As Jacob should have realised when he cites the example of the Hearst press's influence on the Spanish-American war. The ultra-politicized, ideological press has a long track record in the US - as it does everywhere in the modern world. After all, an easy way to gain a loyal following is to play to a party line and not "confuse" the reader by giving them more than one side to a story.

I am flabbergasted by the comment that in Europe this would be worse. In Europe there are plenty of state-funded news outlets that are chartered to offer balanced news. Since they have to answer to the public they are under a microscope to do so. It's by no means perfect, but it provides a good alternative to the (also available) profit-driven outfits.I doubt there's any for-profit US news outlet that offers a more independent voice than the BBC, for instance.

In the US, NPR sort-of fulfills the role of an independent news outlet, but its increasing reliance on advertising (yes, those little blurbs are advertising) and grants (however well-intentioned) makes its independence harder to maintain, and its voice easier to dismiss as biased.

You want news bias take a look at the Keith Oberman,Ratchel Madow, and the guy who get tingles up his leg whenever President Oboma speaks shows