Ah, so I get it -- when the facts are such as to make the side you support look bad, you think the report lacks integrity. I'm sure, on the other hand, you would have no problem with a report that stated "A Hezbolah suicude bomber killed 15 people today when he detonated a bomb on a Tel Aviv bus."

Exactly the same type of report -- a bullet headline stating the facts. Of course the PLO would prefer that we explain WHY the Palestinian did what he did, and a pro-Israel supporter would prefer we explain why Isreal did what they did. And those of us in radio news would prefer that you listen to one of our longer form programs which would do just that in either case -- rather a top-of-the-hour newscast where we are forced to fit all of the day's top news -- plus commercials into a a few minutes. The format of the particular newscast to which you listen, however, often determines how much detail you get. 60 Minutes can spend 15 minutes on a story. I often have to tell mine in under 20 seconds. That is a problem with format -- not a BIAS!

But as I said -- I find that people who claim the news is slanted one way or another often are just angry it isn't biased in the direction they would like. Sure, some news organizations are partisan. The Village Voice is leftist -- to lesser degree so is Las Vegas CityLife (for which I write). Their bias is a declared part of what they are. That is not to say that they aren't both dedicated to showing both sides when reporting the news. As a whole, however, the tone of the publications takes a more liberal position. But even those publication do so through their choices of columnists, writing opinion columns, or in their choice of stories -- not the way they report them. Both papers still believe in showing both sides of whatever stories they cover -- it's just kinda obvious which way the papers stand as a whole.

For example, CityLife published the following restaurant review of mine -- which indirectly slams the Iraq War.
http://www.lvcitylife.com/articles/2003/10/01/dining_out/dining01.txt

Similarly, our regular columnists are very liberal.

Those are all opinion columns, however, so it's fair play. Fox News is similarly a right wing network -- which would be fine if they'd just admit it.

On the other hand, ABC News (like most major news networks) is dedicated to being balanced. It has no stated, or unstated bias. We have reporters who are liberal, conservative, and everything in between, with numerous opinions on every topic. And the only way you'd know how anyone feels is to listen to them debate it amongst themselves. I defy anyone to listen to my 8 minute report on Nevada's attempt at marijuana legalization and say that I took either side on the issue. BEcause for the month I was working on the story, I discarded my personal opinion on it. Furthermore, I'm not even allowed to join attend a political fundraiser, or give money to a political cause, becasue it would be inappropriate for me to support one side or the other on a political issue. And I'm fine with that. And if there were any chance of me covering the Iraq War in the future, I would have refrained from publishing the above restaurant review -- because I would be in a situation where I needed to get my head around being neutral on that issue.

Oh well, it was fun getting dragged into a debate on this board after such a long time. I doubt I'll be back for a while -- I've been pretty busy. I hope all of you are well.