Obama Administration Withholds FoIA Requests More Often Than Bush's 601
bonch writes "Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration. For example, the 'deliberative process' exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008. Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive."
Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Breitbart.com? Really? Has Slashdot become Free Republic?
Well, I must say (Score:4, Insightful)
That's change I can believe in.
I'd like to be surprised - but it seems like all the presidents are mostly interchangeable these days.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
And which progressive and left-oriented site WOULD write about this, on the condition that it was true?
Because you DO realise that the only difference between your system of fairness and totalitarian-fascism is the premise that leftwing sites would write about everything that was true and relevant, so that you can legitimately reject everything on other sites as biased?
Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaningless, it's an AP story. Would you feel better reading it on The Stamford Advocate [stamfordadvocate.com]? Or the San Jose Mercury News [mercurynews.com]?
I'd also like to point out that a knee-jerk accusation of bias sounds and awful lot like . . . bias.
-Peter
Re:Biased much? (Score:1, Insightful)
I DON'T understand why I haven't seen this on thinkprogress.com, no idea.
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Only to people that buy political bullshit by the ton.
Re:Needs more data (Score:5, Insightful)
The AP's review of annual Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the administration's use of nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions to withhold information from the public increased during fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally agreed. That it is from breitbart is utterly irrelevant. And the raw number is not too interesting unless you know the number of requests, and probably the specific agencies (and topics) the requests were for. Though while, yes, more years will reveal better data, there's nothing wrong with looking at it in-progress.
Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
1) This is an AP story, Breitbart didn't write it.
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
And which progressive and left-oriented site WOULD write about this, on the condition that it was true?
An honest one.
Today's Government (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
We should probably wait until Obama's first four years are over.
I'm always amused when people say something like this...you all remember we're not actually required to elect presidents for two terms, right? I think relatively few people of either party believe he's doing well enough, so far, to deserve a second term in any case.
Obama is the great unifier ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... and he doesn't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them.
The media can win this (Score:5, Insightful)
If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is. If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.
Re:Biased much? (Score:1, Insightful)
cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009
the number of information requests...444,924 in 2009
Doesn't this raise any red flags to you? Maybe that these "facts" indicate that they cited more exemptions than there were requests?
No, but not for the obvious reason (Score:5, Insightful)
The first reaction, especially given the headline is, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
But, as pointed out in the article: "Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored."
Then we look into the details. The fiscal year that this article is covering started in October 2008 and ended in October 2009. So for the first quarter of the time period covered by this article, we weren't even in the Obama Administration.
Also, if we assume that the decision to exempt information from FOIA requests is made by senior officers in the respective agencies, and we know that Bush had 8 years to appoint people who shared his views, and that the Senate Republicans have been doing an impressive job of blocking and delaying Obama's appointments, let alone the "cleaning" that occurs once the new bosses are in place.
Should it come as a surprise to anyone that this last year was no better, and perhaps even worse than the previous year? Absolutely not. I would expect that this coming year should show improvement, provided the white house is willing to back up Obama's directive now that they have had time to get more of their appointments into positions of authority.
That said, I sure hope this article makes it to the President's desk and that he thinks long and hard about it.
-Rick
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The problem is that Obama's main idea of change - bipartisanship - is the least productive way of making change
in America.
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the Bush days, the President was responsible for everything that happened, regardless if he directed one way or the other.
(Looking forward to that mod-down now, thanks much.)
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think one year comparison between the two administrations is really fair. We should probably wait until Obama's first four years are over.
Unfortunately, by that time it will be a moot point. If we assume that he doesn't get reelected, then the we will only be able to look back and say "yep, Obama was more secretive." If we assume that he does get reelected, then we still lose those 3 years of having greater information available. Those are 3 years that you cannot get back. Either way, we lose something by waiting another 3 years.
Re:Needs more data (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed. It's the same as when MS says that Linux/BSD is less secure because it had more fixes in a certain time period than Windows did in the same time period. It tells you nothing about (1) Severity, (2) Potential for exploit, (3) Timeliness of fix, etc.
All that is mentioned is that the Obama administration turned down more requests in the first full year than the Bush administration did in it's last full year. So what if the Obama administration is just cleaning out what the Bush administration left behind. I can see that in the last year of an administration, things might not be done in a timely manner.
