Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I
won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same
people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on
about.

If you never watch it, you'll never know. The difference is that Fox
puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case.
Sometimes it's clear that the Democrat/Liberal has it right, sometimes
it's the Republican/Conservative. But it's always educational.

If you prefer to get your news from those who don't do that, it's fine
with me. But why settle for media with a "hidden bias" (one that's
been well-documented) when there are alternatives that will let you
actually develop your own opinions rather than have theirs subtly
applied to everything you hear?

At least with Limbaugh (almost never, ever listen to him myself, BTW)
acknowledges his bias. You know what you're getting, and can judge the
content accordingly. But when Dan Rather spoke, most listeners
thought they were getting the straight story, rather than "Dan's
twist".

A great example - the mainstream media has convinced the majority of
Americans that the economy is struggling. However, virtually every
indicator says the opposite. Fox reports that we're in the middle of
a very strong economy. Which approach would you prefer? Factual, or
one guided by political leanings?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark,
The only way I get non-biased news is when I turn on my short wave radio
and listen to the news direct from other countries. It would wake up
most people to hear what they say on their own station about the United
States. I get BBC, Australia, Japan, even China (Red biased) and many
others in 'Engrish'.
We are not as healthy or as popular as what Fox would have people believe.
Bill Baka