((Pictures from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad social media, Facebook, social media; Used in accordance with clause 27a of the copyright law …collated and reproduced in Times of Israel.)
They were Palestinian terrorist group members … killed in Gaza strikes by the Israeli Defence Forces many weeks ago … but only recently paid tribute to as heroes on Hamas and Islamic Jihad social media websites.
Why the delay?
Because when they were killed, they were ALL described by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as independent “journalists” slain by Israel … a story dutifully parroted by Western media at the time, without question or doubt.
The Committee for the Protection of Journalists said one of the “journalists” was killed had just returned home after “covering events” at a hospital.
“Abu Eisha was “polite, calm, and kind; someone who avoided conflict,” wrote CPJ, quoting the colleague. It noted his hard work pursuing stories and his recent completion of a PhD in Arabic, ” the Times of Israel reported.
Actually, he was a terrorist! And so were the others shown above, all described by Hamas, Islamic Jihad … and Western media … as “journalists”.
“Combo pictures clockwise from top left: Ahmed Abu Eisha in civilian attire and in Palestinian Islamic Jihad uniform. Mohamed Nased Abu Huwaidi with Press flak jacket and in Islamic Jihad uniform; Ahmed Abu al-Atta in football shirt and Palestinian Islamic Jihad uniform; Hussam al-Adlouni in civilian attire and in Hamas military wing uniform.,” the Times revealed.
The truth hidden … until weeks later, when Hamas and Islamic Jihad published their “martyr”s obits. (Read the full Times story here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/finally-naming-their-war-dead-gazan-terror-groups-admit-slain-journalists-were-fighters/)
But where were the corrections in the media? Where were the apologies to their readers? And to the IDF?
The truth is the media for quite some time have often been “played” by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah numerous times, identifying terrorists (and their family members killed alongside them) as innocent civilians, command centers as tailor shops etc. while hiding rockets/missiles in hospitals, mosques, schools.
That is not to say legitimate journalists have not been killed covering wars: far too many have (I have never forgotten Clark Todd of CTV killed in 1983 while covering the civil war in Lebanon), but increasingly these days, there are far too many one-sided propagandists, fake reporters, who insult real journalism and, frankly, endanger the lives of real correspondents .
But it’s not just the current widespread one-sided anti-Israel bias by far left, pro-Palestinian (even pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah) media activists that is damaging the industry’s credibility.
Readers, listeners and viewers across North America have become more skeptical and even incredulous about almost everything they are being served up as “news”.
“In Canada, as in other Western democracies, trust in the media is low. According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 39 percent of Canadians trust the media overall—down almost 20 percentage points from 2018.,” The Hub reported just last month.
A Pollara poll the same month put the overall trust level at 51%.
Either are horrible for a democracy where journalism used to be a trusted trade. (In the US, it’s even worse: only 25% reportedly trust the media”.)
“Trust in the news has fallen to an all-time low globally – the lowest since annual reports by the Reuters Institute began more than a decade ago,” the BBC reported in June. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgq1py92eko).
“Public trust worldwide is at 37%, three points down on this time last year. In the UK, it has fallen by five points to 30% – 20 points lower than 10 years ago,” BBC said the research found.
How ironic!
I have repeatedly called out the BBC as one of the worst offenders: day after day, almost exclusively showing damage, victims and those displaced by Israeli strikes in Gaza and Lebanon; while almost never showing damage, victims, or those in Israel displaced from their homes, businesses, farms, schools for months now by the hundreds of Hamas/Hezbollah rockets, drones and missiles still being launched their way.
And when Israelis are killed, do their families not hold funerals and mourn their losses? Where is that side of the war coverage?
Then, there’s the BBC’s directory of “experts” is clearly filled almost exclusively with pro-Palestinian voices or, in the few cases where Israelis are actually interviewed, heavily weighted with immediately discernable critics/opponents of Benjamin Netanyahu/Israeli policies.
It’s no wonder public trust in the BBC is so low!
Sadly, the CBC, CTV, Global national broadcasts are not any better.
Readers of this blog know how often I have railed against the loss of objectivity in too much of today’s “news”, with what I see as, not all, but too many news managers, producers and “reporters” pushing their own partisan agendas, rather than canvassing both or all sides of contentious issues.
