Get my info from The NO Spin Zone, GMA, my adoptive brother, he's a career politician, and his wife. And I vote from the gut.
It takes me a while to decide.

Jabber,
Where do your brother and his wife get their information? And what's GMA (grandma?)? With all due respect, you need to get more and better information _then_ vote from your gut.

As an OB-GYN nurse-instructor to new moms years ago, I would tell them to listen to me, both sets of grandparents, their friends, neighbors, medical professionals and information both online and off. Then when it came to making any non-medical decisions about their baby's care, do what feels right to them. If whatever they decide doesn't work out, they still have lots of resources to draw from.

That's how I approach voting too. As an Independent, I listen to many resources online and off, check it out againt a politician's REAL experience, and go with my gut.

Much of what you'll hear these days about national candidates, reeks of bias. I figure as a boomer I'm wise enough to tell who's real and who is plainly echoing a party line and saying what people want to hear, in order to garner votes.

If you go with your gut, I don't think you can go wrong.....

Whenever a politician speaks, I only believe half of what s/he says . There is so much BS flying around, from both sides, that I always go to Annenberg FactCheck to see what's really true. http://www.factcheck.org/

I don't believe there is a liberal bias in mainstream news - their owners are almost always conservatives and most of what we hear isn't the full story anyway but a series of soundbites.

Most of the news I read comes from Google News, which is a collection of stories with sometimes 100+ sources so I can read both sides. I also watch PBS news (MacNeil/Lehrer)as it's more in depth than what the networks show. I used to watch Fox News but have found their pundits to be neither fair nor balanced but just spouting their opinions, which to me isn't journalism. The sites that I watch and read have proven their worth with reporting both sides of an issue, not just the Democrat or Republican party lines.

I am an Independent and never vote the party ticket but for individuals who I think will do the most for my city, state, and country, whether or not their beliefs coincide with mine. As far as the so-called 'hot-button' issues like abortion and gay marriage; I believe these are distractions from the major issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the coming war with Iran; the sad state of our economy; the widening income gap; a less than stellar education system; and the assaults on the environment.

Of course, these are just my opinions.

God bless your neighbor's boy now in heaven, Renee. I very muched loved the Down's kids I met as a child at our local parochial school, where they met on weekends to play sports. I remember thinking that they looked different, and they sure acted different toward me than those seemingly "normal-acting" kids who made fun of my big nose or raggedy clothes.

Down's kids are a very special kind of people, because they know how to show love better than most other humans put together.

In this day where perfectionism is frequently about superficial outside beauty, I'm so glad we have people like Governor Palin around to remind us that loving and shielding special babies from harm is a deep form of love not unlike what God has given to children like her son "Trig."

Along with the Kennedys and many millions of others, I support Special Olympics and all programs designed to empower special needs children and adults.

We all can learn so much from the many colorful and different flowers God has made.....

There is a HUGE bias in media, some of which is inevitable. There are many courses and books on the subject, including online resources like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
Thanks for the link you offered as another online resource.

PS: Many media venues are owned by liberal individuals or organizations, a fact you can easily check on your own or with the help of a local reference librarian.

DJ, GMA is Good Morning America (CBS morning news+… Dianne & Robin) And Jabber they are worth watching.

Josie... couldn't have said it better!
Both sides have biased reporting (there's no such thing as unbiased reporting, anyway)... right mostly on talk radio, while left has the TV angle... but you can find both on radio and TV... both have their internet and print sources...
If you use your unbiased intuition, you'll see/hear where the biases lay... it may take some practice.

You have to remember Wikipedia is publicly written, and can be modified by any approved contributor. Per Wikipedia, it is a “free content encyclopedia project” and “is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world.” Some high schools and colleges won’t allow it to be used as a referenced source.

Yonuh, you made an excellent point : “As far as the so-called 'hot-button' issues like abortion and gay marriage; I believe these are distractions from the major issues...” These effect a handful, while the other issues you mentioned effect the greater part of the whole. I believe abortion and gay marriage issues should be taken to a state level. An aside: I’m inclined to believe education would do better under state by state total administration.

I think there use to be an extreme liberal bias, esp. on TV. It seems of late (most obvious during this election) each news group has been trying to (or making a show as if they are trying to) temper their coverage with what Fox News takes claim to – balanced and fair reporting. The old adage applies, however, “what’s in the heart comes out of the mouth.” If a listener is tuned in, determined to find truth(*), s/he can hear and see what they need to.
(*To add, what is one wo/man’s truth, may be another’s untruth. There is nothing that can be proven to be true except what we are experiencing this very minute. Even the words I’m typing right now cannot be ‘proven’ one way or another to you... they are my truth at this moment in time. Your interpretation at the time of reading this is your truth at the moment in time. ---
Recorded history is negated, contradicted, and questioned as time marches on. Predictions for the future can't be truth until they happen. Truth is now.)

To answer Dotsie's question:
TV - I watch programs on PBS, CSPAN, CNN, CBS, a little ABC… use to watch Fox News, but don’t get it anymore (miss it).

