That got your attention, didn't it? Good. There's nothing like believing someone's misleading you.
There's a constant stream of diary entries here that decry "the media," for not being "objective." It might be instructive to try to figure out exactly what is meant by both terms.
Let's get one things absolutely straight: there is
no such thing as Objective Journalism. Journalists are people, and their experiences inform their writing. This means that if you look hard enough for bias in anything but an obitiary,
you will find it.
Some journalists (like H.L. Mencken and Hunter Thompson) believe this lack of objectivity is to be embraced. That if true objectivity is impossible, fuck it; we might as well go with full-bore subjectivity. But most people in search of the straight facts don't like that approach, either.
It's therefore important, as you study any piece of news, to read several sources. If Dean said something interesting at a rally, for example, I try to read the AP story, the K-R story, and a story from another major news source. Not because I think one source might be out and out biased, but because I realize, as a journalist, that everything ever written includes some bias.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it's a little silly to attack journalists and news organizations (with a few notable exceptions; Ted Rall, Fox, etc.) for being biased. They're all biased. I feel confident enough in this assertion that I bet no one reading this diary can find me an article in which I cannot find an instance of bias.
To summarize: Stop whining. Everything in this world is biased. You learn to deal with it.