Howard Kurtz suggests Fox's “news programming” is balanced and the Washington Post's editorial page is liberal:

Knoxville, Tenn.: Why do so many media outlets, when mentioning “Fox News”, say “which some say has conservative views”? This seems to be the equivalent of saying “The Washington Post, which some say is a newspaper...”

Why is the rest of the press corp afraid to call a spade a spade, particularly when (as in this case) it is so virulently blatant?

Howard Kurtz: Because some say a distinction must be made between Fox's opinion shows (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and its news programming. Just as you have to make a distinction between The Post's news pages and its left-leaning editorial page.

This reveals more about Kurtz's own leanings than those of Fox News and the Washington Post's editorial pages.

First, no such distinction “must be made” between Fox's opinion shows and its news programming other opinion shows:

Fox's news programs echo its “opinion” shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points

30 reasons why Fox News is not legit

Media differentiate Beck's “opinions” from Wallace's “news,” but record shows Wallace repeatedly echoes Beck

Stewart annihilates Fox News' purported opinion-news division: “It's a perpetual revulsion machine”

And there's plenty more where that came from.

As for the Washington Post: Does this sound like a “left-leaning editorial page”?

Powell's U.N. address occurred on February 5, 2003. A look at the editorials and columns that appeared in the next day's edition of The Washington Post makes clear how quickly the media ran to Powell's side.

The Post itself led things off with an editorial headlined -- what else? -- “Irrefutable” that declared, “AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. ... Mr. Powell's evidence ... was overwhelming.”

The Post's columnists took it from there. Four Washington Post columnists wrote on February 6 about Powell's presentation the day before. All four were positively glowing...

More examples of the Post's editorial and op-ed pages not leaning to the left:

Charles Murray & the Washington Post

Forbes, please define “liberal,” cont'd

Fred Hiatt's health care narrow-mindedness

A new test for Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post

Is Charles Lane (and Fox News) advocating a wage cut for millions of Americans?

WaPo's Charles Lane undermines his own pro-Lieberman rant

Richard Cohen, the Washington Post's pro-torture “liberal.”

Why is the Post letting AHIP's Ignagni deceive its readers?

Then there's this: "On Social Security: The Washington Post Gets It." That's a column praising the Post's editorials defending George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. The author? Jack Kemp. The column appears on the web site of Freedom Works, a right wing group led by former House GOP leader Dick Armey.

“Left-leaning”: yeah, right.