Talk:Fox News

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Extensive programming and host information necessary on main page?

I'm wondering if this page wouldn't be considerably more user-friendly if the long lists of programming and personalities were moved to a separate page focusing on that. While useful information, it seems tangential to the main goals of an article. I do realize that other network and newspaper pages do this as well, but perhaps someone can explain the rationale behind this--does anyone else see it as unnecessary clutter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipperyN (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good suggestion. /Blaxthos 07:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV change

A recent IP edit substituted "Democratic Party" for "critics". While that may be true, it is narrow and not directly attributable whereas "critics" is less controversial and certainly true. If no one minds, I'd like to tone down the edit for the sake of WP:NPOV. I'll leave stand the "fair and balanced" slogan as it is a counter point to the arguement before it (and is slightly ironic). CompRhetoric 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, change it back to the more NPOV (and consensus) version. /Blaxthos 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, didn't realize it was the consensus. Personally, I hit the Daily Show, Fox, and NPR for a round view - throw in The Economist and you might get a good Western-Centric view. CompRhetoric 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced image

Hi folks, I removed "contraversatial(sp)" from the image caption as this appears to be wp:or and POV and unsourced. WHO says it is contraversial?? Just because their was a lawsuit and some flap that means what?? If we have reliable sources that say "Fox's slogan is contraversial" ect, then please provide a link to that source. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... You admit to the controversy (which is well sourced) and then raise an issue by way of original research when it's noted as being controversial. These policies don't exist for you to use as a blunt instrument to keep out negative or unflattering information -- the controversial tag is not synthesis of new information, it simply notes that the tagline is indeed "controversial" (as you've already pointed out). WP:OR isn't to be used to cull out any information you can't find verbatim in the source itself. Reinserted. /Blaxthos 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't admitt to anything and it dosen't matter what you are I say/said. What matters is what reliable sources say. They say what? Please stop with your agenda pushing. I don't give a rat's ass about Fox news or whether its negative or positive material. I am an equal opportunity editor when it comes to POV words and editors who synthesize material. Again, just get a source that says what you want to add and add it. If not, just leave it out, geesh. --Tom 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tread lightly when accusing other editors of agenda pushing. The existance of the lawsuit, the book, our sub-articles on this subject indicate controversy. Anyone else want to step in here and voice an opinion on the spurious claim of unverifiable information / original research? This conversation, to me, borders on ridiculous at this point. /Blaxthos 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the caption and I think the word "controversial" would come across as very POV. The word makes it look as if Wikipedia editors are trying to push an anti-Fox News agenda. (I hate Fox News myself, but Wikipedia articles are not the place for that.) A better word would be "disputed", as in "Fox News' disputed 'Fair & Balanced' trademark". The word controversial tends to have a very negative connotation to it, so I would generally recommend avoiding it to keep things NPOV. However, since the IMI petition was withdrawn, the trademark is no longer formally disputed, therefore the best phrasing would be the current "Fox News' 'Fair & Balanced' trademark". JHP 00:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal status of the motion, the fact that it exists at all (as well as Franken's book and the resulting lawsuit) are ample evidence that the trademark phrase has caused controversy (which makes it controversial). Regarding your preference for disputed, I don't think there is that much difference in connotation; I simply think that controversial is a more accurate depiction (see previous sentence). Noting that controversy exists is definitely not a point of view. If we said "Fox New's bullshit slogan" then you might have a point... ;-) Regardless, it's inappropriate to gloss over the fact that the slogan itself has caused controversy. /Blaxthos 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can people spend this much time arguing over such a tiny thing?! Is it really that much trouble to just take it out? It's just a picture of a news logo, for christ's sake! I really don't see the logic of people pasting 'controversial' or 'disputed' on every single thing to do with Fox News. That people don't like the slogan is documented plenty of times in the criticism section. This article is slipping further and further into POV-pushing. Edders 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's documented (and that you point out such) only supports the position that it's not original research and is accurate. I still fail to see how noting controversy equals POV pushing... /Blaxthos 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you are giving voice to criticism where it is not necessary. A picture of the