My guess would be that they had most of the reasearch done for the piece back in 2000, and just decided to sit on it when Bush got the nod. Getting all this information on someone takes time, and we might not find out all the background stuff with Obama (assuming there is anything more than what the evidence is showing right now) for years, if ever. Such is the beauty of today's political world...

And Bigjon, you know, in the TV industry Fox News is the butt of jokes, right? I mean it doesn't matter what side of the political fence you fall on, Fox News is a horrid example of proper journalistic ethics. To quote them, or to even defend them is the rough equivalent of defending The Weekly World News (except TWN actualy had talented writers on staff...). This is coming from someone in the field man, there is NO defending Fox News.

Wait... Not only are you saying Fox news is not as biased as others say, you even go as far as saying they're the most unbiased network?

Wow.

And Hannity and Limbaugh did the same thing with Palin.  I love this "liberal" media stuff.  Its really entertaining to see people fall for this.  Do individual journalists have biases?  Of course, Gibson is one of them.  But Fox takes it to a whole new level where its mandated from up top.  I would say MSNBC is the only network that comes close to doing this on the liberal side.  Yet they are still tempered by the fact that they are owned by NBC (as evidenced by them pulling Olbermann and Matthews from there election coverage).

The fact that anyone could think that Fox presents a balanced view is scary and shocking.  I think CNN is clearly the best at balancing its coverage.

Reality has a Nintendo bias.

Hannity and Limbaugh do not claim to be Journalist.... They are commentators. That is why people like Oberman do not bother me as much even though they are more extreme. It is the Obamamania under the guise of Journalism that pisses me off. O'Reilly is the same, he does not claim to be a Journalist. The "journalist types" at Foxnews do not seem biased to me. Namely Shepard smith and Greta (even though she is Fugly).

I like CNN alot because I feel Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper are pretty good. I get the sense they prefer Obama, but it does not interfere with their reporting. I put CNN in that list because some of their other anchors do bother me.

yep, that about sums it up. Your point?

Prove me wrong. Remember I am reffering to reporting and journalism, not their commentators.

Why is the burden of proof on me, and why do their commentators not count? Aren't they part of their TV coverage?

Anyway, here's some fair and balanced reporting (not embedding since this is kind of off-topic):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SxSG6tivSc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms&feature=related

I'm sure there are better examples, but I'm not going to waste time going through any more of FOX's videos.

The line between journalist and commentator has been blurred so much that they are indistinguishable.  Hannity and Orielly routinely refer to themselves as journalists.  An interview with them will have just as much impact as an interview with Gibson.  So I don't think the separation is valid in today's news media.

And watching Brit Hume during both the DNC and RNC, the difference was easy to see.  Even his tone was different.  During the DNC everything was "corny", especially when the candidates kids and grandkids showed up on stage.  During the RNC, it was "refreshing" to see the candidates families as it showed they are "real" people.

I never see any attempt by anyone on Fox to be balanced.

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air.

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:

• 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).

• The belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS

• 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

In August 2007 a new utility, Wikipedia Scanner, revealed that Wikipedia articles relating to Fox News had been edited from IP addresses owned by Fox News, though it was not possible to determine exactly who the editors were. The tool showed that self-referential edits from IP ranges owned by corporations and news agencies were not uncommon. Fox edits received attention in the blogosphere and on some online news sites. Wikipedia articles edited from Fox computers from 2005 through 2007 included Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.

RUbang brings facts.