You won't find any argument from me. I've said time and time again that everything is biased and because of that context is paramount.
Now, that doesn't mean that everything is
equally biased. Certain outlets are held to higher standards that others. Certain organizations have a longer history than others, are affiliated explicitly with a particular view, etc. That's why exploring the specifics of the organization/writer that provides the information is so important.
Not because it is "the truth," because reaching such a thing is impossible (everyone makes mistakes/the writer is not the organization/has his own views/the readers might interpret it differently/so on)--but because from the recognized bias and general background one gets an idea of how much to trust a source--the difference between The National Enquirer and The National Journal, to be dramatic. But it's not as much an issue of absolutes as it is of degree.
Also, as in with the difference between an article versus a poll/numeric chart there are some sources that leave more room for interpretation than others.
I said it before in the global warming thread and I think it bears mentioning again that whatever "truth" we have that is not narrowly mapped out by science/personal belief system is put into play (so to speak) through consensus. I think this makes it doubly important that one be as informed as possible.
alcyone
ETA: For anyone interested, neoliberal Slate comments on
Gibson-Palin interview 1 and
2 . As you can expect, it takes a completely different perspective than what I've seen represented on the boards. I believe this sort of perspective is why some from the left refer to ABC as Fox-lite. The thought that it gets fire from both sides is heartening to me.
