Vindicated!

Last month I posted one called CNN vs. Fox News - a post made because I heard Ted Turner compare Fox News to Hitler. Not that I'm some paid promoter of Fox News, and I do watch other news stations of course - I just find Fox News more revealing. I do, however, think they spend too much time on tabloid crap sometimes.
Columbia University has proved my stance in their posting of The State of the News Media 2005. It really isn't too surprising, but I did find it interesting. Just taking three cable news companies and their coverage of the war in Iraq:

• Fox news: 38 percent were favorable; 62 percent neutral, negative or not able to be classified.
• CNN news: 20 percent were positive; 80 percent neutral, negative or not able to be classified.
• MSNBC: 16 percent positive, 84 percent neutral, negative or not classifiable.
  

In the Overview there is a sentence: Fox's stories are more deeply sourced than those of its cable rivals, but are also more one-sided. My interpretation is that since Fox's stories ARE more deeply sourced they THEREFORE can appear more one-sided. Like any statistics, there will be interpretational differences.
And to Ted Turner - the study found no trace of Hitler in Fox.

A long the topic of fair-and-balanced: I peruse all sorts of blogs through people's links and it appears that many "left-wing" blogs don't allow comments or will delete comments that post a different view. Are they afraid or something? Anyone else find this phenomena or am I just imagining things?