So, the pros can see through the b.s.:
"...a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points. "
This was discussed in an article on Fox (click here) about how a D.C. appointee has labeled Fox News a "wing of the Republican Party." I suppose that's in opposition to a few other news channels being rabid pawns of the Democrats. Can you imagine the response of CNN if that cesspool known as Chicago HAD been given the nod for the Olympic Games? How many reporters would have been peeing themselves in glee over that debacle?
Fox also dared to air some news about ACORN, and other untidy subjects (how much coverage did that get on CNN?). For this, a D.C. stuffed suit claimed that Fox is not a news channel, "...the way CNN is."
Maybe Fox should Reuter a few photos; would that do the trick for the D.C. crowd? Perhaps they could distribute a few pictures that a cabinet member personally, and professionally requests that they shelve; would that put them in the same league as the AP? Perhaps they could get Dan Rather to air some forged documents about the president's employment history; would that make them a "real" news channel?
Career politicians continue to disgust me.