RELATED: Poll Says Fox News Most Trusted News Source…And Least Trusted

According to the study:

CBS had the most positive portrayals — 57% positive vs. 43% negative, partly because of its highly favorable (89% positive) evaluations of Ron Paul. FOX had the most balanced overall coverage with 52% positive vs. 48% negative comments. NBC was the most negative overall with 27% positive vs. 73% negative coverage, followed closely by ABC with 32% positive vs. 68% negative coverage. Both NBC and ABC featured 85% negative comments on Romney.

[...]

Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage — 50% negative and 50% positive comments. Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.

To see the full results of the survey, click here.

Stewart then advised his viewers to watch the full, unedited interview rather than the version that aired on television so that he would seem less “sad clown, happy clown, mad clown.” The unedited version, Stewart continued, also contains what he sees as the moment when Wallace “gives away the game” by noting that MSNBC reports with a liberal agena, whereas Fox News acts as a “counterweight,” presenting “the other side of the story.”

Stewart took this to mean that Wallace was basically admitting that Fox News presents “one side” of the story, because “as we know, news only comes in two sides.”

He continued: “Fox News isn’t ‘Fair and Balanced’! It’s balancing the system, man!”

Watch the segment, via Comedy Central:

Fox News host Bill Hemmer, preparing for a long night in Times Square alongside Megyn Kelly for Fox’s All-American New Year’s Eve has strongly defended Fox against the charge the network’s anything but a “shoot it down the middle” real news operation, not cheerleaders for the Republican Party.

In an interview with Popeater, Hemmer suggested Fox News critics watch the channel and he believes they’ll see Fox spares “no one whether they’re Democrats or Republicans. The fair and balanced slogan is alive and kicking.”

Hemmer says his mission at Fox is anything but bias–he says FNC brings a variety of opinion, and plenty of perspective:

It’s our job to figure out a way to shoot it down the middle. There’s too much noise out there anyway. Hopefully we can help viewers see their way through that or maybe get a picture that’s a bit more in focus than the noise of the day.

As for New Year’s Eve, Hemmer said it can be an icy cold experience, but he’ll be “layered up” and–perhaps, he hinted–even find warmth in an adult beverage at some point, but definitely at an after-show party that’s planned at a colleague’s (hopefully well heated and dry) apartment.

What can we expect on the air? The Fox News Insider asked Hemmer and Kelly, and you can watch it here, from Fox News:

In light of the recent disclosure of memos from Bill Sammon, Fox News‘ Washington managing editor, The Los Angeles Times took Fox News to task over its “Fair and Balanced” slogan specifically and its journalistic credibility more generally. Without making overblown claims of past bias by the entire network, as many Fox News critics enjoy doing, the editorial simply states two recent facts and objectively asks those in charge of Fox News to respond.

The memos from Sammon instructed FOX’s hard news reporters how to report on healthcare and global warming. Reporters were urged to avoid the phrase “public option” and instead refer to it as “government option,” and to refrain from saying the planet has warmed without pointing out that such warming is based on disputed theories. The Times finds the latter directive particularly troubling, claiming no serious climate scientist disagrees that the underlying temperature data in fact shows the Earth is getting warmer.

The editorial ends with a simple and fair conclusion:

Fox should either come clean about this and crack down on such partisanship in its news ranks, or it should stop pretending to be an objective news source.

Read the entire Editoral here.

Friday night I found, as we rehearsed its presentation, that a segment implying former President Bush had lifted parts of his autobiography from other works of recent history, was largely based on excerpts that mostly required heavy editing and still produced only weak evidence. We killed the segment. Would Fox have? Would CNN have?

While it’s tempting to criticize Olbermann’s onanisitic back-patting, his point was actually not self-congratulation, but rather, the contrast between his own editorial judgment and those of his “neutral” or “Fair and Balanced®” counterparts at Fox and CNN. As it turns out, he hit the nail right on the head. While most of cable news ignored the blog-fueled Bush “plagiarism” story, CNN’s Parker/Spitzer dove right in:

Spitzer actually says “News just broke today that several sections of George Bush’s memoir are apparently plagiarized,” and aside from the use of the qualifier “apparently,” neither he nor Parker evinces the slightest bit of skepticism.

