News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[Ivan Seeking]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

 

[WhoWee]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

I think Sanchez is going to find himself defending CNN coverage (or lack of) quite often in the future.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity has yet to apologize to the ACORN employee that they got fired because they failed to investigate tape 4.

Blatantly false accusation which I have already pointed out to you in the ACORN thread. Apparently you are unable to even pay attention to the news shows you do watch.

Please let us know when and if you send out an e-mail to Fox apologizing for spreading this lie, thanks.

 

[Wax]

Blatantly false accusation which I have already pointed out to you in the ACORN thread. Apparently you are unable to even pay attention to the news shows you do watch.

Please let us know when and if you send out an e-mail to Fox apologizing for spreading this lie, thanks.

Link? I haven't been back to that thread yet. Hmmm.. let me go see


Edit: Nope, you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has not apologized or even mentioned a word of it. It might have been another news caster on the Fox News channel but both Hannity and Glenn Beck has not lifted a single finger after the fact.

 

[WhoWee]

Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down. Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there.

If Hannity, Beck, or ANYONE on Fox made a joke like that - there would be pickets marching the sidewalk screaming for their scalps. Cooper should apologize to his audience (as well as mom Gloria).

 

[russ_watters]

No, it is not wrong. There were tea parties before 9/12 but Glenn Beck is the sole person who created and promoted that exact date.

Wax, you started a thread about it a week ago where I linked the organization that organized it: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730

Watch the first 10 seconds of this video. Glenn Beck in his own words even said, "A while back I laid out a plan called the 9/12 project".

That's nice. Nevertheless, he didn't organize the events of 9/12. I linked the organization that did.

Google "9/12 project" and you'll see that Glenn's name is next to almost all of the links. The date 9/12 is Glenn's project.

Yippeee for him, he got a name that got hits on Google. That isn't what spawned the rally, though, Wax.

Try this: link a Glenn Beck site that actually discusses and promotes the rally that happened on 9/12.

[edit] Lemme help you. On Glenn Beck's website is this link: http://912dc.org/agenda/
Note the national sponsor. Note the names of the coordinators. Hint: Glenn Beck isn't one of them.

 

[russ_watters]

He explained the problem - false advertising [what a shock!]. Didn't you understand?

Sure, I understood fine. What I was discussing was why.

I linked a paper about the law when it comes to advertising a couple of pages ago. You said this is false advertising: So tell my why CNN hasn't sued Fox News over this. Why hasn't anyone sued Fox over their advertising?

I'll answer it for you: this is all just mental masturbation. People enjoy taking shots at Fox News and CNN wanted in because they saw it was working for MSNBC. Fox News popularized pointed political news from the right, MSNBC quickly followed to grab the other side, and CNN sees their ratings dropping and wants in.

Heck, that's what this thread is about, isn't it? There isn't any real point here, just a bunch of pot shots, right? Right? If you disagree, make and argue a point! I tried a couple of pages ago with Kyleb when he seemed to be implying that he might have had a point, but he declined to make/argue the point he was implying. If you have a point, go for it, Ivan!

I hope CNN sues Fox.

Me too! But they won't, you know why? Yeah, you know why...

 

[russ_watters]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

AFAIK, we don't have any Fox fans on this site. I haven't seen any, at least.

[edit] Then again, in Howard Stern's book, it said that people who hated him listened twice as long as people who liked him (at least in the beginning). Does that make them Howard Stern haters or fans? Do Howard Stern's advertisers care about the distinction? Heck, Ivan, I think you're more of a Fox News fan than I am!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Edit: Nope, you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has not apologized or even mentioned a word of it. It might have been another news caster on the Fox News channel but both Hannity and Glenn Beck has not lifted a single finger after the fact.

SHE WAS NOT FIRED!

You have some seriously selective perception.

Edit: Besides, Hannity and Beck did not make the videos. Someone else made them and hosted them and they just discussed them on their programs. Anything that happened to the people caught in the videos is their own fault for not acting professionally. The woman you have claimed was fired is on suspension with pay while she undergoes retraining due to her lack of professionalism. Had she acted appropriately she likely never would have even wound up on TV.

 

[Proton Soup]

The only anchor I like on CNN is the Wolf Man. Sanchez is too fluffy, but he has a point on this one.

