The success for Fox is less that they are far right than they are more neutral and thus further to the right than their competitors. Any marketer will tell you that when you have a market distribution (geographic or otherwise) that bunches towards one place, the ideal market position to take is just beyond the bunch with the largest group available. Think of a beach with a refreshment stand at the 1/4 point along the beach. The ideal market position is not at the 3/4 point which would provide equal access to any beach goer, but at the 1/3 slot which lets you contend for those in the 1/4 to 1/3 point and garner just about all the customers beyond the 1/3 point.

As such, I suspect that over time market forces will start to correct this bias. Bright people will start taking the advantages of MSM branding with a more truly neutral reporting position and start positioning closer to the center (or maybe beyond). I can make a good argument that Instapundit is an example of that with the content reached through links.

Journalists do a fine job, though. Like anyone else, sometimes they misfire, but it seems pathological to me to confuse the occasional error for a fatal flaw.

Olbermann is one of the worst offenders of biased reporting with his phony "unbiased wrapped indignation." Witness his latest rant against Hillary.

Olbermann just had to insert himself into the Geraldine Ferraro/Obama dust up which he termed a “disaster” for Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and half of western world, (sound of deep sigh here, used to emphasize just how important he thought his points were.)

BTW, has anyone noticed that when Hillary used to word "shame" to admonish Obama recently that Chris Matthews said Hillary sounded like a "school marm?" Tisk,tisk,no,no,no . . . can't use that old-fashioned word shame to define Obama's actions.

However, when Olbermann uses "shame" in his "Special Comments" (ad naueum, IMHO)that Matthews finds Olbermann's usage perfectly acceptable!

Hmmm!

Jay Rosen argues, persuasively, that the only way out of the “media bias” trap is for journalists to stop pretending to be neutral and simply endeavor to be fair.

I am unconvinced. Rosen's thinking is a step n the right direction but doesn't go far enough.
The truth, you see... yeah, the press was supsoed to be helping us determine what the truth is... The truth is seldom "fair" and NEVER is it "neutral". Any claims by the press to either, makes them liars. Either one assumes an uninterested party.