Tamar,

>>However, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
>
>First, I'll point out that, in this country, while the majority may determine who gets elected (leaving aside presidential elections and the electoral college), there are a ton of things that the majority cannot do to the minority. That's one of the key points of our system.
>
>>Let's face it, today there are very few unbiased journalists who can be trusted to police themselves. Ed Murrow is gone.
>
>There almost never have been. Back in the days when most cities had more than one newspaper, people knew which was the Democratic paper and which the Republican. It's only with the rise of the broadcast media that we all have this notion that the press is supposed to be neutral.

You know.. I have no problem whatsoever with a journalist who declares themselves conservative, liberal or whatever. As long as they're honest and up-front about it. That's why I like Rush. You know where he stands, like him or not. No games..

There are a lot of liberal papers with conservative editorial boards too. Or visa versa..

>
><< All they care about is being the first to call the "winner". >>
>
>If that were the case, they wouldn't all be using the same company to provide their exit polls and results. It's called the Voter News Service and it's owned by the networks. They all use it, which is why all of them declared Bush the winner within 3 minutes of each other the other night.
>
>Tamar

Right.. I'm curious as to what your reaction was to their two goofs election night. I think it was over-eagerness to be first to market plus the projection numbers don't go out that many decimal points. <g>