If you can provide three instances of any other outlet misidentifying Democrats or Republicans, then have at it. Otherwise, let's be real. Fox not only makes these errors, it hosts people who say some of the most outrageous things about the President imaginable. For example, the other day, a guest declared that Obama liked to "defecate" on our allies. You cannot provide anything similar from ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. They simply don't allow that kind of rhetoric.
Fox is singularly biased. You're blaming the messenger. I don't know how you missed this.
"Since the beginning of October, Fox News and the
Associated Press have incorrectly identified former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) as a Democrat while reporting on the scandal surrounding allegations that he engaged in sexually explicit electronic communications with underage former congressional pages.
Other media outlets have identified as Democrats former Rep. Daniel Crane (R-IL), who was censured by Congress in 1983 for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page, and
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), during coverage of a poll showing Chafee trailing his Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse by 11 points.
Whitehouse was also misidentified as a Republican. Most of these errors have since been corrected, though several news shows, including Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, have not made an explicit on-air or in-print correction."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010
The bolded sections above each represent a misidentification by an outlet other than Fox as well as a couple by Fox. I find it interesting that Fox was the only individual outlet named. But what would one expect from Media matters. Let it be known that you asked for three and I gave you four all cited in Media Matters. Imagine how much larger the number would have been if the source had been, say, the Rush Limbaugh website.
Next, the guest on a news or opinions show is permitted to say whatever they will say.
Next, since you have opened the door to similar kinds of events we might as well look at situations that are in fact far far worse like:
Reuters cropping a photo to remove a dagger next to a terrorists dead body or CNN's airing a story that had been edited for months and which was grossly biased against Israel. The importance of this one is that the story had been edited for months and so it was no simple mistake.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...o_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood
The CNN story is posted elsewhere here on HOP.
Then we could look at the situation statistically:
“The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It’s not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.” [2]