logo shows a fact, "Fair and balanced" is their motto, and is seen on idents for the network. That is fact. As you said, we have sections for controversy. We don't need to put "some people think this is wrong" everywhere - we've already explained it enough times. Additionally, WP:NPOV does not call for negotiations, which is what the lead has became - a negotiation. The lead in this article does not conform to either WP:LEAD or WP:NPOV, despite this users' best attempts to claim it does. To put it bluntly, we know Fox News isn't seen as a neutral source by left-wing elements. The fact that we cite FAIR and MMFA (two highly liberal organizations) as primary sources in the article is damaging enough to Wikipedia's NPOV stance. Being a mouthpiece for those organizations, as I believe this whole article is, is completely unacceptable. This inclusion of "controversial" everywhere the motto is mentioned is just one example of how these groups get their way on Wikipedia. It is not controversial to state a fact. It is controversial to add "controversial" everywhere. --75.21.179.121 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is also a fact. WP:LEAD specifically says controversies should be noted in the intro. Citing controversey is not being a mouthpiece for any organization. The credibility of the controversy is left for the reader to decide, which is also appropriate. Could any of our established editors familiar with this article and who have actively participated in the consensus-building activities share their opinions please? /Blaxthos 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, not everyone who participated in the so-called "consensus" regarding the lead approved of it. In fact, many disapproved of it. Nevertheless, as the other anon stated, NPOV is not up for negotiation, as was done in the "consensus" decision (quite frankly, I'm still wondering how consensus was actually reached - and yes, I am looking at the archives). This is a clear-cut violation of the NPOV policy. That issue aside, we do not put "the controversial documentary An Inconvenient Truth" under every caption of artwork or images related to it on its article, because it too would be redundant, just like here on the "Fair and Balanced" statement. FNC's article is big enough; getting rid of some non-necessary material should be a high priority. I think if anything, we should remove the part about "Critics see Fox News as advocating conservative political positions [...]", and replace it with something like: "The network's motto, "fair and balanced", has been criticised by certain critics of the network, most notably the Democratic Party of the United States". Reasons being: (1) "Critics" is too wide of a term and is an example of a weasel word, and (2) from views of history, unwillingness of certain users to include sufficient information regarding origin of biased statement (as required in WP:NPOV under: "It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.194.89 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Plain and simple, the mention of controversy is not being removed from the introduction. The intro serves as an overview of the article in its entirety and should include mention of any controversies. That is not up for debate. As to the mention of "controversy" in the image caption, I really couldn't care less. What I'm amazed by is the fact that people are edit warring over its inclusion/removal. If you find something in an article that you don't believe is properly sourced, by all means remove it. But, if you are reverted, take it to the talk page. Add a {{fact}} tag to the disputed section. Alert the regular contributors, but do not edit war. If a citation is requested, we'll look for a citation (whether or not one is really needed, the more citations an article has the better the article becomes). - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that people are so desperate to repeat every goddamn criticism of Fox on every bit of information they can shows that this is definately POV pushing. The actual 'criticism' section is too far gone - I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to balance a page ruled by 'mediamatters' fans. Frankly even the Bill O'Reilly controversy bit isn't as bad as this. At least the MAIN Fox News page can still be a genuinely useful encyclopedic article and not just a regurgitation of bloggers' little checklists on how Fox is run by fascists. Letting peoples' agendas seep into a page just makes it look untrustworthy. Edders 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When your rant ends and you wish to discuss actual improvements to the article, please let me know. - auburnpilot talk 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Either discuss the changes, or editors are soon going to be blocked; edit warring is not tolerated. I've reverted twice, the blatant removal of sourced information that is perfectly in line with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Removing material because you don't like it is unacceptable. - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore your personal insult and note that I wasn't directing it at you, if that's how you read it. I was appealing to people not to let this article go down the toilet as others about controversial subjects have. I've been watching the page for a long time without editing it, and I've noticed that Fox is vandalized so many times not by people simply adding 'you suck' but continuously replacing 'Fox' with 'Faux' or "Republican'. This is testiment to the childish zeal the subject inspires in some critics, who just want to turn it into a whinging blog post rather than a encyclopedic article.

