That was entirely the question. If you’re concerned about bias in reporting, the thing to look at is bias in reporting. I refer you to Euphonious Polemic’s post above.
I have no idea who Charlie Rose votes for. For all I know, he votes for Lyndon LaRouche. If you can’t tell his political leanings from his reporting, it doesn’t matter who we think he votes for.
Contrary to OP’s wish, I think it’s a good thing that objective news sources like PBS do hire objective commentators.
Should classes in fire safety give half the instruction time to arsonists, “for balance”?
Should college biology departments hire as many creationist teachers as needed to “balance” the evolutionists? (*)
Let’s not pretend that lies are a form of truth just because 51% of Americans believe them. (If my point isn’t clear, Reply with “No” if you disagree that the least balanced major American news source is the one with the insolence to use “Balanced” in its slogan.)
(* - Actually David Brooks proposed something akin to this in an Atlantic Monthly rant several years ago.)
How about bias in deciding what to report… or how hard to look for certain things to report?? I asked about potential for bias when the main people involved are clearly, at least to me anyway, left of the spectrum and likely Dem voters.
From my experience, the News Hour is more fair and balanced than the major networks relatively speaking… and my OP was not exclusively about the News Hour.
People can vote a certain way and still be objective. Frankly, it says how blindly partisan you are if you can’t accept that. What, so unbiased people aren’t allowed to vote for anyone? People can vote democrat and be able to rationally consider the right wing view of issues. I have doubts that it can go the other way though, considering how quick right wingers are to shriek about bias at anyone who dares disagree with them.
What about it?
You thought I was talking about the typing?
OKay.. then what programs are left leaning.. Have you observed Charlie Rose hosting a tribute to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now for an entire week.. and also guessing how Tavis Smiley personally feels about the President.. John Mace’s statistical accuracy might be missing..
Really.. I watch American Experience.. was the Jesse Owens doc left of center? Frontline recently ran a excellent four part on the wall street crash.. was that left leaning?
Dude in a fucking country that watches Basketball Wives.. you really really want to shoot down the one channel that’s doing legit intelligent shit?? Really?
That’s not crucifixion, that’s tetrahedrixion.
Hey, What, why don’tcha say somethinorother about Snopes?
I do believe in magic! I do believe in magic! I do believe in magic!
Regards,
PersonWhoUnlikeShodanIsNotAMoron
I thought for sure this was a snappy, cogent retort to the OP…until I realized it was the OP him/herself, actually being serious about what they give a shit about!
My God, you see bias everywhere, don’t you?
Whatever it is I think I see
Becomes a liberal plot to me!
I think that we can all agree,
Everyone’s out to get me!
I think that I shall never see
A tree as stupid as** What the…**
Guys, I’m pretty sure he’s doing a parody of how some of the dumber people on the right speak. Between the embarrassing OP and his total consistency in always missing the point, it’s too on the nose to be genuine.
But quite enough so to be disingenuous.
Don’t be a hater gang… educate me on my embarrasment, point-missing and disingenousness.
Please, I’m serious. Are the points I’m missing the canned liberal responses to all liberal media suggetions??
I’m not sure you are serious any more, but you could start by producing one example of what you believe to be liberal bias. From Charlie Rose, say. He’s on for an hour every weeknight and something like two hours every morning. There must be something, if there’s a liberal bias.
Something more substantial than “there must be some because I think there must be some” please. Bonus points if you can answer without using an ellipsis of any length.