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing stormfront to Breitbart? Really?
Look at the byline of the linked story
"By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer"
You won't see that over at Stormfront because Stormfront is a fraking White Supremacist BBoard.
Re:The media can win this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Bipartisanship works both ways... The Democrats are asking the Republicans to "work with us", yet the Democrats are refusing to do the same! If you disagree, please explain the purpose of the closed door meetings between Dems and the Pres on healthcare. In what way can a closed meeting promote "working together" when half of the decision makers are not even invited...
What he's up against? He made his bed (By touting "change" and "openness"), and now he needs to lie in it... The truth has come out in the past year. He's a politician... Plain and simple. Sure, his campaign made it look like he was something different, but the reality of the matter is in the end of the day, they are all politicians...
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request.
Making these numbers, and this article completely meaningless. Perhaps the Obama admin is just more "open" in citing multiple exemptions.
I would like to suggest that everybody now go back and RTFA on today's why you should stop mindlessly quoting statistic [slashdot.org]
Or for more fun, voting for Gore causes death by cancer! [slashdot.org]
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:1, Insightful)
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The only people stopping Obama are angry voters, and the Dems he can't get on board with his agenda. Note...the Dems control BOTH Houses of Congress by a wide margin. He's not "obstructed" by the R's, as they can't do squat to stop him. They can't even filibuster now that they have Scott Brown since the D's are happy to use Reconciliation.
You'd be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
so the numbers are not comparable (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is the New Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I read a story about how Obama is continuing a Bush administration policy, or extending and exceding it, I post it to http://obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/ [tumblr.com]
Having kept this up, on and off, for the last 6 months some patterns definitely appear. The Justice Department is seriously entrenched in covering its ass, cracking down hard on individual freedoms and privacy, and almost always falling on the side of big business.
I'm not disappointed because I believed all the pablum about "Change" and "Hope," but because Obama was a frickin' law professor. He should know better!
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't trust him for the simple fact that he's a politician.
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:5, Insightful)
No that's Bullshit. Democrats have presented a bill that's far to the right of a bill that Republicans would have even proposed, and Republicans are refusing to be a part of it at all. If there was not bi-partisanship than they would have rammed this through Congress and I'd be sitting pretty with socialized medicine right now. The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
Republicans don't want bi-partisanship. They want Obama to fail.
Closed door meetings? Stop bringing up bullshit Limbaugh talking points. There are always closed door meetings on capital hill. Are Republicans having public meetings on crafting there competing health care bill? That's a bullshit point.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Bush days? You're wrong - even now, Bush is still responsible for everything happening. Unless it's good. Depending on who you ask, of course.
(Yes, this is an exaggerated statement, but I am trying to make a point.)
Re:Obama is the New Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
You expect a lawyer to be faithful to their word?
Idiot.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
No he's right to a degree. I've been modded down countless times for expressing or at least addressing unpopular views. As an AC the more vindictive mods will just ignore you as not being worth the points. Slashdot is not terribly tolerant of diverse viewpoints, even if they are well argued and not just idle trolling. AC is often the way to go if you have something to say that's intelligent but contrary.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Slashdot should have linked to a neutral source of the AP story. But with a troll story like this, that' hardly to be expected.
Furthermore, your attitude reflects a drought to critical thinking, and it's insidious. You're equating legitimate, fact-based advocacy of a policies that will improve the standard of living of middle class in this country (the left), with the propaganda outlets of the right, who lie, cheat, distort, and photoshop fake crowds in order to convince average chumps that it's really in their best interest to transfer all the wealth in the country to a few hundred billionaires.
What's your stake in the game? Why would you advocate a point of view that will hurt you, your family, and all your friends? Nobody here is rich enough to truly benefit from Republican policies, nor will anyone reading this comment ever become that rich in his lifetime. It's time to realize we're all in this together and stop playing the "I've got mine, buddy. Go fuck yourself" political game.
You're right (Score:3, Insightful)
Drudge and Breitbart are Fox News on the Web.
What do you expect to happen in 5 years when people catch on? Those will become the top two sites on the Web, like Fox News is on cable?
You seem to hate them because they actually hire people who aren't liberals. Apparently "non-biased" means "100% liberal".
Re:Biased much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either your salary or your oxycodone prescription must be huge if you think it's not a problem to give legitimacy to right-wing propaganda outlets.