Also, Auburn Pilot and the other editor who keep removing the controversy bit in the opening - bring it to the discussion page, guys! :) Edders 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you have my apologies. If you've been watching this page, you know this introduction has been the subject of discussion since October 2006. Maybe you haven't been watching it that long, but that is why I tend to have a short fuse in regards to this article. No matter how many times it is explained, no matter how many editors explain it, another editor always comes in and repeatedly blanks the introduction for the very reasons we've explained are not at play. Then, of course, they either refuse to discuss the matter or refuse to acknowledge policy is against them. - auburnpilot talk 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to understand how it actually conforms to policy, but there have been many examples on how it does not conform to either WP:NPOV or WP:WEASEL, let alone the grey-area decision on WP:RS (competitors == bias in itself). Actually, "competitors" might be a good compromise, swapping it with the more ambiguous "critics". After all, the report as its only source (which, as history shows is not allowed to be referenced in the lead, although NPOV states we should only report facts about POV and always cite it no matter where in the article it is seen). The report was about FNC's competitors. --66.227.194.89 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Each time you make an edit, you come up with an even stranger reason for your actions. Now the sources are "grey area" and from competitors. You must be joking, right? The Project for Excellence in Journalism (source 1) was conducting by all of these people. This includes multiple journalism schools at major universities. The second source is an article by the Financial Times. How these are "grey area" in WP:RS is beyond me. Funny, we had another user swap reasons with every post once before...The position that critics believe the channel is conservative is fact. Please read the sentence. It does not say FNC is conservative. That would be a violation of NPOV; this is not. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are now 4 sources for the sentence in the introduction. This includes two studies done by American universities in addition to two sources with statements from critics (the source's wording) including US House Representative Diane Watson. You cannot possibly have an issue with the sourcing of this statement now. - auburnpilot talk 05:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This was all already covered in the last eight months of discussion, as well as in the FAQ at the top of this page. How can we continue to assume good faith when this guy/these guys are just re-using malformed arguments that have already been explained? /Blaxthos 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're still stating policy, you can assume good faith. And no, this is still in violation of the weasel word guide, and of the NPOV POLICY. Specifically cite them, otherwise it will continually be a violation. You could put "Democratic representatives, and the 2006 Study [...] composed of mostly competitors of the network see the channel as an advocate of conservativism in the United States." That is both factual and in accordiance with policy. The version right now, is not. And I've proved that numerous times; you users have not demonstrated its compliance with NPOV at all. --66.227.194.89 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated within WP:NPOV, an opinion stated as fact is acceptable and exactly what should be done: "rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results...". I guess you missed that part of NPOV. Critics believe FNC is conservative; that is a verified opinion stated clearly. The sentence doesn't say FNC is conservative, the sentence states that it is the critics' belief. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' claim is backed up in numerous, specific polls. The issue of FNC as a conservative organization is backed up in one poll of critics. That does not constitute enough reasoning for it to be included the way it is. You have one poll from one organization, which means unless you cite it as such, that's nothing to brag about, especially in the lead]]]. --66.227.194.89 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's been involved in this debate briefly in the past, I have to say that I still think that if editors are going to continue to patrol this page, they should remain civil, regardless of how many times similar issues are brought up. If you can't remain civil, then you should probably take a break from this page.

As far as the sentence in the intro, I generally agree with what auburnpilot said. The statement identifies (broadly) the source of the opinion, and the citations identify it more specifically. I interpret this as being generally consistent with the intent of WP:WEASEL, which is to ensure that opinions are properly attributed. However, I do understand that it would be undeniably not weaselly if the word "critics" were replaced with a specific critic, but I think it's fine as is.

