Debra wrote: >The Guardian is a left-wing paper and doesn't >claim to give an objective view.
I know - but many quote them as factual gospel! >There are mainstream papers that do aim for >objectivity, such as the Christian Science >Monitor, NY Newsday, NY Times and the >Washington Post (although right-wingers >would probably disagree about the last two), >and then there are others that don't. I'd always heard the CSN was good for objectivity and having read it a lot lately, I would happily agree. Agree with the others you've listed - although the jury is out for me on the Wash. Post - they are in the center of the action and sometimes drift toward an sort of "inner circle" positioning. > NY Post Hee hee - but they do have some hilarious headlines ;-) > The good thing about reading biased papers, >whether they're left- or right-wing, is that >they'll bring up topics that the mainstream >press doesn't usually pay as much attention to. That's true and occasionally they will even put out an unbiased but overlooked story that one would never have found otherwise. >It's interesting to me that its opposite on the >political spectrum, fascism, leads to > totalitarianism, too. Yes, two heads of the same beast, really. And here's a little good news from the war front which, coming from Reuters, shouldn't be thought of as too unobjective. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-71648.html Kakki
