"Impartial" media coverage

Well, folks, this thread is for those not convinced by "Wag the dog" here is an interesting site.
Joking aside, William, BoP and I were talking the other day about what media outlets we believe. I also dug a little for evidence to support my claims and stumbled on this site.

http://www.seconddraft.org/

P.S. Watch the movies in the 'cyrrent investigation'. In this case a picture is much more powerful than the words. I'd go for the smaller files.

P.P.S. For the full disclosure, I only skimmed the site and watched a couple of movies. This isn't new and some of you may have seen this or similar stuff. Still, I think this is a message worth repeating 'Don't always believe your eyes'.

whistlelock said:

I assume that anyone- like, you, for example- who tells me something, whether this is a person or a "news outlet", has an agenda. I take what facts I can from their statement, and come to my own conclussions.

Click to expand...

Of course I have an agenda.
As to the facts -- you should really see the movies on that site and then tell me what did you think of the 'facts' presented.

Some additional info to this site can be viewed on this blog
http://theaugeanstables.com/