I agree. It's pathetic... Journalists shouldn't take bias either way, they should present the facts and let their audience choose a side based on their findings.
Also, has anyone else noticed the unbelievably high amount of BP oil spill related posts on gizmodo? All of them take a very negative stance against BP. I agree it's a tragedy and everything that can be done should be done to clean it up. But... why gizmodo? you're a gadget blog for crying out loud. report on the robots trying to fix the spill, but anything beyond that is out of your territory, giz!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with BP. But anyone believing they aren't doing everything they can to fix this (gizmodo) has a screw loose. I'm sure BP isn't too thrilled with the lost oil profits, much less receiving the worst publicity any company has seen since dare I say enron??
A high percentage of my portfolio is in offshore oil (not BP specifically, but you can bet your bottom dollar that entire industry, BP or not has been affected negatively) so i'm as unhappy as the next guy - BUT what the hell is gizmodo doing reporting on it every 3rd post? Why is this irking me so much? Maybe it's because I once liked Gizmodo. Ugh.