Internet – all over the place… Yahoo News is my homepage, but I have feeds from
Hanlon's Razor lib
Huntington Post lib
TalkingPoints lib
Drudge Report cons
PJ Media cons
even though there is no such thing as unbiased reporting/commenting, here might be some close tries:
The Nation
FactCheck.org
SourceWatch/Congresspedia (yes, wiki fam)

Don't do radio or print... unless in car or in some waiting room and something is available.... internet is more up to the minute.

There is absolutely no way to read/hear everything... that's why forum discussions like this are so worth it.

I'll stick this in one more time... body language

My opinions

I'm responding to Gims' comment, "There's no such thing as unbiased reporting" as well as the continuing comments that there's a liberal bias in the US media. To me, that's poppycock. If you think it's true, then you've never really met an _extremely liberal_ person!

While we all have our point of view - perspective - worldview, that isn't necessarily the same as "bias". Bias has become one of those buzzwords that people use but don't define or explore. Like "liberal". They become codes. And when we use words like that, we don't communicate as well as we might.

In conversations and discussions, is it possible to come to a consensus? Is it possible to combine our different points of view and opinions, and find answers to problems? I think it is. We've taken part in classroom discussions for years and we send our kids to schools to learn how to do this. We are, in fact, having discussions in these forums. If it were fruitless, I don't think we'd do it.

Media are supposed to provide outlets for such discussions. They don't live up to this standard and you could say that the situation is becoming quite dire. But painting all media with the same brush doesn't help matters. What does help is to hold media accountable, and not allow them to be sloppy.

People can learn to examine their biases. Journalists and researchers are trained to do this. In anthropology they call it "bracket your assumptions" which means to acknowledge that you have certain assumptions and that they might affect how you see something.

In the US all newspapers in the 1830s used to have a specific political party label. All news was written from the standpoint of that party. In Italy and France, such papers still exist. You can also find them in the US but it's not as simple as some would have you believe.

When advertising became the primary way for supporting the US media, political affiliations were eliminated. Advertisers wanted to be able to reach the widest possible audience, and publishers were happy to oblige. At the turn of the 20th century, up through, say, the 60s, this system was firmly in place. News stories privileged wealthy white audiences. They also supported the business point of view, above all.

Look at your newspapers or TV newscasts. There's a business section, with stockmarket reports. There's a sports section. There's what used to be the "women's" section with recipes and household tips. These sections reflect our values as a culture. There isn't a "labor" section. Most news media now are trying to attract young people and feature images of young people. There isn't a section for the indigent.

Look at who are presented as the "experts". Who do the reporters go to in order to get their information? It's not the head of a union, or of a consumer or citizens group (unless it's a local paper). Usually it's a public official or head of a company. This indicates that these media are not liberal. (A truly liberal perspective would take the point of view of the citizen, the worker, and report news from that point of view, not the point of view of the heads of parties, which are simply elite corporations.)

This is the real bias. Within this very narrow spectrum there are individual differences. But if you go from city to city, the differences aren't all that great. After 911, the differences were miniscule.

Media like "The Nation" and "Ms Magazine" don't accept commercial ads and only subsist because of circulation. Ms, in fact, made the decision to drop advertising because they were unable to print articles questioning make up and dieting when their advertisers were trying to sell makeup and diet products.

The word "liberal" to me means "progressive" as opposed to "conservative" which means "status quo." I don't think either major political party (Democrat or Republican) has a monopoly on either term, but both are bandied about as though everyone knows what they mean. We should either define these terms each time we use them, or find other words.

If the goal is to get at the truth, then it makes sense to take care to express what you mean.

DJ,
GMA is Good Morning America. My brother was a councilman, then
a Town Supervisor, etc. His wife reads every word of every area newspaper. I don't take the time to do that. I scan the articles. Brother deals with state and federal politicians, etc.
I listen to Bill O'Reilly; Rush; Paul Harvey; Gretta Van__; and google sites, etc. I'm not certain we get the TRUTH no matter how much digging we do. The old folks had a say, "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see." If a person likes someone, they say good things. If they don't like someone,
they lie about them. Everybody has their own agenda. So learn what you can and do what feels right within your heart aka [gut]. We respect you and equal consideration is appreciated.

GREAT commentary, gims! I'd like to note that although Wikipedia is "the people's encyclopedia" and not always accurate, in the matter we were discussing, bias in media, they listed about 75 authenticated resources for media bias.

The dictionary says bias means slanted, a curved course. All members of the human race have bias in MANY different areas, depending on your DNA and life experience. It's a universal trait.

Politically, I have a bias which goes against straight party-line thinking. I agree with certain things about each party's platform, and certain things that maybe neither would agree with.

When I vote in November, I'll vote for the people who best represent my values and beliefs. My gut feelings are a very strong part of the process. Politics is a game and we are the puppets whose strings politicians are trying to pull with their ever-changing rhetoric. So in the end, I'll vote my research results, my conscience and my gut.