Perfectly on-topic and factual posts are modded down, if they don't fit the readers mindset. Completely infactual, outright lies and trolls are modded up if they're pro- linux.
You can be cynical all you want, but you'll have to point out said posts if you really want to make your point, instead of generalizing about it. When you generalize, at worst it makes you look like you're trolling, and at best it serves no useful purpose towards the end you would like to meet (a less biased Slashdot, I presume).
And I'll point out to others as oft as I feel appropriate, that the information and discussion they are hearing is from an overwhelmingly biased, cult-like following, who definately arent above stretching the truth to make a point.
I'm just not seeing the "overwhelming" bias part. For example, USA Today is a liberally slanted piece of news; it gets slammed left and right for that. But from its own readership? Hardly. Its readers read it because they know its reporters share their interests. If someone reads USA Today and doesn't like their slant (while being unable to refute them on a factual basis), they can go read The Washington Post. Why bother disrupting the flow of discussion on a site that doesn't share your ideals?
I remember when it was an actual news site, and not Linus' personal cheering section.
Shrug, to me it's still a news site; just because it covers news you'd prefer not to hear doesn't mean that it is without merit. I'm personally glad Unix and open source have a site where they can get coverage that is accessible to the "average Joe" net junkie. Yes, they might be a corporate mouthpiece for VA Software, but who honestly gives a fuck? The media is the media. If you trust the media in any form, you're doomed.