They all come with points of view.
I mean there is no such thing as a disembodied 'objective' argument - every one has motives
Information cannot exist outside of a human head, it must be interpreted - to pretend otherwise, that is, to say that you are 'totally objective' is a lie - A totally objective person would NEVER MOVE - you understand? Movement implies motive
Truth is any media organization by definition is gonna be biased - for there is no middle ground - no objective standpoint.
I mean the difference is in a word - Terrorist - Freedom fighter, or...
General Musharraf is either 'a dictator', plain and simple, or a military general who came in to sort out the DEEP corruption in Pakistani politics (though obviously he's still there beyond the original date for turning power back over - Bad sign... However he is no Saddamn, no Kim Il Sung)
Why do we think our legal system is a dialectical set up Prosecution - Defence?
Furthermore in Western society OF COURSE the media is going to support the status quo, any given society has to have a certain amount of coherence - some uniting ideal principle - otherwise society would fragment and crumble. - Observe liberal Western culture - Fragmented? fragment'ing' at least. Is this a bad thing?
I don’t know
- certainly we are entering a post modern political environment - we see the mode, and model and labels in front of us - Socialist, Liberal, Neo Liberal etc. etc. - everything laid out like some huge supermarket -
This is not to say however, that some organizations have more integrity or are more benevolent and appear more honest in their aims - we can and do 'choose' between our Guardians our Times or Independent (outrageous name!)
but I have to say most people to some extent 'choose' after the event, that is they are a 'type of person' and they are naturally drawn to their tailored news, their tailored views. I this a bad thing? Is that a moral judgement i.e. Does it even matter if it is the true