All of the below are from here ; I encourage all to read the whole article as it may give those who will participate in the Town Hall with Alan Grayson some questions to ask.
“Most people who read news on the internet are aware of the inherent corporate/political elite biases within the mainstream media, but the more insidious biases within some of the more popular online media sites are rarely questioned. I’m not talking about the obvious progressive viewpoints of sites like The Nation, Think Progress, AlterNet, Truth Out, Common Dreams, Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Media Matters, etc., I’m talking about the divisive partisan rhetoric these sites use and the destructive influence their funding sources have upon their reporting. ”
“They frequently run headlines and commentaries that are purposefully aimed at dividing people along partisan lines and limiting thoughts into groupthinking traps, for this they are rewarded with financial support. It is clearly understood within the “independent” media community that if you focus your attack on the symptoms of the system (Republicans, Koch brothers, Fox News, Tea Party, etc.), you will be funded with hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, if you effectively focus your attack on the root underlying system and go against both political parties, you will not be funded. That’s why these sites always default over to the Democratic Party, that’s where the money is. (The same can be said for libertarian/conservative sites who blame Democrats in favor of Republicans.)”
“These progressive leaders have built up an incestuous core cadre of contributors. Many of them have been indoctrinated by think tanks that are not open to any voices that may deviate in the slightest from partisan opinion. Fortunately, there is now an entire movement of bloggers who disdain the two-party divide and conquer approach and seek to unite people across the political spectrum. They are growing in influence, yet most all of them are kept off of popular progressive sites, even when they champion progressive views. I understand that it is obviously up to their discretion as to who to feature on their sites, but it is nonetheless indicative of their closed-off divisive partisan nature and intentions, and demonstrates how they stifle mass movements. If they truly wanted the change they claim to stand for, they would be much more inclusive in their approach. ”