Biscous -
did I read correctly that you are presenting the above as the closest thing to balanced reporting in the US Press?
Thanks for asking for clarification!
What I meant by this comment is that I think the only sense of balance we have is due to the existence of the sources I mentioned, because prior to their arrival on the scene, our media was heavily biased towards liberalism. I do not feel that any one individual American media source is truly balanced. The only way we can say that our media has any semblence of balance is by looking at all our media sources as a whole, rather than at it's each individual part. Even so, I still believe that America media on a percentage basis is still highly biased towards the left because even with the arrival of more conservative news sources, most of them are not mainstream. I mentioned the two most notable sources (Fox and Rush), but other conservative sources such as The Weekly Standard and the World-Net Daily do not have the audiences that NBC, CBS or ABC, which are traditionally liberal, command. Of course, this is all opinion on my part. However, if I wanted to do a statistical analysis (which I simply do not have the energy to do right now), I could research audience shares and circulations of the top twenty American news sources and could mathematically prove that if we were to take all the versions reported by different journalists on just one specific incident, and sort them by whether the story is told through a liberal or a conservative filter, there would be at least twice as many liberal viewpoints - and because of market shares, those viewpoints would be read/heard by at least 50% more people. So when I say that our media is no longer biased because of Fox, Rush and a handful of smaller newspapers, I mean that without them adding their two cents to the available media sources, we would have no such thing as balance in American media.
Does that make better sense?!
growedup