Good to know I am not alone.
“It’s important to understand that activist journalists’ rejection of objectivity has occurred against a backdrop of plummeting revenues, collapsing business models, widespread outlet closures and layoffs, and a catastrophic decline in institutional resources, capacity, and training,” wrote Hub author Tara Henley. (Read her full analysis here: https://thehub.ca/2026/06/05/its-time-for-the-media-to-stop-rejecting-objectivity/)
Exactly!
“According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, the majority of the global public—some 74 percent—prefer news that provides a wide range of views and allows audiences to make up their own minds,” she wrote.
” People would like us to deliver the facts, to the best of our ability, and leave the public to sort out the rest.”
Clearly, readers, listeners and viewers do not feel we are getting that these days.
Heed that CBC, CTV, Global!
Or keep losing more audience.
Harv Oberfeld
(Follow @harveyoberfeld.ca on “X” for FREE alerts to new postings on this blog. And please, don’t forget: Support Canadian workers. Check the labels! BUY CANADIAN! )
Even with the issues we have about our media, I’m glad to not have those big media corporations and outlets like CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others who sensationalize everything under the sun no matter what political camp their in. Even CNN is disgusting and has gone stupid and forgetful about the mess their maniacs in the Whitehouse started and seem to act and play along as if thier country government and military are in the right no matter what crminality theyre involved in. As far as Isreal is concerned theyre in their own shite of their own making now. Im just not biased enough to only feel for Isreal. The crime against humanity resulting in carpet bombing Gaza into the stone age was a game changer in the revenge game. The American Red and Blue side of government and congress was right there beside them in moral and weapons support, then Trump and his money grubbing slimeballs and his son in law along with Isreal wanted to steal the land and turn itbintoma resort. Talk about kicking people in the guts while their already on their knees. How immoral is that. Even many in Isreal are against the demented idiot in the oval office and even their own war criminal of a leader. Their getting themselves embedded in with the military again like they did in the wasteland and butchering fields of Americas wasteful lost wars of Iraq and Afghanistan . It was shameful to see one of CNNs anchors or host and pretend journalist on a aircraft carrier acting in cheerleader mode for this illegal and criminal war. Though the Iran regime is a bad bunch as is Hamas and Hezbolah and the other usual suspects, there was no legitimacy to this Iran war that’s causing anguish and hardships across the globe and now the softened cowardly American media especially CNN are looking like they’ve given in to getting embedded and on board. Old Blitzer even looks like a deer in the headlights now and not even placing a hard qeustion, let alone anything remotely inquisitive. His cohort host Pamela Brown looks like she’s there as a unquestioning statue in a chair. Most of them just lazily repeat most everything that’s pumped out from the press releases of the government without even lighting up a brain cell of journalistic ability to ask a tough qeustion most times. I do wait for the good ones though like Fareed Zakaria and Christiane Amanpour but the rest of them, it’s just Duhhh. I think our media, though it could use some changes blows away the the sensationalistic glamorized, entertainment centers of American big media.
(Response: No doubt the media is not what it used to be … and not for the better. Biased one-sided coverage is very prominent now … management, producers, reporters far too often pushing their own agendas. But I still hold out hope that is only a temporary aberration and declining readership, listeners and viewers will force change… eventually. Ho)
No it sure isn’t and I hope our journalists and news people never get to a point where don’t stand up at least say something in defense of themselves or others like they did not do at the journalist awards dinner and convention whereby big bully Trump demeaned and put down journalists and especially one from CNN and she and her co-workers sat like chickens and took it. Not even another older well known CNN veteran host and journalist that was there took made any sacrifice to at least say something in defense of the journalist who was an award winner. Not one stood up. I do get the integrity thing but, there’s a line where at least someone could have said something in defense even if they were removed, and so what, and this is not the first time Trump has said disgusting things like the time he called a woman journalist a Piggy, and repeated that line of demeaning filth, and she or no one stood else stood up to that thing called a president. I pray we in Canada never have to witness that level of spinelessness from our news people and journalists if we ever have the unfortunate situation. America has. American news media people in these positions have given everyone in democracies where freedom of the press is still an integral functioning an example of how even journalists, the press and media people in general can lose all integrity and disgracecthemselves in public view by not even raising one finger in protest or defense of themselves. They should be ashamed of themselves. I’m definitely ashamed of them.
