Well, this explains everything

Fair and balanced?

The words "fair and balanced" have been largely discredited in recent years because of the Fox News Channel, which uses them to mean not that Fox takes an objective, evenhanded approach to the news but that the cable channel is redressing the purported liberal bias of the mainstream news media, balancing them. But Fox aside, the idea of "fair and balanced" is still a mainstay of most journalistic practice, at least in theory. Reporters are not supposed to take sides. For every pro on one side of the scale there must be a con on the other. If the 9/11 commission declares that there is absolutely no credible evidence of any collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the press must also prominently post Vice President Dick Cheney's view that there was a relationship, whether he provides evidence or not. If the preponderance of scientific opinion says global warming threatens the environment, the press must still interview the handful of scientists who dismiss it. That's just the way it is.

What an absolutely dim view of the role that our media is supposed to play in our life. If this is what the media is supposed to do, and indeed it seems like they strive to attain the goals described in this paragraph, then we mine as well stop referring to them as "The Media." Instead, they should be called "The Stenographers."

I thought it was the media's job to tell us the truth. For example, when Cheney claims that Saddam had connections to al-Qa'ida, yet the 9/11 panel disagrees with him and Cheney can't provide any new evidence to back up his claims, isn't it the job of the media to tell us that he's lying? What if Cheney came out with more ridiculous statements? Suppose he uttered his favorite word again and told us that "Saddam fucked donkeys," should the media be "fair and balanced" and take that at face value, too?

Honestly, whatever happened to investigating? Integrity? Hell, have the media completely forgotten the five W's? Who, what, where, when, and, most importantly, why. Instead of simply quoting Cheney's lies, shouldn't the media ask why he's lying?

Could you imagine how our current media would have treated scandals like Watergate? "Well, there's a mountain of evidence that proves Tricky Dick is lying, but he claims innocence. Screw researching all that evidence!" Maybe that's not the best comparison to show us how fucked our media is. The best example is right in front of us: the war in Iraq. If the media ([cough]Judy Woodruff![choke]) had bothered to check their sources every once in a while, and maybe even - god forbid! - do some investigating for once, the American public would have been better informed to realize that our government lied to us. But they didn't, and now almost 900 soldiers have been killed for absolutely no reason.

If those are the shameful results of our media's attempts to be "fair and balanced," then I'll opt for unfair and biased any day of the week.