I'm not your pal.
I don't need to review your "research", because I was at the Pentagon in those days. Fox news did not provide me with my memory of the unique smell that arises from a combination of burning jet fuel, office equipment and human flesh, I assure you. No conspiracy nut is going to convince me they have "real" information that will somehow negate what those of us who were present saw with our own eyes. I wouldn't claim to be an "expert" about anything I haven't actually experienced either.
Which brings me to my main point. This thread is all about perception of bias from information sources. In a lot of cases, we can get many different streams of information about events from different sources. Some of the sources will be distorted by bias, either intentional or unintentional. Many times, we have no choice but to accept what one source or another says, because we have no other way to learn about the event in question.
But when one has firsthand information about something, one can immediately determine when one is being fed a pile of festering ooze by the press. I don't have a clue what your history is, but I have been directly involved in a number of events during my lifetime that were reported on by "respectable" news sources in a manner that diverges completely from what actually happened. I've been quoted by reporters as having said things that I wouldn't utter under the influence of strong intoxicants. I've seen an example or two of "facts" that I know to be entirely false simultaneously printed by different major national news organizations.
Some of that comes from sloppiness, or laziness, or just rushing to get the story out quickly. Other times, it's just a general bias against a person or organization. Some of it even comes from calculated manipulation by the reporters and editors themselves. You know when to expect that, because you'll usually be presented with a reporter who already has the story written, and is just fishing for a quote to back it up.
In my experience, there's no such thing as a dependable commercial news source. They've all got serious problems with balancing their personal opinion with objective treatment of facts. I don't expect anything else, because they're human (even my wife). The interesting thing is that it isn't always correlated politically by organization. In general, the big papers and TV networks lean left. Most of Fox's big name national commentators lean right, but at least they come out and say so, and don't hide behind some BS pretense of objectivity.
But from what I've seen, it seems that reportorial bias is concentrated more by where one falls in the pecking order. The local news guys are usually pretty fair, no matter who they work for. They'll ask a lot of questions, read documents you might give them, and usually put out a story that summarizes what they got from each of their sources. But the closer you get to the older big name writers and the national TV anchors, the more likely you are to encounter the guys with the pre-written stories.
About 13 years ago, I was interviewd by a local Fox TV reporter in a different city. Seemed like a nice guy, at that time. Really took a lot of time to understand the technical detals of the event, even though the story ended up only getting a couple minutes of air time, in a small market at that. He presented our point of view, and covered the other side too. He's an anchor in a big city now, and I admit I feel a little happy to see him doing well. I also ended up on one of the national weekend shows for a big-three TV network on that same story. The clown that did that one came in and took some footage, then went out and aired a piece chock full of technical mistakes. Never had time to ask us what was really going on. He was a big star though, so people trusted him.
And this is exactly what is eroding public confidence in the press. You can't tell people what they themselves saw, heard, or thought. The Times or a web site can say whatever they want about what I did, but I know what I did, and don't partcularly trust anyone who tries to tell me otherwise. How can they possibly know?
As to anger, yeah I suppose you frustrate me a tad. You're spouting your politcal mantra that, in part, contains statements that I know to be unsupported by reality, while at the same time attempting to hold yourself forth as the arbiter of all that is right and true. If we were talking Canon vs Nikon or something, it wouldn't grind me so much. In fact, I don't even mind reading your other posts elsewhere about matters photographic. But I think you've got a lot of nerve claiming anyone else has some kind of propaganda problem, when you're blithley going on about things you can't possibly have firsthand knowledge of. You have made some statements that very seriously attack people and organizations without any regard to how the might feel or think, yet you seem to decry when others do (what you percieve to be) the very same thing.
I don't fault you for your opinion, your motivation, or your attitude. I do object to your attempting to tell others what their motivation is. So sure you posess all the facts, eh?