I hope CNN sues Fox.

blitzer's alright. kind of an alex trebek type.

sanchez is worse than fluffy. my deep hatred for the man began when i saw him interviewing victims who had lost their homes in a big fire (think it was cali) and was trying to manipulate them into having an emotional outburst in front of the camera.

and so now Sanchez is doing what? the rivalry with people bigger than you are to try and boost your own ratings by riding their coattails? Keith Olbermann likes to do that with Bill O'Reilley. still, either no one knows, or cares, who Olbermann is. he'll never be a Maddow.

 

[WhoWee]

You have to watch Beck to understand him.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30208/
Read the entire interview and notice how he mixes in ELF. He has a unique style that works for him. He talks to the audience as though he's sitting at the kitchen table and makes the political issues relevant to the average person.

By comparison, Rick Sanchez often sounds - well (how about) "pissy"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/rick-sanchez-grills-rick_n_253389.html

I'll use a marketing analysis. Sanchez does a hard sell - a one call close. Beck has a SPIN selling technique - he probes and monitors the pulse of his audience. He explains his topics in great detail (even uses a chalk board and other graphics) and builds relationships. Beck has a consistent product and provides support after the sale.

Customers are more likely to stay loyal to Beck and only buy from Sanchez when he has a special offer.

I personally keep a news channel on at all times in my office.

For years it was tuned into CNN. As their programming changed, and instead of reporting I started to hear (very Liberal) opinion based reports from Carol Costello and Soledad O'Brien, I switched to Headline News.

I enjoyed Robin in the morning and found their weather reports adequate while traveling. But, other than a Glenn Beck show predicting economic troubles ahead (he called it on his Headline News show), last August/September Headline News economic and election coverage was pathetic. Until then, I wouldn't even turn Fox on - partly because I didn't want to see Geraldo and mostly because I had always heard they were biased and slanted pro-Bush. I have never been a Bush supporter.

I was surprised to find that Fox was reporting stories that I couldn't find elsewhere. Cavuto understands the financial markets and interviews a diverse group of guests. While I had viewed it once or twice before, Hannity and Colmes proved itself to be one of the best shows on TV leading up to the election.

I also started watching Bill O'Reilly and was surprised to find, while definitely conservative, he does maintain a balanced forum. I was also glad to see Dennis Miller and counter-arguments by Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, Marc Lamont Hill and others.

By comparison, the Wolf B. and Anderson C. CNN political panels appeared so biased during the election they made my teeth hurt. At this point, I think John Stewart (Comedy) is more fair and balanced than CNN, MSNBC, and NBC.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At the risk of wrecking a perfectly good political discussion with the injection of facts, I would suggest that anyone who is interested in media bias read the http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm" .

The introduction is a hoot:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists.

What they determined is, not surprisingly, that different media outlets had different political slants. What was surprising was that the degree of these slants was not terribly large. Two of the most left-leaning outlets were, again, not surprisingly, the New York Times and CBS Evening News. These were significantly more conservative than the average Democrat in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Joe Lieberman. Two of the most right leaning were, again not surprisingly, the Washington Times and Fox News. These were significantly more liberal than the average Republican in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Susan Collins. The average outlet they studied ended up at about the same place on the political spectrum as John Breaux.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, how many so-called liberal news agencies have intentionally started a political movement like Beck's 12 nonsense? That isn't even news. It is political activism. It is downright terrifying that so many people here can't tell the difference. He is not an anchor. He is an activist. It isn't news. It is propoganda [with tears included].

Russ, this business happened yesterday. It is ridiculous to ask why no law suits have been filed yet.

I have often revealed my preferred news sources. I don't recall you ever revealing your sources, Russ. It is pretty easy to guess given your position on issues, but why don't you fess up.

Also, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any right-wing radio?

Also, do you condemn Fox news for their false claim or not? Cut the hyperbole and answer a direct question for a change; yes or no?

To say that people watching Beck aren't Fox fans is absurd. Clearly we have Beck fans, for starters.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

blitzer's alright. kind of an alex trebek type.

sanchez is worse than fluffy. my deep hatred for the man began when i saw him interviewing victims who had lost their homes in a big fire (think it was cali) and was trying to manipulate them into having an emotional outburst in front of the camera.

and so now Sanchez is doing what? the rivalry with people bigger than you are to try and boost your own ratings by riding their coattails? Keith Olbermann likes to do that with Bill O'Reilley. still, either no one knows, or cares, who Olbermann is. he'll never be a Maddow.

