There is a difference between reporting the news and persuading people to have a political opinion with false information. FOX News has been a joke from almost the very start. And, since they were always aware of what they were doing, they started early on warning their viewers, the "lowest common denominator", that sooner or later they would be attacked by the conspiracy of the Left. So they have incorporated the criticism that other real news outlets have of them into their little performance ahead of time.

They know that all you have to do is wrap your lies in an American flag and wave a Bible and the morons will swarm to your door.

And a little crying never hurt either.

Ha! Keep crying foul Fox. You picked the losing team and kept pursuing your 'news' agenda with smear campaigns.

The fact that The White House was trying to slowly blacklist Fox News from ALL news media events is the real news here.

That it has snow balled from Obama not willing to grant interviews to Fox, to this behavior is a personalisation of a government office, the most powerful one.

At least News Media stepped up and all concerned refused to participate if Fox News' blackballing occured.

Things have gone too far.

Argue all you want about Fox News and it's merits (or lack of) but this behavior from Obama and his staff does not sit well. If Bush had done this to MSNBC or CNN, how would we have reacted?

Quality journalism is a continuum, and truth is a hard thing to measure.

The problems with Fox News are threefold, two in particular set them apart to warrant these particular claims that they are not a "news" network.

1) Opinion - Certainly Maddow and Olberman are as guilty as Fox for their betrayal of informative content to mere hour-long opinion pieces, but rarely is quality factual education acknowledged as the basis for quality news these days. It is unsurprising that Maddow would raise this point to take the OPINION that OPINION is unavoidable in the current state of television news. I personally would have to begrudgingly agree that it is not avoidable in the current state of "news" - and at least for the sake of comparison.

2) Falsehoods and Omission - Here is the key issue in the condemnation of Fox News. The tendency to report falsehoods and omit INCREDIBLY relevant information to a "story" is widely documented. I wont take the time here to support this claim, just look it up. when the New York Times or NPR report inaccurately and are called on it, they (often) make concerted and honest efforts to correct discrepancies for the sake of reputable, honest journalism. Any journalism source that is not committed to this ideal is clearly NOT A NEWS SOURCE. It is ironic but not altogether surprising Maddow did not levy this complaint against Fox.

3) MAKING News - This is the idea Maddow danced around without saying outright. When a "news" source CREATEs events, without acknowledging its own influence and reports it as anything else, this is no longer journalism, but activism. If CNN hosted a cancer awareness fundraiser but did not openly acknowledge it was a CNN event, it would be guilty of the lack of integrity generally outlined in point (2). To repeat, as this point is particularly relevant to the current debates: Making news is not reporting news, it is not journalism, it is activism.

To conclude: Opinion is inescapable, large amounts are bad, but entirely a subjective judgment. Falsehood and relevant omission are unethical, fraudulent and contrary to everything positive one could say about "news". Creating events for a political purpose without open attribution is dishonest and crosses the line into political activism and entertainment spectacle.

The fact that ANYONE in this thread can think ANY news outlet is anything other than infotainment these days is amazing.

American News channels are all shit.

Go watch the mediaopoly video on youtube. Maybe you'll see how every channel is in the deep pockets of the government.