I am not a part of the "Conservative Movement."
You don't have to keep telling me that, Val. I believed you the first time.
As Ephiral points out, you therefore need not be defensive of it, or when it is mentioned. And it really should be no skin off your nose that Fox News has, and deserves, a poorer reputation than other media outlets. So:
Statements like, "Fox news exists to purvey overt bias" are blanket statements, completely ignoring the fact that bias exists in almost every media outlet.
This is something you don't need to do. The statement "Fox News exists to purvey overt bias" is a fact. Its viewership is measurably less informed than either the viewship of other media or the viewership of no media at all
not because the network is bad at its job, but because it is designed to promote a parallel reality. People well-schooled in that parallel reality fare worse when confronted by real world facts than other people do. (Of course the movement justifies this behaviour to itself and to its constituents by claiming the "liberal media" was a party organ of the Dems all along and they're just fighting back. But that is, in fact, a myth... and one of the central myths of that same parallel reality.)
Now, the rest of the American media is not necessarily all that impressive and does
show a real bias... toward conservatism
, as noted here
. Nevertheless, bias does not
exist "in almost every media outlet" in the overtly partisan way that it exists on Fox. It will not do to pretend that it does. We need fewer lies.
All of that is not to say similar patterns
cannot develop: MSNBC has in recent years worked out that there's money to be made promoting a Fox News-style shouting-head format on the liberal side of the spectrum. But MSNBC has the advantage of not having had to build its own parallel reality for its viewers yet in the way the conservative movement has; they're still from different political cultures which are not on equivalent footing WRT to the facts. Nevertheless, as its constituency gets increasingly angry, the temptation to resort to falsehood and myth-making to feed the beast -- and line one's pockets -- could well grow. What happened on the far right could still happen to the progressives. The network of progressive think-tanks that has recently begun to rise to counter and deconstruct the output of the conservative movement's organs could
develop into a parallel universe in the same way.
It just hasn't happened yet.
(This, by the way, is something that surely contributes to the "we're so angry" image of modern politics: the fact that just straightforwardly describing the world around us has become a politicized act that is necessarily biased against a large sector of the North American political culture. I don't think this necessarily involves anger, but it does
certainly involve insistence, doggedness, the breaking of some long-accustomed rules of discourse, and ruffling some feathers. There are a lot of polite fictions that North American political culture has been accustomed to living with -- "balance" was a big one -- that are so far out of touch with reality by now that we just can no longer afford them. And as to those movementarians who chose to bias pretty much their entire movement against reality... well, they made their bed. Now they have to lie in it.)