>I am curious as to how much of the U.S. news presented there is sensored or mostly sensational news items.

We have no sensoring. As for sensational. Nope, most of the items would not make it there.

>It is to be expected that you would see the stories about the love triangle involving a U.S. astronaut, but what about the NC house submitting a bill to allow NC citizens to swear on other religious books other than the bible in court?

I don't know exactly all about this, but the whole affair of 'intelligent design' was present up here. As well as Bushes victory about sending more troops, political curruption scandals, the democrats opposition to the iraqi war. Hillary stating she wants to see the US backing out of iraq before the next election. Of course a lot of background info of the iraqi war motives and misleadings. All the elections and background info on that. But things like the runaway bride don't make it to our news broadcasts: it is too sensational and of little news importance.

>Was that in your paper or on the news? I ask, because as you know, I have been there myself a couple of times and the news I saw and read was mostly stories that were sensational or the media thought would be 'of interest' to citizens of Netherlands. Only seeing and reading those types of stories warps your perspective.

I did not know you could read dutch :)

There are different papers. Some are better than others. In the telegraaf you might find more space for sensation, in others like algemeen dagblad or volkskrant most of the contents is mostly serious. In all they would display the news more or less the same. The best papers only state the facts and seldomly draw any conclusion, besides making qoutes of people involved in the issues. drawing up conclusions is up to the reader. If you're too biased you'll be burned to the ground as you do not conform the unwritten code of the independed press. IOW, that won't be good for your carrier.

Walter,