>>>>>>> Why his fellow troops killed him in a way that sounds unaccidental, I don't know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unless you have proof that it wasn't an accident (even a horrible accident), that it baseless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, of course I don't have proof. I was not there, and the military acted quickly to destroy evidence. This is not my theory, Kevin. There are many sites which say this is the case. It has been a long time since I decided not to pursue journalism as a career but I think I still have a sense of what's true and what isn't, regardless of provenance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>don't you think those theories are a little like who killed Kennedy. Its 99.9% probable that it was a friendy fire accident.
>>>>
>>>>I was going to question "which sites" were they respectable journalists or conspiracy blogs? Maybe we should all start writing our own opinion blogs which can then be included in references to support views for those who don't do any research themselves or bother with checking reliable journalists. What's worse is once reliable news sources are now quoting conspiracy blogs - not as fact, but always mentioning them in their stories to give them that extra little excitement and draw more hits....
>>>
>>>'Respectable journalists' as you put it, (how about 'media whores' ? {g}) rarely investigate controversial stories that challenge any of common believes. Otherwise they would have never become 'respectable'. Therefore this is not really where to look if you want to research controversial issues. (See Chomsky / 'Manufacturing Consent' )
>>>
>>>This does not mean that whole world is entirely covered by darkness; You can find very good content on channels such are Al-Jazeera INTL, RT and BBC sometime. Also newspapers such are Daily Haaretz, Guardian etc.
>>>
>>>Beside this, blogsphere and independent websites (like Wikileaks, GlobalResearch etc) are also good places to go, if you want to research controversial stories. This is where problem of finding really respectable journalists kicks into play. It is hard to distinguish good sources from 'web media agents' who are paid to muddle the water with lame/cheap content (Flying Hellicopters / ShapeShifting Alien Lizzards ... ) and this way disqualify entire space.
>>>
>>>Respectable Journalisam is loosely scattered around the globe but still can be found. Just not in places that you consider
>>>respectable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I agree. tend to prefer BBC and Univision. Al-Jazeera is good for world news except they too slant (quite obviously) at times. Of course so does Univision on certain stories. Sometimes it is what is covered or maybe the way it is covered. None of them are completely slant-free in all stories. BBC slants as well, but they are better at disgusing it :o) I think if you can manage to watch a few of them, then you are more likely to get a more 'balanced' report of anything happening.
>
>I saw once website of that Univision (based on your post) but unfortunately it is not aired on 2 cables I am using.
>
>Will hv to disagree regarding 'slant' of Al-Jazeera. They have great news production and mostly very balanced. I dunno about their
>arabic version, but english production is very eloquent.
>Lately started watching RT (Russia Today) channel. They have some great investigative reporting as well.
>Also Search 'CrossTalk' show on youtube and you can find many great discussions on various topics.
>
>And for some cynical media slicing, fun/financial scandals drop a click at
>http://maxkeiser.com/
>
>Have Fun :)

Can't seek examples right now (at work), but note this:

Al-Jazeera to tone it down for Asia
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FL03Ae01.html

Snippet:

He said all the al-Jazeera officials who arrived in Kuala Lumpur to finalize the deal were British or BBC-trained. "They told us they're fed up with slants, they don't want to have an Arab slant," he said of the station officials he met.

Conspicuous slants on other satellite news operations, such as Rupert Murdoch-owned FOX News and CNN, have alienated some viewers, opening the door to hopefuls like al-Jazeera, which claims 35 million daily viewers worldwide. But this hardly guarantees that al-Jazeera won't seek to slant, even if it appears not to do so; indeed, the most potent form of slanting is that which lurks behind the guise of objectivity.

Besides, al-Jazeera has a history of "mimicking Western norms of journalistic fairness while pandering to pan-Arab sentiments", as Middle East expert Fouad Ajami has noted.

It's also been recognized in many studies that viewers do not see or hear "bias" in stories which share their point of views or they are sympathetic to that point of view....

It's everywhere, not just Al Jazeera (I am not trying to single it out, just pointing out why I wrote what I did - that it is not unbiased), but every news agency now.