Objective versus neutral: A brilliant distinction for the spineless media

I'm not a huge fan of simply pointing to other posts without adding value, but an article by Cenk Uygur is worthy of making an exception. The post was exceptional in its clarity. Cenk manages to make it quite obvious and clear as to what the media should use as a guiding principle: objectivity.

If you want to apportion the blame for why America has so many problems right now, and why so many of those problems are being ignored, the press -- in particular, the mainstream press like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the major TV networks -- is one of the most important culprits. The leaders of these organizations, the editorial staff, and the newsmen and woman should be ashamed at their lack of interest or under-reporting of critical national issues such as our oil dependence and near-sighted energy policy, the handling of The Global War on Terror and the Iraq fiasco, the illegal wiretapping and surveillance of citizens, and the general view by the President and his Administration that they can choose to ignore laws they don't like. Lest conservatives think this is a knee-jerk liberal response, imagine what the world would be like with a Democratic executive and legislative and a useless media not fulfilling its watchdog roll.

Cenk's summation says it all:

"Truth exists. It is supposed to be the job of the press to try to find it and report it to the best of their abilities. It is not their job to try to create an artificial neutral reality."

For the entire piece, click here.