Bias is always there, and until we have robots reporting facts, it will be.
If a news channel simply had someone reading news, with the idea that all would be represented was facts, there would still be the body language and voice inflections of the reader, there would also be the charges by one side or the other that facts were left out - remember that a story can be skewed by 100% factual statements, if other facts are left out.

Everyone expects a certain bias, and usually the idea is to get news from both sides, and synthesize a result (that doesn’t mean FOX)

As an example I read the National Review, and US News & World Report, both known for their slant to the right of center.

Another thing about the news, if some bias was not shown, it would be pretty drab, and no onw would watch, read or listen.

And no, the moral of the e-mail is simply refusing to accept reality, which is stupid. ‘Reading with Insight’ is what my teachers called it in school - we must read all we can, accepting the fact that there will be glitches, and excepting those beyond the realm of possibility.

The McCain voting would be one of those times, because, everyone knows that, by and large, military people vote Republican - so perhaps the point on ABC was that NOT 100% were voting for McCain.

“We’re voting for Ron Paul. We need to get our bottoms outta here!”

One can wish….

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/raddatz.asp

Perhaps this may have been researched a little better before quoting a “niece of a friend of a family member” This should automatically raise red flags about how truthful it is. Newscasts (as well as people who send emails) can obviously be slanted. You should no more take a newscast as 100% verified that you should take a “friend of a friend” email as 100% true either.

In a e-mailed response about this subject, Martha Raddatz maintained that she hadn’t interviewed nearly as many service members about their presidential preferences as claimed:
The story that was supposedly told by “Katelyn” is simply not true. First … she must have a hundred aunts and uncles because whoever is forwarding it usually claims to be a close friend of one of them. I never went on a trip with John McCain … and I certainly didn’t interview 60 soldiers about who they are voting for. These attacks on me started because of a story that aired after a visit I took in March to Balad air base with Vice President Cheney. I followed him down a rope line and was surprised to see how many of the military personnel (largely Air Force) said they supported Barack Obama. I did not talk to many more than a dozen service members. I was with the VP and had no time! There were, of course McCain supporters and Clinton supporters, as well … which I mentioned in the story. But this was not a poll. It was simply surprising that so many came forward to voice support for a candidate who is advocating withdrawal, just moments after cheering for the vice president. So if there is in fact a “Katelyn” she is making this up. Not only that, she could not possibly have heard me in the noisy crowd. If you would like to check my integrity with some high ranking active duty officers please feel free to do so. And, please, if any of you actually knows retired MG Buckman, please pass on his email address and this email so I can let him know what he has started. I assume he would not want this to continue or have any role in it.

Please feel free to share this email. Thanks so much for understanding how important my bond with the troops is and how important I feel it is to cover the amazing job they do on a daily basis.
Based on the wide circulation of the original e-mail and the flood of (mostly negative) comments about this report that have been posted to ABC’s web site, we expect that ABC News and/or Martha Raddatz will be offering some additional insight into this now-controversial segment in the near future.

Justin’s article is exactly correct as far as it goes, but it needs an extension upwards into the real realms of mystery. The precise bias of the reporting is set by the executives of the news media of course, but those executives are not operating independently, far from it. In one way or another, usually very directly, most of them are influenced, and, it would not be too strong to say, controlled, by the Council on Foreign Relations. This cat has been out of the bag for a long time now, and since concealment is no longer possible the CFR works openly and smoothly. Big money, powerfully controlling influence, and, ultimately, hegemony are the means and the agenda, and the news media executives merely dance to the tune. Any time there is a particularly visible distortion of the news going on, then it’s necessary to check the blogs and find out what CFR initiative is in progress at the moment. These are regrettable facts, but it has never been any different, in any major nation of the world, at any time in history, though the names and the organizations change. However, at least in the USA, this is what the framers of the Constitution went to such great lengths to prevent, and they may yet succeed.

The truth is anyone who gets their information from ANY of the television news orginazations is woefully mis- and ill- informed. All the networks are manipulated by greed and government (same thing?) and are more interested in selling product than reporting news. They would rather talk about Britney’s latest screw-up than the dismantling of the constitution or an illegal and unfounded war.

Whether or not the story is entirely true is not the point here. I am simply talking about how the news networks are biased towards certain political groups. Great discussion, thanks =)

Is there misinformation in the news? Yest, in all forms of
media. I have been involved in being a PIO for nearly 40
years and have been misquoted and taken our of context so
many times I have lost count. I am not involved in any
political information releases whatsoever. Mine are usually
strictly bad news about catastrophic situations.

The media takes what they hear and makes sound bites out of it for radio, tv or print. if they need ‘fill’ for a space, they use
what they want, when they want, even if it presents outright untruth.

Whether this is urban myth or not, the message here is true - read a variety of sources and think for yourself, don’t let someone else think for you. Not even this email, or NRO, or Lucianne, or Drudge, or CNN or even Fox.

Critical thinking is what we used to call it, and way back in the old days it was actually taught in school.

Sadly in this world of 24 hr ‘news’, the major networks must try harder. Every story gets sensationalized to some degree and mis-reporting is routine. Are the media, of late, biased to some degree, of course. In the past there was less bias in reporting and some networks took great pride in their ’straight’ reporting. Competition has taken it’s toll. I get a lot of my news from BBC - at least they do have watchdogs that challenge their bias; not the same can be said for NPR or PBS.

But I can follow keywords like “dismantling of the constitution” or “illegal” war. That lets me know the source will be biased.