While Olbermann wondered if Fox News would’ve killed the segment, he surely meant if the shoe was on the other foot, and the accused plagiarist was a Democrat. On that count, there are numerous examples, but in this clip, current MSNBC pinch-hitter Cenk Uygur plays along with Fox & Friends, MST3000-style, as they go over a particularly flimsy allegation involving former NY Governor Mario Cuomo.

Cable news networks aren’t the only entities to hear the irresistible siren call of a plagiarism story. During a 2008 presidential debate on CNN, then-Senator Hillary Clinton took aim at “Change you can Xerox,” with an immediate back-and-forth between accuser and accused.

There is another plagiarism story that closely mirrors the current Bush kerfuffle. Like the Bush story, it, too, originated at The Huffington Post. The subject was an even brighter star in the Republican universe, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The “case” against Palin was even weaker than the one against Bush:

…an accusation of plagiarism arose (since denied).  Geoffrey Dunne laid out the case that Palin had lifted portions of the speech from a 2005 article by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley (BTW, it must really suck to have a girl’s first name as your last name).  You can plainly see that Palin does, indeed, crib from the article.  So, what’s the problem?  Here’s the problem:

After (an excerpt that appears to echo the Gingrich/Shirley article but doesn’t lift from it directly), Palin acknowledged that, “Recently, Newt Gingrich, he had written a good article about Reagan….” (Recently? It was four years ago.) Without mentioning Shirley, she quotes and paraphrases from the article at length…

Cue needle scratching off of record album sound effect.  She announces that her speech is drawn from the article from which she supposedly plagiarized…While Palin doesn’t mention co-author Shirley, or even allude to Laverne, she clearly credits Gingrich.

So, anyone whose editorial judgement failed them sufficiently to cover that weak sauce is probably in for a good talking-to by Keith Olbermann. From the June 8, 2009 edition of…Countdown?:

There is a small, but key, difference in the editorial judgements exercised here. The Bush segment that Olbermann killed was based purely on that thin HuffPo story. The decision to cover the Palin story was based on the fact that Palin issued a denial, a solid reason to cover it, and part of a pattern by Palin’s people of punching down at poorly-sourced stories.

As to the way it was covered, while guest Lawrence O’Donnell (wrongly, in my view) convicted Palin’s speechwriters of plagiarism, there was at least a modicum of skepticism shown, and the overall effect was to downplay the charge. The plagiarism angle wasn’t even the central point of the segment, but rather, the relationship between Palin, Newt Gingrich, and the direction of the Republican Party.

Still, the newly-reflective, post-suspension Keith Olbermann of 2010 might have covered it differently, or not at all. Only he knows for sure.

In total, Bykofsky counted 20 right-leaning guests, 11 left-leaning guests, and seven neutral guests on O’Reilly. He found 20 left-leaning guests, two neutral guests, and “not a single voice from the right” on Olbermann’s show.

The math here is a tiny bit fuzzy—Bykofsky counts Charlie Crist, who appeared on Countdown, as a political neutral although Florida’s former governor, a newly-minted independent, still espouses right-of-center views. He also deems Michael Shermer, a self-proclaimed Libertarian and publisher of Skeptic magazine, left-leaning because he “attacks” Karl Rove on Olbermann’s show—even though plenty of prominent conservatives have indicated displeasure with Rove. Bykofsky also disparages Olbermann but declines to do the same for O’Reilly, as evidenced by this passage:

WEDNESDAY, OCT. 27

Only two “Countdown” guests tonight as Olbermann gloms the last 20 minutes for a “Special Comment” tirade against the tea party. It wants to create, he hisses with his veins bulging and eyes popping, a “theocracy for white males.” (Remember that.)

