host

I do not expect you to like it, but if you bother to research what the article from
mediamatters.org outlines in it's analysis of Fox News coverage of the Red Cross
"controversy", which Fox, itself seems to have contrived and self-promoted, you will notice that every statement, is backed by a link to a source that can be further examined.....the Red Cross website, describing it's federal charter and it's mission, as well as transcripts of all of Fox media personalities misleading statements, and MSM reporting that contradicts the statements broadcast by Fox.

You do not have to like what David Brock has done in just over a year, but you do have to grudgingly accept it. It has become mainstream, with it's articles cited and challenged, more often than not, by columnists and pundits on the right. If mediamatters was not perceived to be credible and effective in challenging the Scaife and Murdoch propaganda that Rove depends on to broadcast his smears, why would it get so much resistance from the right?
It is perceived to expose the falsehoods in the ceaseless stream of misinformation that eminates from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, because it is successful at doing so.

I cite the articles because they are so rich in links to supporting sources, and they usually do a more thorough job of debunking crap like Fox's fake investigative reporting by it's Major Garrett that Alladin and stevo have offered to this thread as some kind of 'break through journalism", than I could.
You can see for yourself on http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News that associated press member newspapers, TV and radio, are not covering Fox news brilliant report Garrett's investigative "news" about the Red Cross being blocked from providing aid in N.O.

Show me an instance where anyone on the right would make accusations like these against Fox, the Washington Times, or the WSJ, for example.....