Quantity of coverage and quality of coverage are two different things. Quality is a subjective judgement, and in my subjective judgement, Fox News in general gave a more positive quality of coverage to Hussein. The MSM gave President Bush lots of coverage, almost uniformly negative coverage.
The research and analysis done developed scoring parameters that established whether a news item was presented with or without bias, and, if there was bias, whether it was positive or negative bias.
Anyway, I have become convinced that many FReepers view anything neutral as negative when it pertains to someone they favor and positive when it pertains to someone they don’t favor. In other words, many, apparently including yourself, can’t differentiate between neutral and biased due to your own bias. That means that, unless something positive is said, it is automatically viewed as negative. There is no “neutral” in the world of such people.
I watched FNC during the election and I found them to be quite fair and balanced, just as the professional research supports. I didn’t view them as rooting for either side. It is their agenda to be fair and balanced that makes them the leading cable news channel and the second most watched news channel, including broadcast news, in the country, and the reason why it’s favored all around the globe. I’m grateful that they’re there. They report many things that the other news outlets ignore. But for Fox, we wouldn’t know about those things.