It's true that any outlet can begin to feel like an echo chamber, salon included, so a variety of news sources is always a good idea. That still leaves us with the decision of which ones to choose, and FOX's record as a source of news doesn't add up:

(I'm in a huge hurry here, so I'm going to leave you to look up the links if you want):

PIPA poll: Back before the 2004 election, the nonpartisan University of Maryland's People to People International did some kind of survey that asked 3 or 4 patently objective questions about WMD, the war in Iraq, and international opinion about America. I don't have the exact figures, but something like 75% of people who get their news exclusively from FOX got the answers wrong (compared with something like 30% of the general population). If I remember, they did 2 studies, one which concluded that FOX viewers had wrong information and one which concluded that Bush (as opposed to Kerry) supporters had the wrong information.

Some recent study that showed fake news viewers were more informed than most other news sources (FOX was way down, and, interestingly, so was NPR or PBS if I remember correctly)

Some recent study showed that CNN was significantly more likely to cover the war and international footage compared to FOX (which is obvious to anyone who even casually watches either and might have something to do with how the war has been going all these years.) An interesting personal observation is that the "surge" has clearly gotten positive coverage everywhere, to the point of its being considered a universal truth. No one delves any deeper than the military success or adds any nuance that I can see.

How about that footage of Carl Cameron (FOX) fawning over Bush during that hard-hitting "interview" a few years ago? He didn't know the camera was on when he chatted about how much his wife loves campaigning for him and loved meeting Laura or something.

You didn't acknowledge the Carville/Begala issue in your letter--that one's blatant. Why not?

Truly, I wish I didn't have to walk out the door in a minute b/c I would like to do this topic justice, and there are so many examples out there. I try unbelievably hard to stay objective when it comes to news, and I give FOX a fair shot. Occasionally it surprises me (and the market will soon demand better of it--the college youth is not loyal to that brand at this point), but mostly I am reminded of their agenda even in small conversations b/t anchors or laughing references. The work of Robert Greenwald (I think that's his name--again, no time)--himself with an agenda to be sure--in exposing the hypocrisy of FOX in its coverage of titillating sex stories even as its mouthpiece O'Reilly and others bemoan the loss of family values and its distortion of Obama and other Democrats is outstanding.

I try to watch a news event on cspan when I can--minus the talking heads; Charlie Rose offers soft but in-depth interviews with all kinds of influential people; I always prefer listening to a news conference or Supreme Court hearing live on NPR rather than some talking head's take on it; and I listen to lots of opinions, both sides. I also have my guilty pleasures, Stephanie Miller, the liberal radio talk show host being a great one. But I know that I am not getting my news from her, and therein lies the difference b/t me and some others who think that when they watch Bill O'Reilly or even Brit Hume they are getting news.

I will never be comfortable playing the groupie, and I can't relate to the people who have bumper stickers proclaiming that they get their news from FOX. There's something inherently contradictory about that; if it's unbiased news, why the loyalty? I am as uncomfortable, by the way, with those who rally to the "cause" of CNN as well. We should not be loyal to news outlets in a way that suggests we "like" what we consistently get from them. It reminds me of the folks who blather that they want "good news." Do they want news or not?

I don't mind the challenge from you and others; people should be able to defend their views. Sorry all this probably isn't up to your reporter's standards, but it was offered in good faith.

Satire isn't supposed to be actually funny, you know. Wicked, maybe. Kind of like a weapon. It tells a truth in an ironic, uncomfortable way.

(That's for whomever thought Glenn was trying to be funny and didn't succeed).

As far as the rest of you, though, you're all striking my funny bone. Everybody's making me laugh--even Proximity Warning. There's nothing like a bit of sophomoric humor to make my day--thanks all!

On the serious issue, though, this has always gotten my goat: Conservatives who claim that liberals play victim even as they themselves do. Think about the oppressed Christians, especially around Christmastime! Thank god O'Reilly has made some real difference for them in this world! Can you imagine if they couldn't buy all that crap and celebrate their holiday? I shudder to think about it.

And how about Clarence Thomas, spending his entire career decrying the victimhood claims of the left. Not only does he EXEMPLIFY the hypocrisy of that by living the life of privilege on the back of the legislation he abhors, he talks about it whenever he gets the chance, too. He whines about his poor upbringing, his racism-filled childhood, and his high-tech lynching--all in the phraseology of victimhood. Most ironic of all--the poor thing has a diploma from Yale, which he hangs on his wall to show how little it has done for him. It's worth a dime or some such thing, he says. Those goddamn liberals that got him a high class education and then had the nerve to promote him to the highest judicial body in the land!! He'll show them!