>>At least Fox News (if you ignore the pundits in the evening) tries to bring in speakers from each side. Each side will give their own spin on the issue so at least you can make up your own mind who is spinning the best or maybe just get dizzy :). In the end most news services are just propagandists.
>
>Fake. Google the internal memos. It's always one or two strong guys for their side, and a token presence of someone who doesn't get to say much, and will sound weak, will be interrupted etc for the other.
>
>Besides, the deceit begins much earlier, when they decide which two sides exist, and which twenty other sides will have never happened. And even before that, when they decide which six issues to put on air, and which two hundred will not be mentioned at all. And that's not the specialty of this showbiz channel, it's just about everywhere. I found it ridiculous that in about a dozen disputes about religion there were zero atheists present, while on many other issues there were priests present, considered as if they had some expertise or real life experience. Now extrapolate that on any other issue - the choice of people who will be invited, the choice of topic... it's all censorship. It's a setup, a smokescreen.
>
>You don't really know what's going on if you watch TV.

I tend to agree with you to a limit. I have seen balanced discussions on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. A few years ago Fox actually did a better job of allowing both sides to state their opinion. The problem of course was, who reprensented "both sides" and what about the "other sides?" I am curious though how you can base such statements on only internal memos available on the web? Since you never watched much tv news at all - and definitely not much Fox news, there's not much experience to draw from is there? Shouldn't such a strong opinion at least be based on valid and thorough research? :o) At least comparing coverage of a story by multiple networks and including many shows on the same and multiple networks?