I like to watch the shows in which people express opinions on events of the day. Lat Sunday on Meet the Press, two political wonks were interviewed by Dave Gregory who i normally like, not as much as the late Tim Russert, but he does an adequate job. In his interview with the Democrat, he was inquisitive and asked challenging questions as he did with the Republican. Both of the wonks framed their answers in the biased way that a wonk will do, but Gregory corrected the bias only with the Republican and allowed the Democrat to slide on his presentation of reality. I feel that adding perspective to the biased presentation of reality is admirable, but, like an umpire calling balls and strikes, the strike zone should be the same one for both teams. If the Republican states that Obama's poll numbers are below Carter's and the moderator corrects him because it refers to a brief anomoly, then the moderator should also correct the the citation of the rate of people becoming unemployed in first months of the economic collapse as the running rate of the unemployed that obama policies corrected. The same is true when he said that the policies stopped the auto industry from going bankrupt which it in fact did. He did correct the republican and did not correct the Democrat. Both were being accurate in the very narrow sense that they used and both were lying even though they were using accurate "facts". Interesting also is the fact that the Democrat Segment ran for almost 2 extra minutes compared to the Republican segment. Has anyone else noticed anything like this?