Thanks for telling me that I'm being ridiculous because I have a different viewpoint from yours. That's awfully open-minded and progressive of you. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to my points--not to my person. Second, I'm not arguing against a moving target. You need to pick one argument and stick to it. Your earlier comment suggests that it is okay for Reddit to be biased because they are "random people on the internet" and not "paid pundits." Now you are saying that Reddit's userbase has no bias. Both cannot be true.

Your second point. My conclusion is that Fox News is no more biased than any other cable news channel. That's it. It says nothing about their objective level of balance. Please don't put words in my mouth about whether they have any editorial spin at all on their content. All cable news outlets do this--and Fox's hard news operation does it no more than the others. However, the majority demographics on historically liberal enclaves (like social news sites, blogs that appeal to a younger Internet audience, and certain nighttime Comedy Central programs) are especially sensitive to evidence of any bias when Fox does it, but make no such scrutiny of networks that exercise left-leaning biases. The thinking among this group appears to be, "if it's a bias that favors a liberal point of view, it must be accurate and not an artifact of bias at all."

I watch all three of the major cable news networks for various purposes. Fox, like the other networks, airs ideological pundits. However, the news anchors are not pundits. The hard news programming on Fox is not subject to the strong taint of editorial bias that you say it is. If you watch it looking for it, you might infer bias where there is none. That is, of course, a bias in its own right, called "confirmation bias."

The use of weasel words ("some say") and other weak attribution in hard news is certainly not an exclusively Fox News technique. I'm actually surprised to hear you making that argument. Weak attribution is a pervasive and routine problem in the press generally. The New York Times does it. CNN does it. MSNBC does it. ABC News does it. They all do it, every day. So, in support of the original conclusion, if all of the other organizations do it, you can't use this to support an argument that Fox is singularly biased. If this journalistic practice is troubling to you, I expect that you will chastise the other news outlets equally.

The same is true for "misappropriation of time" and the use of loaded questions (?). All networks exercise editorial control over how time is allocated. And you can't allege bias merely because you don't like the content of a question. If you do, again, you need to assert blame to every other news outlet. If someone like Rachel Maddow cries foul against a poll question and accuses Fox of "push-polling," red flags should go up. As a person who is paid to render a far-left opinion, she is not an unbiased referee of question fairness, is she? The same would be true of Sean Hannity claiming the same of another news organization's poll.

Concerning Reddit, I think there is ample evidence that your dipole model is not accurate. First, to be fair, "liberalism" is not intrinsically opposite to libertarianism. Socialism/libertarianism is a more appropriate way to express this dichotomy. Second, in /r/politics, perfectly sensible comments that have conservative positions (or even comments that merely challenge the more left-leaning positions) are quickly buried. If the comment is well-written and civil in tone, there is no rational reason why users should downvote it, thus suppressing it from the discussion. That is a viewpoint discrimination. Users then appear to be less interested in debate and discussion than they are in building an echo chamber in the higher comment tiers. I'm sure you can see a problem with this, assuming you take Reddit to be a forum designed to promote discussion and the free exchange of ideas. This is the genesis of the "circle jerk" epithet that you see floating around in criticism of /r/politics.

Your remarks about moderation of /r/polics are not dispositive. A news story can comply with the rules of the forum, and still have a comment section that is overwhelmingly hostile to opinion that dissents from the left-leaning majority. There mere fact that submissions are moderated says nothing about the suppressive tendencies of the users that downvote comments that they disagree with (based on viewpoint, not on quality.)

Finally, your remark that "you can't do that with Fox News" confuses me. You're saying users can't upvote and downvote stories on Fox News? How does that support your conclusion that Fox News is uniquely biased? Obviously, you can't upvote and downvote stories on...any cable news network. So please clarify what you mean.