But it always has. One of the earliest causes to politically organize women in this country was not female suffrage, but alcohol temperance because of abusive men, husbands, etc. People who use drugs have always hurt others and always will. Some people think it's better to try and prevent the trouble than it is to punish it after the fact. Prohibition comes with all sorts of troubles though, as we learned in the 1900s. So the public has divided the drugs between "too dangerous" (either highly addictive or causing extreme behavior) and "safe enough to regulate." More of the public is starting to move marijuana from the latter to the former, while almost nobody feels the same way about PCP. So there's the distinction in peoples' reactions.
I wonder how they tried to quantify the bias. When I hear people really complain about biased reporting, it's not that the reporter said something like, "Obama did well" or "Obama was awful." People go nuts about bias when parts of stories are left out. Simple example: FoxNews anchor reports that gas prices have gone up 70% under Obama, liberal decries that the report leaves out that those starting prices were in the middle of a recession, accuses FoxNews of bias. It can't be easy to put a number on that. The conservative will say that the statistic is correct as reported, which it is. The liberal will say that the context is pertinent information. So would you score this a full point for bias, or not at all, or just a portion of one, and then how much. . .? I'm always in favor of measuring things analytically, but I just marvel at how difficult it is to do.
Wall Street Journal 85.1
I'll reiterate something that I said before. I don't think that the biases of the reporters have the big effect that people seem to fear. Most people I know are decidedly conservative or liberal, and will only get their news from sources that tend to back their beliefs. This isn't the 1820s where one newspaper arrives at the saloon and everyone in town reads it. People have options and exercise them. Even on the occasion where somebody gets "stuck" with a particular news source (like being in a waiting room with MSNBC on the TV) that they don't like, they just sit there and criticize the reporting and are skeptical of every word that they hear. Doesn't seem to me like people leave room for a reporter to change their minds.
Sure I'll be bummed. But the next morning I'll get up, walk my dog, watch some tv and enjoy my time off. Then when school rolls around I'll hang a new Devils poster or banner in my classroom. You just gotta keep L-I-V-I-N'
Well if any of us can't keep living after any kind of season ends, that person needs to take a step back. Yes, I realize that we're all just about insane in the first place; we all take pleasure in watching two teams of grown men use sticks to push a small cylinder of rubber across ice and attempt to put it through a three-sided structure of iron. It's absurd, but fun, and if people forget that the main purpose of this is entertainment, then it's time for them take a break.