Hi! I don't understand why the media must be unbiased. It seems in the sense that most people use the term; bias is just a reporter speaking his opinion. You cannot view news through a neutral worldview. A Republican reporter's view of the facts surrounding Romney's healthcare plan differs from a Democratic reporter's, so why do we make them censor themselves and take this silly middleground position that nobody actually agrees with, for the sake of 'neutrality'? Why can't we just have everyone giving their own view of the news, and enough competition between media organizations for it not to matter? This is why I don't have a problem with MSNBC or FOX - at Bill O'Reilly/Keith Olbermann speak what they believe, reporters with CNN, BBC, NY Times, etc just straight up say things to the camera that they think are false. To Conservatives: any media outlet that's trying to be neutral will generally support Democratic candidates on social issues because they try to cover public movements - if Obama barely beat Hilary in the primaries and inspired more young people to vote than ever before then it's something that they have to cover. They cover social issues more because they tend to be much more interesting stories - and the media is sensationalist by nature. To Liberals: a neutral media will normalize war and take an economic position between where they think the parties lie. When the media goes against a war it's generally biased - or only reporting on the fuss created by an outlet that is. It's not in either view's favor, so why can't we discard it? When you compromise on the truth you're more wrong than either side. Thanks
