Talk:Fox & Friends

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Low-importance).

This article is rather innapropriate Perfect77 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way? :: Chris 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Needs a "reception" section[edit]

Fox and friends is a fairly polarizing show, in that those who have a certain political point of view identify strongly with it, whereas those who have a different political view do not identify with it, sometimes to the point of considering it offensive. I propose a section, written from a WP:NPOV, that describes the reception of the show by critics and proponents. For example, something with statements similar to taking the form of

Critics of the regular segment, The Trouble with Textbooks, argue that the phrases declared to be "Banned" from books are not in fact banned at all, as there is no notable force prohibiting authors from using language of their choosing in their published works. Fans of the show view this segment as bringing attention to political correctness being valued over content and accuracy in textbooks.

Proponents of chunky peanut butter assert that peanut chunks add a much needed crunch, while critics complain that peanut pieces can get stuck in your teeth.

This format has been proven to avoid WP:POV forking, and describes points of view without advocating any. MichaelLNorth (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop using Newshounds as the source of your criticism. Arzel (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
With an accusation like that, I certainly hope you have a diff or something. This is not the place to launch personal attacks. MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you know the meaning of personal attacks. A simple search of "The Trouble with Textbooks" brings up only hits to Newshounds. Perhaps you got it from Colbert, but it doesn't really matter. The point is if you are going to present some POV you should probably include some reference to back up your claim. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You misread my comment (the "For example" and "similar to" immediately preceding the part in italics). I was simply providing an example of how points of view can be acknowledged without becoming a POV magnet. Your comment "stop using Newshounds" implies that I used newshounds as a source of criticism in the first place. The claim that I use newshounds as a source is, in essence, an accusation of not knowing how to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate references, and an accusation of being partisan. Please carefully read WP:POV for information on why this article needs information regarding points of view. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to use an example of something that "Needs" to be in this article and then use a very poor example, you don't put yourself in a very good position to argue your merits. If a certain point of view does not meet weight concerns then there is no requirement that it be included in the article. You seem to be searching for criticism to add to the article to "balance" it out (for you). If there are examples of criticism that are notable they will present themselves quite easily. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed my example to avoid the confusion that you're experiencing. I'd like to remind you that the absence of important (notable) points of view is not the same thing as WP:NPOV. Your comment "You seem to be searching for criticism to add to the article to "balance" it out (for you)." is another personal attack. I suggest that you read WP:NPA carefully, and to assume good faith. The point of this RFC is to evaluate whether or not the absence of any WP:NPOV information on all points of view regarding Fox and Friends is "balanced". MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And just how do you evauluate if an article is unbalanced if you fail to provide any examples of what is missing that would show how it is unbalanced. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You raise a valid point. Give me about two days to come up with something organized, complete with proposed section to insert. All I have right now is raw links that I dropped into a text file. I'll let you know when I have it ready so you can weigh in. I was hoping that others would join the conversation and help to hammer down a consensus, but it seems as if I will have to do more of the work than expected. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great American Ham Sandwich Incident[edit]

Should the story run by F&F that was later shown to be untrue also be added to the controversies section? For those who don't know, information from ... admittedly not the most unbiased source, however. 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I can't believe there is no mention of bias in this article. This show has a very strong right wing bias, which surprises me because most morning shows aren't generally too political in nature. However every time I turn on the TV in the morning and scan across fox & friends, I hear normal morning talk morph into "If Democrats win the terrorists will take over the world" type nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by October 2006 (talk)

Maybe it's because one man's bias is another man's "fair and balanced." Realkyhick 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense? We'll wait and see.Lestrade 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Where's the BIAS topic on the Today Show page? Or the CBS Morning Show page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

In all respects, FNC is pointed towards more often than the main networks for bias. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly String and Geraldo's map in the sand??[edit]

Folks, I know a lot of you don't Like Fox News because you believe it's biased toward the right wing, just as many people believe their competitors are biased toward the left wing. But to say the show's demonstration of how allied forces in Iraq use Silly String to detect trip wires for IED's is "reminiscent" of Geraldo Rivera's "map in the sand" incident is really stretching things. I took the paragraph out of the Trivia section. Realkyhick 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, however, the infamous "sand map" left a few low level military commanders annoyed with Geraldo. It wasn't that we knew what was going on but that those familiar with the area might get a clue. I have been in the military and I will tell you now we get a little touchy about that "as it happens" troop movement reporting. To be fair (and balanced) the commanders let it go once they realized that we had knocked out Iraq's electricity.--Art8641 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a section in this article that dealt with the 3/21/08 fiasco on Fox & Friends during which Chris Wallace chastised Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade for their ruminations about Barack Obama's "typical white person" comment - the same episode in which Kilmeade eventually walked off the set? If there was no section on this episode, it should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark2680 (talkcontribs) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


The controversies section is heavily dependent upon one source. Media Matters is the only source listed for all controversies, most of which seem to of minor importance. Unless additional sources can be found, this section should be trimmed to include only the actual controversies least it appear to be undue weight from one organization. Arzel 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No responses. I changed the wording since all controversies are associated with MM. Also removed one criticism without citation. Arzel 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why my entry on the controversy surrounding Doocy and the Vitter scandal was removed. It was entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talkcontribs) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You need a reliable source talking about it, what you did was insert crooks and liars, which is hardly a reliable source. Also, you presented the entire section in the form of OR. Arzel (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not original research, but you could say that Doocy's analysis was, and faulty research at best. And while you may not like crooks & liars, they posted a video clip. In other words, the link allowed you to see it for yourself, regardless of whether or not you choose to read the commentary that comes with it. But, I've provided a link to a transcript of an episode of Dan Abrams who called him on it. I think its fair to say that is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talkcontribs) 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, C&R is not reliable, and just posting a video link to the broadcast is OR on the part of the person including the incident. I see you included an actual RS, but I hardly see this as a controversy. Doucy apparently did make a mistake, but I haven't heard this being discussed at any length. To include would be a case of undue weight. If we start including every time someone makes a mistake CNN, FNC, MSNBC, and so on will be filled with useless criticism, and nothing more than a saopbox for those that don't like those particular organizations. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fake Ham Story[edit]

I have removed the Fake Ham Story. This involves Associated Content where by a fake news story was reported as true, it does not involve FNC, please do not insert controversy which is guilt by association. Arzel 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo Needed[edit]

This article doesn't include a logo used for this show. One should be added just to convey the article.--megamanfan3 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for repeated removals?[edit]

I'd like to discuss the rationale behind these repeated removals of sourced material. To me, this material appears relevant and properly sourced, and thus it's inappropriate to keep deleting it. (In fact, it's pretty much the only material in the article that's appropriately sourced to independent, reliable sources). As best I can tell, the edit summaries removing the material indicate that an editor disagrees with what the sources say, or believes that "Good Morning America" is equally biased, or something. None of these are appropriate rationales to remove sourced material, so I'd like to get a little more understanding of where this is coming from. MastCell Talk 05:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be returned.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It's been returned for the better part of four months. I do agree that seeing as it's well sourced, it belongs in the article. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)