I have never seen anything quite that bad, but I agree that he [Sanchez] is a sensationalist. By no means do I consider him to be a quality news anchor. I only keep CNN on for the headline news, less Blitzer. I do like Wolf Blitzer. You say Alex Trebek, I say fair and balanced and not sensational. He is a true professional and he never cries for the camera. He never yells at the camera. And he never injects personal opinions about partisan subjects.

You really can't compare Fox to CNN. You have to compare the anchors. It is possible that Fox has some good anchors, but in my many attempts to give Fox a chance I was always disappointed. It is a propoganda channel. The proof is that they have people like Beck. Here is a key test: Even Beck calls himself an entertainer.

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. As for Anderson Cooper, imo he is mostly a human interest fluff reporter. He has done good stuff, but he is almost always going for the emotional content. I stopped watching AC360 long ago because of the fluff.

However, to take shots at Sanchez for reporting the Fox advertising lie is absurd. Of course he was mad. Fox lied about CNN's reporting. Why would you defend that? They should be sued and I hope CNN sues them.

When Dan Rather was tricked into making a false claim, it cost him a 40 year career. So much for the liberal media.

 

[WhoWee]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

George Stephanopoulos- now there's a guy with no political leanings - a real fair and balanced journalist. Don't get me wrong, I like George - from his book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uRCVwv87nkMC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Stephanopoulos,+Tsongas,+Dukakis,+and+Clinton&source=bl&ots=aZE-liZ387&sig=65yynQgKKecxtxzW_VxZfFqJ8wg&hl=en&ei=EzS1StChGY7IMJPEzNcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[Proton Soup]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

Meet the Press has always been a quality program.

Stephi was a political advisor to Clinton.

PBS has a definite liberal slant, they're just boring. kind of a secular religious left.

I have never seen anything quite that bad, but I agree that he [Sanchez] is a sensationalist. By no means do I consider him to be a quality news anchor. I only keep CNN on for the headline news, less Blitzer. I do like Wolf Blitzer. You say Alex Trebek, I say fair and balanced and not sensational. He is a true professional and he never cries for the camera. He never yells at the camera. And he never injects personal opinions about partisan subjects.

You really can't compare Fox to CNN. You have to compare the anchors. It is possible that Fox has some good anchors, but in my many attempts to give Fox a chance I was always disappointed. It is a propoganda channel.

just because you agree with it, or it has less emotional content, doesn't mean it isn't slanted or isn't propaganda. you can inject partisanism just by what questions you decide to ask or not ask, or what subjects you cover and omit.

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. As for Anderson Cooper, imo he is mostly a human interest fluff reporter. He has done good stuff, but he is almost always going for the emotional content. I stopped watching AC360 long ago because of the fluff.

However, to take shots at Sanchez for reporting the Fox advertising lie is absurd. Of course he was mad. Fox lied about CNN's reporting. Why would you defend that? They should be sued and I hope CNN sues them.

When Dan Rather made a false claim, it cost him a 40 year career. So much for the liberal media.

i love when they send Cooper out in the field to some dangerous situation. he always looks so uncomfortable. they should have kept that punk on late-nite.

i'm taking shots at Sanchez for being Sanchez. I'm sure you can read. I've hated him for a long time.

Rather had one foot out the door anyway. He had ample opportunity to correct/retract, he just didn't want to. Rather is gone because of his own hubris and thinking he can do anything he wants because he's Dan-freaking-Rather.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Meet the Press has always been a quality program.

Although, I must admit that it has lost its edge since Russert died. Cripes, when he died I actually cried.

Stephi was a political advisor to Clinton.

However, he is always fair and balanced. He even allowed Liz Cheney to rant and be rude, rather than embarrassing her as he should have done. George Will is there almost every week for the right. If not, he has some hard-core conservative to take his place. The panel discussions almost always have two righties and two lefties, like the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. Krugman is a semi-regular.

PBS has a definite liberal slant,

A bit, but by far they are the most balanced of any news source on television. Again, who do the Presidential candidates want for impartial moderators? PBS anchors.

kind of a secular religious left

That is absurd and I challenge you to provide an example.

they're just boring. .

And there you have it in a nutshell. A quality news program is boring. That is the heart of the problem and why we have Fox. Propoganda sells far better than real news and quality programming. QED.

Btw, you are the second Beck fan to tell me that PBS is boring, over just the last few weeks. That is also a comment made by many Fox viewers. But what really got me was when a Limbaugh fan told me that PBS's Frontline is not trustworthy. Now THAT is downright hysterical!

