Add new comment

... people who do not watch it, presume that Fox is an extension of the Republican Party.  It is not.  
Fox is "accountable" if only for the fact that the whole rest of the world is playing "gotcha" with them, in a way that they don't with MSNBC or anybody else.  Fox is acutely aware of the potential for excess; the Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews crowd, for instance, seems to have no sense whatsoever of any checks and balances on their world views.
Sean Hannity is an extension of the Republican Party, but he's about the only one.  Van Susteren and O'Reilly, to say nothing of the news shows, are objective.  They're even biased slightly left, because of their concern about being labeled far-right, although their content does predominate towards compensating for the MSM's overwhelming bias.  Van Susteren might have Sarah Palin on more often than would usually be indicated, but this is a reaction to the MSM's treatment of Palin, and Van Susteren's interview will be extremely professional.
For instance, O'Reilly just took Phil Robertson to task for offending gays in the A&E saga; I thought O'Reilly's "only Jesus can ever judge any behavior, so you're harming Jesus' cause" condemnation of Mr. Duck was self-contradictory by any standard, right or left.  Ann Coulter, who is indeed far right, despises O'Reilly's attempts to look "reasonable" by taking stands in the center when he "knows better."
So if I wanted to watch TV to get a quick-scan of the day's current events, I'd go to Fox.
.........
Presuming that you can't get past the image that the MSM has successfully used to marginalize Fox, then the Wall Street Journal is usable.   If not that, then you can use the same approach as in baseball - hit the news aggregate sites, distill a consensus, and don't forget to scan Drudge which will point out the stories that the New York Times pyramid is blacklisting.
You asked :- )