| Killiana1a said: The caveat in my post was a journalist with a deep seated bias against an institution, in this case I used the military. If those who are responsible to give an objective, fair view of the story cannot hold back their biases via the tone and semantics of their news articles or if I know they have them by Googling them, then I don't trust the word of the messenger. For example, I give more trust to Reuters, CNN, AP, and BBC News than Fox News, MSNBC, and DemocracyNow! because I know from watching and reading their news that they try to uphold some journalistic standards, while Fox News, MSNBC, and DemocracyNow! constantly mash news and entertainment together with talking heads who have definite political leanings they cannot or will not hide because their viewerbase watches them just for their "point of view." I apologize for not making it clearer. |
I get that, but someone who is an army general automatically has an even grater bias, and is not trustworthy.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)
