Jim Dandy  You can't get much more left than Dr Mark Lamont Hill and he's a regular on the O'Reilly factor.  O'Reilly regularly has guests that present the democratic point of view and the conservative view.  In his last show, the first two segments were equally divided to consider both points of view regarding the economy and other issue that the Presidental candidates are currently debating.  It's always that way.  And in the last week O'Reilly had only good things to say about Chris Matthews (regarding a story he broadcast).  Hannity and Colmbs are good friends and operate by strict timing rules.  And they are supposed to go after each other.  It's a big part of the concept of the program.  And you can't get any more of a class act than Brit Hume.  He was with ABC for 23 years.  According to a NY Times report, Fox has been, "...one of the most popular channels on cable for six straight years, since 2002."  That's not by accident.  That means people prefer Fox over the other cables and networks.  And by overwhelming margins.   And those chuckling journalists you mention?  They chuckle at fair and blance but it's well known by the folks that there is a huge liberal bias in the mainstream media.  Even MSNBC went after "Joe the Plumber" attempting to discredit him.  Some even suggested he was a plant.  Talk about bias.  When's the last time MSNBC ran any story about Bill Aires?  But MSNBC ran a story that blammed Palin for the injury to St. Louis Blues hockey goalie Mannie Legace.  Mannie tripped on a carpet.  The carpet was put down on the ice to prevent Palin and family from slipping on the ice.  Clutz Mannie tripped and the AP and MSNBC ran stories putting the blame on Palin.  That is typical of the left leaning meadia.  With Fox you have a very strong journalistic organization with perhaps a few weak spots.  With organizations like MSNBC, you have a very weak journalistic organization with perhaps a few strong spots. 

Artful Dodger: We can agree to disagree on this one,I think both Fox and MSNBC are in the tank bigtime for "their" sides,but the wince factor is less when I watch MSNBC.I suppose I'd feel the warm and fuzzies if I leaned right by watching Fox...............Charlie Rose restores my sanity after watching both sides

Jim Dandy:  I've always liked Charlie Rose.  Not a fan of his PBS show but did love his 60 Minutes reporting.  Fact is, 60 Minutes is a life long fav of mine. Blame Andy Rooney.  He's worth the entire show IMO.  My wife says I have his eyebrows.   

Jim Dandy: check out The Project For Excellence In Jounalism. Here are some of their findings just out: Oct 29, 2008

In all of the media studies, 57% of McCain stories were negative while only 29% of Obama stories were negative.

Newspapers:

69% of the McCain stories were negative while only 28% of Obama stories were negative.

NBC news: 54% of the stories about McCain were negative while only 21% about Obama were found to be negative.

And now for my favorite finding:

MSNBC: 73% of the Mcain stories were negative when ONLY 14% Obama stories were negative. But how did MSNBC compare with Fox?

Fox news: 40% of the Fox stories on McCain were negative and equally (you know, as in fair and balanced) 40% of the Obama stories were negative.

Artful Dodger: I understand,but imagine a scenario where campaign A runs a campaign considered much more negative than campaign B.The media vote reflect much more of a bias if they didn't reflect reality.If those stats include Palin the stats are a no brainer

now if we're talking about a scenario strictly based on policy,the press owes it to the public to put forth the facts

Jim Dandy:  The point is that given the same set of facts to work with, Fox was exactly Fair and Balanced as advertised.  MSNBC was clearly showing its bias in favor of Obama. (73 to 14% is a HUGE difference) It's one thing to report "the facts."  It's another thing entirely to report ONLY those stories that support one's personal POV. 

Artful Dodger: Would Fox insist on even percentages, on being "fair and balanced", if Mother Theresa and Joseph Goebbels were running for President?

Pedro Martínez:  It wasn't a Fox report.  It was a report about the cable/network/print media and was put out by an independent source.  This report in particular, with regard to the election, validates Fox's claim to be fair and balanced.  That they are.  Which is  a good reason to watch them.  You do indeed get both sides.

BTW, Mother Theresa died in 97.   Joseph Goebbels is long dead too.  And neither were US citizens so they don't qualify to run for presidents.  

Artful Dodger: The "balance" is due to the fact it would be very difficult for Fox to ignore the very real fact that McCain has gone negative.Toss in a few Rev Wight audio loops,a smattering of Ayres,and the latest PLO associate,and you have balance.I don't think the othe networks are as likely to buy into these boogymen being tossed out as Fox is.I wonder,for instance,if Fox is reporting that McCain supported donating almost a half a million bucks to the PLO guy who is the latest Obama boogyman?

