A precedent that doesn't exist. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth

The case never questions whether Fox News attempted to coerce Jane Akre to report false information. The case deals with whether or not she and her husband were wrongfully terminating for threatening to file suit and alert the FCC that they had been coerced to lie, and falsify facts by Fox producers. The article I link to states the 1st amendment right to lie argument was never used because it was not needed. It's a defense to a complaint that wasn't made. (like Net Neutrality policy?) and the actual court papers support these claims. I'm not saying Fox News employees are guilty or innocent, but the fact this case was brought does not make Fox guilty of anything, secondly, the plaintiff's award being overturned on appeal doesn't substantiate the plaintiffs initial claims to begin with. The Spin stops here! Hehehe http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth

I hear prominent democrats refer to themselves and their colleagues as liberal and progressives all of the time. We get meaning from the context.

Let's be fair. That case dealt with whether on not Jane Akre and her husband Steven Wilson were terminated wrongfully for threatening to go to the FCC with claims they were being pressured to distort the news, not with whether or not they were actually asked to distort the news. Fox represents they never asked them to distort anything, and Fox felt that the report submitted was biased on behalf of Jane Akre and her husband. Court documents support this. I hope you can be fair: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth Just one example I've come across. Even if I were to concede that these producers were actually trying to coerce these reporters into distorting the news,(No hard evidence I've seen points there. Circumstantial evidence might say that their claim hint of it), a few producers actions could hardly constitute policy of a major corporation. You would have to go alot further to establish a culture of this. Although I am defending Fox news in this instance, my initial post was not to defend Fox News but to say that bias and fairness are two different metrics. While related. 100% Bias does not equal 100% unfairness or vice versa. I saw alot of comments asserting that Fox is right wing therefore can't be subjective. I can love the Giants and hate Eagles and still officiate that game fairly.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. One can be totally biased and be totally fair at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Fox is certainly an organization run and staffed primarily by conservatives. This doesn't inherently discredit them as a news organization. They, as everyone chooses whether to allow their bias to influence the truth.