Of course. Why shouldn't it be? Other than lying and other misrepresentations of facts, shouldn't a media source be allowed its editorial opinions and polemic to persuade its audience? After all, individual humans are biased, so everything we do is biased to our beliefs. And because most media are in private hands, we should expect them to promulgate their beliefs. Everyone should have that right. Government media, however, is a problematical matter, because it must represent all the people.

If media is biased to the right or left the problem arises that it is blinded by its beliefs and cannot ask important questions. I view the role of media is to ask uncomfortable questions, causing us to look carefully at ourselves and our society. Bias only supports belief. And belief can be a trap preventing further learning understanding. That is why we have attempted a journalistic ideal of objective reporting. This ideal cannot be totally achieved. Purported facts can be checked and perhaps proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but everything else is opinion and speculation. And humans are fallible.

The greatest bias of the media I see is its inability to ask uncomfortable questions irrespective of bias or the people's level of interest. The state of investigative reporting is dismal. News programming has become sensationalistic, presenting the lowest common denominator of entertainment to mass consumers. It does not challenge us and make us think for ourselves. It is not doing its job of exposing the flaws in the political process.

I propose creating an organization to broadcast a progressive agenda and critiques of our society on a satellite channel. Who among you will support this?