Fox and MSNBC are both in the tank for their respective candidates,toss them out of the equation and you'll have a better picture of reality

Jim Dandy:  You are missing the point.  The study wasn't concerning how the media was reporting the negative or positive of the individual campaigns.   The study looked at how the media presented it's reports.  Of all the stories MSNBC ran about Obama, only 14 were negative.  But 73% were negative regarding McCain.  The independent report focused on the flavor of the reporting.  The question they answered had to do with the slant of the media coverage.  MSNBC slanted their coverage in favor of Obama and against McCain.  Some of those knuckleheads on MSNBC even dug into Joe the Plumber's past, his tax records, etc, just to discredit him.  That is NOT the job of a news organization.  They weren't reporting the news, they were making it. 

This report is quite comprehensive and you can read if for yourself online.  I'm citing facts from their report.  You're using hypotheticals and opinion.  The bottom line is this:  Fox news is recognized by the majority of American viewers as a higher quality news organization than any other, cable or network.  The  ratings show that.  People know they can depend on Fox to deliver information from all perspectives.  This election coverage has been a good example of their excellence.  You will routinely see Fox have equal representation from both parties and they give them equal time.  Looking at the Fox news program as a whole, it's easy to see that, just as this study I cite reflects, they are indeed fair and balanced.    OTOH, watching MSNBC would give the viewer a slanted view that favored Obama.  NBC is nearly as bad but MSNBC is by far the worse.   The data makes it clear and with all due respect, contrary opinions do nothing to change the facts. 

Artful Dodger: We're not going to find agreement on this.If a campaign focuses on negativity you can't expect it to be reported otherwise,if it was it would be disingenuous reporting.I watch Fox all the time,O'Rielly and his ambush journalism is legendary,not to mention Hannity's mantra-like preaching of talking points.I will say this,you'd be very hard pressed to not get a snicker from any well respected journalist if you stated that either Fox or MSNBC are not extremely slanted either right or left.I also would avoid using rattings as a barometer of quaity,if it was how do you explain American Idol

Some of the best programming is on PBS,and their viewership numbers aren't going to win any awards

Jim Dandy: I'm afraid that you don't understand the concept of positive vs. negative reporting. it has nothing to do with negative campaigning, for example, yesterday Obama said, and I am paraphrasing, that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, a positive spin would be focus on the environmental impact of such a decision, a negative spin would be to report the effects on jobs ,oil and electrical prices, the economic and social impacts, another way for the drive by's to go would to simply not report it, which is a major reason as to how the negativity ratings are differed

Tuesday: Perhaps the only reason you think the McCain camp was so negative is because of the slanted coverage in that direction. How is it that Fox news treated both candidates equally? Couldn't MSNBC find enough negative about Obama to focus on? Of course they could. They chose not to. And Fox found 60% positive on McCain to report on. They gave Obama the same courtesy. MSNBC found ONLY 14% negative reporting for Obama vrs 73% negative re: McCain. It's not the job of the media to slant their coverage in favor of a candidate but that's exactly what MSNBC has done. And BTW, the report I cite did not come to the same conclusion that you and JimDandy have come to and they are the ones that did the study. You and Jim are interpreting the findings incorrectly.

Tuesday: let's try this, I'll bet you think still that someone said to kill Obama at one of McCains rallies, did you know that no one said it, only the Scranton newspaper reported it, and absolutely no other news agency either heard it nor was able to find a witness to say that they heard it, but the Scranton newspaper still asserts that it happened.
Now something that you probably have never heard unless you have read it on a blog or heard it on Fox, people have been wearing shirts at Obama rallies that say "Palin is a (the worst word that you can call a woman)" Ill bet you can figure it out but I'll bet that you haven't heard that bit on negative news on MSNBC

Also the report wasn't about more negative coverage, it was about the balance of positive to negative, you would think that McCain never says anything positive, but you would be very wrong, and this biased reporting is not new, it happens every election and threw out politicians teniors also, heck even Dan Rather says that the media is in the tank for Obama

Tuesday: because no one said kill him, and it was Obama that ignored the Palin t-shirts. You see you are doing the same thing as the media, ignoring anything negative about Obama as if is wasn't said or true and focusing on the negative things that the media has inbread in your head

Vikings: I understand the concept,I just don't buy either Fox or MSNBC as examples,both networks constantly spin for their respective leanings.Politicians are also very aware of the treatment they'll get on either of those two

Jim Dandy: You've completely missed the point of the report I cited. Vikings is right. It had nothing to do with how the campaigns were run. BTW, this isn't the only time an independent study clearly showed that Fox stands above the rest when it comes to fair and balanced reporting.