Fox News

4 things to ask about each video:
1-Do the journalists and pundits present more truth or truthiness?
2-How well are the cable news channels’ fact claims supported by evidence? How often do the journalists and pundits provide their sources? How many fact claims are false? What information is omitted, distorted, or taken out of context?
3-Look for the silences and who’s in power. Which political voices and viewpoints are given precedence on these topics? Whose voices are ridiculed, left out, or downplayed? Do the sources cited reveal favoritism, partisan bias, or omission of relevant viewpoints?
4-Apply McManus’ SMELL test:
S: What is the SOURCE of the information?
M: What is the source’s MOTIVATION? “Is it merely informational, or perhaps an effort to sell us something?’
E: What is the EVIDENCE provided for the claims made in the story?
L: What is the LOGIC of the news report?
L: What is LEFT OUT or missing? Are sources identified? If anonymous sources are cited, does the story include “any independent, expert evaluation of the claims the anonymous sources made?”

Airman relieved of duty
1-There is a little bit of both truth and truthiness in this video. Sgt. Monk is telling the story himself about something that happened to him, so there's a legitimate resource. As for reporting truthiness, Monk's lawyer, Kelly Shackelford, says that the whole ordeal violates the Air Force policy, DOD policy and the Constitution. He says this without any explanation how, which I guess would be okay if this was obvious information. Not only is this not obvious, it's arguably false.
2-I mentioned earlier that Monk's lawyer says Monk's relief of duties was against the Constitution as well as Air Force and DOD policies. He doesn't quote any of them, doesn't give any relative examples.
Also, they refer to Monk's "openly gay commander" a few times without ever mentioning a name. Why not? Perhaps they wanted their name withheld. If this is the case, the reporter should have at least brought that up.
At the end of the video, the reporter mentions that Monk was not punished, but relieved of his duties, and says the information came from Lackland Air Force Base officials. It's appreciated that she tells where the information came from, but the using the term "officials" is not very specific.
3-In this report, we don't see two sides to the issue. The fact that it's part of a segment called "The Fight for Faith" can imply that this is going to be a religion-favored report. The reporter refers to the military's old "don't-ask, don't-tell" rule on homosexuality and wonders if this story shows a "don't-ask, don't-tell" status for Christians in the military. Did Monk get relived of his duties for saying he was a Christian, or for being against same-sex marriage? Based on this video, one might think that this was because of Monk's Christianity. The other side of this question is not put into focus. Just because someone doesn't support same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're Christian.
4-S: Having Monk present works as a great source, since the story is about him. Other than that, there's not much information given to source. Although, I tried looking up this story from other professional news media and it looks like Fox News was the only professional medium to talk about this story. 
M: I think this is more so Fox News trying to tell us something than being informative. There is just a lot of opinion on Christians having to worry about expressing their beliefs in the military.
E: There aren't many claims made here. Shackelford talking about how many rules this goes against and the reporter implying that this is a religion issue as opposed to a same-sex rights issue.
L: Is this logical news? We do see the logic from the side of Monk and his lawyer, but the other half of the situation is not represented. He also mentions that going to looking up Sgt. Phillip Monk on a website called liberty.org will lead you to other stories on Christians being discriminated for their beliefs. I didn't find this on liberty.org, but on http://www.libertyinstitute.org/, a blog that exposes Christian discrimination in the nation (Liberty Institute, 2011).
L:Other than the actual name of the openly gay commander, I think they brought up every piece of information they had to.

Should procreation play a role in same-sex marriage?
1-I say this report shows a lot of truthiness. Pundit David Codell gives a lot of statistics here. He cites where they come from and they are mostly true. As for Peter Sprigg, he doesn't cite any of his information, most of his reasoning is just him giving an opinion. He even throws out a "we believe" statement. Who's "we?"
Interesting find: There are two different times in the video where the reporter acknowledges Codell providing a lot of statistics before she changes the topic he's talking about.
2-Codell provides sources for most of his claims about the public supporting same-sex marriage. He doesn't say where his information on 1,000 law provisions applicable to married couples comes from.
Sprigg, on the opposing side, doesn't cite anything he says. He says 60% of Americans define marriage as between a man and a woman, which is close enough, but he doesn't cite it. He also says there is an "abundance" of scientific research showing that children do better when they are raised by their biological parents. No source examples?
3-There are biases from the pundits but not from the actual Fox News reporter. Spriggs says there is a "clear, bright line" showing that same-sex relationships should be treated differently. He says the opposing side wants to redefine marriage to satisfy the "desires of adults." I think this is overplayed.
The "clear, bright line" isn't so clear for Codell. He, like Spriggs, uses some dramatic wording as well, calling the marriage case for procreation a "concoction." Also, he disagrees with Spriggs on the purpose same-sex marriage, saying that it's not to satisfy adult's desires, but a show of "desire to form lifelong commitments."
4-S: As for sourcing, this isn't as much of a single-focused story as much as it is an argument on different topics. The information is given by the pundits.
M: There are two different motivations here. Sprigg wants us to follow his point of view on how same-sex marriage is an "unwise" idea. Codell's motivation is to prove that same-sex marriage is acceptable.
E: There is evidence to some of what they say, but not all of it. Cordell's claim about 2/3 of children raised by same-sex couples being raised by at least one of their biological parents isn't backed-up. Neither is Sprigg's argument about having all scientific research that goes against children being raised by same-sex couples.
L: There's reasonable logic behind the report. The issue of same-sex marriage is researched to be worthy of argument. Spriggs could have made a more logical point, but didn't cite any of his information. Codell mentioned more statistics to prove his point, making a logical argument.
L: It seemed like Codell was going to talk more about his standpoint, but the reporter wanted to change the topic. Since it's her show, that's okay, I was just curious as to what else he wanted to say. If anything was left out, it was the pundit's citing of the information they were giving.
Some stats/facts: #
Here's the number of same-sex couples raising kids, since Codell brings it up (Gates, Feb. 2013, p.1).
What does the American Academy of Pediatrics say about same-sex couples raising children (American Academy of Pediatrics, March 21, 2013).
This is an accurate number of same-sex couple households in the U.S (Face the Facts USA, June 26, 2013).

