RIGHT TO THE CHIN

Media sources from other countries -- heck, even New York Times! -- can give you new insights and often more accurate, less biased information. It's been frightening - at least for me - the news that goes unreported by mainstream American Media. And I read these articles the way I read news from the local media -- assume it's bull until you've gone to a few other sources, then you can move up to "skeptical." Nobody wants to believe they're being manipulated or hoodwinked.

The comment above was inappropriate. So what? That means the British news is what? Human? If one comment from one journalist causes you to shut out news media sources from the UK, it's no wonder you're still voting for Bush. Emotion about it clouds reason. Just scanning a timeline on the history of the US and Iraq dashes any ideas of nobility or justification or right or wrong, good guys or bad guys, when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Kerri, talk about inappropriate. "...can give you new insights and often more accurate, less biased information." Did you even read the column?? I didn't think so. UK media is brutal to say the least. Insightful, I guess so, if it fits your anti-Bush agenda. More accurate, sure, if you don't care about legitimate facts. Less biased?? Whatever. Kerri, I understand that you don't get it, you probably never will. I'd like to hear or read some of this "news that goes unreported by mainstream American Media" that you seem to know so much about. Can you enlighten me??? It's a shame that people like you would stoop so low to defend a two bit hack looking for a headline... in British papers. Where's your head?

I didn't see an article on the link. I did, however, find the following disclaimer there:

Screen Burn, The Guide

Sunday October 24, 2004
The Guardian

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Is this some kind of retro-editing a la 1984?

Gosh, Bill, I didn't know you had ever started listening to Europeans in the first place.

b edwards -- I have never read anything from The Guardian, actually. I've never even heard of it. Obviously there are biased and unbiased sources in the UK, just like in the US. No need to get so belligerent. I thought it was common sense -- that is, if you want to have an accurate picture of world events, you should explore a variety of sources. I wasn't necessarily speaking to that particular source, but to European sources in general.

And I probably should've said "under-reported." I definitely can't view every news source. But I follow the news constantly -- I even watch O'Reilly! (of course, I counter that with Real Time with Bill Mahr) -- and each week I can find stories, from European websites, that I knew nothing about, like Kahn, and the Florida hurricane funds going to Miami.

And I am an avid hater of Governor Bush. And subconsciously it may very well be influencing my perception of the news. Nobody's perfect.