One of the biggest frustrations of debates in the blogosphere is the constant denegration of someone's sources as "biased" or "slanted" to one way of thinking at the expense of another. When person A makes a point, person B insists on evidence or sources. When the evidence or source is presented, person B denies its credibility due to bias. But bias does not imply dishonesty, underhandedness or the purposeful manipulation, distortion or ommision of facts and details pertinent to the issue. Either the info is true or it isn't and only when a source has been proven to have engaged in any of the above behavior repeatedly in order to support an otherwise unsupportable position can it truly be cast aside as lacking credibility.
For example, recently Les had dismissed my use of a Human Events article because, well, it's Human Events, and gave me another link to another article by the same Jed Babbin, I guess to show his bias. Well, OK. Jed's biased. But is what he reported true or isn't it? That's all that really matters. And we won't always know for sure, but if the guy or the source has no history of bad reporting, what difference does his bais make? Another example is seeing some lefties claim that Bush is a heartless creep for vetoing the SCHIPS deal. But rightwing people explained that Bush supported the plan but not the Dems idea of how much more to fund it. He, too, was up for increasing the funding, but not as much as the Dems wanted. So the lefties in question have diminished credibility for lying, not for being lefties.
In any case, the point of posting this is that I'm inviting everyone who cares to offer examples of who they think is UN-baised. It can be a periodical, like a newspaper or magazine. It can be a person, like a columnist or talk-show host. If anyone disagrees with another's offering, please cite examples of how they slanted a story away from the truth rather than simply denying their objectivity. Have fun.