I never mentioned MSNBC… curious how you picked them.
You seem to have jumped to the concusion that:
a) I myself am ‘liberal’. Depending on your own political bias, that may be true. I’m certainly to the right of the Anarcho-communists I used to drink stolen beer with at the squatter rallies in the old Hamms brewery (they consider me a proto-fascist sellout conformist).
b) that I only read/watch ‘liberal’ media. Another assumption based on slim evidence and yet not slim enough to stop you from offering unasked-for advice (I’ve been doing just that for years, but Fox news has problems with accuracy as well as bias).
My counter example for dodgy sources would have been the Bay Guardian, as MSNBC has only recently been exploiting the market for a less Republican news bias, and still has a way to go before being considered reliably lefty.
Because I am lazy, not interested in changing your opinion and not willing to do the research, I will now quote an unnamed source who tells me ‘those who rely principally on Fox News have been shown to be weak in their basic factual knowledge of current events.’

“Sources without biases simply no longer exist.”

You don’t know a lot about the history of news, do you?

PRO TIP: sources without biases never existed. For much of he history of the media, the biases were a lot more extreme and outfront than they generally are today. Witness: William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War.

Define ‘hardcore leftists’… I might say the only people who believe Fox is credible are ‘quasi fascists’. But both of those are terms whose emotional impact is greater than their actual meaning, and their intent is simply to disparage an entire swath of people (usually inaccurately).
Won’t be taking the bait on examples of Fox’s inaccuracy – a short time with google is all that’s needed for those who actually care.