Lkeller said:
I'm afraid mine may leave you unsatisfied. I'm OTA only, so I don't get Fox News at home. Online, I don't have a preference between Fox News or CNN - I usually consult both. In the car, the local Fox Radio News affiliate is on AM, and my car has a very bad AM antenna, so I don't even bother with it.
My comments on Fox News are mostly defenses of their right to exist and whether or not they're a "real" a news organization - I contend that they are. This "war" is nothing new, but to me, it's intolerance in the highest degree, and hypocritical coming from those who preach tolerance.
As to whether Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", I can only go by the people they employ. Alan Colmes, while deferent to Sean Hannity, probably moreso than many liberals would have liked, was unapologetically liberal, at least on his website. I've never considered Geraldo Rivera a conservative. Juan Williams, while not liberal enough for some, is no conservative either. Unfortunately, I cannot answer to the pundits they have on, or to whom they interview. I also wonder how many liberals refuse to appear on, or even be interviewed by, Fox News, given their pariah status in the "progressive" community. It would be an easy and effective tactic to first accuse an organization of "not being a true news organization", then because of that, refuse to be interviewed by them, and then claim that the organization never airs opinions from both sides.
As for NPR, this April 2010 article in the Huffington Post says a lot about where their sensibilities lie: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/npr-tells-fox-news-please_n_166467.html. It was written six months before Juan Williams was fired. That, taken together with the damning reports of the two Schillers, reinforce the opinions I formed about NPR from just listening to the local affiliate. From what I heard on them, and on PBS as well, they will air a conservative viewpoint, but the liberal viewpoint will invariably carry the day. The only conservatives I hear on NPR / see on PBS are guests on the shows; none exercise control over the product.
An example of bias was a documentary I was watching the other day on PBS (where else?) concerning the wilderness areas set aside in Southern Utah, accessible only on foot. Locals who favored doing away with the wilderness designation, or at least being allowed vehicle access to it, were given extensive time to express their view, as were environmentalists, including Robert Redford, who stressed the importance of keeping the wilderness area as is. On the surface, the documentary appeared to be even-handed, but it employed a tactic so subtle in its bias that most people wouldn't see it: the producers shot the interviews with the locals first, then showed the interviews off-camera to the environmentalists before interviewing them. I know this because many of the statements of the environmentalists were direct responses to points made by those in favor of opening up the lands. The result was an advantage to the left - it's far easier to respond to others than to simply make your own case. Environmentalists were able to tailor their talking points to what the locals were saying. For the producers, it was having your cake and eating it too: it expressed a desired viewpoint, but appeared to give both sides equal time to express an opinion, making it look balanced.
PBS isn't the only organization doing it - I've seen it done by Christian public affairs programs trying to give the appearance of being even-handed, while subtly giving an advantage to the conservative point of view. I don't approve of that, either.
When Fox News is biased, it's in your face, screaming at a volume of 11. NPR/PBS bias is low-key and subtle, but is at least equally effective.