Yeah... damn those far-left liberal bastards over at Wikipedia. and CNN. and NBC. and CBS. and ABC. and MSNBC. and the BBC. and NPR. and PBS. and the Weather Channel. and Mirriam-Webster's. and The Discovery Channel. and the History Channel. and History International. and Comedy Central. and the New York Times. and the Washington Post. and the London Tribune. and Highlights. and Ranger Rick. and Encyclopedia Brittanica. and basically everyone and the ENTIRE rest of the world who's not Fox News. Because Fox is fair and balanced, it's EVERY SINGLE other person who lives all over the world who is liberally biased.
Mirriam-Webster and Britannica are fairly neutral. I can't say the same of the Weather Channel, particularly in the last few months. I don't watch Fox News and so have nothing useful to say about it. These have little to do with the Wikipedia Problem, which, by its very nature, is a special case. But aside from that, the leftoid bias of the press is easily demonstrated, and anybody can do it - no need to take anyone else's word for it.
Hell, it's not even hard. Google News Search makes it easy to read accounts of the exact same news item as released by various outlets. Follow a news story which has a clear and obvious (not to mention hackneyed) Left and Right side - gun control, for example - and see how the exact same news incident is portrayed. There will be two distinct stories, sometimes three, which cast the event in entirely different lights. Often the simple omission of one or two words will do the trick, so close reading is essential.
After one sees enough of these instances, it becomes hard to believe that they aren't deliberate. Reporters in general aren't particularly well educated or overly sharp, and probably couldn't even spell "science" or "history" without the assistance of mssrs. Mirriam or Webster. But that only goes so far in explaining what otherwise can only be attributed to willful attempts to disseminate propaganda. (Incidentally, the Mirriam-Webster dictionary isn't what American newspapers generally use. Following the lead of the New York Times, the trend has been to standardize on the Webster's New World, another good dictionary.)
It's an enlightening exercise. Few people bother, though. Most are quite comfortable with their preconceptions.
