[Mr. Mulliner]

The author deftly tiptoed around FOX like it was a minefield, didn't he?

I was thinking the very same thing. Not much mention about Fox and no real effort to go beyond grabbing for the first explanation that comes along, an explanation that doesn't really explain much.

[GOPrincess]

Although this article has some interesting stats, I agree it lacks any serious analysis. For instance, it does not cover issues such as bias or quality. It automatically assumes that NBC did better because MSNBC is feeding viewers to it, but while some of NBC's success may be due to MSNBC, I would suggest it is because of the quality of the resources they share rather than MSNBC feeding NBC its viewers. If I'm not watching Fox (which is most of the time) the only other channel I watch is MSNBC, which has had some very good reporting by the late David Bloom and Dr. Bob Arnot. Like many, I flipped from Fox from time to time just to catch Bloom's enthusiastic reports. And who can forget the audio of Arnot comforting an Iraqi family in a foxhole as firing raged?

They don't mention the quality of Fox's coverage -- although they used to be considered not as strong on breaking news as CNN, the high quality of Fox's "embeds," combined with their top-drawer military analysts, combined with lots of daytime "face time" for Brit, Tony, Linda, et al., combined with refreshingly candid late-night dialogues between Shep & Rick, etc., has put Fox's coverage head and shoulders above the rest, and I think viewers who are interested in this kind of news just might be smart enough to realize it. :)

Finally, no analysis of how Jennings' very obvious anti-Americanism may have hurt his ratings. ABC needs to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to Jennings.