People will bitch about commercial news media like CNN, or Time Magazine (same company) or just about any kind of commercial news channel, magazine or any other form of media. They will say they are too biased, and are sensationalist, showing only what they want to show, things that will shock the viewer. An example would be the cheering Muslims in Palestinian streets after the WTC attack. But what about the majority of the population which was simply horrified, if not because of the sheer brutality of the attack, but because they knew the American hammer would be hitting them very hard, very soon?
But what about independent media? Places like www.indymedia.org, or other independent news outlets? They are just as much at fault being biased than the huge news corporations are. Indy news is the other extreme end, the left end. They will happily bash corporations, or the government, or the police. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
News should be neutral
I wish for a news outlet that will show several aspects of any given occurrence, WITHOUT any personal comment. No "The police brutality shown last so-and-so was further proof that the police department..." or "Environmental extremists endangered so-and-so many lives with their irresponsible tactics...". Let me develope my OWN opinion on the subject. Don't shove yours down my throat. Instead of being leftish or rightish, why can't we all be centrish?
What I'm trying to say is that independent media is just as biased as commercial...just the other end of the spectrum.
mr100percent says "speaking of which, I heard a while back that the BBC retracted their "palestinians dancing" story because they only found 3 or four people, instead of "the entire street""