UPDATE:

Aside from mostly ignoring the GOP-led Beghazi report findings,  here's their idea of "fair and balanced" coverage:

How, exactly, did Fox News cover the House Benghazi report? Fox's headline is "CIA gathered intelligence on weapons to Syria: Benghazi report." What the hell does that even mean? That's not burying the lede. That's changing the lede into a word salad. Here are the first three paragraphs from the Fox News article online:

http://tinyurl.com/ngjpndf

The headline on our Sunday television section in the Knoxville News read as follows: NEW LEVEL OF FOX NEWS DOMINANCE DEMANDS ANALYSIS, NOT DISMISSAL

I was of course intrigued because there is not enough money in the world for us to have this network on in our home..…and disgruntled because this area of the country needs NO encouragement to hate everything or anybody that does not subscribe to their conservative point of view. 

Seems like the main gist of the article was based on the premise:
"I think one of the reasons for this latest evolution of ratings dominance might be that Fox was a far better watchdog on the Obama White House than any other TV news organization. It took the heat and the blowback from an administration that showed an enmity for the press not seen on Pennsylvania Avenue since the dark days of Richard Nixon, but it stayed the course. And now with viewers seeing the contempt this administration had for them and the truth, they respect what Fox did the last six years."      http://tinyurl.com/mq6vx2f 

Hmmmm…in another article by Mr. Zurawik he notes that his faith in the media (namely "60 Minutes" and CNN) began slipping after the 2008 election. Coincidence, I'm sure.   http://tinyurl.com/qftmvwb

I hate to bring this to Mr. Zurawik's attention…but FOX News always lies and is proud of it. They even endured six different hearings to get to this conclusion.

"The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict."

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

Or perhaps it's this:  "Or maybe, it's what some critics of Fox say: That those who watch the channel only want to hear one side of the story, and that's all that Fox gives them."

OK, I Give….

 What is going on at CBS these days? 

Several people.....including those on Political Carnival, Politico, Washington Post and Sulia....have written about the narrative presented by 60 Minutes regarding the "horrible experiences" had by people comparing costs in Obamacare after being"cancelled" by their current insurance carriers. Further investigation by FOX reporters (imagine!!!) proved these stories untrue. Not one response from CBS.

Last week an episode was aired regarding a security guard's first-hand experiences during the attack in BENGHAZI which left four people dead, and the Republicans calling for Hillary Clinton's head on a platter. What was left out of the interview was the fact that this person had a book coming out, and it seems like a few of the details didn't quite jibe. This, once again, was called out by several other journalists and bloggers (http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/11/03/fox-news-diligent-cbs-60-minutes/ ..but we don't count.

Also : "The four-page indicent report, obtained by The Daily Beast, has not been previously published. A State Department official confirmed it matches the version sent to the U.S. government by Davies’s then-employer Blue Mountain Group, the private security company based in Britain, on Sept. 14, 2012, and subsequently provided to Congressional committees investigating the Benghazi attacks."

This evening at the end of 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley made the comment (with a screen shot of the Benghazi story in the background) that "we have received several letters about this story we presented last week." Thinking perhaps I was going to hear "we goofed" imagine how dumbfounded I was when he proceeded to quote three notes that said " I'm glad the story is getting out there. It's about time this network told the truth" and something about finding out who's to blame. Not one word that there were questions raised as to the veracity of the man's accounting. ( i.e. "He learned of Stevens’s death, Davies wrote, when a Libyan colleague who had been at the hospital came to the villa to show him a cellphone picture….")

Am I missing something here? Nothing has been said to date about the slipshod reporting on Obamacare or a follow up on the folks they interviewed. Now, there seems to be a subtle doubling down on presenting stories of questionable veracity. Journalistic integrity seems to have fallen by the way side.....for a reason? Let me guess…...