If they're so truthful and trusted, how could they have been so wrong about the election??<quoted text>
Well, first of all, you still aren't seeking the truth and thinking for yourself apparently.
If you did just a little bit of research, you'd discover the numbers of viewers who watch O'Reilly - who have made it the #1 cable news source for almost a decade - consists of more independents and moderate democrats combined than conservatives.
You'd also discover that a university up in New England (where a lot of liberals live) did a study and Bill O'Reilly was voted the #1 trusted news commentator on cable television.
Them's the facts, Jack...er, I mean, Homer.
I mean, they had every salient fact wrong. Mitt never led. Mitt never had momentum, it was all FAUX propaganda, Joe Goebbels would have been proud.
The correct polls were all DEmocrat polls. Every Republican poll was wrong, esp. Rasmussen and Gallup.
And re still repeating the same lame excuses they used.
You've avoided that question since the election, but I watched FAUX on election night, and the stunned looks and comments from ALL FAUXer's proved they really believed their own propaganda!!
Let's have an answer, and not more of your 'twister' nonsense.
Why would anyone (who isn't crazy) believe a network that was so completely, totally wrong concerning the election is 'fair and balanced'??