Bias fills-in the gaps to handle differences in consumer preferences, the unknown and unknowable, and the unreconcilable differences among individuals’ worldviews. No one ever asked news consumers whether or not they preferred objective news. It would be a rare human being who actually would or, for that matter, is so open-minded and industrious that he wants to hear all sides of the story then take the time to figure out all of these complicated public policy issues by himself. Bias is good, unavoidable, entertaining, and consumers want it.

One more match to throw on this diminishing fire. Any news outlet which dismisses differences between mainstream articles actually published and most viewed/voted-on/forwarded/etc. without at the very least understanding why that is and thinking about ways to get more of these reactions to their stories is in a fatal state of denial.

The problem comes when those “unbiased” news outlets cede their fundamental job - questioning authority - to the blogs. Suddenly, the blogs are accused of bias when all they’re doing is the work the journalists should have done in the first place.

This is why I don’t go in for the “Vs.” argument. People need a full diet of all of the above. There are professional journalists getting both sides of the story - even when there aren’t two sides - but they’re biased, too. We need to be our own journalists now - taking in lots of information, questioning it, and coming up with our own conclusions.

Good debate.

I don’t want to read slanted stories. I want to see both sides. And professional journalists are most likely to give us both sides, because that’s their job.

This differs from the efforts of a blogger, who, while he/she may “report” on events, has no reason to mention those which run counter to his/her bias, even if (or especially when) they tend to prove him/her wrong.

If anything, those who swear to be unbiased are the ones to watch out for.

Ask yourself what motivates most bloggers to blog.

Hint: It ain’t for the thrill of providing unbiased news coverage.

This is the strength of blogs / web sites / social sites — they allow a writer and readers to delve more deeply into a topic than you could do in a general-purpose mass medium outlet like a traditional daily newspaper. Plus, they allow for combination of media content into a single spot that focuses on a given topic.

There are strengths in mass media and strengths in niche media. And I grant you there are biased, opinionated sources and there are sources that try hard to present a “fair and balanced” picture, as best they can. But the medium/format does not, in my opinion, create or promote a particular politica/social bias.

People who say they “get their news” from them–just like the folks who, a few years back, said they “got their news” from Rush Limbaugh–are doing no such thing. They’re reading opinion that backs up what they already believe to be true.

There are very, very few blogs that exist to provide news without a bias.

As for myself, I read a lot of newspaper and television sites, plus I have a regular round-robin of blogs. And, what I forward through email is usually stuff about arcane subjects, places or people that I know, so that whomever I’m targeting doesn’t miss the story which would be of interest to them for a particular reason. Much like I visit LR a few times a day, comfortable in the knowledge that the gang will point the way toward things that I may have missed.

And another thing… You folks complaining about journalists vs. bloggers — you commented ON A BLOG. Obviously you’re already consuming meta-media produced by folks that didn’t write the original story. If you’re making fun of bloggers and the idiots who read them, aren’t you making fun of yourself?

I would just point out one thing… I’m not going to e-mail a story about a Bush statement on Iraq and neither is anyone else. It might be the “most important” story of the day to a pro journalist, but why should I forward it? It’s already the top story at every pro journalism outlet anyway.

People are only going to forward advice and quirky bits to one another because everyone already has the same news in all our papers and on all our TV stations and web sites. So don’t be gettin’ all “down” on the public just because what they’re forwarding isn’t what a journalist selected for the “above the fold” headline. They don’t need to forward that top story — all the pro journalists forwarded it to each other already. It’s called the AP.