No problem with what you say below, but some comments...
Newspapers were indeed usually started by left or right leaning people. But corporate ownership has changed that in far too many cases today.
For example, under the guise of "duty to our shareholders..." Time Magazine's CEO agreed to testify about sources in the CIA Leak affair. Sure, they had a Supreme Court ruling go against them. But that same ruling applied to others, and they still held out. We blithely accept that "business has no morals" and big business takes full advantage of that!
And while you are 100% correct about using multiple sources for news and then making up your mind on an issue, look at the time that costs you just to remain "accurately" informed!!! And in the end the actual accuracy remains debateable! Now think also of all the people who either don't have the time to do it, or simply don't realize the present-day need for a variety of sources and so continue to take their single source as gospel.
Finally, it is generally acknowledged that TV news in the U.S. is now largely treated by the corporate heads as "entertainment" as opposed to real news. This, of course, severely impacts what "news" is delivered and begs for "personalities" to deliver much of it, interjecting their own comments as they go along.
>When I posted that comment, I was being completely facetious. :0) Based on Evan's debunking other posts due to the source of the information in his opinion being a neo-con source. Here in the U.S., with freedom of speech, there is very little enforcement of nonpartison leanings in our media. Almost every source leans to the left or the right. (That is afterall, how many newspapers were started) It is necessary these days to watch and read more than one source and to read/hear both sides in order to see a more middle of the road view of the same events. I typically watch many news shows these days - CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Univision, BBC World, etc. Often I see the same story portrayed many different ways. I think it is important to use many sources and evaluate the story or source after weighing all of the sources. We cannot rule out any one source of information, but weigh its value based on other sources as well.
>
>
>>I have to use your own LATimes "and therefore are debunked" position on this one. Worldnetdaily, newsmax, and washtimes make foxnews looked like a ted kennedy publication.
>>
>>>Some
possibilities:
>>>
>>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm>>>
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php>>>
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html>>>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463>>>
http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200401120834.asp>>>
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm>>>
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml>>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm>>>
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html>>>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844>>>
>>>
>>>>I am most certainly NOT ignoring any intelligense.
>>>>
>>>>If you read my post, I posted that the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, as well as
>>>>the United Nation's own team (their name escapes me) both scoured Iraq
>>>>for WMD's and neither found a trace.
>>>>
>>>>How is this 'totally ignoring any intelligence that supports this assertion'?
>>>>
>>>>And, what 'intelligence' can you provide that supports your own assertion
>>>>that Iraq moved these weapons?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I disagree. You can't possibly beleive that Iraq had a stockpile of WMD's
>>>>>>that they have completly erased all evidence of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We've been in Iraq for 2 years now, and no one has found so much as 1 illegal
>>>>>>weapon. Not a trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The lack of evidence speaks volumns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not only possible for me to believe they removed them during the six months they had, it is what I believe. You are totally ignoring any intelligence that supports this assertion. I've posted several citations - read them.
