FAIR vs AIM?

I know I'm a biased reader, but everything on the Accuracy in Media site reads like an editorial straight out of the New York Post: the headlines are sensationalistic ("AIM Report: Dopers for Kerry the Toker" and "AIM Report: Kerry's Marxist Bedfellows" are just two of the silliest examples) and the writing is both shoddy and defensive (the first 'report' mentioned above starts with a non sequitur about Kerry's claim of foreign leader support -- why? -- and goes on to villify Kerry for the support of 'drug-legalizer' George Soros). I know that the articles at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting support my viewpoint, but I think they're at least trying to sound objective. And truthfully, I think the facts they present are pretty damning without any spin.

Anybody else want to check in and review both sites? I'd appreciate a couple more opinions. I already know how the Foreign Minister is going to weigh in, and not because of any content issues: in a blatant attempt to coral the gun lobby, AIM uses a bullseye as their logo. ha.

Speaking of the media, here's a cartoon from last year that is still funny in a sad way.

Incidentally, I don't want the media discussion to distract the blog from the Strat For article and the ongoing discussion about Iraq. The Foreign Leader correctly notes that Strat For is now a paysite, but it posts sample analyses that change weekly, I think.

Since he first drew the Indian election to my attention, I would also like to know the Maximum Leader's take on India appointing a principle economic reformist as Prime Minister. It doesn't negate the influence the communists will have in the new government, but it shows that Ghandi's party is at the very least concerned about the economy.

Believe.