I'm trying to point out is that singling out Fox in a blanket statement about publishing faulty stories and misinformation because it's the one that (most likely) consistently grates against your particular socio-political views is still wrong
I was pointing out that Fox has been publishing faulty stories because there is evidence for it, not because it "grates against my beliefs". I've seen some of what Fox calls "reporting", and I honestly must say it is so biased and/or blatently false that it even makes CCTV look good.
big ball of unverified statements
Sources?
And guess what Kosh? Other news sources get things just as wrong too. Why do you think this topic exists??? It happens in reporting. The funny thing is, its people like Dan Rather that try to get away with it and don't apologize when they're caught.
Check out some the author's other writeups. That man has a serious woody for the US. 
I've got a serious woody for the US too. I love my country and would die for it and its people. Looks like you're trying to discredit him by attacking him personally.
Why so defensive about Fox? Referring to some choices of wording you put there, I don't know if I should respond in the US way or in the way of my homeland, so I choose the latter.
Maybe I should have worded it a little better, but what I meant was that Soviet Union's media was like listening Fox on steroids, in the respect that while Fox admits it is biased, Soviet Union's media claimed to be unbiased, but most of the people here considered it double-plus-biased. But, I would still maintain that Americans are not familiar with the left wing stuff, or even how the left wing bias sounds like. Or it depends on what is meant by "left wing". I'm referring to the old school communists myself.
Regarding Belgium or Holland, I cannot really comment since I have only briefly visited Holland and did not read the Dutch newspapers. Could you give a time frame for the visit so I can place it in the timeline? Also, if those incidents are recent, Wikipedia seems to claim in this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) that there are several law suits resulting from some of the actions in those protests. So for me it seems that either the US court is flawed since they have allowed an ungrounded lawsuit or those things did happen, not necessarily exactly the way the paper wrote it.
And back to Fox, there are two things that bother me in the way you described the channel: first, while it claims that it has a bias, do people remember it when using the information represented in the channel? Second, they told me in school that by definition news is objective, or it is not news. Articles, panel discussions, talkshows and opinions etc. are free to have a bias, news cannot have it. But I don't know if this is universal.
Regarding the separated from context argument, it is a failure of the news agency if they print news so that critical context is missing and causes misunderstandings. I'm not sure if understood the end of your message correctly, the Fox news presents experts that represent their opinion of what happened and this is the final conservative truth of the issue? One additional question, when watching the Fox sit-coms, how do you know that the cited experts have gone or been at the source? If they did, with whom did they do it?
Mika
#1: My post about Fox wasn't really in response to yours. And believe me, I know what and how the old school communists worked. They aren't "left-wing." They're on another level entirely. The "left-wing" media bias here in the states is of a different nature than the Soviet propaganda machine.
#2: People make lawsuits out of things like Mcdonalds getting their kids fat.... or a burglar slipping on a wet floor in your house and breaking a leg. There are lawsuits for all kinds of things. Doesn't mean that they actually happened, or are justified. Even when they win out. In fact, I remember quite a few cases in which the burglar won the case in my second example. Seriously. Its a simple tactic anti-war activists over here use. They go to some public forum and then explode into an annoying rage trying to get themselves 'escorted' out so they can claim police brutality and claim that their free speech has been violated. Then they go make a lawsuit about it. And then crazy people believe them.
#3: Again, if you would actually watch Fox, you would know that they tell you what they believe. I'm talking about the talk-show hosts, which take up the majority of prime-time. The actual news they report is pretty much exactly what you get on every other news channel. People think they're biased because they go to places like MediaMatters and watch 10 second soundbites of some conservative that happens to be talking on Fox. Its all about the context.
On the same note, just because a reporter/news organization is wonderfully objective does not in the least bit make them unbiased. With the MSM today, its not so much about -how- they report a story... its about -what- they report. Take your own life, for example. Somebody does a news story about your life in its entirety, but the only things in the actual story are about all your mistakes, embarrassing moments, times you've lied, and other disparaging things that generally make you look bad. They're all true! Of course they're true, because they happened. But that is NOT who you are. I'm sure if you used only the positive qualities of somebody like...... oooooh lets say Hitler (I love bringing Nazis into a debate)... he would seem like a really great guy!
#4: I totally didn't understand what you were trying to ask in your last paragraph. I think what you were trying to get at was what I said in my last paragraph.
Media examples: Any show on the MSM will invite somebody like.... lets say Hillary Clinton on the show and will ask here all these fluff questions like "Oh, how is the campaign going? Do you think you'll be able to win the election? How is Bill helping with your campaign? What kind of opposition have you received from Republicans?" etc etc. Put somebody like say.... Mitt Romney, and he will never ever ever get asked those questions. Its always questions about "why did you change your mind on abortion? how is your religion going to interfere with your candidacy/presidency?" I could go on and on about this and give a thousand real examples.... but I'm too lazy and I just ran out of time.
P.S. Fox programs do it too. But before Fox came along there was no alternative. All you heard was Liberal talking points, and in some cases the moonbat far left crazy talking points. In all reality I don't watch FNC all that much. I don't really even like O'Reilly. I'm more of a Glenn Beck dude. I watch the other networks a whole lot more, including PBS, when it doesn't want to make me vomit.
