"...on what purports to be a news show."
O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, etc. are not billed as news shows. They discuss and analyze the news, but they are not reporters and do not pretend to be such. The hosts rightly make no bones about voicing their opinions.
Have you seen any advertisements in which Hannity & Colmes is called "news"?
No, but Fox calls itself "fair and balanced," and I don't think this pair is evenly matched, not by a longshot. Were Hannity debating James Carville, I'd say that show, at least, lived up to that description. As for what constitutes a news show, well, you're certainly right that it's an opinion show that focuses on the news.
I think it will be more honest if Hannity keeps the show himself, rather than matching him with another liberal no one's ever heard of. I know a lot of liberals, but I can't think of a single one who follows Mr. Colmes.
I think Hannity once debated Carville on his radio show. Within the past year I think. I don't disagree that Hannity always carried more weight on the show.
As for "fair and balanced", I always attributed that more to the news shows, like Brit Hume's. They have a pretty balanced panel for the news analysis segments, and though Hume is a conservative, he's very even-handed when handling the news. Speaking as objectively as I can, I found his election night coverative very fair.
You'll be shocked to learn that I'm not a regular viewer of Fox News, but I distinctly remember when Hillary ran for Senate, they had a GOP rep to speak for Rick Lazio, and countered him with Democratic Representative Floyd Flake, who also supported Rick Lazio. During the buildup to the Iraq War I watched a Republican Senator interviewed, countered by former Republican Senator Fred Thompson. I freely admit though, that I saw O'Reilly once say that Al Gore was not the Antichrist.
Commenting by HaloScan
