The reporters (like Julie Banderas) are just talking heads - they basically read whatever comes across the tele-prompter. The people writing the scripts are mostly the "managing editors". Some reporters are their own managing editors (Wolf Blitzer on CNN, O'Reilly on Fox) - but most of 'em are just talking heads.

In Fox's case, there's a "vetting" process for managing editors - and they also have "writers" that are told what to write and how to say it. The "spin" enters into play in very subtle ways sometimes, although the most common is pretty obvious - "spin by omission". An example of this can be found in JP5's post, in the paragraph titled "June 2006" - it tells you that IDF denied it was shelling the beach at the time, but it fails to tell you that IDF later admitted that they were responsible for the incident. Whether that "spin" was intentional or not, is an open question (and I didn't mean to prejudge that it "is" intentional - I'm just using that as an example of news that's "spun" because it doesn't tell the whole story).

But other forms of spin are also common - the choice of words for instance. If you were a writer and you had to choose between talking about "terrorists" and "insurgents", which would you use? The former connotes an illegitimate targeting of innocent civilians, while the latter suggests something closer to a legitimate resistance movement. At this point in time, the word meanings are specific, but back a few months ago there was a time when the two words were used more-or-less interchangeably, and it was the managing editor's choice which picture he wanted to paint.

Fox, in general, aligns with the "conservative" view to world events (or, in the case of domestic politics, that of the Republican Party). While, a station like MS-NBC tends to emphasize the "liberal" view to world events (or, in the case of domestic politics, that of the Democratic Party). It's exceedingly difficult to find a truly "neutral" news source. The best we can do, most of the time, is to listen to both ends of the spectrum, and try to read between the lines to separate the wheat from the chaff (or the truth from the spin, as the case may be). And, I would definitely recommend getting some international news sources too, 'cause most of the stuff here in the US comes from one or two major sources (the AP's and Reuters' of the world), including the pictures and the general outline of the various stories.

Julie's not too bad, in the global scheme of things. I could definitely think of some more despisable personalities on Fox. She's gotten a little heavy recently though, don't know what's up with that (maybe she's getting paid too much)....