This is really just a payback from Obama to one of his core constituency. Not that it might not do some good but the purpose is to pay back teachers for their past votes and to show the teachers that he's in their corner and they should come out and vote for him this election.

By that definition Fox isn't biased they are just targeting their reporting at conservatives.

I think that PBS is every bit as biased as Fox and MSNBC. IMO, it's biased towards "highbrow" which is to appeal to left leaning upper middle class people. It focuses much more on culture that the masses don't care about (such as opera). It's pro-environmental but in a concerned instead of alarmist way. Oddly, it's pro investing but mildly anti-business (perhaps it'd be more accurate to say it's pro business but also pro heavy regulation of business). It's very pro-welfare state.

My brother, who is a much more avid watcher/listener than I am, calls it "Marxist, feminist radio/TV" and while there's a lot of hyperbole there's a small bit of truth as well.

Oops... mistkanely moderated as flame bait. This post is to remove that.

Unless you happen to be one of the 20% of people who gets motion sick reading in cars. Then you are just SOL.

You most certainly can vote them out. You can vote with you wallet or you can get government on some level to kick them out. Try telling private student loan issuers (shut down as part of the Obamacare bill) that they can't be voted out. Look for them in the unemployment line.

True but what happens when government is doing the polluting? There's a reason why the China and Russia have such terrible pollution problems while Korea, Japan and the US don't it's because a very strong central government is ok with the pollution. Companies in the Us may have some influence to allow them to pollute more than they should but it's nothing compared to China.

I'm exactly the opposite. I'm wary of multinational corporations but I'm downright afraid of what government can and does do when given free reign. The difference being that at least I can switch the company I'm dealing with but the government is the ultimate monopoly and represents the ultimate tragedy of the commons where people vote themselves goodies without caring how it affects the overall health of the economy.

But WSJ doesn't get revenue from comments or traffic flow, they get revenue from subscribers. As a publication about the business environment it's important that they keep articles and especially headlines professional sounding lest they damage the brand. HuffPo is a volume site where driving traffic is the main goal. WSJ has a lot fewer hits but makes a LOT more off of each customer. In fact, WSJ is gaining subscribers in a rapidly dying business so their lack of sensationalism may not drives huge traffic to them but is driving the RIGHT traffic to them.

Moreover WSJ is a pay site, and not a cheap one by any means. In contrast HuffPo is free. I'm surprised that HuffPo only got 7 times as many posts.

Yes but you can't rush right into a meeting like that. Often it takes four or five pre-meeting meetings before going into a meeting like that.

1366X768 is "low res"? Sure it's no retina display but it's still better than the original iPad and iPad 2 both of which were fairly impressive.

And the world population, while increasing, is doing so at a rapidly DECREASING pace. The idea of overpopulation is a 20th century relic. Birth rates are decreasing and world population should level off by 2050. In most western countries birth rates are below replacement rate. Sustainability is important, but the worry that human kind will expand on planet earth until it hits disaster just isn't going to happen unless demographics change dramatically.

Just crowdsource the pre-screening and get it done free! Oh... wait....

It depends on what your definition of "neutral" is. If it's making sure that all major points of view get equal mention and if Green and Purple are the two major points of view then it may well be "neutral".

Of course, there are many other definitions of "neutral" for which your example would not make then neutral.