 

[Proton Soup]

Although, I must admit that it has lost its edge since Russert died. Cripes, when he died I actually cried.



However, he is always fair and balanced. He even allowed Liz Cheney to rant and be rude, rather than embarrassing her as he should have done. George Will is there almost every week for the right. If not, he has some hard-core conservative to take his place. The panel discussions almost always have two righties and two lefties, like the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. Krugman is a semi-regular.



A bit, but by far they are the most balanced of any news source on television. Again, who do the Presidential candidates want for impartial moderators? PBS anchors.



That is absurd and I challenge you to provide an example.



And there you have it in a nutshell. A quality news program is boring. That is the heart of the problem and why we have Fox. Propoganda sells far better than real news and quality programming. QED.

Btw, you are the second Beck fan to tell me that PBS is boring, over just the last few weeks. That is also a comment made by many Fox viewers. But what really got me was when a Limbaugh fan told me that PBS's Frontline is not trustworthy. Now THAT is downright hysterical!

look, I'm not even going to address the rest of what you said now, because i am not a beck fan. i think he's emotionally unstable, in fact. and i actually listen to NPR often when I'm driving. haven't listened to limbaugh in years, and most of you doofs complaining about him don't listen either, you just parrot what you hear somewhere else. seriously, just go listen to whatever makes you the least uncomfortable and stop whinging about whatever anyone else watches.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At the risk of wrecking a perfectly good political discussion with the injection of facts, I would suggest that anyone who is interested in media bias read the http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm" .

The introduction is a hoot:



What they determined is, not surprisingly, that different media outlets had different political slants. What was surprising was that the degree of these slants was not terribly large. Two of the most left-leaning outlets were, again, not surprisingly, the New York Times and CBS Evening News. These were significantly more conservative than the average Democrat in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Joe Lieberman. Two of the most right leaning were, again not surprisingly, the Washington Times and Fox News. These were significantly more liberal than the average Republican in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Susan Collins. The average outlet they studied ended up at about the same place on the political spectrum as John Breaux.

What matters is how they determine slant. Do they consider only the subject or do they include delivery and personal bias; do they include crying for the camera on a weekly basis? Do they include fear mongering? How can you comparse a channel that blatently engages in political activism, to one that simply reports the news? Even based only what you say, the study is almost certainly too limited to be of use.

I don't need a study to tell me what I see and hear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that CNN has raised the ante. I just saw a new ad claiming that "Fox News is distorting, not reporting", and watch CNN... etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I will offer this as my only complaint about The News Hour. The essayist Anne Taylor Fleming is a hard-left X-hippie whom I completely ignore now. She only does occasional stories, perhaps one every two weeks or so and mostly human interest stories, but I find her to be sappy trite left and infinitely ignorable.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems that CNN has raised the ante. I just saw a new ad claiming that "Fox News is distorting, not reporting", and watch CNN... etc.

I'm in favor of a marketing and competition - hopefully they'll both become a little more balanced. This feels a little like the "Cola Wars" or "Where's the Beef".

It's a bit trickier for CNN - they have to pretend they're looking down upon Fox (even though ratings say otherwise) and make sure they don't become the "Liberal" brand.

At the end of the day, cable wins and broadcast loses (even more viewers).

 

[WhoWee]

I think Obama is making a mistake tomorrow - selecting Univision over Fox. He taped interviews with CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, and CNN regarding health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090918/pl_politico/27300

 

[LewisEE]

If we look at the Univision/FNS snub at face value, apparently Al Punto's show gets better ratings than Wallace does. So the White House can claim that they simply want to reach more voters. The number comes from Univision itself so who knows its truth, but still.

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/18/al-punto-versus-fox-news-sunday/

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't need a study to tell me what I see and hear.

Taking anecdotal experience over a statsitical study doesn't sound like a very scientific position to me. Nor does deciding the study must be flawed because its conclusion doesn't agree with your initial opinion.

I'll bow out now. As I feared, injecting actual facts into this discussion would not be appreciated.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So, how many so-called liberal news agencies have intentionally started a political movement like Beck's 12 nonsense? That isn't even news. It is political activism. It is downright terrifying that so many people here can't tell the difference. He is not an anchor. He is an activist. It isn't news. It is propoganda [with tears included].

