This is what I am talking about

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Oct 29 2004, 11:56 PM'] *distrust of media grows*

*respect for Iacobus also rises*

Thanks Jake for trying to be honest. [/quote]
Trust in the media? Ah, that is like Diet Caffinee Free Mountan Dew. Good idea, but ruins the fun.

Na, the media is trustworthy, kind of. I would never merely take one report (hint: Rathergate) on something. Now, a report on a report doesn't count as a seperate report. But if say, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, CBC, BBC, are all reporting that this or that happened, and the stories match, I would tend to trust it. A nifty thing about www.news.google.com is that if you search for something, say Missing Iraqi weapons, it will give you a few links but than also a link that says "see all X reports." When I looked it up it had 514 reports, and most were in full agreement *I just read a random sample.* When something like that happens I would belive it is true as true can be.

You probly noticed I also listed BBC and NPR which, according to most, are center to the left. I don't really like FOXNews, I think they are a bit slow in reporting and do a lot of hype (I mean, they are for profit, but neither CNN or MSNBC is quite as bad... yet). But you can add your favorite center to right channel or paper or whatever. If Right leaning and Left leaning outlets say the same thing that is probly right. Diffrences are more likly to be anaylsis, granted it may be some where there is smoke there is fire stuff, but all anaylsis is basied. A report who wants Bush/Kerry/Nader/Someoneelse to win will have a slight difference in wording. It is mostly glass half full, half empty, but nonetheless it is there. And a good balance of news outlets will kind of shift out the anaylsis.

Just my two cents.

It is cool to be respected, but does that make me a role model? Hehe. I like your posts and what I have read on your blog a lot and it is very honoring to know that I am respected by you. Thanks for the kudos.