(Response: Trumps speech was disgraceful. I found it hard to believe this was actually a United States president who was actually speaking: sounded more like a really disturbed individual on a rant. however, I would disagree with you when you suggest that journalists should have spoken up at that dinner to correct him or criticize him or basically walk out on him. The correspondents dinner is a long tradition of politicians and journalist getting together: it is not the place for the invited guest to be insulted or questioned or chastised… even when he shows disrespect, lies or seems unwell. Silence was the appropriate response… and Trump got a lot of that from the actual journalists in attendance. Where/how they should respond is by doing their jobs when they are on the job … by telling the truth about his actions, exposing his lies and exercising the First Amendment. Ho)
(Response: Wow! Judging by your last line, you seem to blame the victims more than the culprits! So you think it’s my bias … instead of the very obvious almost total one-sidedness of the BBC … Ho)
Interesting response. Not what I said at all.
After listing the facts from a story you picked to show how biased BBC is and after acknowledging that bias does exist in the media and after showing how an imaginary Hamas supporter might accuse the BBC of bias from that same story you picked, my last sentence read…
“But in the Wahidi case, where you see one thing, and I see another thing, and an Hamas supporter sees a third thing, then maybe it is our biases that are the problem and not the journalist’s.”
Note, I used OUR not your. I specifically said in the Wahidi case. If you are trying to prove that the BBC is horribly biased then I am suggesting that this particular story is not the best example. And again, to be clear, I listed three different people (you, me, and an imaginary Hamas supporter). Using that story and that story alone, there are three different views of BBC bias. Two of us have to be wrong. Maybe you are right but I think I am. (But I’m biased.) And to be clear, I am only talking about my reaction to the Wahidi story, not the BBC in general.
But let’s continue and to be clear again (why do I have to repeat that), I am not advocating a side. I am trying to determine answers. Maybe I am less trusting than I think I am.
Polls. Do we trust polls. Sometimes. Sometimes not. It might depend on our bias toward the subject matter and the result. So the Reuters poll suggests that trust in the media has declined. I am not surprised by this so I will trust its veracity. But, (and I asked this question in my first response when you said the western media dutifully parroted), what is meant by media. So I googled the reuters site.
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2026/canada
Scroll to the chart on brand trust or to save time here are the highlights and I was shocked.
Topping the list
CTV 64% trust
CBC 62%
Global 62%
Print doesn’t do quite as well although
Local and regional papers 64%
then
Globe and Mail 56%
Toronto Star 52%
National Post 50%
And foreign sources
BBC 57%
NYT 54%
CNN 51%
Fox 37%
and the only digital listed
Yahoo News 37%
Square that circle for me. Only 37% of us trust the media but individual news sources get high scores. And note the National Post with 50% isn’t horrible because only 19% don’t trust them. 31% said neither. There were lots of neithers for the other news sources as well.
So what do we mean by media?
This is not to say the MSM can’t do better. But in an instantaneous digital world where the president of the USA screams fake news and lots of influencers (who don’t use journalistic standards) have millions of followers, it is hard not to be struggling. Sad for sure.
(Response: My own interpretation of the Reuters study is that, while high numbers of readers, listeners and viewers no longer trust the media, those who do continue to read/watch have their favorite s. And I believe a lot of that stems from habit: it is very difficult to get people who have read a particular newspaper or watched a particular newscast for years, or even decades,to change their habits. Perhaps the biggest indicator of decline is the number of newspapers that have folded, shrunk or gone digital only or newscasts that have been slashed. If the readership and viewers … and trust … were there, the advertisers would be also. No doubt in my mind that a very key component of trust is delivering unbiased coverage and too much of the media is now failing at that, pushing agendas instead.Sad. Ho)
Sorry Harvey. I am just fascinated that we don’t see the same things when viewing or reading the same news story.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwylznzjk04o
In your response to me you related a BBC story about the death of humanitarian aid worker Muhammed Al Wahidi and claimed that the BBC was purposely leaving things out to make Israel look bad. I have linked the BBC story above. I have read a few more.
These are the facts as I understand them. I am mostly using the BBC story unless noted.
