everyone's doing it? That's not a strong argument in itself, but I think it interesting to note in a case where everyone is putting their money where their mouths are.

Although I suppose that's what the article is trying to say, with numbers.

in another thread someone said "there is no bias" but pointed out that Obama has more money. this works against the theory of the bias not having influence.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...301702713742569

Wow um Fox gave to the Dems?

Of course there's bias. The trick is to get your news from multiple sources that have opposing bias, so that you're getting both sides of the story as best you can, and then use deductive reasoning to determine the truth of the matter as best you can.

because listening to two partisan hacks on opposing sides of the fence will only give you twice as much bullshit.

Well then, what else do you do? Do you have an unbiased source you'd like to share, or do you prefer to just remain uneducated on all the goings ons?

*gets popcorn ready*

Uneducated on what exactly, though? If you mean "do you no longer listen to the tabloid journalism that is only interested in perpetuating narratives and will never deal with substantive issues?" then I would answer "yes." I don't have a problem being ignorant of that stuff.

There's also nothing wrong with just reading wire service articles, if you're so inclined.

Not that there's not still rhetoric there, but it is less so.

Well, really, though, is it that hard to pick any of it out? I mean, how stupid are we assuming that we are?

Do really have to ask?

I did lose 500 "Faith In The Human Race" points when I started reading user comments after news articles.

seriously, worst idea evarrrrr

Now, see, I thought the point of reading the news was to take things in from the perspective of the reporter and then perhaps formulate your own view. Therefore, if you read multiple articles from multiple reporters (all of them with their own biasness slant angle), you could do the intelligent thing which is find the commonality of all the articles and base your OWN opinion

Relying on one source for full education

The table shows how people working for those organizations donated, not the organization itself. However, I don't think the research for this table is very complete - as I have a hard time believing not a single journalist from Fox News gave a cent to the Republican party, which calls into question the validity of the entire thing.

Which is ironic in an article about media bias.

I think that also underscores the point that Fox's perceived conservative-friendliness is a marketing strategy.

While there's truthiness in that comment - there has to be a least one Republican-leaning reporter at Fox News, otherwise they've pulled the greatest scam ever on conservatives...

I don't know that I'd call it a scam... everyone gets what they want. Conservatives get a news channel that makes them feel happy inside, FOX gets an assload of cash. Win-win.

*notes that nobody ever accuses CNN of liberal bias whenever Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs is on* but c'est la vie

yea, well noone accuses fox of being liberal when colmes is on either. I guess everyone knows that those guys are thrown in as the "token opposing view".

I thought it was "Hannity and Colmes"... the "Hannity" part pretty much ensures that I will never watch that program. The guy gives me anal hives.

But again, I think this is a common area of confusion. Commentary shows ARE NOT news shows, just like newspapers' editorial pages ARE NOT their news pages.

?

I actually used to listen to him, back in my "I'm a Republican because Jesus tells me so" days.

so who d you think was wrong, mr.perfect or jesus?

MISTER PERFECT IS NEVER WRONG