< Previous page

Media watchers have compiled ample evidence that Fox covers news differently. The Center for Media and Public Affairs, based in Washington, compared "Special Report With Brit Hume" to similar shows across the dial and found that during the 2004 election cycle, John Kerry's overall TV coverage was nearly 60 percent positive, while George Bush's was more than 60 percent negative.

Except on Fox, that is. There, Kerry's coverage was 4-to-1 negative, and Bush's coverage was balanced.

The anti-Kerry statements didn't come from Hume or other Fox reporters, says Robert Lichter, the center's president, who does occasional paid work for Fox as a commentator. "The question is what kind of a mix comes out of the sources who are interviewed," Lichter said. "There's no question that Bush got more favorable coverage on 'Special Report' than did Kerry."

Fox's coverage of terrorism and the war in Iraq has also been markedly different, the center found. During the heart of the war, compared with the broadcast networks, Fox showed 50 percent fewer stories with images of civilian casualties. After 9/11, Fox featured far more discussions about terrorism than CNN did.

That approach to the subject was one reason David Clark, executive producer of "Fox & Friends," says he left a job at CNN to work for Fox around that time.

'"Personally, I'm not a Republican -- I'm an independent," Clark says. "This was right after 9/11, and the whole view CNN took on the war on terror seemed so out of whack with what this country was and what we were trying to do and the enemy we were trying to fight.

"And to be honest," he adds, "Fox is a hell of a lot more fun."

< Previous page