Defining media outlets you simply dislike as "propaganda outlets" is not convincing to anyone, other than people who are as closed-minded and hypocritical as you are.
Re:Biased much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so less than 5% reduced denials on 11% less requests...Sounds like statistically likely evidence that denials are more likely.
Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell yo
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it? Every time Republicans mention that the majority of Americans oppose the Health bill, I want to ask them if they ever polled anybody other than their constituents. Because, you know, those of us who actually like the bill think we ought to be counted as Americans as well.
Re:Excuse me? He's the President (Score:3, Insightful)
Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas.
Bull. That's not bipartisanship. That's horse trading.
Bipartisanship would be the Dems not liking the way insurance companies ride roughshod over subscribers, and the Reps not liking the idea of the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, so they reach an agreement that answers both concerns. A law that would require insurance policies to match one of a few DHHS outline policies, or state clearly how they differ.
Dems are concerned about the huge cost of the tax liability and portability between jobs, and Reps are concerned about the lack of accountability. A viable compromise would be that all policies are taxed like normal income, raising necessary funds and removing the chain between insurance and a job.
In no way is bipartisanship a "you get one, I get one" game. That leads to the ridiculous robbing of the public purse and our grandchildren's inheritance that we see now.
Re:Great. We have a right-wing lunatic behind /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you hate atheists [slashdot.org], pudge?
Why are you lying about me?
Re:Biased much? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me guess: you're a Glenn Beck fan?
The right has been smearing Obama constantly since he took office in an effort to delegitimatize and neuter him. It's been an effective policy. They didn't have any dirt on Obama that would stick, so they just made some up.
"Yes", right-wing blowhards might say, "Obama is ruining this country." They then proceed to spout complete lies and distortions, and you idiots nod along approvingly and jeer at the only even half-way decent liberal that's been in power for 30 years. You know, someone who wants to help you, not the corporations.
Sure, I don't agree with all Obama's decisions; in particular, he backed down too quickly on Telecom immunity, supports strong copyrights, and isn't leaving Iraq and Afghanistan soon enough for my tastes. But he's playing fair. But he's not on a mindless quest to just fly the country into the ground and transfer as much wealth into the hands of the rich as possible. That was Bush's policy, and it would have been continued under McCain. Obama could enter a coma tomorrow and still be the best president we've had in eight years.
But you know, he's going beyond not being like Bush. He's actually trying to help, though he's been partially thwarted by determined opposition from the right to any reform anywhere at all that isn't just more wealth transfer to the rich. If you believe Obama is Bush part II, you either have skin in the game, or you need to see a psychiatrist.
I mean, people who are able to dress and feed themselves have been fed such a huge steaming pile of horseshit that they earnestly believe Obama is the anti-christ, and think that health care reform involves ending medicare and lining up senior citizens and killing them. It's ludicrous.
Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
p>2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
So a government is an "oppressive regime" any time it passes a long bill on an important topic that an unpopular political party doesn't like?
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
breitbart is utterly irrelevant
Bullshit. You're giving attention and ad revenue to a political operative. As others have indicated, Slashdot could have linked to a "neutral" reproduction of the AP article.
And why isn't Breitbart's very same AP article neutral? His Big Hollywood/Government/Journalism sites are advocacy sites. Breitbart dot com is not. It's just a news aggregator, with no editorial content. Google News does the same thing. If there was editorial content by Andrew Breitbart himself somewhere in the article, please, point it out to us. I saw none. It's just an AP piece. If you're going to complain about who owns the site, what was your stance when CNN was founded and run by a politically active billionaire? What do you say when MSNBC prints an AP article?
In the media, everyone is a political operative. everyone. The media is filled with ex-employees, cabinet members, and Congressmen from both parties. George Stephanopolous hosts the number one Sunday news discussion show. He's a former Clinton Administration officer. Just who do we start ignoring in news because we don't like their political backgrounds? If the Slashdot story had been linked from the Huffington Post, would you still be upset? Because Arianna Huffington is most definitely not neutral.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
I may not be rich enough to benefit from the Republicans' policies, but I'm also definitely not rich enough to pay for the Democrats'.
Re:is someone running up the numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure why your post was marked troll, even if it's a little paranoid. It's quite likely that teabaggers and other anti-obama people have affected these nnumbers, even if unintentionally.
