On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:52:18 +0000 (UTC), Alan Pollock
wrote:
>azzure@olypen.com wrote:
>> Windcat wrote:
>> Oh, right, quote the Washington Times. That's an unbiased source.
>
>
>It's as unbiased as the NYT or WaPo is. When you get down to it, they're all
>biased, some more than others, with some leanings more prevalent than others
>across rags. How you see this depends on whether they agree with *your* bias
>or not, and how far from a reasonable
>mutually-agreed-upon-from-different-vantagepoints truth they generally are.
>Hard to decide where that is exactly; the more extreme the example the easier
>it is to determine. Successful bias is often at its best in the subtleties of
>the way an issue is reported.
>
>The Washington Times is roughly in the same league of bias as the two
>aforementioned rags.
Don't be silly.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |