Let me begin by challenging the questions' notion of even handedness or equivocation. It establishes a false dichotomy, and in relation to journalism limits the editorial terrain to that of the political celebrities engaged in major voting blocs, rather than to the editorial direction that ought to be given in good conscience to serve the public. News outlets are expected to be fair, truthful and doggedly persistent. They're not expected to provide even handedness, though this could result accidentally from various political factions being equally repugnant or desirable.
On the question of even handedness: Necessarily, if Wikipedia is functioning correctly, no. Wikipedia has no policy on "even handedness." Relevant policies are "Neutral Point of View," "Weight," "Reliable Sourcing," and perhaps most importantly in terms of biased editorial attention "Other Stuff Exists."
NPOV: Wikipedia attempts to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If relevant and significant views do not attend to a matter then neither should the encyclopaedia.
Weight: views are ascribed emphasis based on the quality of their sourcing. Material from places of no consequence are meant to be accorded a position of no consequence in articles.
Reliable sourcing: means both locating quality material, and a gate-keeper function for unreliable material. Views that are contained in unreliable material only are meant to excluded.
Other Stuff Exists: The (potential) failure of editors to obey policy, or to put energy, into other equivalent articles does not mean that there has been a failure of policy on a particular article. Arguing from failures of policy elsewhere is not taken in the english Wikipedia culture to condemn a well made article.
The key questions then, within english language Wikipedia policy, would be: Have editors failed in policy? Have editors failed to devote emphasis to other, equivalent, articles?
Have editors failed in policy? No. Talk:FOX News contains a header FAQ summarising consensus built over a number of Requests for comment (an en.wikipedia content dispute resolution tool). No current headers are listed on the page, and the debate on the lede is inactive as of 2014. The community of editors hasn't failed FOX News.
Have editors failed to devote emphasis to other, equivalent, articles?
I checked MSNBC, NBC itself, New York Times and CNN.
MSNBC devotes extensive time to the political editorial bias of the station. This is contained in the lede. NBC News notes primarily journalistic failings in body. NYT notes family capital control without political implication, and perceived bias in body. CNN has a limited section on journalistic failures, that leads with political bias. I would summarise these articles as "poor." They're all in need of deliberate systematic research, and most have appalling "this happened in 2012, this happened in 2013" structures.
Do they have blurbs in main articles pointing to percieved political biases
Yes, where weighty.
Do those news sources have whole sections and large articles devoted to controversies, mainly dealing with political biases?
Yes, where weighty. Most controversy sections relate to gross failures of journalistic or editorial misconduct separate from US political faction.
Are there sections in their articles devoted to their personnel relationship with major left wing figures, such as Soros, or left wing politicians?
No. However the relationship between the outlets and major individual sources of capital are noted.