Delftsman

Are you implying that the critical attitude of the German media is biased? I don't read German but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the German media was also highly critical of German politicians and German policies. Much can be said about U.S. media and how some outlets tend to run negative stories (most exciting events such as killings and such are by their very nature negative and alarmist). Even so, I find virtually no major U.S. news outlets providing media access to people who really challenge the status quo. Such people (Zinn and Chomsky come to mind) are kept under close wraps. I don't know why. For all the chatter about Ralph Nader being a wacko, he did get 5% of the Californian vote a few years back but you probably can't find a single station anywhere in California that gave him 5% of the air -time of the major candidates. Why not? He isn't a ranting kook. Whether you agree with his ideas or not, they are IDEAS put forth in a well-reasoned way and they are different. I guess what I'm saying is that the U.S. could use some alternative view points. Nothing could be better for U.S. democracy than a well-translated foreign news show broadcast on a major U.S. station watched by the average American. Why aren't we all watching Arab and German news every night?

The Point was, Karlo, that the majority of the major media in the EU mostly airs only the POV of our opposition; to a greater extent than even the normal media outlets FOR the opposition. You see no irony there? And you wonder WHY public opinion in the EU is so against us?

Citing CHOMSKY as a commentator?!? Puhleeez! Even the leftist segments of our media know that he's an idiot, and they don't wish to have him embarrass their joint cause.

Whether or not you agree with Chomsky, he provides arguments with points and evidence. (His documentary Manufacturing Consent and his book on the Israeli conflict are good examples of this). There's some meat there to chew on. I have no problem with him at all. For that matter, if a conservative wants to appear in the media and actually discuss an issue in an educated manner, I'm all for it. (You'll notice on my blog that I gave a fairly good review to Goldberg's book Bias and can say that I actually read the whole thing). However, I don't see this happening. The U.S. news media is little more than a spoken form of Pro Wrestling.

It is corporate funded . . . hence non-biased???

Chomsy doesn't use evidence, he uses whatever conspiracy theory that matches his topic as "proof" "Everybody KNOWS" as if it were proven fact. His points are only valid if looked at from a Communist state view.

"It is corporate funded . . . hence non-biased???"

Nope, our media is DEFINITLY biased. The only wonder to me is that it's so heavily biased towards a big government Nanny state mentality.
You'd think that that would work against the corporations best interests... On the other hand there are plenty of NON-corporate media outlets to at least provide some alternate views.

"Chomsy doesn't use evidence."

You clearly haven't read anything by Chomsky. Probably more than any author who writes for the public at large, he uses extensive footnotes. His sources are generally very solid. When writing about Israel, for example, instead of relying on Palestinian sources, he uses many major Israeli media sources and statistics by well-known organizations. His work on bias in the media contains very convincing statistical data and sound reasoning and makes the Goldberg book on bias look like tabloid reporting (full of anecodotes and examples) in comparision.

In other words, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, snow them with an excess of BS.

I have read Chomsky. I find his arguments pedantic,circular and self-fulling.

Note the second part of your Goldberg statement:
(full of)examples. That is real world; Chumpsky cites his theory and then cherry picks to support the theory and not the facts.

In the academic world where arguments are held to a higher standard of proof, examples are only accepted if they're backed up by some other more objective data. A person can find examples for anything. Chomsky, on the hand, actually took a particular set of news events and reporting in the elite media (the New York Times) and did some numerical analysis that proved media bias. There's some empirical evidence offered that we can either accept or challenge. The Goldberg book, on the other hand, is full of personal anecdotes (a little bit like Fox news, Goldberg's favorite news outlet.)