Don't know where you get that.   Here's what they said...

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

====Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington
Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."
CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America"
were a close second and third.====

As you'll note, they certainly did not say Faux News was the least
biased but actually said that Lerhrer and Brown and GMA were.

Folks who were

I consider myself a moderate conservative on most topics. I find some
of Fox News's shows pretty decent, and others intolerably biased to
the right. The worst offender by far is John Gibson's "The Big Story",
which makes my blood boil every time I see it with its deliberate and
cynical distortion and manipulation to demonise liberals. A typical
example: today Gibson was trying to make his audience believe that 35%
of Democrats and even a Republican Senator think that the US military
fired missiles into the Pentagon on 9/11. O'Reilly is another who used
to have a grain of decency, but seems to have abandoned it in favour
of unpleasant ranting shrillness ever since the Dem's won both houses.
Even Cavuto who used to be a pretty sensible fellow now runs amazingly
silly stories about "the liberal media" on a fairly regular basis.
OTOH, Shep Smith shifted visibly leftwards after his trip to New
Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina (I'd say he has ended up in
the center). My opinion is, just because Brit Hume is centreist,
doesn't mean that Fox News as a whole is not biased to the right.

--
Peter Headland

Apropos, what are the stats for the success of alternative treatments
worldwide?

We'll be watching for it, Taylor. But if it concludes or implies that
any alternative treatment offers better survivability than surgery or
radiation, it'll take some rather incredible and incontrovertible proof
to pry the whistles out of our mouths; there are some bone fide prostate
experts in these cancer forums.

One thing we're already convinced of, however, is that urologists and
oncologists tend to downplay, often ignore or even deliberately and/or
ignorantly misstate the severity and incidence of side effects. I'd love
to see more statistics on that issue.

I.P.

Taylor,

It is very important to understand that medicine must be based on
evidence, not anecdote.  There are people with indolent cancers
or even who never had cancer at all but thought they did, who
used alternative therapies and believe they were saved by them.
There are many, many others who took alternative therapies,
reported great success, and then died of cancer.

When you think about it, what does "alternative" medicine mean
other than medicine that has not been scientifically verified?
All too often it actually means medicine that has been
scientifically tested and found to be either harmful or of no
benefit.

Consider the laetrile story.  There are thousands of testimonials
from laetrile users and "doctors" claiming cancer cures.  Many
thousands of people have taken the drug.  There are still
hundreds of patients who go to Mexico each year to get the drug.
Yet every attempt by scientific researchers to verify the success
failed.  When the evidence was examined and clinical trials
conducted, there was no benefit found from the drug - none, not
even a little benefit!

Most people don't understand science and don't know the
difference between scientific evidence and anecdote.  They don't
know anything about clinical trials, about statistics, or about
verified results.  They can't relate to that.  What they relate
to is personal stories.

If you broadcast a personal story that says that John Johnson
says he cured his cancer with laetrile, even if you don't
yourself assert that this was scientifically verified, you can be
sure that some viewers will believe that laetrile cured his
cancer, and very likely some cancer patients will believe it too.
If, in addition you combine that with a story about Tom Thompson
who got surgery, radiation or chemotherapy and suffered horribly
and died anyway, they'll really be spooked.

Do you want thousands of cancer patients and their families to
get this message?  Do you want it on your conscience when one or
more of them turns down medical treatment, gets "alternative"
treatment, and dies as a result?

   Alan

despite what you say, what you describe is a biased "documentary".
It's not even a documentary, it's more like a sales pitch for the
alternative medication.  It really doesn't matter if there are some
happy alternative patients, what matters is the OVERALL success rate
of the alternative patients compared to the conventional patients in
terms of CANCER cure first and foremost.  

Taylor, you have to understand what this sounds like to us.  You ask
for people who are not happy with traditional therapies and for those
who are happy with alternatives?!  So, you do not want to hear from
people like me, who are relatively happy with their outcome and
prognosis?  How does this indicate a lack of bias?

--charlie