If they were Fair and Balanced, then they would be a model for the Fairness Doctrine. But instead, they're taking a position against the Fairness Doctrine, claiming that it infringes on Free Speech, and of course, ratings and profit:
Fox News: 'Fairness Doctrine' no match for ratings and money
"This next one may make you think twice about freedom of speech," announced Fox News on Wednesday, stating that the federal government wants to "resurrect" the Fairness Doctrine from "back in the 40's." The Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues, was federal policy from 1949 until 1987.
<erm, if Fox News WERE presenting both sides of controversial issues, they wouldn't be impacted by the Doctrine, would they?>.
<snip>
Lowry, who dominated the discussion, began by saying, "The market is working here. You have extremely talented conservative talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And they're on the air because they get ratings. And broadcasters, guess what, they care about ratings because they want money."
<the cat is out of the bag. It's all about the money, not about presenting both sides of a story.>
"Radio outlets are supposed to operate in the public interest," objected Hill, citing the need for diversity of opinion.
"There is a diversity of opinion out there," insisted Lowry, pointing to PBS and shock jocks as counterbalances to conservatives like Limbaugh. "If you want liberal opinion in the media, you can get it in the newspapers."
- - - - -
So, what he's really saying is, if you want to hear the liberal side, don't expect to find it on Fox News.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_slams_Fairness_Doctrine_in_favor_0627.html