1. Wahidi was travelling in a taxi that was struck, killing him and the driver and 2 brothers aged 8 and 10 who were on the street.
2. The Israeli military confirmed that they were targeting an Hamas operative and that Wahidi was not a target. They also said they were aware of claims that uninvolved people were hurt and were investigating.
3. In the BBC article above and others it isn’t clear if the driver was the target. I am assuming if the military were investigating “claims” then maybe not all the information was available to the BBC and those other news sources. But who knows.
4. In a Guardian story the driver supposedly survived and it was another guy on the street who was killed.
5. In another story the, in this case dead, driver was identified as Ahmed Daghmush and the assumption is that he was the Hamas militant although a doctor was quoted saying that Daghmush had no ties to Hamas. Again who knows.
Your complaint about the BBC story was that they didn’t say enough about the Hamas operative and just focused on Wahidi.
My position. Given all the uncertainties what else could they do. It was a tragedy. By all accounts Wahidi was a good human. The focus should have been on him.
Now, just for fun let’s imagine what an actual Hamas supporting news network might have added. The BBC stated the fact that the taxi was targeted and uninvolved people were killed but they did not attach any blame to the military. Last year, the Israelis were able to kill people through their cell phones but today they have to target a taxi driver with a passenger and in the middle of a street where kids are playing! And how easy would it be to emphasize those children. But there was zero reporting on them. No angst, no grieving parents. Just Wahidi was killed along with two brothers age 8 and 10.
This is why I get frustrated with complaints about bias. And don’t get me wrong there are plenty of occasions when bias is obvious or one side of the debate doesn’t get a fair chance to get their point across. I actually hate that. I want to hear the other side because it forces me to find facts that make my opinion stronger.
But in the Wahidi case, where you see one thing, and I see another thing, and an Hamas supporter sees a third thing, then maybe it is our biases that are the problem and not the journalist’s.
(Response: Wow! Judging by your last line, you seem to blame the victims more than the culprits! So you think it’s my bias … instead of the very obvious almost total one-sidedness of the BBC (and the CBC often as well) in reporting so many issues/stories/controversies (like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihadists right in our midst, or on immigration, refugees, First Nations, trans-gender, right to life etc.) ? Anyone who watches the BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera can be forgiven for thinking it’s always civilians being targeted, killed, wounded …lots of women and children … seldom any real terrorist armed to the teeth … until their funerals and tributes as Hamas. Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad “martyrs”. And where are the CBC/BBC/Al Jazeera stories of mourning Israelis, bombed out homes/businesses/cars and thousands of displaced villagers, farmers, families, kids in Israel still displaced and still being targeted by rockets/snipers ??? May I remind you that the polling done in Canada (and the US) canvassed …not me … but thousands of media consumers and far too many of them gave the media a FAILING score when it comes to trust. Is it their fault … their bias? No …clearly, thousands polled … and actually, hundreds of thousands, based on dropping ratings … read, hear and see what I see …even if you cannot…. biased producers, reporters, editors pushing a far left/even pro-terrorist agenda … and they’re now being caught out! Ho)
One newscast that I tune in everyday at 5pm is CHEK news ….. 90% of the coverage is local … once in a while they take cuts from CBC …. CHEK is a real TV station .. which is owned by the staff …..
(Response: I remember when I was working how those of us at BCTV, through our union, contributed to the CHEK employees’ purchase of the station to prevent its closure. It’s good local news. As I said earlier, seems to me the biggest credibility problem lies with “national” newscasts, newspaoers, where newspapers and tv networks are taking sides on events/conflicts/social issues. Terrible … and it’s clearly being noticed and has led to the distrust of media in general. Ho)
Trust, what trust? I lost my trust in the Canadian media a quarter of a century ago.
What we see today, pretending to be the media is a cadre of Fox Entertainment North, spewing nonsense.
Sadly, radio news is now almost gone as CKWX/News 1130 is now gone. Dead Dog 98, is again on life support and the CBC just live in their little world, that very few venture to listen to.
The result is utterly corrupt politics, because the “fourth estate” is no longer and the average person does not have the time to do the research, let alone come to ant conclusions.
Example: The Massey tunnel replacement fiasco.
