I admire John K. Wilson as an advocate for press freeom, from the high school level and beyond; but he comes with an agenda, from his books about Obama to his blog, ObamaPolitics.com. In this qualitative article, in which he googles and evaluates sources, he analyzes intelligently, although with a singular goal in mind: to prove his thesis. In doing so he makes common errors associated with advocacy, such as criticizing the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Shorenstein Center study and observing that "such positive/negative studies" are "a flawed measure of media bias" because "rely on researchers’ interpretations of what is positive and negative." First of all, there is a research pedagogy employed by those conducting these studies; the interpretation is based on a scientific protocol. But Wilson misses the point that his entire article is based on his own interpretation. Fact is, no one can measure "media bias" in a multiple platform age. Fox News is conversative and MSNBC liberal, for a reason: stockholders. The margins are too low in the objective middle. The Internet tends to be liberal; radio tends to be conservative. Local newspapers tend to be conservative, too; metro newspapers, liberal. The Constitution doesn't mandate objective, fair, balanced news; the First Amendment relies on the education of the U.S. public so that citizens will be able to tell hype from truth and fact from factoid. The Constitutional framers never foresaw a marketing age where everyone has an affinity group based on consumer psychographics. As such, we seek affirmation, not information. And we're going to get the leaders that we deserve.