Annie W, regarding my comments about Sarah Palin being condemned for not being a stay-at-home mom, I wasn't aware that unless a comment is made by an official spokesperson, it doesn't exist.

The blogosphere has been filled with diatribes against Palin's decision to pursue her political ambitions despite having five children since McCain announced her as his vice presidential pick. I doubt that all those comments on sites like Salon and The Huffington Post are from Republicans.

Newspapers around the world have reported on how Palin's choice has reignited the debate here about motherhood and careers. The discussions we should be having are on equal pay for equal work, maternity leave and decent day care, areas where the US lags behind many nations.

But since you question who is saying these things, let me quote one example, The Washington Post's Sally Quinn: "We have conflicts and guilts that men simply don't have. And, basically the burden of raising children falls on the mother, no matter what kind of a job she has... One of the things I noticed over this last convention is John McCain, they must have said it 1,000 times, I put my country first.... Will she put her country first, or will she put her family first?"

I am no fan of Sarah Palin, I simply think that with more than 70 percent of mothers working outside the home, criticizing her about choosing to have a career is not a way to gain women's votes.

By the way, when it comes to a candidate who knows how to serve both country and family, there are few better examples than Joe Biden, who returns home every night from Washington to Delaware to be with his wife and children.

People who describe themselves as evangelicals don't vote as a bloc. If they did, Pat Robertson would have been the Republican nominee in 1988.

Many moderate evangelicals care deeply about issues such as poverty and the environment. According to some surveys, Bill Clinton won the majority of their votes in 1996 but Al Gore lost them to George Bush in 2000.

Stereotyping voters by race, religion, gender, education or income overlooks major differences within such groups and is insulting to individuals, suggesting that they can't or don't think for themselves.

I just wish the network had done this six months ago before Matthews and Olbermann helped sink the Clinton campaign by acting not as journalists but as cheerleaders for Sen. Obama.

I am not defending Fox News, I never watch it because I know its bias.

And I agree commentators should be free to give their opinions when they are doing commentary shows such as "Hardball" and "Countdown."

But Chris and Keith brought this on themselves by being incapable of reporting news such as the results of the primaries without inserting their personal opnions to the extent that other journalists found objectionable.

Thank you so much for the update and for making the point that when Clinton supporters complained repeatedly during the primary about bias by Matthews and Olbermann, there was absolutely no response from NBC. Perhaps we should have told them we were right-wing Republicans in order to get the network to take us seriously.

There is a difference between covering the news in an even-handed manner and offering opinion. Ideally, the media reserves the latter for shows clearly labeled as commentaries and for op-ed pages.

Matthews and Olbermann haven't been silenced. They will continue to freely offer their opinions on the debates and the election, just not to serve as news anchors, who are supposed to be fair to all sides.

Blurring the lines between news and opinion as Fox News and MSNBC have each done is what causes people on both sides to claim the media is biased and to have plenty of examples to prove their cases.

As more people get their "news" from the blogosphere, it's easy to just be exposed to opinions that reinforce what you already think. That's why we wind up with people talking at each other, not to each other.

Seeing only one side of a story doesn't challenge voters to think through information about candidates or issues nor does it help a candidate's supporters make a persuasive and informed case to those who disagree with them.

Pedinska, you say "we have lost sight of the fact that there was once a time when the definition of 'news' was, first and foremost, the presentation of objective and observable things called 'facts'."

That's precisely why many people object to commentary passing as reporting. When reporters present the unvarnished facts, an informed electorate can make its own decisions.

In their Washington Post articles through which they almost singlehandedly brought down a corrupt Republican administration, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein didn't have to write that Richard Nixon was a liar. They presented well-researched and sourced evidence of his crimes and the American people and their representatives made up their own minds as to his guilt.

Today, too many people seem to think "the news" should cover only the good about their party and the bad about the other side and prefer to seek their news from sources where their opinions will never be challenged.