TVSquad

Just because there is no mention of a Fox anchor does not give sufficient justification to call someone a Communist.

For the record, I am one person who does not think Bob is a Communist based on his TV Squad writings.

This is the man's OPINION. You can agree or disagree, but to attack a man for stating an OPINION that you do not agree with is beyond contempt.

How original! You must be the 49,576th lib to say something along those lines, probably while watching Olbermann retch what you believe to be "news". Put down the bong and try inhaling oxygen for once.

Anyone who's read more than two of Bob's articles knows exactly why he didn't include anyone from FOX News.

My favorite part about Fox News watchers is how they think that they are the only network that gets it right while EVERY OTHER NEWS CHANNEL has a liberal bias. Your absolutely right, Franklin. All of media is against you. Uh oh, I'm late for the secret meeting. Gotta convince the world that people love Obama!

It's cute how you say all that as if you think I have any care or concern for what you think. Like so many of your peers, you 20-something know-it-all-already types, you're far more comical than you have the capacity to grasp.

Buckly: You paint Fox news watchers with a very general brush. I don't think "every other news channel has a liberal bias", as you said.

There are "propaganda mouth pieces" (as you put it) everywhere, on both sides in every form of journalism.

Please reconsider your statements.

bsgfan2003: I am certainly aware that each channel has their mouth pieces (ie Olberman, O'Reilly), what I am referring to to the general reporting. Fox News does have an obvious slant towards the right. Usually the argument I hear from its viewers is that every other channel slants towards the left. If you have a suggestion for unbiased reporting (not the opinion shows that I mentioned earlier), I'd be glad to hear them. I can't get anyone to agree on that.

While I am sorry if you were offended, I think my comments pale in comparison to that of Franklin's personal attacks as a drug user and a "know it all" who can't to seem to grasp how comical his opinions are. That sort of response is just vile and obviously from a very hateful person (I know I know, who doesn't care what I think).

Very, nice of you.

O.K - In terms of general reporting for Fox, how about Shepard Smith?

Overall, I find comfort with Charles Gibson, I tend to like the older non excitable people.

In terms of the harsh remarks, I guess that there are flame throwers on both sides, and people who like to stir the pot. (Something I too can be guilty of, from time to time :)

It baffles me why, after 18 months on the air, there are still those who find Katie Couric "too soft," "too perky," "lacking gravitas." To all those who are inclined to remark negatively to Couric, I'd ask where does your bias lie? Are you a member of the Religious Right, one of Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham's drones? Are you a grandfather from the bible belt, who feels uncomfortable and down right unwilling to get your news from anyone who doesn't come equipped with the same package as you? Or are you just one of the countless Americans who thinks they know everything about anything, meanwhile they haven't tuned into the show since it first began. No one is denying Couric started off rocky, but it was an experiment. CBS tried to appeal to the younger generations because, well, that's who'll be watching in the years to come. But as it turned out, they were tuning out, and the only audience left was the grandfathers mentioned above. They tried it, it failed, they fixed it. Since then, it's just a "hard news" as anything Brian or Charlie put on air, if not more so. The point is, you can't let the past dictate sometimes for the present and the future. No one has the right to comment on someone's job performance if they've been tuning it out for months on end, and are only going by what the self-appointed critics of TV land tell them. THINK FOR YOURSELVES! IT'S NOT ILLEGAL YET!