/Turn Rant On:
Does mass media have any obligation to the general public regardless of where their funds come from?
Could we ever really expect an unbiased view in any reporting?

I always say there's three sides to every story: My version, your version and what really happened.
The only true way to report anything (in my opinion) is to allow every side to have an equal voice (at all times) and let the readers decide the facts for themselves. To make it fair, i suppose all sides would have to pay some sort of fee that would allow each "side" to have a voice... that would get rid of the question of financial backing giving the right to filter the news.. or would it?

Guess i still need some time to mull this over. In a way, [grrr devil's advocate!] i believe that the reason these financial backers and governments support mass media is exactly to further along their agendas. If they pay for it, what makes it wrong? If i paid for adspace to sell fur, shouldnt i have the right to do so behyond any other "side's" opinion of fur? But then, perhaps by not professing my agenda as "unbiased news" is what makes the difference.

I do have to say that I agree with Elly on her comment that they should at least have the guts to admit that the information is skewed to their benefit...would allow readers to read it with the proverbial grain of salt. At least we would know that its "their" facts...