The pro bridge lobby claim that a bridge would have cost $3.5 billion and be in operation today, yet evidence points to the fact that this is myth.
From my archive: a news item from ‘ News Talk 980 CKNW’ in 2017 stated:
“A leaked document released by the BC NDP says the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge will cost a lot more to finance the project than the promised $3.5-billion.
The document shows total interest costs from 2017 to 2068 are forecasted to be $8-billion.”
And there is more but you get the hint.
Basically, BC’s media is on the same scale as Tokyo Rose and Lord Ha, Ha – propaganda to sell to the masses and i treat it as such.
(Response: in a way it is kind of reassuring that the public is noticing and is showing its mistrust in what they are being pedalled by tuning out.However, I know journalism is an essential part of our democratic system, so it bothers me. Reporters (and editors, producers and management) all have a duty to recognize theirs is a sacred duty: to report all sides … not to push their own agendas, biases and turn journalism into propaganda. Ho)
Just curious. How did everybody react when they read this sentence?
“when they were killed, they were ALL described by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as independent “journalists” slain by Israel … a story dutifully parroted by Western media at the time, without question or doubt.”
Here is how I reacted.
Dutifully parroted? Interesting choice of words.
Western media? Who? The CBC? The National Post? Fox News? every media outlet that I don’t like but none of the ones I do?
Then I googled (can I trust google?) each of the four names in the Times of Israel report. (And if we are questioning media bias should we trust the Times of Israel?) The only hits were The Times of Israel story and a report from The Committee for the Protection of Journalists referenced in the Times of Israel story. Oh, there were a few others like a facebook page or a tweet or something that looked Arabic and even a complaint from UNESCO (none of which I read) but nothing from any media source that I recognized. I even narrowed my search by going to CBC and BBC online news and typing the names into their search bar. Nothing.
Maybe my searching wasn’t as efficient as it could have been. Or maybe nobody dutifully parroted anything. Who knows when we are dealing with an institution that nobody seems to trust.
And then my mind starts wondering or more likely wandering. What were these “journalists” doing to deserve to be targeted by Israel. Were they planting bombs, funneling weapons or were they propagandizers for Hamas writing highly biased reports full of misleading information and generally lying through their teeth – like every presidential press secretary in recent memory and everybody would/should be outraged if one of them had been targeted by Hamas.
The fact that most people don’t trust the media is both alarming and understandable. For about 25 years now we have been living in an online world where anybody can say practically anything and have it broadcast to thousands even millions. How are really good journalists supposed to compete/be believed when someone like Alex Jones had millions of followers believing that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
I kind of trust our media whether it is the CBC, the Globe and Mail or the National Post etc. There are certainly biases but many times what I see as bias is just as likely my bias reacting to a negative story about something I support.
(Response: You should not dismiss bias in the media as just someone having a difference of opinion:that’s quite possible on, say, an Op-ed page. I’m talking about reporting real news, where a biased media give only one side of the story and deliberately or through incompetence leave out the other side, which is especially important in covering conflicts.
Just this last Thursday I watched a BBC program called BBC News Now: they devoted an entire story to a Palestinian in Gaza, Mohamed Ala-Wahidi, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike on a car and was someone who had organized World Cup street screenings. “Man behind Gaza’s World Cup screenings killed” read the headline running under the story. The piece said the man , “described as a great hero by many” had helped thousands of Gazans get aid during the conflict etc … but then, almost as an aside,there was a single mention that in the car with him was the main target “a Hamas military activist who participated in the Oct 7 attack”. Huh??? if terrorists had struck the Bard On The Beach in Vancouver one night and killed 1200 people attending … and months later, police tracked down one of the culprits and took him out in an attack on a car. would we accept the media emphasizing what a great guy was a civilian in his car who also died in the police action … but providing no info on who the target, the suspected killer was, no statement from police on what he had done etc etc??? Like you, I Googled what happened and,actually, the Israelis identified THREE Hamas terrorists tracked down and taken out in strikes … naming them all, their ranks and what they had done. On the BBC … none of that! Just that a guy organizing the screening of the World Cup was with one of them and also died. In my opinion, and experience, that BBC story failed journalistically and just tried to make Israel look terrible… leaving out key information that would’ve explained who the actual target was and what his association was with the October 7 massacre of 1200 innocent people attending a concert.