Generally, though, Bykofsky’s findings are pretty damning. Even if Olbermann did have fewer guests overall than O’Reilly, his pool was a lot less diverse than his rival’s. As Bykofsky writes, “If you never want to hear anyone challenge liberal views, lock in on Olbermann. While progressives disdain Fox’s claim of being “fair and balanced,” The O’Reilly Factor does present opposing views. O’Reilly will cut them off in midsentence, true, but he even does that to people who agree with him. (Shock therapy might help.) Olbermann seems unable to even listen to anything other than progressive orthodoxy.”

Read his entire rundown at Philly.com.

The problem is not what Hannity did. It is that Fox News allowed it to happen.

David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun has an excellent column up about the interview. “There isn’t a reputable mainstream newspaper in the country that lets its editorial page be used for partisan fund raising,” he wrote. “What Hannity allowed Kasich to do on his show Thursday crosses the line as to what’s acceptable for any news organization, and we all know it isn’t the first Hannity time has done this.”

What Hannity did was give Kasich, who worked for Fox News (even filling in occasionally for Hannity) until he started running for Governor of Ohio, a major platform to talk to potential donors. It was a response to Pres. Barack Obama‘s involvement in the race, which admittedly is major. But unlike a simple interview, the exchange devolved into this:

Kasich: People can come on our website at KasichforOhio.com. Sunday night at 6:30. We’re going to talk about the damage the Obama agenda has done to us. And if you have extra nickels or dimes please send it our way.

Hannity: I want to put some emphasis on this because this is really important. Explain to people why we cannot afford to lose that race?

Putting aside the use of the word “we”, I want to point out again this is not Hannity’s fault. Sean Hannity does not mask who he is – his show is the most obvious political talk show on television. He is a hybrid of establishment and tea party Republican talking points (maybe more tea party than establishment this year), set to fancy graphics and rock music, throw in a football, rinse, repeat. He doesn’t bring the sometimes surprising positions of Bill O’Reilly, or the ‘bigger than politics’ mentality of Glenn Beck (he also didn’t mention Beck’s mostly apolitical rally). He’s the show that candidates can go to when they want to complain about the “national media.”

Fox News knows this just like everyone else. And they are to blame for what occurred Thursday night with Kasich. Hannity has already been publicly rebuked this year for getting too close to a tea party event, forcing his bosses to call in an audible at the last second and send the host back to New York. Fox News does do news during hours they claim to be news (9amET-4pmET, and 6pmET-8pmET). But the other hours cannot be infomercials for the GOP, or else the entire organization can and should be blamed.

In a way, this Kasich race is Ohio is a test run for how Fox News will handle 2012. Right now they employ three potential presidential candidates (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich), and questions are already being raised regarding how the network will handle very difficult and important ethical decisions. For what it’s worth, I only believe one will end up running – but even if others don’t run, they could come out in strong support of a certain candidate. If FNC allows these major players to roam free of basic levels of journalistic integrity, it will taint the entire news outlet.

As of now, Fox News has not weighed in on this particular Hannity segment. We’ll see if anything changes as the election nears closer. Here’s the video, from Fox News:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Imus caught it – and Wallace started back-pedaling.

“They absolutely should get it,” said Wallace of FNC. But then he got to his explanation:

Obviously she was very far to the left wing and if her seat were to be taken by Fox News it would just be kind of poetic justice.

Oh really? Imus was keyed in. “But what are you suggesting about Fox News then?” he asked, and then Wallace started backing away: “Well, I just realized that’s probably not the way to go on this…we’re fair and balanced. That’s the point.”

After some more back-and-forth, Imus ended with, “By the way, say hi to Roger when he calls you.” Roger Ailes – his boss. Wallace laughed. At least he did this morning.

Check out the exchange (h/t our comments section):

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

But one thing just didn’t make sense for co-host Gretchen Carlson. Specifically, why Pres. Barack Obama would go after his buddies.

