Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. (Click here to follow Jacob Weisberg.)If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media is in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, and so on. On The O'Reilly Factor, Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points.Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.There is no need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox's Web site or five minutes' random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim.Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers.That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists—I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson—should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it.

Weisberg, did you actually finish writing this article with a straight face? Surely not. As your lead indicates, the article is garbage.

Jacob, So far you have zero comments on your article. I'll through you a freebie so you don't look completely lame. You sound like the "New York Times" commercial ... " the Times has the best journalists, and no one can debate that". What a laugh riot. We know we're right so we don't have to support it with any real evidence. Newsweek, going bust even in its' latest incarnation of a liberal talking points memo. There, I gave you a comment, hope it makes you feel better about the two hours of your life you spent righting this piece. Those are two hours you'll never get back. So sad.

So the Pot calls the Kettle black........

BTW, I was so busy rotfl I forgot to add that your corporate garbage sheet has been more correctly renamed to NewsWEAK. You people don't report news anymore which is what made you world famous. Now all you do is write opinion pieces like the drivel Weisberg proffered for this week's paycheck.

The only part of this article that makes sense is the last paragraph. All news organizations should strive to be fair and balanced. Fox isn't always and neither are any others. So Fox is the only major news outlet slanted right, big deal. They are outnumbered by the organizations slanted left by a large margin.

It seems pretty damn funny coming from newsweek, one of THE most left leaning publications around to make these statements. Can you seriously look in the mirror and say with a straight face that you are not guilty of the same bias that Fox is. I hope not.

I agree with the article. I notice only those who watch Fox regularly responded in the discussion thus far, but when I have watched Fox I find they are so extreme right that I can only stomach so much of them before I must change channels. They do not attempt to have "fair and balanced" news, they only have the right slant even when it isn't accurate. And then such things as the Fox "news??? producer trying to rev up the sheep at the "tea party" demonstrates what Fox does. They could say a missile was in route to hit the United States and I wouldn't believe it unless it was confirmed by another channel. They are nothing but paid mouthpieces and loudmouth bullies.

Typical conservanut response to this article: "it's OK because you do it too". No ethics, no sense of right and wrong, nothing but self-serving political manure to feed the ever-growing cancer that's destroying all the things which made America great. We used to be Americans above all, now we're red states and blue states and name-calling abounds. "Second American Revolution"? Hah... try "Second Civil War", only there's nothing civil about it and nobody's going to win this one.

"while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points."

Mr. Weisberg, may I ask for what legitimate journalistic purpose the word "Doctor" is in quotes? Whatever your intent, you come across as a simpering sexist unable to grant that a woman (or it a conservative) has a bona fide doctoral degree. For the record, Dr. Crowley most certainly does (as do I), and this kind of slur has no place here.

Your complaint with FOX makes no sense to me. It is far more balanced than Newsweek, The Washingtonn Post, NY Times, any of the broadcast networks, CNN, or MSDNC. Anyone who watches regularly sees all manner of liberals: Bob Beckel, Marc Lamont Hill, Alan Colmes, to name a few. To deny this is to be dishonest.

I dont believe you have anything against FOX that cant be explained by intense professional jealousy. Yes, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are more successful than you. Get over yourself already.

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity

Weisberg authored " The Complete Bushisms" and" The Bush Tragedy";and co-authored a book with Robert Rubin. He is also a contributing writer for the N.Y. Times. What would would you expect? Jack Springer

Weisberg authored " The Complete Bushisms" and" The Bush Tragedy";and co-authored a book with Robert Rubin. He is also a contributing writer for the N.Y. Times. What would would you expect? Jack Springer

The Obama administration wouldn't have to go head to head with the lowlifes at Fox News if the mainstream media did their job and call a lie a lie when they hear one.

And as far as ignoring Fox News? Well, that sort of thing has been tried before, most spectacularly by Dukakis when he ran against Bush Sr. and his chief adviser Roger Ailles, the director of Fox News. Ignoring them doesn't work. Liars have to be confronted.

With millions of uninformed, uneducated dullards gleefully consuming hour after hour of stale Limbaugh-Hannity- O'Reilly-Beck garbage about socialism and death panels, one thing is constantly overlooked; This stuff is nothing new!
From 1937 to 1949, Father Coughlin was easily the biggest radio personality in America. His ratings were second to none. Polls and surveys, consistently showed one-fourth of all adults in America listened to him every week. Spewing a disgusting, vile torrent of of crude anti-semitism, he labeled Jews as traitors, perverts, criminals and un-American scum. He made no secret of the fact that he hated every Jew that ever lived. If you don't see parallels, you aren't paying attention.
Now, substitute "blacks", "environmentalist", "Democrats," "feminists," "gays," "liberals," "teachers unions," [or any unions] for Jews and you have the modern day version of Coughlin, deliberately manipulating uneducated dullards into zealous haters. Dr. Joseph Goebbels did the very same thing from 1933 to 1945 on German radio. The end result of all this brainwashing was sickening and horrifying.
Therefore, anyone naive and gullible enough to consider this propaganda "just harmless entertainment and expression of free speech" need only look at history to see that it is NOT innocent. FOX is a modern day Coughlin! Hate is a valuable commodity and can be sold for immediate or delayed profits=CASH. Are you buying? If the answer is yes, then you are supporting the lowest common denominator of people's impulses.
True, this is America. We are all free to say what we wish. But along with that freedom goes that troublesome thing called responsibility, responsibility for it's excise.
For disclosure purposes, I am not Jewish, however, members of my family did live in Germany under Hitler's insane rule.

"Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity" But, but, but...... Mr Weisberg.....isn't that precisely why so many of us can't watch the Alphabet channels anymore? For eight years they pounded un-"fairly" on Bush, and since then have laid out the red carpet for Obama, the administration, and family --- even when highly undeserved or unearned.

Anyone who reads a couple hours of news, national and international, online earlier in the day will discover that the Alphabets pretty much repeat the same stories with the same slants. My response is always, "Don't you people READ anything before you spew your views?" FoxNews is far and away better than any of the evening news programs for objectivity and fairness. And the panel provides us with an opportunity for further detail and disagreement on issues.. No contest.

As for the opinion shows, Fox is SO mild compared to Matthews or Olbermann, just to name two of the many hate-mongers at CNN and MSNBC. They are unwatchable if one's house isn't fitted with an automatic antispetic spray mechanism to eradicate the political viruses emanating from the TV.

But the proof is in the facts. You may not like what you hear from some of the opinion people on the right; but they have more often than not proven to be correct -- unlike the Matthews' and Olbermann's, who deal simply in vitriol-speak rather than information. Think ACORN. Think administration appointees. Think the secrets being hidden in the healthcare agenda, cap and trade. These are not minor issues, yet the former "mainstream media" viirtually ignores any resporting other than from the White House. That's not news; that's propaganda.

The DNC media hasn't been doing its job for years, and now it's petulant that it has competition.