What would the press need to do to make you believe.......

[kentuck]

they were fair and balanced?

Would they need to come outright and support John Kerry over George W Bush? What could they do to make you feel better about our country and the upcoming election?

Personally, I do not want Bush to win in November, but if I felt the press and the media overall was giving a fair shake to both sides, I could live with that. I would not like it, but I could live with it. But, in the present state of affairs, I cannot accept the job the media or the press is doing. Hillary was right. They need to get off their asses.

[napi21]

1. I would like them to do their job. Some investigative reporting.

That's been my problem for a long time. Most the reporting I've seen for years has been simply repeating some spin they heard somewhere.

It's much easier to do things the way they have been because it doesn't take snooping and a lot of research.

I would like to have seen some reporters to have dug into the Whitwater accusations back in 1995. Maybe if they had, we wouldn't have spent millions only to find out there wasn't a problem.

I would like to hear "we keep contacting the WH for information, but they will not respond".

I don't like to hear negative somments about my candidate....whoever it is, but if facts are thre, I will deal with it. I also expect to hear the same treatment of ALL candidates, whether they are incumbents or not.

[AverageJoe]

2. The only thing they could do

is admit that * is not the legitimate president of the United States, that he is an idiot and that he and his cronies lied us into a catastrophic and unjust war.

[jayfish]

3. Consistency When Covering...

similar stories originating from either side of the isle.
For instance when JFK is ahead in the polls it's "no big deal" for GWB and has to be caused by some extemporaneous factor. Despite the fact that he has outspent JFK by a wide margin. When GWB is ahead in the polls it's a troubling sign for JFK and a show of GWB's strong leadership. Or how about when hundreds of civilians are "reportedly" killed by US forces in Iraq the stories are treated as unconfirmed or lacking merit. When a car bomb goes of in a Iraq city and "reportedly" kills civilians, it is stop the presses, front-page news. I would also like them to ask some real questions and follow-up on them. Thats all I can put down right now. I have been so angry as of late, it has been hard for me to translate my thoughts into text without just deleting the whole damn thing.

Jay

[RoyGBiv]

4. Integrity

At this point, I'd almost be satisfied if they'd put a virtual masthead out front and say "We support X candidate/party/position, and that's what our news is based on." It would at least be honest.

In the 19th century, even if you were barely literate you knew what kind of news you'd be getting by the newspaper you picked up. They were up front about supporting their candidates and not shy about skewing the the news to that end.

[leftofthedial]

5. they ARE off their asses

the problem is they are all part of the bushgang reselection campaign.

[mmonk]

6. Investigate discrepancies or at least point them out

in the admin's talking points. Stop calling the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism. Broader coverage of the war unsanitized.

[MAlibdem]

7. If they stopped having clearly biased people "moderating" shows

Like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

I think Crossfire strikes a nice balance and I really like that show...both viewpoints are shown because a lib and conservative moderate it.

Also, it's clear that the two don't hate each other, which creates some sense of civility.

[Tippy]

8. Begin calling for Bush's Impeachment....n/t

[seabeyond]

9. the press cant make me believe

they lie, and they are stupid and they are greedy. they cannot make me believe. i will check stuff out myself and try to figure it out

fool me once, f*ck me, dont mess with me after that. go away