So this is all just a giant conspiracy? A vast, right-wing secret attack on Obama? A backhand way to make him look bad? "Hey boys, lets fill out another hundred or so of those FOIA requests today! We're almost at our goal".
Wow. There's paranoia, and then there's you guys.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's your stake in the game? Why would you advocate a point of view that will hurt you, your family, and all your friends? Nobody here is rich enough to truly benefit from Republican policies, nor will anyone reading this comment ever become that rich in his lifetime. It's time to realize we're all in this together and stop playing the "I've got mine, buddy. Go fuck yourself" political game.
Let's make a deal: I'll stop voting Republican/Libertarian if you stop voting Democrat. We'll both only ever pick candidates running under the big 'I'.
Works?
Re:Great. We have a right-wing lunatic behind /. (Score:1, Insightful)
Those are your precise words. So are these [slashdot.org]:
I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest. You're an archetypal, callous, right-wing blowhard who sees failure as weakness, and life as being about strife, not cooperation and happiness. Your ideas are definitely, clearly, and verifiable wrong, and the medieval policies you advocate will lead to unfathomable human misery if enacted. You're the kind of man who gives America a bad name in the civilized world.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am glad you acknowledge B, but I see it in a different light than you. (Note: brief summary at the end)
Let's take the basic premise, "If you hold strong views, you should be willing to link them to your name". By implication, someone who links their views to their name is more credible than someone who don't.
Which again implies that you are giving something up, or sacrificing something, when you link your postings to your name - otherwise, if there is no conceivable cost, why would credibility increase?
I would here make the claim that what you are giving up is the possibility of being subject to social sanction because of your views. This can be seen in relation to that pretty common meme, "standing for your views", and that someone who is willing to stand for their views steadily on their legs, announcing their name and with a firm voice has a higher status etc than someone who shyly backs down and slinks away. Another thing you give up is the possibility not to be confronted with your previous statements whenever you make a new statement. Let's discuss those things separately.
About social sanctions: The idea is clearly that social sanction is a legitimate part of public process. One foundation of this idea is the related idea that 'truth always triumphs' - so even if you are castigated for your views, then if they are true, you will win out in the end, and if they aren't true, then it's OK that they are sanctioned. Another foundation is that "the population has a right to decide what they want to sanction and what they don't".I rather take a different view - that there is not necessarily any relation between social sanctions and "goodness", "morality" or "legitimacy" in any form.
Consider that in China, someone who stands at a statue and says "Deng Xiaoping did not lead society in the right direction" might be felt as offensive to public decency and morality as someone doing the same in the US saying "Necrophilia is great for society". Both would probably lose their jobs, be outcast, subject to ridicule and harassment, etc. And Americans would condemn that, and say that "well, the Chinese population has fucked-up views, the state should defend this person's right, that is plain and simply just wrong, we should send him money so he won't have to suffer under the unfair and unjust oppression" etc. The only reason Americans feel they can condemn the Chinese for their menu of social sanctions, while still defending their own menu of social sanctions, is by elevating themselves to the status of moral gods. There is a little God-Emperor of morality within us all. And this menu of social sanctions decides whether it is acceptable to deny you good jobs, how much the police should react if people egg your house, whether it's OK that you are interrupted during an interview, etc.
About confrontation with previous statements: Maybe people feel a right to take someone's statements and build them into a general "web of views" and make general statements about that web. By posting as AC, I take that right away from you. The feeling probably isn't too great, right? But the only thing _I_ want, again, is that the accuracy of my views should be considered. _I_ have no desire or even moral obligation to fulfil _your_ desire of taking all my views and somehow categorising them. It would also make it very easy to sidetrack my discussions - whenever I posted something, people could reply "Hold on, in 1983 you said something about completely unrelated thing X, what does everyone feel about that"? When I post as AC I take away that possibility, and I feel for the loss.
In very brief summary: If I stated my name in connection with my political views, I would probably be subject to harassment and not be able to get a good job in the US or my own country. I know you see this as a natural consequence of the benevolence and wisdom and morality of public authority, and that I should bend over to take my punishment as the cost of saying my view, but I disagree, because I don't see your punishment s
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're (probably) not rich enough to *have* to pay for actual liberal policies.
