>
>Chris;
>
>I made a video tape of the program as I had to be at work at 0500 today. My wife also saw the Charlie Rose show on which Thomas Friedman appeared yesterday, and watched the Discovery program last night.
>
>I cannot wait to see the video of the Discovery program, as the Charlie Rose show was very interesting.
>
>There should be a word coined from information obtained from the Internet. Well, as you know all sources of news and information are suspect and biased to one degree or another. Some people are comfortable learning all there is to know from” The Daily Worker”. I wonder if that rag is still published? That was a “good” communist newspaper, if you like such things.
>
>We had several newspapers in San Francisco. The last two were the Chronicle (Democratic and liberal) and the Examiner (Republican and conservative). The Examiner just folded so there is no “competition”.
>
>Life was simpler just yesterday. So up until recently you would read the Chronicle or Examiner, depending upon your political persuasion. With the variety of news sources we have available today, you can find any opinion that agrees with your own.
>
>
>Tom

Off-topic but this is something I haven't been able to understand in US politics. Why does a newspaper have to take sides with ideology or issues or more bafflingly (is that a word?) with a political party? Don't they have to remain objective? (or at least try)

Some questions:
- Do they edit content to fall inline with stated affiliation?
- Do they only hire reporters that are registered Democrats / Republicans?
- Do they not include news that no matter how you spin it it favors the opposing affiliation? (this is a tough one, I know)
- Wouldn't all this discredit it as a reliable source of news?

The only theory I can come up with:
- so that they can state support for a particular candidate come election time?

That's another one. Who cares which candidate a newspaper happens to support?

OK, I'll stop my babbling now.