I don't think I ever claimed to be impartial. In fact, I'm sure I've said, though maybe not on this thread, several times that everybody has a bias, and all media has a bias. I don't know those two reporters. However, I don't think two liberal reporters make up for an blatantly conservative staff, anymore than two conservative reporters would make up for a blatantly liberal staff. (And I came back tonight expecting to see something about MSNBC, I will admit I overlooked that station along with the other handful of NBC news cable stations because I don't watch them. My mistake, I apologize).
CNN is pretty liberal, I would say it is less liberal than Fox is conservative (I think that if you watched them both after the debates tonight, it would be a good example. CNN phrased most of its questions to frame Obama in a positive light, although not going on to say Obama was a clear-cut winner. Fox, however, not only declared McCain the winner, but said that everybody thought Obama would run circles around him in this debate. In fact, the opposite was true, as McCain has a more foreign policy experience. Most the experts that I saw on both stations that were not clearly parked in one camp or another, or the ones that wisely pointed out their bias and attempted to judge the debates with it held as much at bay as possible, said that the debate was essentially a draw. Both Candidates made good points and both made mistakes, both having a very different speaking and debating style.)
I didn't ever mean to accuse you of getting your news from fallible sources--I don't know where you get your news (well, now I do). My point was, I think, what your point was (originally), and that is that there is a huge slant to our media (both to the right and to the left). I also don't think you usually need to look up the facts from multiple sources to figure out where biases lie, it seems pretty obvious most of the time.
I love Bill O'Reilly. I think he's one of the most entertaining things on television. He will start out a topic with a statement such as ""Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment" (actual quote from 03/23/01). This statement clearly states what side he is on, then negatively slants the other side before giving any actual facts about the issue. Sure, sometimes he says things that help a liberal side (rarely), but when he does he almost always tries to use it to help a conservative end and/or is only doing it to make himself seem like a credible news source. Heck, I even saw him defend Obama once. But even if you argue that he takes a left side sometimes and ignore his rationale for doing so, when he does, he does so in a way that still favors one side blatantly and giving the other side of the argument the air of a retarded monkey. That is not a credible news source. It is an entertaining news source, but it isn't credible--at least not on its own.
I somewhat over exaggerated the case when I said I've never seen anybody on fox agree with a democrat (twas a hyperbole for sure), but it is highly slanted. That being said, I don't pretend like CNN is much better in the opposite direction (that's why I split my news time about 50/50 between, a poor attempt to even the slant I'm receiving. It doesn't work, which is why the internet is handy. And even then, I'm still getting huge slant both ways and I have to figure it out for myself, which I should have just done originally after one broadcast and not wasted my time. But, oh well, I'm a glutton for punishment).
The fact is, however, that Fox News, just like any other news source, has a bias. They also have more editorial shows that are HIGHLY biased and air themselves as a credible source of information. In addition, they tend to show biased clips of speeches (as I saw a bit of after the debate--going so far as to completely cut of a rational response Obama had made to make it look as though he was caught off-guard and unaware by McCain) and show biased ticker information (again, good examples tonight--it kept flashing "both sides believe they have won the debate", then explained the positive factors that McCain's camp used to believe they had won the debate. They did not follow by giving the positive points that Obama's camp used to judge his merit, despite the fact that other stations, such as CNN, showed both). I'm not saying CNN, or any other news source, is unbiased. But Fox is very biased, CNN is also pretty biased, and I don't even watch MSNBC because, like you've said, what I've seen is a complete joke. But considering it is biased (even if you think it is the most middle ground station, which I clearly disagree with with, you would agree it is biased), and its mother corporation is biased, and its mother corporation is the largest news corporation in the world, I'd say there is plenty of right-wing biased media out there.
I think it is sad that the complaint many people have is, "there isn't enough right-wing biased media out there" and not "there is too much of too biased media out there." I'm not saying that is necessarily what you are saying, but it is what a lot of people say.