It is interesting, how we collectively accept news organizations of having bias and falsifying news. And yet a social media site, with no need to be balanced, this bias is seen as unacceptable. Maybe because we can easily see the blatant bias of the news organizations, but the thought of being subtly manipulated irks us.
This is exactly the point. Fox carefully manipulates, coverage, actual delivery by journalists and counter points to advance their agenda, as I'll admit MSNBC does as well. Crying wolf on Facebook is ridiculous in the grand scheme of things imho.
I think you're referring to this part of the linked article:
> In the final stretch of the campaign, nearly half (46%) of Obama’s coverage on Fox was negative, while just 6% was positive in tone. But MSNBC produced an even harsher narrative about the Republican in the race: 71% of Romney’s coverage was negative, versus 3% positive.
I am unsure it supports an argument for being the "most biased news network" outside of a specific election.
Also, it does not appear to account for reporting on a sitting president (who is also running for reelection) and will generate non-election news as well as election news versus a candidate who is not currently generating much news outside of their election.
The problem with this study is that the data wasn't controlled for being about a president vs. a candidate.
There's going to be a number of mundane stories mentioning the president (i.e. bills being signed, travel, meetings, etc.) that are outside the scope of what's also being reported on a candidate.
The result is that any organization that is reporting on the president will inevitably mention the president in articles that are less biased, skewing the results comparison.