"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why?



Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?

You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the
happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in
sync
with your editorial view.

People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major
newspapers
present!


I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts
whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total
objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be
generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More
people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio)
where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let
alone unbiased.


Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole
story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press).




Is this bias?

In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military and
police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security situation for
their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks a car full of
explosives right in front of a police station and turns it into rubble.

Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's
announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he
said?