Reply #23: Huh? What? It seems pretty balanced to me--let's look at what they have...

[Bucky]

There are mostly straight, objective, substance heavy news sources
· The New York Times
· The News Hour (PBS) channel 6
· The BBC News (PBS) channel 12
· www.npr.org
· www.pbs.org

A couple of objective news sources that are generally seen to give, respectively, liberal and conservative slants (but in reality don't do it that much)
· NPR (National Public Radio) 1340 AM
· The Wall Street Journal

Then you have a scattering of alternative and "brain trust" websites that give provocative and partisan analyses on both sides
· www.guerrillanews.com
· www.tompain.org
· www.indymedia.org
· www.brook.edu
· www.heritage.org
· www.cato.org
· www.newamericancentury.org
· www.freespeech.org
· www.zman.org

By my count, that's 3 very left, one mod-left (Brookings), 2 very right, 1 hard right (PNAC), plus two I don't know about (Zman and FreeSpeech)

on edit: my only complaint is that he mispelled http://www.tompaine.org

If a student looks at stuff from all those websites, I'd say that kid'll get a pretty well rounded exposure to current events. I fail to see the problem. I'm geography teacher, too, and we HAVE to study current events to understand the world in my class. It gets controversial sometimes. I've been known to take both sides of any argument solely for the purpose of forcing my kids to rethink they're assumptions. Yes, I've even found myself justifying the invasion of Iraq with some kids, not because I believe any of it (most of my students know my biases run harshly against the war) but because my job is to provoke thought, debate, and inward reflection. I don't teach "Rea's World Views" I teach "World Geography."

What the hell is a Zman, anyway? It sounds like an energy drink.