I checked out sirshannon's site after seeing it in the comments of Phil's post. He has an interesting story about two cases of untruthful companies. Assuming what true (grin), it's quite troubling.
Not that I really ever held Fox News in high regard anyways. Did anyone else see their coverage the first night of that the attacks started? At one point, they reported basically unconfirmed rumors that Hussein was dead and bin Laden was captured. In the first case, the conclusion was apparently made after the anchor authoritatively declared that the person in the video wasn't Hussein (something that US Intelligence wasn't absolutely sure of days after), and that Geraldo Rivera was in Afghanistan and there was a large military raid.
Just like when Geraldo Rivera was on the front lines last time, right?
I think this blurb (from some site I found on Google) sums up Fox News' coverage nicely:
Fox News, with its constant crawls across the bottom the TV screen, its constant boxes of assorted pictures and overwhelming enthusiasm, appeals to a younger audience. On Wednesday, there was Geraldo Rivera standing with American troops in southern Afghanistan. When he gets over his excitement at being there, he may actually decide to do some reporting. Fox is fast, slick, not as fact- filled, but full of partisan patriotism. Some say this is the administration's network. Maybe so.