Should religion have an impact on same-sex marriage?
1-Compared to the last report I wrote about, this one has more truth to it. Ken Klukowski talks about the Bob Jones v. United States and Loving v. Virginia court cases, and defines what they were about accurately. Robert Taylor says that the divorce rate is at 50%, which is true enough for him to make his point (Divorce Rate).
2-There aren't too many claims in this one, but the few that are made are actually true. Taylor's facts on the general religious standpoints on same-sex marriage are factual. He says he hasn't seen anything about same-sex marriage movements coercing with any religion, forcing them to accept such marriages. After my research, neither have I. Klukowski sets up the conversation's direction at the beginning of the video talking about federal definitions of words and goes over that process fairly and informatively. His definition of Loving v. Virginia is accurate as well.
3-Despite the true definition Klukowski gives of Bob Jones v. United States, Taylor points out that it's case for racial discrimination is not relevant to religious institutions' marriage ceremonies. Taylor tries to reveal a more direct view of his opinion in his final statement where he says we should embrace the "conservative values" of marriage.
4-S: The source of information come from the research of the pundits. Both of them hold some credentials in religious studies, one having written a book on it and the other holding a position on the Family Research Council.
M: Klukowski spends time talking about the correlation between racial civil rights and same-sex rights in regards to religious institutions. Taylor barely even touched on that first topic, but talked about how he doesn't see any church being "compelled" to hold same-sex marriages. Klukowski's initial response? "That's not true." He then continues to make his case.
E: There could have been more citing from Taylor, namely when he says divorce rates are at 50%. Other than that, his claims aren't too bold. Klukowski has both evidence-supported statements and provides detail.
L: The logic of this news report is expressed well by both sides. The reporter asks the pundits about the future of religion and same-sex civil rights and their answers stay on the topic. Their statements are reasonable as well.
L: Kuklowski could have been given more speaking time, but I guess that's just a matter of how much time is given to the segment. No anonymous sources are cited.

What Supreme Court gay marriage rulings say about America?
1-This one is probably the most opinionated on both sides. There's a lot more "feel with your heart" truthiness in here. Both Ryan Anderson and Sally Kohn explain the DOMA ruling appropriately, but their claims are questionable.
2-The one ironic thing I found here is that Anderson says there are 28 states that don't allow same-sex marriage, when at one point, in this same video, a box in the top corner says 29 states don't allow same-sex marriage. Where did Anderson get his statistic from? Where did Fox News get their statistic from? Both sides have their separate definitions of state's rights and federal rights to make laws. Based on their lack of evidence, it can't really be said if either are true. Not too many statistics are used, either. Anderson says talks about how children need a mother and father but never explains why. Kohn makes assumptions about the direction California voters are moving in anyway.
3-I can't say any one person is in power here. Kohn ridicules Anderson's claims referring to them as "excuses." She also points out a stereotype in conservatives usually supporting state's rights, saying that if this were any other subject, they would be happy about the California court ruling on DOMA.
4-S: The argument/discussion is based off the California ruling of DOMA being unconstitutional. From here, the pundits expressed their opinions on what this means for America.
M: Kohn's motivation is to show us how this court ruling is a sign of progress for our country and how the public's opinion on same-sex marriage is growing positive. Anderson mentions a couple of times on marriage being strictly between a man and a woman. He also goes over how the federal government can't make any laws about this and says that America doesn't legislate based on "public opinion."
E: Though the pundits don't give many statistics to think about, Fox News provides some facts on the top right corner of the screen throughout the video. These are general facts that kind of go over a history of same-sex rights rulings and current statistics. The pundits could have given their stances more reliable sources to back them up. Anderson does, however, give a good description on what the state and federal governments can and can't do.
L: As opinion-based as Anderson and Kohn are, there is logic behind both of their opinions. They make their points clear, and gives the viewer something to consider.
L: I feel like they just left out a lot of citing. Kohn talks about what things are looking like in the United States right now, but doesn't provide any numbers. Anderson says 28 states view marriage as between man and a woman, but we can't tell where he got that from.