The most notable change I've detected in reader feedback this election season has been that more people on the right today differentiate Fox News' coverage as overtly conservative. In the past, I found it more common for Fox fans to portray the network's coverage as neutral, while most other outlets were far to the left.
It's not really my place to comment on other sources, though I will say that I used to think many Fox News critics were basing their opinions on the network's commentators, not its actual news coverage, which used to be much more akin to the ABCs and CNNs of the world than it is today. But in 2012, it's simply incoherent to argue that Fox hasn't become strongly ideologically in its entire approach (likely at least partly in reaction to MSNBC's also-overt, but not quite as extreme move to the left).
As I've argued many times, there's nothing necessarily wrong with getting news from a source with a point of view. The alternative media modeled on the Village Voice has always worked in this mode, and these sources' journalism can be excellent and factual.
But I'd encourage everyone to reader a piece by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic posted today. (Warning: There's some blue language within.) Friedersdorf is far from a conservative himself, but he does point out one unassailable fact: In this election, the conservative alternative media was generally wildly inaccurate in its predictions -- and he argues persuasively that those who suffered the most were the conservatives who've embraced those channels to the exclusion of the "mainstream."
Let me be clear: I'm in no way saying there aren't examples of liberal bias in the mainstream media. And there are lessons liberal readers can take from this piece as well.
Remember that "the media" is actually a fiercely competitive business world, and getting it right is the journalist's ultimate test. I think everyone should take a long look at the pundits and pollsters who get any prediction so very wrong, and then decide whether they should follow those oracles' advice in the future.
Laughable on its face.
Bias in reporting facts is an oxymoron. Bias in choosing which facts to report is a credible charge to make. Even if only as a marketing tactic. For example, like trying to attract those viewers who care whether our Ambassador abroad is left knowingly exposed. Other networks ignore by these viewers by not covering a story that genuinely tugs at patriotic heartstrings.
That's fine. In competing for viewers, some networks cater to the head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-ears crowd that genuinely doesn't want to think beyond our borders. And-or to the idol worshipping cult that view government and its officials as their saviors.
But. Don't. Mischaracterize. MSNBC.
Bias? Compared to Fox? MSNBC calls Mitt Romney and Republicans racists, when they're biting their tongue. Vulgar insinuations and accusations fly regularly on MSNBC as that is the niche they want to attract. Nothing close can be found on Fox. I say again, nothing close.
Fortunately, MSNBC's ratings are deepest in the toilet, which means the fewest viewers are attracted to their vitriol. Fortunately, Fox's rating are best, which means caring citizens are still a sizable force.