Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Yes.

It just doesn't mean I have to like them. I have no problem if MSNBC wants to champion the DNC or Fox wants to pander to conservatives, I really don't, just admit to it though and let the ratings be the judge. Same with anything, don't tell me you're objective when you consistently champion only one side in what you tell and don't tell.

Put it this way, if Maddow says Obama will win 2012 in a landslide then to me, it's not noteworthy. Its what she believes and hopes and she will look for things to bolster her beliefs and hope. If she says he'll lose in a landslide, now that's intriguing.

Same on the flip side, if Rush saying none of the current Republican candidates can beat Obama that is far more intriguing to a democrat then him saying any Republican can beat Obama. Why? Because "if XYZ is admitting that then it must be true!"

Same if Alpha or PG came out and threw ALPA under the bus or if Carl came out and raved about how great ALPA was. Now that's not to say that when you speak against your own that it's the only time truth is necessarily told. Rush could be right Obama loses, Maddow could be right Obama wins, but when they say the opposite and you know it's not what they want then is that not more noteworthy?

That's why I don't want someone telling me what will happen in any pending news event until I know where they stand.

To prove my point, going against the grain is a great way to make news. It made McCain a hero to liberal media until 2008 and it Colin Cowherd makes a living off of it to the point you question if he believes much of anything he says? Because it seems as if he seeks controversy first and foremost. And trust me, as an Auburn fan, ESPN bias is a major angst for us.

BTW, ESPN signed a huge contract with the University of Texas, do you really believe they'll report anything negative about UT? Makes you suspicious. But what if they do? Well thats when we'll say "it must be true."