I'm not a big fan of the "big three" cable news networks (CNN, MSNBC, and FNC) - all of them have latched on to a specific political point of view for the sake of profit. In business, it's called marketing to a niche audience. While there's nothing wrong with the idea of niche marketing (it's very profitable in the right niche), these networks deal with news events and are looked upon as reliable sources of current information.

Now, in my opinion, if you're going to be an outlet of information you had better damn well be a reliable source of information; for example, don't be "fair and balanced" but "factual and accurate."

And this is the crux of my problem with Fox News - they're neither "fair and balanced" nor "factual and accurate." In all fairness, the other two network - CNN and MSNBC - aren't going to win any awards for their balance or accuracy; but, Fox New beats "fair and balanced" and "factual and accurate" into a big bloody pulp with a tire iron and then proceeds to take a big diarrhetic shit all over them.

Look, I'm not saying that I don't want to engage in a good discussion or even a formal debate (a real debate please, the shit the Democrats and Republicans engage in are not debates, neither is the crap Bill O'Reilly flings at his audience - these are talking point sound bytes and arguments), all I'm saying is that I don't like chewing on a big block of political salt in order to get to the candy news center.

The worst crime against factual information is simply suppression, either in whole or in part. Fox News is no slouch in the suppression department - in order to prove a point their pundits will consistently either ignore information or present only part of the information; for example, the "Fox and Friends" show of Dec. 31st, 2007 featured a segment called "outrageous quotes" where they take quotes - of either the competition or Democrats (Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans were suspiciously absent from the list) - and their first victim was Chris Mathews:

"When I watched [Former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King's funeral, I just have never seen anything like it. There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. I mean, amazing ability to transcend ethnicity ... in this country and, and speak to us all in this amazingly primordial way."

This prompted Alisyn Camerota to proclaim that Chris Matthews had a "man crush" on Former President Clinton.

At face value this is a terrible quote - turning a funeral into a political stage - but what Fox News did to the quote was present without its preface or follow-up, eliminating the proper context.

Mr. Matthews prefaced his statement with: "I hate to pass on his lifestyle and questions like that, but ..."

And followed-up with: "And that's the only good thing I'll say about him tonight. Okay."

Mr. Matthews was engaged in a discussion about President Clinton's speaking ability - his ability to take any given subject and make his opinion transcend border. This is an ability, he argues, that many of this years candidates do not posses and is, therefore, an asset to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

This bit of positive feedback was in response to questions regarding President Clinton's lifestyle (read: extramarital affairs) and if it would affect Senator Clinton's bid for the White House. Without the proper context, Fox News is able to spin Chris Matthews' quote into several contextually-inaccurate positions.

Of course, this doesn't end at "Fox and Friends" - a show which has been, and continues to be, highly criticized because of its preschool approach to complex issues.

Withholding information is a dangerous tactic, and it becomes even more dangerous when someone who has political reach doesn't disclose his political affiliations. Case in point: Sean Hannity.

While the Fox News Channel says he is just a political commentator expressing an opinion, Sean Hannity has a national reach that can influence millions of opinions in a single hour thanks to both his television show and his radio show. So, when Hannity interviews presidential candidate Giuliani one would think that he would disclose the fact that he is actively campaigning for that same candidate. Of course, Hannity never discloses this simple fact.

And its this failure to be factual and accurate that causes major damage. Not to Fox News Channel - whose ratings have never been higher - but to the people they reach: what comes off as a simple political interview is nothing more than a free 15 minute advertisement for Giuliani's campaign.

While these things may seem small at first, there is a larger long term problem brewing. When facts are not disclosed, people are not able to form honest opinions; for example, the current situation in Iraq: turkey bombed some northern provinces in Iraq. While we could argue endlessly about what this means for the aggression in Iraq, we cannot form a full opinion on this situation without knowing all of the facts.

This is exactly where Fox News Channel fails (or shines, in the context of misinformation): McNaught failed to report that "a Turkish decision" may have been allowed and aided by the United States.

It is this omission of facts that is what makes Fox News dangerous: without having all of the facts a person does not create an opinion, they are guided to a preordained one.

That, my friends, is why Fox New sucks.