Follow my example:
When one trains to be an Attorney you do what are called "mock trials" the idea you have in Court is to not allow the introduction of evidence that would support the claims of the opposing side. This is done to shape the opinions of the jury by denial of information that could sway the opinion of that jury.
Fox under the leadership of Murdoch and NewsCorp in a sense does exactly the same thing.
What Fox is also expert at doing is to take complete heresay by some smaller and less qualified news source and then blow it up. While it was not Fox who originally released the stories of the less than wonderful problems of a 17 year old kid named Trayvon Martin, Fox later picked up those presentations running with them and using the less than great sources and information unrelated to the shooting to sensationalize the story in an attempt to boost ratings. By doing this, they boost their ratings, and, at the same time, they hang and eliminate a small competitor if what has been said was untrue or fabricated. It also gives them plausible deniability in case they really step in it. It is not good journalism at all, but it is absolutely GREAT business in a sleazy sort of way.
In a "mock trial" the Attorney tries to destroy the witnesses of the opposing side and discredit their testimony. Fox commentators VanSusteren, O'Reilly et al, are experts at trying to discredit opinions contrary to those the network wants presented. The discrediting is done by the treatment or badgering of the person they want to discredit in some manner. In this area, Fox as a private Corporation does not have to adhere to the procedures that apply in a Court of Law. When a debate takes place they hand pick the persons which they the commentator will debate in order to "stack the deck". They pick individuals who are intimidated by their "personality". They also pick individuals who are as a whole poor at rebuttal to the commentator. Again, this is not conservatism at all it is a pure business decision which generates ratings. The concept of shifting public opinion is incidental to the decision to generate ratings and money.
All News Broadcasts have the ability to slant or change the opinion of people based not only on what they include, but more often on what they leave out.
To some degree these days all news which is dependent on ratings for advertising tries to build ratings and hence sponsorship or advertising costs. It is not a political issue at all, it is in fact a MONEY issue with sponsors looking more at ratings than at the implication or misinformation caused by omissions in content. The price we pay for "good business" and high profits for a media network is at times questionable accuracy based on completeness of the information we get.
The only ones free to tell the truth are those not dependent on the dollars of Corporate sponsorship.
After the problems in the U.K. the News agencies and media outlets operated by Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp are under scrutiny. This is world wide and not just in the U.K..
Murdoch and Newscorp and the outlets it operates are absolutely money driven. Proof of that is the later evening television line up. The Simpsons, Family Guy, and other programming that Fox presents is diametrically the opposite of the Fox News Conservatism. Those shows cater to the lowest common levels of humor and present a set of family values absolutely contrary to the views of the ultra conservative right wing in general.
They get viewers and ratings so Murdoch runs them. NewsCorp is the largest publisher of porn in the world and all of this has given incredible wealth to both person and corporate entities. Porn is not beloved by conservatives either and yet they never seem to bother Rupert Murdoch or NewsCorp on that issue.
Fox is not conservative because it is politically correct or a "political opinion". Fox is conservative because "liberal bashing" creates a circus like atmosphere much like watching (God Forbid!) an episode of Jerry Springer. It is easy to put down people in a situation from which you yourself are at best a distant observer.