Does no one understand "Impartial{"??

Journalists are supposed to be impartial right? They are supposed to report the facts of a story, whether they agree with it or not. They are not supposed to pick and choose what bits of the facts go into the story nor are they supposed to slant stories to fit their plans/whims/ideals....right???

That's what I was always taught.

Okay so I'm listening to MSNBC to see what they have to say about the "debate" today...when I can't believe what I hear.

They are so non-impartial its scary.

Every two sentences of the anchor, and the slant of his guests, are blantantly left leaning its amazing that they could call themselves a news station!

They glossed over the Clinton campaign's losing a manager in New Hamphire...only seeming to mentioning it because it has placed her campaign in Iowa in danger...it did focus on how every mention of the drug use of Obama seems to hurt both campaigns and how it might possibly help the Edward's campaign instead.

It didn't seem to condemn the Clinton campaign for the "leak" or frequent mention...it didn't seem to take a stand on Obama's past drug use...however--

When talking about a statement that Condy Rice made about Iraq, he is calling for her resignation!

The anchor seems to have a jones for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly...especially O'Reilly. Of course this just tells me that he likes to watch FoxNews.

This man is obsessed with him....I have to admit that I've watched the program before and it seems to be more of an hour long editorial...but still:

The stories are presented as "news items" and therefore should fall under the terms of journalizm---that is impartiality.

So is this what they call "Yellow Journalism"? Because it really seems tainted to me.

How can this station be allowed to do this without some sort of disclosure?

How?

Oh yeah.

They are leaning to the left...wouldn't you love to see FoxNews or talk radio do this??

Yes...

that bit was tongue in cheek.