Like the middle class? It was built with 90+% top marginal tax rates. Now Warren Buffett pays a smaller % than his secretary.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, I thought that you were implying that AC was me, which is why I responded. If I want to call morons like you or pudge retarded, I am not going to hide behind AC, I'm fucking well known for being an outspoken asshole, you douchebag.
I've got so much karma, nobody can touch it. I can take fifty troll mods a day and come out smelling like roses. I don't need to care if people think I'm an ass, because I can get multiple +5 upmods whenever I damn well please.
Hope that clears things up for you, but based on what I've seen of your intellect, I'm not holding my fucking breath waiting for anything as complex as 'comprehension' out of you.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think we trend towards libertarianism more than anything else around here. The underlying reasoning being something along the lines of: politicians are almost exclusively corrupt morons and I don't want them telling me what to do on any topic.
Means that neither intrusive conservatism nor intrusive liberalism are well received, by in large. Holding a controversial view goes over well enough but espousing the need to push it onto others, not so much.
Re:RTFA! (Score:3, Insightful)
As I said, since we don't have all the facts, it's also possible that "Obama's record" is worse than Bush's. Even if we had enough data to get to that comparison, it's still not worth all that much.
When you get to such a levels of "horrible" with politicians, any varying level of "worse" seems so inconsequential.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, we're talking about the fiscal year, which begins in October. Obama was only in office for part of the last fiscal year.
In other words, complete bullshit.
Re:is someone running up the numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see you didn't bother to read my post before replying... you know, the part of my post that actually explains what I think may be a contributing factor, that has *nothing* to do with any kind of conspiracy.
Although, FWIW, there *are* groups that coordinate to send FOIA requests on topics. I don't think the purpose is to discredit Obama via bad FOIA numbers -- but the purpose is generally to discredit *someone* via the information gathered.
Re:BreitBart :) (Score:2, Insightful)
When I judge a site for bias, I like to look at the comments sections.
Then Slashdot should never again link to the New York Times.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all conservatives are Glenn beck fans, or Rush Limbaugh fans, or fans of anyone who prostitutes their conscience for ratings and money. You complain of lies and distortions by the right, yet you yourself are more than willing to collectively and dismissively denigrate the right. You don't do your cause any favors by adopting the tactics you claim to despise.
I'm not so simplistic that I would equate Obama with W, but as you've already pointed out, Obama's track record is vastly different from the raft of campaign promises he rode into office. Openness in governance was one of his key promises, it does not appear that he has fulfilled that promise, and this AP article is right to call him on it. It doesn't require being a conservative to see that.
Speaking of conservatives, Bush wasn't much of a one, aside from hawkish foreign policy and support for conservative religious views. His vast inflation of government and government spending was one of the least conservative things to happen under a Republican.
Re:BreitBart :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really claiming that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart? Odd.
Well, *I* would never in a million claim that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart.
The NYT exceeds the level of bias at Breitbart by orders of magnitude.
Strat
Re:Well, I must say (Score:1, Insightful)
That's change I can believe in.
I'd like to be surprised - but it seems like all the presidents are mostly interchangeable these days.
Thank Woodrow Wilson who conceded the power away with The Federal Reserve Act.
After him, every president - given a few shortlived exceptions - have been more or less interchangeable.
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing is that you are more correct than not.
First off he makes it clear he is a comedic show in the first place - comedy is *not* an attempt at unbiased reporting but is inherently biased. Further he doesn't have the staff to do real in depth reports that a real news organization could - I've seen him on more than one occasion truly outclassed by a guest that he was antagonistic towards (and that has occurred on things he - or at least the show - has disagreed on with both parties). Both him and the show are comedies first and news second yet he does better than the real news.
Next is that he fairly well wears his bias openly. If we ignore the "comedy" part there is little argument that he is more leftist and a Democrat. Nor would one find him to be a so called "yellow dog" as he is quick to criticize them too when he doesn't agree with them. Nothing wrong with that - I daily read several hard left blogs (being a conservative I find little to no reason to read right to hard-right) and as long as we can all process how you are thinking we can make MUCH more informed judgments about what we read.
At this point in time traditional print, video, and radio news sources are a waste of time. Some are obviously bad but all but a VERY few are of the type I call a "soft bias" - they may be biased HUGELY in one direction but they do so in a way that allows their listeners to feel they are on top of the news and doing so in an informed way.