I don't think "News" should include criticism. There is a very important place for it along with news, but I think it is important to keep them as separate concepts. Honestly, right now what is presented as mainstream "news" is probably best described as entertainment.

What should "News" consist of?

What has happened. Is this really that hard of concept?

I'll admit I was baiting you a bit there - I apologise. I was running out the door and didn't want to forget.

The thing about "what has happened" is that it actually leaves a lot of room for bad faith reporting. You can never include everything. What isn't reported is just as important as what is, whether it's whole stories, certain viewpoints, context, anything.

What criticisms did mainstream news outlets level at George W. Bush that you felt were attacks? At what point in the lead-up to lies-based invasion do you feel it's ok to say "Bush and Cheney just might be lying here, folks."?

The facts of the war in Iraq were objectively bad. Should the media have hidden this to avoid accusations of bias? The problem is that the same critical coverage did not continue for Obama. Keep in mind too that all major outlets cheered the lead-up and start of the war - it's a big money spinner after all.

The facts of the war in Iraq were objectively bad. Should the media have hidden this to avoid accusations of bias?