I along with millions of Americans have long suspected that the so-called “mainstream media” is big-time controlled, whether selectively or institutionally. A recent New York Times story not only substantiates that belief, it proves just how controlled the messages are that are coming from those who mean to rule over us. More importantly, the story demonstrates that most major media sources are just going along with the program of packaging information the public is “allowed” to hear.
Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller confessed to liberal bias at the Times, especially on social issues like gay marriage and the recent contraception debate, but defended it, saying “if we somehow achieved absolute objectivity, it would be kind of tedious to read,” and that "Watching The New York Times try to be even-handed on some issues is like trying to watch somebody dance their kids' dance styles. We look like we're trying too hard.”
The revelations may not necessarily be groundbreaking news to many Americans who already suspected they weren’t getting unfiltered and unbiased reporting, though the extent of control over the information reaching the public from the major campaigns may surprise many.
But the revelations should certainly be disturbing to voters who are trying to make choices based on altered or incomplete information. Shouldn't they? And what about the liberal mindset? How could even they justify this kind of blatant censorship as right?
Consider the re-election campaign of President Obama. According to the Times, quotes from the candidates often come back to them from the campaign headquarters in Chicago “redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.” They are emailed to reporters who have been allowed, essentially, to interview campaign officials, but only under the caveat that “the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.” Romney is no better.
Here is an opposing view from politicususa.com