Readers continue to draw distinctions:
While I don’t think "Morning Joe" is very good, it’s notable that the networks morning show is anchored and named for a Newt Gingrich Republican congressman. Think of Fox News giving their morning show over to Barney Frank or someone similar. You can’t; it’s unthinkable.
Another points out:
Apparently Murdoch offered to bankroll a Petraeus run for president and Ailes would manage his campaign. Even if Murdock and Ailes were "joking," the conversation is still damning for all parties involved or mentioned.
Another:
The major distinction in my mind is the enormous power and influence wielded by Fox News. Fox is often said to be driven by or controlled by the GOP but it's really the other way around; Fox is doing the driving and controlling of the both party and of its base. MSNBC hasn't got a fraction of that kind of influence.
The Republican primaries illustrated this quite well.
We recall that nearly all of the candidates (declared and otherwise) had been or were then employed by Fox, which is pretty extraordinary, but there's more to it than that. The network had much if not everything to do with the rise of Cain's political viability and resurrection of Gingrich's, and with the general feeling going into the whole thing that Romney wasn't "one of us". How big a star would Bachman have become without Fox? Is it a coincidence that Palin's rapid loss of influence followed her falling out of favor with some of the network's house pundits (and that they all seemed to decide they'd had enough of her at precisely the same moment)?
Which isn't to say MSNBC doesn't suck. It totally sucks, don't get me wrong. Like Fox news, it's infotainment for those who enjoy "following" politics in the same manner that rabid sports fans follow their team. Come to think of it, asinine sports radio is a pretty good analogy.
But if MSNBC magically ceased to exist, politics would go on as usual. I'm pretty sure quite a bit would change if Fox went away, though.
Another:
To those that argue an equivalence between Fox News and MSNBC, here's a thought experiment. Think about the first debate between Romney and Obama. Afterwards, Chris Matthews and just about every MSNBC personality within ten feet of a microphone berated Obama for his woeful performance. If Romney had tanked like that, do you think you would have seen Hannity and O'Reilly pummeling him on their shows? Of course not. And we know this because after Romeny's 47% incident, Fox News was simply a mouthpiece for the Romney campaign, using up its air-time to either downplay the comments or defend them.
The Dish 