It's all beginning to make sense.

News it not there to tell you how to think (again I refer to my neighborhood Rush-heads), but to provide information on which to base your decision, to provide a jumping-off point for more questions. If you are too lazy, too entrenched or too paranoid to seek both sides, that is the problem.

And for those who are accusing Stewart of "the very conduct he is criticizing" have you forgotten this is a COMEDY show???

1. Yes, News IS required to contain truth. Otherwise it's, well… lies? Misinformation? Irrelevant? Bullshit? Pick one, they all apply.

2. There is a difference between a pure newsreader and a journalist. Both have their place.

3. First of all, you contradict yourself here. Can you spot your own mistake? (Hint: it's to do with your point 1)
Apart from the contradiction: your inability to distinguish between editorial content and reporting is biting you in the ass yet here. Anyone who produces editorial content is allowed an opinion. That opinion can be right or left or center on the political spectrum. It's fine. That's what commentary is for: for debate. To suggest that all of this content across all media is left or right or center, however, is ridiculous.

Your actual problem – again, your own post illustrates this – is a combination of media illiteracy, i.e. inability to distinguish between commentary and reporting, aided by some (some! Not all. There is no "THE MEDIA", damn it) news outlets' and commentator's dishonesty. As an example, take O'Reilly, who insists that he is neutral ("No Spin Zone", etc), yet clearly provides commentary. Or learn to spot the blatant editorialising in what should be pure newsreading. You cannot avoid ALL comment, but you can tone it down a LOT more than generally done in the US.

"American Thinker", when's the last time you have seen a newsreader who was just that – a newsreader? You decry the bullying and oppression of "free political thinking", but I get the impression that "free" does not actually include the freedom of those who think differently from you. Again: either editorialising is fine *on either side of the spectrum*, so Stewart is doing a fine, fine job and should be welcome to continue to do so — or you want to purge as much editorial content as possible from all media outlets, making factual reporting the only goal — in which case both Stewart and the entire FOX news channel, plus most other media outlets, would lose the majority of their content.

Here's my three points: 1. There needs to be a clearer distinction between editorial content and reporting, without trying to pass off one as the other

2. People such as yourself are in dire need of a media literacy education to learn that opinions and bias are NOT bad things as such, and not avoidable completely even when attempting neutrality.
At the same time, learn when commentary is appropriate in journalism and when it isn't. Learn that both are necessary for the media to do their job.

3. Once editorial content is clearly marked as such, and people like you finally realise that there are very few attempts at "as much neutrality as possible in reporting" in the US, and that people like Glenn Beck have been lying about their method, political orientation and goals, and that honesty is the main requirement for healthy commentary and acceptable editorials… you might get a chance to have a functioning media and a critical audience.

But as long as you don't understand the most rudimentary basics, you will keep falling victim to the exact thing you're complaining about: you get your opinions and definitions from people who claim to be neutral, but aren't even attempting to be — and sadly, you can't tell the difference.

Well, so do I. What a performance! Lots of abstraction, lots of generalization, tons of assumption, and many many words, yet not a single reference to anything that ever happened, will happen or might happen. The media is a liberal power center cause you say so, and we should agree because, after, you wouldn't give yourself a highfalutin moniker like "American Thinker" if you were full of shit, would you?

Oh wait a minute, I think I've seen your website. So I guess I stand corrected.

But do not confuse them with right-wingers. Real conservatives are not, will not, and never will be represented by Sean Hannity.

Only right-wing nuts make comments like most of the above. The right has never really had a platform beside "no taxes". Face it, hate and fear mongering have always been their true calling.

If I am wrong, then what is the right's platform… And once you tell me, tell your party leader… He can use your help.

Consider:
1. News – does not equal truth, nor is news required to contain truth beyond what their advertising base wants portrayed as truth.
2. Newscaster – no academic or intellectual credentials required, just good camera presence and ability to read teleprompter.
3. Media – uncontrolled and biased, admittedly liberal, and self appointed mechanism for shaping social thinking without social authority, regulatory control, or any rudimentary factual basis. Mr. Steward, e.g. the Media, takes great liberties with an unauthorized, unsanctioned power.

With this type of unaccountable medium acting as the source by which the American citizenry stays informed, gleaning misinformation and half-truths to support citizen decision making, it's no wonder we are suffering as a nation. American's are being intellectually numbed, told what and how to think, by individuals biased by profit-motive and lacking the credentials necessary to offer fries with a hamburger. It is not elitist to be intelligent, nor is it oppressive or biased to expect intelligence from America's public, political, and government figures.