Confused, she addressed the camera: “The whole thing doesn’t fit together in my mind.” She laid out her case:

A lot of the people who work at Goldman donated to President Obama during the campaign. A lot of the people currently sitting in his administration used to work at Goldman. A lot of people who work at Goldman support his financial reform program. So why are they on the hook? I don’t get it. Usually when you support the President, then you’re not on the hook.

Our emphasis added. Yeah, why is Pres. Obama being so…fair and balanced? There must be some reason…

Check it out:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

One of the toughest criticisms came from Baier’s own colleague today – Geraldo Rivera.

Johnny Dollar has the audio from this morning’s Brian And The Judge show when Geraldo was asked for his take on the interview. Initially he had praise for Baier – “I thought he made the point that process was ugly, Bret did, clearly,” he said.

But then came this:

When the President seemed exasperated and frustrated and unable to complete a sentence, I thought at some point you have to make a difference between the guy who’s the Senate Whip or the House Whip, the Assemblyman, the leader of the State Senate, you gotta…he’s not a mayor. He’s the President.

The criticism isn’t new, but certainly rare from someone on Fox News. Dana Perino, former Pres. Bush Press Secretary, disagreed. “There’s not a single reporter who ever interviewed Pres. Bush who would have done anything different,” she said.

Geraldo then veered into territory sure to fire up both sides: “Sarah Palin‘s the only one who gets beat up the way Bret Baier beat up Barack Obama.”

Here’s the audio from this morning – check out how Geraldo compares Baier to, gasp, Keith Olbermann:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

But the Daily Show was edited to prove that point – so we watched the full two-hour America Live today, and frankly, Stewart has a point.

I’ve watched Kelly’s show periodically since it debuted February 1, but never from start to finish for two hours. And yes, to be fair, it doesn’t give an accurate representation to base an opinion on just one full day. But it does help develop a theme, one that is based on Stewart’s decidedly non-”fair and balanced,” heavily-edited piece and the full show today.

One thing Kelly is not is Sean Hannity. She doesn’t spout talking points, and the show itself is not a GOP-driven show. Those who interpreted Stewart’s segment as proving no difference between opinion-prime time hours on FNC and Kelly’s “news” hour would be wrong. For one reason, a significant portion of the show is completely apolitical. There were several segments today about the cruise ship tragedy, in which a wave killed two passengers. There was a rather heated debate about circumcision and a later “Kelly’s Court” segment over a Hurt Locker lawsuit. She talked about the air traffic controller kid story and a Girl Scout cookie crackdown.

But when the subject drifted to politics, Stewart’s point was proven to some degree. The guests on the show today were Juan Williams (a left-leaning political contributor on FNC), RNC Chair Michael Steele (that interview is here), GOP Congressman Dan Burton, FNC legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr., FOX News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace and Ross Aimer, a United Airlines pilot. Let’s take a look at some of the guests:

• Williams was on to talk about the potential “vote trading” health care story, and, as the chyron said, he was firmly in the ‘yes vote trading’ camp: “Williams: This looks like ‘vote trading’.”

• Kelly worked hard to hold Steele’s feet to the fire over the RNC presentation, and when he tried to change the subject to health care, she continued pressing him about who would be held accountable. While it was a right-wing guest, it was a very balanced interview.

• Rep. Dan Burton was on to talk about a lawyer concerning Navy seals in Fallujah, and while the guest was right-wing, Kelly tried to present both sides. Still, she hedged a question to Burton with, “It’s so disgusting what this man did, this terrorist, and no one watching this program wants anything but justice for him, against him, I should say.” After the interview, she urged viewers to weigh in: “There are arguments on both sides, so let me know what you think.” So yes, there are arguments on both sides, but Kelly makes clear she knows her audience as well.

>>> NEXT PAGE: More analysis, and the Daily Show video.

It included a contentious interview with Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a talk with Brit Hume (who previously held Sammon’s job) and a “Talking Points” opening (including some ‘original reporting’).

