what is the actual story? dumb thread.

So, whether you can wrap your head around it or not, I'm capable of spotting bias from both sides and try to avoid it. In fact, I usually seek out the opposite bias for important events. Like "muslims are taking over, they shouldn't get special treatment at a swimming pool!" versus "most muslim women would never be able to swim without this three hour weekly slot, so it's really great they get special treatment" (replace muslim with jewish as needed of course).

on who is doing the reporting.

Everytime I read or watch anything liberal - it's in full attack mode if it's a rep, and full

support mode when it's a dem.

At least Fox News has hard core liberals on the show for balance.

I despise alan colmes, the ultra kiss ass liberal sissy moron, and several other libs

who auto-defend the dems.

@calfoxwc said:

There aren't really any. AP is about as non-spin as it gets but you get very little information. So, as I say, use multiple sources and try and figure it out.

nailed it.

So, Chris, what ARE these totally non-biased news reporting sites you DO read.

(this should be interesting...)

Because.....

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

from the highlights of the new revelations

there you go leftwing media worshipping sheep

fixed....

Regardless. There comes a time when you realise that a 'news' outlet just isn't worth reading any more because they're incapable of presenting the facts in anything remotely close to an unbiased way. The blaze is there, yes, but it's not the only one, and contrary to what you might think, it doesn't just apply to right wing media.

@calfoxwc said:

Are you talking to me, or trying to insult me to others?

@westside-steve said:

Perhaps, but it definitely has a distinctive spin to it that isn't exactly lock-step with occupy democrats or whoever.

It comes down to being intelligent enough to get your news from multiple sources, cross check - if something you read in one of those articles seems outrageous, you're probably being played to some degree.

WSS

@gftchris said:

I personally treat occupy democrats, the other 98%, slate etc. in the same way as breitbart, blaze and the like. Fact check everything, and if possible, click through to the original source. Usually it's 'this outrageous thing happened, as first reported by WKYNCXZ-Kansas' and you can follow through there to get the original story, minus the overbearing spin.

I do the same thing. I usually follow the rabbit hole back to the original source if possible.

its more than that -

If Nixon gets the treatment in 73 for far less - what does this say about the current times we live in?

and how come they dont lift a finger?

Panetta says to deploy troops and gets squashed!

game plan turns into a video instead of the truth, and its totally ignored by the MSM

thug president is campaigning instead of reacting

wont answer questions and now - its just supposed to go away?