@DemonX:
Eh, this isn't right either. You do know that all media is biased?
I dislike it when that phrase gets tossed about. That's an exaggeration so that people can feel better reading whatever they want by implying that everything is equally bad or equally good.
Yes, there is in fact inherant bias in everything. And yes, you should check more than one source to avoid getting trapped in a bubble. But there's a huge difference between "bias" and "propoganda."
Bias is "Hillary's not that bad." Propoganda is "Emails show that she murdered four men in Benghazi and then laughed about it!"
Bias is "Trump is unfit for president and here are reasons why." Propoganda is "Trump is great businessman who has never had a failure and only he can stand up to the Russians!"
Bias is "The US Military is far far better than the Russian one which has been in dissaray for decades, and both sides know if it came down to it, Russia would lose." Propoganda is "Russia is so helpless there is literally nothing they can do" or "Russia is secretly much much stronger than we think and they can actually conquer the world!"
There's nothing wrong with a little bias if it's what drives you to find facts and provide them. If you have the research and didn't reach your entire conclusion before you started, it's fine. Most stories try to stay neutral. But even forcing a piece to be neutral can be a negative if you're trying to balance both sides of a story when the two sides are not in fact balanced. THats how we ended up with "Hillary and Trump are both qualified to be president." and "They are both evil and corrupt in their own ways."
But places like Fox News or RT are not "biased". They are propaganda machines that create stories out of full cloth, or hold onto minor non-stories for months, to further their narrative.