>Difference there being the source of the information. Fox news is nothing more than media.
Pravda was no more than ground trees, then ;).
FN calls itself a "news channel". Analyses show that two thirds of their "news" are opinion pieces.
>Each station (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, etc) has their own slant. I don't think any of them are more accurate than the other, they each put more weight into one side of the argument (although I do think that Fox is less slanted than others). Most people here would be surprised to learn that the majority of those who work at Fox news are liberals.
Nice touch. But in the end, there are the memos which set the limits on what can be said, what can not be said, what must never be said, what MUST be said etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Internal_memos, and I've seen these memos in many places. That's no secret, and that's about enough to discredit any pretense to "fair and balanced". We called Sloba's outlet "TV Bastille". Faux is the same, on steroids.
More links:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html> In the case of your experience, the people were not switching sides based on the media, but based on one man's opinion unless you want to blame the method in which he communicated that message to you all.
But they weren't switching sides, that's the point. They flipped their opinion on an important matter, just based on what one man (the president, unfortunately) said - and based on the way the news was pushed to them. And they did it just to stay on the same side.
