i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
effect
about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.

Based on these two examples, you seem to have me pegged as a Republican,
which isn't quite true. I've found some nuggets of truth in Fox News, but
I ignore any of their political discussion, just as I ignore CNN and
newspaper editorials. I used to soak it up because I thought it was
intelligent, educated content by knowledgable people, but it's not. Most
of it is just political moving and shaking by people with agendas. Seems
obvious to me now. Journalism has nothing to do with reporting facts and
relaying news any more. It's about sensationalism and ratings. Cable
news is entertainment first and truth second, and newspapers are getting
to be that way, too. This is why I try to accumulate sources and find the
one vein of truth that is consistant across all stories and draw my
opinions from that. Quotes are the hardest thing to deal with for me,
because I know that they're almost always taken out of context to serve
the aims of the reporter.

even when that guy who was making up **** in the NYT was writing articles
it was still better than the best factual FOX report I have ever read ( or
seen )

I don't agree with that. I've seem Fox at least report things that are
true. Blair was making up landscapes, towns, people, and interviews that
never existed and/or took place.

and that goes for the weather on FOX as well ...

Amen.

i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
really
have to hand it to the BBC,

What's sad is that the BBC has more information in its reports on what
goes on in America than most American news agencies.