It's kind'a like "how can you tell when a lawyer is lying?". In the case of the biased sources that I mentioned, their mouths are moving and their blogs are blogging.

Now, for the more serious side: Biased news sources will suppress any relevant news which does not support and enhance their agenda. On the other hand, they will run into the ground any story which supports and enhances their agenda.

A good case in point: When the accusations of "inappropriate advances" against Herman Cain were made, CNN went rabid on the subject, repeating the story over and over, giving enormous amounts of press time and coverage to Gloria Allred and her financial deadbeat client. Fox News covered the story in detail, but did not go ape shit.

This bimbo at CNN made the story her entire show for about 2 weeks ... kind'a like a nancy Grace Jr. ... she was salivating, waiting for the next bit of news ... or for the next paid trailer trash to spill their guts.

BrookeBaldwin:


It is quite interesting that every one of the women who made allegations against Cain had one or more of the following blights on their character:

Financial difficulty
Sued by creditors and landlords
Inability to hold steady jobs
A history of complaints and claims against employers
Affiliation with the Democratic Party

It's quite obvious that someone in the background was paying these bimbos to fabricate unsubstantiated accusations ... you never know what you will dig up when you drag a $20 bill thru a trailer park.

It's like "their Negro didn't want our Negro to win".