Politico’s Michael Calderone highlighted Sammon’s comments on FOX News Sunday, when the News VP said: “The mainstream media hates the tea party movement almost as much as it hates Sarah Palin. And the reason is simple: that’s because both are a threat.” That sentiment was rebuked by Chuck Todd and others.

Well O’Reilly and his staff did some original reporting, and guess what, Sammon was right. “Amidst thousands of reports,” on the tea parties, The Factor staff found just “two positive comments,” in the Detroit Free Press and the AP. Since those are just words, we’ll leave that alone. What defines a “positive comment”? Did his staff really scour “thousands of reports”? And aren’t there other options besides “positive reports” and ‘hatred’ of the tea party movement? Like, for example, ‘fair and balanced’ reports.

VandeHei vehemently disagreed with O’Reilly, calling Sammon’s comment “ridiculous.” “He has no clue. You wouldn’t even be able to prove that charge to begin with,” he said.

Meanwhile in the same discussion where O’Reilly called some tea partiers “crazy,” Hume seemed to disagree with the Factor host’s reporting. “Bill Sammon has a point if you look at the blend of reporting and commentary on the tea party movement if you go back early to its inception,” he said, but: “The coverage of late, at least the news coverage, commentary aside, has been more neutral and more extensive and better than it was.”

The biggest point here is that Sammon – supposedly an objective presence within Fox News – is making these sweeping generalizations that are based on no facts at all. The fact that it is Sammon is specifically striking. He was the executive who put out a strongly-worded internal memo after the 9/12 Tea Party flap:

Our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

Reporting, not altering. Honest brokers. How can a reasonable opinion host, or an objective news VP, find that Sammon’s comments fall into that category? It is moments like this that give FNC critics ammunition about a bias not just in opinion but the news side of the top-rated cable news network.

Here’s some of the O’Reilly/VandeHei segment:

>>>NEXT PAGE: O’Reilly’s Talking Points and full Hume interview.

He apologized to the viewers after a segment on the New Jersey Governor race he felt didn’t give both sides a fair shake.

Gawker reports Smith was introducing a report from correspondent Shannon Bream, and it appeared he was expecting it to be a sole reporter segment. Instead, Bream was at GOP candidate Chris Christie‘s rally, and he was there for a quick, impromptu interview.

Smith didn’t like the surprise. “When will you be interviewing Jon Corzine?” he asked after the interview. “We have multiple requests, and when it comes through, we’ll let you know,” said Bream.

Later, here’s classic Shep Smith: “Wow, I didn’t know that was about to happen. My apologies for the lack of balance there. If I had had control, it wouldn’t have happened.”

Christie has been around Fox News quite a bit as the race heats up, including an interview last night with Sean Hannity. And if Corzine has really been declining interviews, it’s certainly not FNC’s fault.

But the moment gets added to the long list of exchanges that make up the “fair and balanced,” renegade-like resume of Shepard Smith.

> Update on Wednesday: Today on Studio B, Smith said: “Yesterday Shannon Bream interviewed live the republican candidate for governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. She offered the same opportunity to the democrat, Jon Corzine. That offer still stands.”

Here’s the clip, before the interview and after. (h/t J$):

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Media Matters was the first to post the video on Friday evening, followed by DailyKos, and now the Huffington Post has posted a more extensive view of the scene and confirmed the name of the producer.

“The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,” FNC Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton told HuffPo.

At first glance, Noonan’s ‘pump up the volume’ gestures to the crowd seem innocuous. But when you consider FNC’s whole “Fair and Balanced” credo, the interaction between producer and crowd is completely out of bounds. It’s the same problem that newspapers face when they are caught altering photographs to seem more brilliant in print: when somebody comes to you, as a journalist, for information and allows you to control their field of vision, it’s expected that you’ll turn your lens on the truth. Not an augmented or altered version of the truth.

And, given that Fox expressed disgust that other networks weren’t devoting more coverage to an event of such magnitude, one wonders why at least one Fox producer thought the scene needed help getting ready for the camera.

See the video for yourself here (from Media Matters):

The scene as it appeared on Fox News: