>No matter how you parse the words, this clearly shows the head of FNC’s news division making an opinionated statement about the Obama administration

I agree. When I first read that statement, it sounded suspiciously similar to the text-book retorts that political opponents make against each other. Quite ironic.

> Do you get a tougher interview if you’re a Democrat than if you’re a Republican during daytime hours? Probably. But you could make that argument the other way with MSNBC, where David Shuster, who fills in on Countdown, is seen as an “anchor.”

Agreed. MSNBC falls into the same traps that Fox News does – no doubt about that. But the main difference here though is that MSNBC hasn’t really claimed that it’s an impartial network. I’d say it’s quite the opposite: they actually ran promos declaring themselves the “Power of Change”, with Matthews admitting on inauguration day saying MSNBC “Opened its heart to change” and that it’s the “Network of 21st century”; the same day they held live streams of MSNBC’s inauguration coverage into movie theaters, handing out bags of swag with Obama’s face on it along with MSNBC anchors!

I mean, as far as I know Phil Griffin hasn’t made any statements claiming there’s a clear separation between daytime and primetime when it comes to opinionated hosts on the channel, instead saying he wanted strong personalities (a prime example of this would be former host Carlos Watson, and right now to a certain extent probably Dylan Ratigan). Regardless of what Fox News executives say about the impartiality of their daytime programming, it’s hard to take them serious when it wasn’t that long ago Happening Now’s Jon Scott read bullet points directly off of a Republican press release including the typos!

Fox News still insists that it is impartial, thanks to the backing of their substantial news division. But if I am not mistaken, it was not until recently that they’ve actually begun to admit any form of bias at all – specifically the prime time programming. Prior to cutting Colmes’s umbilical and adding Beck last year, they still claimed to be fair and balanced on all programming, even when that wasn’t the case either. All and all, I’d say the fact that Fox News now admits bias at all (even when they claim it is limited) is a concession that they just hadn’t made in the past.

The author here has done NO WORK in this article, just regurgitating statements by both sides of the issue. This, of course, is the “fair and balanced” approach to journalism. What happens to journalism when one of the sides of the issue is WRONG? Does a good journalist still give the wrong side even when known to be wrong and doesn’t point that out? This is just the case with the author and the MSM in general. Media Matters has a litany of examples where Fox News editorializes with its news division picking up on their opinion makers. So, Fox News is wrong about a division between news and opinion on its network. Mr. Krakauer is just as quilty as Fox News in giving voice to both sides when that is not the whole story.

The people in this country are thirsty for REAL, UNBIASED NEWS and Fox is the ONLY station who delivers! Keep up the good work, Fox News Channel. You audience is growing on a daily basis. We depend on you for fair and balanced news and great OPINION programs as well. We are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chafe but evidently the idiots in the White House are not.

Axelrod, Rahm, and Anita are all so incensed by Fox that they failed to take a more measured tone against Fox. Instead of singling out the 5pm and 9pm segments with which they take issue, they painted with a broad brush…which only fanned the flames more. It is a bell they cannot un-ring. And in a paradox, the ‘other’ media outlets look like suck-ups to Obama after Anita stupidly declared success in her role to ‘control’ them. Beck’s Boston Terrier ‘PRESS’ (complete with pink collar) was a fabulous prop to describe what’s going on. If the rest of the media doesn’t mind being characterized that way, the lambasting of them shall continue.