>> Nope, if you want something objective, go to sites like stratfor.com. The Guardian or BBC are ok.
It is necessary to find objective sources; but the problem with them is that they are not always timely because almost all news reporters are liberals, and while there is no evidence of any conspiracy, the simple truth is that they have an inherent bias in most everything they do. It is very difficult, for example, for a news reporter to criticize Obama and have that story get sufficient approval from managers and the news bureaucracy to actually get published.
As a result, we've had a president for nearly 7 years who remains essentially unvetted in many ways, and whose horrible history is not understood by most.
For example, today Obama supporters STILL claim that he "reduced the deficit". This is silly; deficits under Obama are the highest in history. Yes, they're lower than his first year, because his first year was beyond nosebleed levels. But Obama's average deficit is still far higher than any other presidents, which computed as a percentage of GDP, as it should be.
He was literally elected on a lie in 2012, and the media subsequently, AFTER THE ELECTION, named him "Liar of the Year." That is just wrong to a person who believes a free media is necessary for freedom to exist at all. Because the free media, to have its freedom, must be willing to be objective even when it hurts.
So, if you don't have Fox News you don't have freedom. You may not like the coverage, but there has to be some balance to the liberal media, and there isn't much but Fox is a big part of it. Even if they lean a little to right it is necessary to offset the far left bias of TV/Cable news, the NYT, WaPo, and other papers. |
