While in college and majoring in broadcasting (of all things), I spent a great deal of time learning about the bias of News reporting. In summation, we learned that personal biases will creep no matter how hard you try to avoid them.

While PVC is not a forum for Political banter, nor should it be, I have been astounded by the mainstream News bias in the election coverage which has run amok. CNN, I am afraid to say, seems to have gone off the deep end (in perhaps my biased opinion).

I often keep the News on throughout the day and Jack Cafferty ends up on my screen more than I’d like to admit. He can be cranky, and cranky can be good. While I may not have made up my mind the direction I am likely to go for the election, Jack and the crew at CNN seem to have made up theirs. Staurday Night Live may have hit the nail on the head with their skit throwing the toughest questions to Hillary and the softballs to Mr. Obama.

I am heading down this path for one simple reason – Today I reposnded to Jack Cafferty’s blog -here-, and watched somewhat anxiously to see if they’d allow the post. You see on his CNN driven blog, your comment awaits moderation before being posted.

I can be cranky too Jack, but this post wasn’t as cranky as I would have preferred to be honest. I pointed out that despite CNN’s continued “reporting” cry for Hillary to end the race (am I showing bias against CNN?), that she is losing the popular vote and quickly losing the Super-Delegate vote – she is actually beating Mr. Obama in perhaps the most critical way…the Electoral College. Sure we aren’t at that point yet, but lest we forget that the Dems won the popular vote 7 years ago, yet lost the election to the current sitting President based on that fine thing called – say it with me now….the Electoral College. In my post I asked CNN and Jack specifically, to recall history, and note that in the states that Hillary has won, had we been counting Electoral votes, she’d be President. CNN however seems to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in a most different direction. I am more than a little miffed my un-cranky (perhpas admittedly biased) post has not made his blog and was “moderated” out.

That got me thinking about PVC (yeah a stretch I know it – but I’m on some sort of a roll here), and what would we pull from comments and what we’d keep. Turns out we have pulled some comments already. Why? Because they were clearly flaming without facts, and under fictitious names and email addresses. We have no problem dealing with cranky, as long as it’s backed with facts. We also request that if you’re going to flame, be prepared to not stand behind a fictitious email address and want to hold a valid discussion on the topic. That’s what comments are for no?

We are attempting to make this a true community site. It’s written by a variety of the best writers, and we’re always looking for more voices. Those voices can be as PVC writers, bloggers, forum members, commentors, or simply emails. Be cranky if you have to be, but not for cranky-sake. If you feel we are too bias, tell us. We won’t moderate your comment out. Jack are you listening?