I give major props to folks resigning over having their integrity compromised.
NPR and BBC are good because their viewership numbers don't matter nearly as much.
The problem is that also the west has its share of wrongdoings and the world will actually improve only when we start to give everyone's life - honestly - the same exact value.
It's not a competition: both states have deep systemic problems with regards to human rights, which is "worse" is meaningless. The vast majority of mainstream news in both has about a 10-to-1 ratio of paid propaganda (which includes distractions and noise) to substantive news, whether it's Moscow or advertisers who foot the bill.
So a privately sponsored propaganda outlet is oh-so-fundamentally-different, how?
As the parent says, Fox plays the tune of he-who-pays-for-the-piper. That this is Rupert Murdock and not a state really doesn't change the situation.
Edit: It is transparently obvious that Fox News doesn't put out anything and everything that will get their demographic excited and that instead Fox News puts out a cohesive line of what it's owners and their allies want it's listeners to think. That makes distinction between Fox output and RT output nominal.
And hey, at least an RT host had enough guts to want credibility. That actually speaks better for RT than Fox.
It has an obligation to be a media arm of one of the two parties in government. I'm not sure that's actually better than state-sponsored news, which is a designation that includes some some reasonably decent options like the BBC.
Deleted comment
The Communists wouldn't even have considered it a bad thing to be accused of engaging in "propaganda"; it was simply an alternate means of warfare in the class struggle.
But the parent comment's point is that Fox News's market position essentially requires bias; it is biased news that their market is seeking, in reaction to other media coverage biased the other way (true or false, that's the perception of the core market segment).
Similarly many progressives and liberals watch programs that starts with a bias more favorable to their views.
Even presenting fact can hardly be done without bias. You might see the same fact as "NSA SCOOPS UP HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TEXT MESSAGES AROUND THE WORLD EVERY DAY" or "NSA stores 3% of SMS traffic captured on foreign networks" on different channels with different biases, and they might both be right.