Tom Dempsey wrote:I guess I'm not being clear, there are no "good" sources. You should be able to draw your own conclusions. My first thought would be if one party is always right and the other is always wrong, that's an awfully good indication of bias reporting, wouldn't you think. I don't pay any attention whatsoever to any alleged journalist who doesn't at least give me some heartburn once in a while. Any elected official who always makes you happy probably isn't doing his/her job, as the only way to always keep your electorate happy, happy, happy is to pander, pander, pander. As to giving you specific journalists you should pay attention to and others you should not. Why do you need me or anyone else to tell you what to think Murph, you've certainly made it clear here that you feel your education was quite adequate. I would think you would be able to make informed decisions about this sort of thing.
I asked because you spoke with such authority when you said to George, "I think you should widen your sources..." that I thought you had something substantive to back it up, something specific to which I had not paid appropriate attention. But I can see, now, that you were simply up to your not infrequent condescension, correcting and criticizing in public (which unfortunately I just did, ironically, alas, but I had a feeling I just wasn't going to get a straight answer from you, noise but no music.)