No wonder so many people … not just me … have lost trust in the media these days. That MUST be addressed and corrected… and a good way to start is by giving both sides of any controversial story … not just push one side! Ho)
So where does one find a news outlet, radio or TV or newspaper that is truthfull honest and with integrity?
What’s happened to the media?
(Response: I sadly do not trust any news outlet these days 100%. So what I do, as a news junkie still, is read several print sources (on line) and watch several news networks … being aware of each of their biases … and then put it all together to get what I feel is a pretty accurate version of reality. Ho)
Great topic Harvey.
So many instances of partial coverage, lying by omission, editorial biases aplenty and complete ignorance of why audiences are fleeing with ad dollars in tow.
Subsidized media, an albatross which has ruined any future chances of objective, accurate news. Today’s Canadian media is akin to 1990 Blockbuster video stores. Technology, choice and nauseating “entertainment tonight” bits. No fashion show reports, no editorial biases, no blind pro government slants due to bailout funds, this is a start to fix the current issues. Be relevant or go Dodo, this should be the choices in corporate news boardrooms. Businesses fail every day, for a myriad of reasons, why is it that we now have to fund these dinosaur outlets? What chances at improvement are not pursued due to lazily waiting for taxpayer top ups?
BTW, today I noticed that BBC’s website has flipped to pay for access. Who’d want to pay for that skewed coverage is a question for the BBC board. I guess zero clicks coming from me, ratchet up the bill for BBC in Jolly Ole….
(Response: Lying by omission is the most difficult bias to spot … until you’re aware of it and start watching (or listening) for it. It is most obvious in watching international news… Just pay attention to the slant of the story and who they interview and then try to think about whose side is being left out and whose spokespersons are not being interviewed. But even in reporting domestic issues … like the environment, indigenous claims/complaints, abortion, drugs, crime … we should ask ourselves. Are we getting both sides or sometimes three or four sides of a story… and, if not, why not? Ho)
39% still believe in the objectivity of the reported news?
I take everything I see on Global or the CBC with a grain of salt.
From the endless colonizer blamefest on Global to the poor downtrodden Hamas on CBC.
What has surprised me is the age of the “news” skeptics.
I have friends in their 80’s that refuse to watch the news anymore because they think it is so biased.
Incredible.
And when you toss in the people 25 years old or younger that get all their info from the internet.
Is it any wonder the majority shareholders at Rodgers announce the spending of $5 billion dollars to gain 100% ownership of Maple Leaf Entertainment Group….and the next day announce the closure of tv and radio stations coast to coast.
They know where their bread is buttered….
And it isnt the woke, lecturing, milksop drivel spoon fed to an increasingly angry, fed up cynical audience.
Politicians take note.
(Response: I still believe in the future of real journalism as an essential part of our democracy. However, like apparently a growing number of Canadians (and Americans etc., too. ) it really bothers me when I see news reporting pushing a particular agenda and actually it’s quite easy to spot. If you are aware of what they are doing: one-sided coverage of contentious issues, backed up by one-sided interviews and one-sided “experts”. I have long found that to be increasingly frustrating, but I am heartened by the fact that according to the polls, many many others are not being fooled, and know they are being played by the media, rather than being informed.
But I still believe that one day that will change and reporting with once again become real reporting… and readers, listeners and viewers will return! Ho)
I still watch Global 6pm for the latest forest fire update, cat in tree, or the latest political gaff.
The rest of it?
I’m out.
Which, for a rabid current events junkie like me,…says volumes.
If I watch 10 minutes of the 1 hour “news”.
Thats typical.
Any pc lecturing from any of these self appointed Woke guardians… I’m out.
The overlords at these media conglomerates have done it to themselves.
(Response: For the most part, local news, in my opinion, is not as biased as the various “national” broadcasts, because a lot of the stories they cover are less controversial (accidents, fires, community events, sports, promotions). Of course, when they venture into covering politics, whether that is local, provincial or federal, or in running international stories just fed to them, that’s where the bias and one sidedness often comes in. The biggest problem for local news is all the cutbacks in staffing and research and just quality reporting… Which must be addressed before they lose ALL their readers, listeners and viewers! Ho)