Russ, this business happened yesterday. It is ridiculous to ask why no law suits have been filed yet.

I have often revealed my preferred news sources. I don't recall you ever revealing your sources, Russ. It is pretty easy to guess given your position on issues, but why don't you fess up.

Also, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any right-wing radio?

Also, do you condemn Fox news for their false claim or not? Cut the hyperbole and answer a direct question for a change; yes or no?

To say that people watching Beck aren't Fox fans is absurd. Clearly we have Beck fans, for starters.

When has Beck ever been a News Anchor? I believe he just does an opinion show yes?

I listen to Rush on occasion. He is pretty ridiculous, sometimes even funny to listen to.

I don't watch TV news, I listen to news and commentary on the radio. The radio station I listen to is a Clear Channel station and Fox News affiliate. If there were a liberal news radio station I might listen to it but the only non-conservative station I know of is NPR and they don't cover much of my local news. As I mentioned before I do not find the news I get to be very slanted or biased. Even the conservative talk show hosts I listen to tend toward moderate on most issues and try to present the facts as facts regardless of their own opinions.

Case in point, the ACORN videos were reported about on the station I listen to. The reporting and commentary I got on the matter was apparently fair, balanced, and detailed enough that I knew what was going on better than our friend Wax who was complaining of Fox's alleged unbalanced reporting in this matter. Not only that but in the case of Kaelke the hosts I listen to practically cheered her actions, stood up for her, and ridiculed the silly 'documentary director' dressed like he was going to a halloween party.

So I don't really know what they are like on TV or what they are like anywhere else but from my actual experience listening to Fox News on the radio they fairly well live up to their motto.

 

[kyleb]

"Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.

Surely you don't mean it is a statement based in fact? A "falsehood-based statement" seems a more fitting description to me. However, in pondering the concept of "value statements" you expressed, I wondered; considering some fluids demonstrate wetness beyond that of water, could not "water is dry" be excused as such a statement? More generally, I'm simply interested in understand what grounds your "not a lie" claim is founded in.

In any case, did you have a look at any of the reading materials I provided about false advertising?

I didn't, and didn't even understand what prompted you to post it, as I was never suggesting there was anything illegal here. As for puffery with the worst stakes in town, of course it isn't illegal to claim the opposite, but I'm still at a loss as to how one could not classify it as dishonest. You suggest it is a subjective matter, but I don't follow your argument there. This being Physics Forums, I'm guessing you've read Einstein, and his lightning bolts hitting a train come to mind. Saying one bolt hit before the other is clearly a subjective matter, but would you argue that claiming there was no lighting to be seen is a subjective matter too? And if not, how is that any different from claiming one has the best stakes in town when not making any attempt to do anything of the sort?

People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:

You think it is dishonest. Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree completely. Now what?

There is no reason to be searching here, I explained to Drankin previously in the post you quoted from; I wasn't attempting to make any argument, but rather looking to better understand the one you made. If you chose to reverse your argument, then I'd still be curious as to why you made it in the first place, and then also curious as to brought you to change your mind. That said, I do suggest that calling a spade a spade in itself is a remedy for much of the troubles of our world.

Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal??
...

So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?

You got the first part right in each case, but I'm at a loss as to how you've read the latter parts into what I've said, as I've never said anything to suggest anything of the sort.

Taking anecdotal experience over a statsitical study doesn't sound like a very scientific position to me.

Citing a a couple of conservatives who attempted to made the liberal media argument look scientifically founded though an exceedingly narrow and dubious statistical analysis nearly half a decade ago doesn't sound very relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[WhoWee]

If we look at the Univision/FNS snub at face value, apparently Al Punto's show gets better ratings than Wallace does. So the White House can claim that they simply want to reach more voters. The number comes from Univision itself so who knows its truth, but still.

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/18/al-punto-versus-fox-news-sunday/

I wasn't aware of Univision's reach. It seems Obama should have done 6 interviews and not snub anyone who is interested.

 

[Al68]

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news.

Would you call continuously referring to Obama's health care plan as "reform" and labeling opponents as against health care "reform" benign and simply reporting the news?

This kind of obvious bias (going on for decades) is what has been called "liberal bias". It's "unstated assumption" propaganda.

Isn't it the news anchors that are expected to be unbiased, not the pundits?

You have a problem with a political "entertainer" being biased while admitting it, but not with biased news anchors pretending not to be? Sounds backwards to me.