When I was in St. Louis, I routinely did the CNN-Fox “bounce.” These days, I don't rely on either. (I've only reported details about CNN lately because I've been posted where some downtime leads to doing what I normally never do, watch teevee, and CNN is on 24 hours on one of the channels. I've not bothered to look at Fox as well.)

I like the Pew polls. Pew itself may have “issues,” too, but it appears to do good work and I like the polling data. (Otherwise, I avoid, not merley discount, polls, as a rule.)

“There is an opening at Telemundo, Lou”

Opinion and news used to be two separate products, hence the Editorial page in the news paper. When everything went electronic, the blur between the two became pronounced.

One shouldn't hear opinion in the news, and opinions should rely upon verified facts as citations for that opinion. Journalism has lost that distinction, and the inter tubes are froth with biased reporting.

My two kids are part of the internet generation. In school, they quickly learned that most all the knowledge of mankind was available via google. As a parent, I had to realize that education had changed, no longer did kids need to search books and publications for data. My children never learned to piece together facts on their own, they merely plucked them from the ether in milliseconds. They had to be taught that the National Geographic and Wikipedia were not equally valid sources. The new skill required was the ability to read the bias as well as the article, and then discern the truth.

The internet lacks certification. Newspaper News reports that got it wrong were once a big deal that cost people jobs. I believe its why we have seen the drop in real journalism. Writing a news story used to be the last step of reporting a story. Discovering the facts, ala Woodward and Bernstein, was the real job of journalism. Now, the facts are canned, and instant news seasoned with opinion is the result.

If a story interests you, read both polarities of the bias and know neither is reporting the truth. It's the new skill required for the 21st century.

Do the latter even watch CNN unless their plane is delayed at the airport?

That's a fine ultraviolet (“red to far red”) description of the obvious big blue shift endemic for ages.

Actually, no, not “anyone,” (as in “everyone”) just as other disagreements don't “require” this. But that's where most of the disagreement will arise on this Web site.

* * *

“it makes sense that they would get rid of Dobbs”

Odd man out.

This actually doesn't surprise me at all. (Of more interest is the dumbing-down of programming and on-the-air behavior by others at CNN progressively this year. How long until we hear flippant statements all the time, or see that intentionally-stupid fast motion replay in “serious news” stories as well as when and were it already has been done more and more, for example? And the silly graphics and sound effects…)

With one hand, Obama offers the carrot of killing talk radio, bankruptcy protection, and billions in cash for selected companies. With the other, he leads a war against the critics at Fox News. Since CNN is not going to change its entire market orientation to compete with Fox, it makes sense that they would get rid of Dobbs and align with the Administration's cheerleading squad.

But, DLS, therein lies the problem. Anyone who disagrees with you representing the mainstream is immediately labeled “well to the left of center” thereby attempting to discredit anyone who disputes your claim, just as you habitually refer to democrats as libs or demmies while claiming the status of moderate for yourself…notwithstanding that those “demmies” constitute majorities in both houses of congress and hold the White House.

In my original comment I made reference to those who brand anyone who disagrees as a “liberal shill or a right wing hack”. You have just branded those who disagree with your assessment as left wing shills. Thank you once again for helping make my point.

Me, too. Oh, the bias is sick and the smarm queens can be sick, too. But overall the programming quality and the approach to programming is better than other sources. I have two FM channels set to NPR here in Detroit metro (91.7 and 101.9 if I recall), and they give me often different program choices.

* * *

“I chalk up their recent move left to Obama worship. I don't think it has that much to do with ideology. They just like feeling cool. ”

Of course! They were engaging in outright puppy love over the guy earlier this year! (Even someone who ought to know and be better, David Gergen, was fawning and more about “how a r t i c u l a t e he is.”) Note that even on CNN (as with most people, including liberals, everywhere), the honeymoon has appeared largely to have subsided now, and being pro-Obama de rigeur cool is more a routine matter.

* * *

“Bet I could find more than a few at TMV who would take issue with that statement.”

This is a site populated in large part by those well to the left of center.

And don't presume or demand that moderation be accompanied by mushiness. I decline the latter.

“Many who aren't mainstream get defensive when those of us who are claim the “area” rightly.”

Bet I could find more than a few at TMV who would take issue with that statement. We might even hear from some of them on this thread if they show up.

This is actually a pretty good example of everyone believing in his/her own mind that he/she is mainstream/moderate. Thank you, DLS, for helping make my point for me.

“Clintons 'third way' type of style”

This, a marketing and “Potemkin Village” ploy by the Dems to try to appear more “safe and sane” than the notoriety the Dems' and liberalism had earned in past years, was shallow, and in practice merely an incrementalist position little different than saying, “only partially, not fully, socialized” about the economy of the USA, for example.

And, of course, this phony “intermediate” or “compromise” (even “reasonable compromise” [snicker]) depiction is used currently for the public option core of the Dems' health care “reform” (federal government takeover) effort.

I've always been fond of NPR. In today's sorry state of MSM journalism, I think they are a breath of fresh air. Scott Simon is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people out there.

Actually, this is no different than claims to “respectability” as well as to, e.g., “legitimacy” by the same crowd. They would make the same claims if they could, about the electorate and candidacies (which is to say, candidates, as they have about Palin), but must settle for cheap, lowly attacks and resentment since Reagan was elected (to which insult was added with the double election of George W. Bush).

That's not quite so — I have one friend who's very far left and admits it openly (and proudly).

Many who aren't mainstream get defensive when those of us who are claim the “area” rightly.

I suspect the key to learning what is the “middle” or “moderate” is, though, to look at “everybody,” indeed — or at least a suitably large sample. This is what Pew has done for us, and hasn't gone unnoticed:

http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/05/us-ideol…

* * *

“I see CNN as a little left center.”

They are, if not more so — without a doubt. The media in general remain left of center, as is academia and government. “Birds of a feather” — in large part, it may be the nature of those who gravitate toward such loci, I've long suspected. It also made me think about Polimom's reference to “Classic Liberalism.” Well, the real thing by that honest name never went away — it's called “libertarianism” now,and has become so as liberalism changed in the modern era (since the late 19th century and disaffection with laissez-faire government as well as economic policy, urbanization, and belief that the scientific revolution enabled mankind to engage in social, economic, and other kinds of engineering). A related, more pertinent topic is that of old-fashioned (“classic”) modern liberalism — it receded after being displaced by its more radical counterpart after the later 1960s. But it can be found, still, and not only in the historical section of libraries, but elsewhere, including in economics and social policy areas, for example, where you can find, as I have, pre-1965 books on topics such as the guaranteed minimum income and the desire to have the federal government arrange and provide this to people in the USA. (It goes almost without saying that romantic adulation for Marx and all kinds of government interventionism as well as Marxism itself did not suddenly emerge after 1965, but was present, along with related bias and fiction, such as mischaraterizing typical conservatives as “paranoid” or otherwise mentally ill or aberrent, long before 1965. Such a bias is not limited to historical works, often laudatory of the New Deal and FDR.)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KU_qLvOMe_s/R5Dwdil8Y…

“… A 'Moral Values' Scale …”

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=338

“… Ideology of the Candidates …”

http://people-press.org/report/323/both-sides-r…