That news will have some sort of slant when presented, it's what makes Newspaper X appeal to some people and Newspaper Y appeal to others.  

I should have explained a little further.  Say there is a major event.  A person close to that event writes a piece and gives some facts about the event and describes the event from their perspective.  However while describing things from their point of view, they interject their own strong opinion about another partcipant of the event.  To me this has stopped being a credible source of news, and has become an opinion piece with some news buried in it.  But if this person simply describes the even from their point of view, it becomes a story on XYZ Event as told by a Person Seeing it From This Angle.  Said person could then go on as a seperate piece  and give their opinion, without sullying the news article with opinion.  I'm all for telling from a point of view, and I'm all for opinion, but the two should be seperated. 

That's why newspapers have an opinion page seperate from the news page.  The newspaper tells the news based on their standards, and in a manner that is palatable to their core market and the public as a whole.  They then tell their opinion on another page.  

I can think of some great articles here that would have been excellent journalism if stripped of rhetoric and opinion.  Not slant, or viewpoint, but rhetoric.  If the rhetoric and opinion that was stripped out had then been placed in an opinion piece, it would have been an equally exellent opinion piece. 

“How many more times are we going to cower under tables and chairs, whimpering like mindless dogs, thinking that someone else has the responsibility to save and protect us?” -Ted Nugent

If you were snarking on what I think you were snarking, that "federation" hasn't existed under that name or acronym since Winter '02.

...the news-as-unbiased-reporting environment by changing the rules and beginning to play a different game. It has been to the great detriment of political dialog in this country that the other networks haven't caught up yet (with the possible exception of Keith Olberman). This is all somewhat different from what I'm talking about, though.

What I'm interested in changing is the notion that news is something to be consumed, rather than created. If we are all citizen journalists contributing to the collective knowledge of all, then we are engaged in a fundamentally different manner. We bring our context and bias, but that is checked through the process of conversation, something that doesn't really happen in the mainstream media. Thus, the news-as-conversation model is not as subject to the same kinds of concerns that we would apply to the networks or newspapers which operate on more of a journalist-as-expert model.