In Fox's case, the copyright covers a claim that is, in a sense, unfalsifiable. It requires too much nebulous definition of subjective terms. (How much fairness makes your coverage balanced, and vice versa?) But should that itself be a bar to gaining exclusivity of use? It's something unprovable -- and not original, really, in the sense of a copyrighted work, such as a novel or a cartoon character. Copyright law is notoriously generous these days, both to creators (extended life of rights) and users (liberal fair use readings from courts). I'm curious how this shakes out.
More: Jeff Jarvis has highly qualified readers:
The mark "fair & balanced" is what trademark folk would call a laudatory mark, like "the best burger in town." Such marks are inherently weak and entitled to a limited scope of protection.There's more, but that's the short version.