As far as the "controversial" description in the "Fair and Balanced" image caption, I generally agree with Tom, JGP, and the anon editor(s) in that it shouldn't be there. The body of the text provides plenty of info about the slogan, and I agree that unless a source specifically says "the slogan is controversial", that it's original research to say it is. (Note that if someone wants to add a source that says that specifically, I would have no problem with leaving it in the caption). Cogswobbletalk 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is anyone who will argue that there is no perception of conservative bias at Foxnews is just not dealing with reality. In addition this perception is well cited in the intro. Further, one need not be far left to have the bias. Bill O'Reilly has stated numerous times that Fox News "tilts right" sometimes. Clearly he is not a critic of the channel, and clearly he is not a liberal. But that is beside the point, until someone can come up with how the citations are wrong and that one political viewpoint encompasses all of the holders of this perception the intro stays as is. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you responding to me or to the thread in general? If you read what I said, I'm not arguing in the least against a perspective of bias. The only thing I objected to was calling the "Fair and Balanced" slogan "controversial" in the caption without citing a source that says it's controversial. I agree that it's controversial, but according to WP:OR, my opinion isn't a reliable source. Cogswobbletalk 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's taking WP:OR entirely too far... use some common sense. WP:OR is to keep wikipedia from becoming a place where new thought is synthesized and proffered for consumption. No new thought is being synthesized, and I think people are trying to use technical interpretation of policy to nuance the article. This isn't an WP:OR issue. /Blaxthos 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth is it taking WP:OR too far to suggest that a clearly controversial statement should be clearly cited? Every time I read a Featured Article off the main page, it's chock full of citations and references around every statement that even sniffs of controversy or original research, yet you seem to be arguing for fewer citations around such statements in this article, by simply declaring that certain policies don't apply. I fail to see how adding references can make the article poorer. Cogswobbletalk 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogswobble, you interpret WP:OR differently than I do. Fox News' conservative bias is cited in the article. Al Franken's criticism of Fox News and the resulting trademark dispute got sustantial press coverage at the time. Also, the IMI petition regarding the "Fair and Balanced" trademark is cited. It's not that much of a stretch to use the adjective "controversial" to describe these disputes. My complaint regarding the use of the word "controversial" in the caption is that it reads like it was written by someone who has a grudge against Fox News. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I think its text should have a more professional and impartial feel to it. --JHP 03:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Critics and observers of the channel see Fox News as advocating conservative political positions". This alleges that all critics and all observers of media allege that Fox News is a conservative organization. That's plain false - not only a violation of WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL (not to mention WP:RS) - it's just incorrect. However, one more thing needs to be stated concerning "Fair and balanced"... I don't believe there is a single person or entity that is disputing that FNC holds the trademark to the term "Fair and balanced." Since that is the case, it would be extremely irresponsible to insert a "controversial" or "disputed" tag in front of it. --66.227.194.89 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And again you've linked to policy and guideline without attempting to explain how the introduction is in violation of these policies and guidelines. And as an added bonus, you're now throwing in WP:VERIFY. We've quoted specific policies which clearly support the wording, sources, and inclusion of the statement within the introduction. You have yet to do so for your position. The introduction does not state all critics or all observers (your wording) and is backed up by sources. Your argument and interpretation of policy is flat out wrong. How many people will it take explaining this to you before it sinks in? - auburnpilot talk 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The perception of bias is verified by the survey of journalists who all can't be critics. It is neutral because it is only stating that there is a widespread perception(which Ailes and Murdoch admit to in the interview cited "People think Foxnews is conservative... Notice he didn't say "Democrats, the Left, or Critics). And when the holders of a position are too numerous and diverse to quantify, weasel words are proper. Finally, all the citations are reliable under the definition of WP:RS. So I am sorry to say that you are 0 for 4 in your policy citations. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the disputed text in the introduction. I think it is appropriate and should remain, although I recommend saying "critics" rather than "critics and observers". The text is well-cited. The text is "fair and balanced" because it mentions both the criticism of Fox News, as well as Fox's defense. Conversely, I still think the caption for the "Fair & Balanced" logo smacks of bias. The controversy is appropriately covered in the text of the article. The dogmatic insistance on using the word "controversial" in the caption is overkill. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean you have to mention it everywhere it appears in the article. In fact, it is not the logo that is controversial; it is the slogan that is controversial. Perhaps we should remove the logo altogether, and let the text of the article speak for itself. --JHP 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion of the "Fair and Balanced" logo issue (meaning I do have one, but I am trying to side step that issue). As for the introduction, the reason observers needs to remain is due to the citation. If we limit the phrase to only critics, it becomes incorrect. For example, I am sure there are a sizable number of independant and right leaning journalist in that survey that believe that FoxNews is biased, however, they may not be critics. I'll use myself as an anecdotal example. I don't think the mention of bias belongs in the intro as long as it covered in the article, but I believe the bias exists, and I am not a critic of Foxnews as I believe all news is presented with bias and spin. So the intro, to be accurate, should leave room open for people like me. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JHP on both counts. I think that "critics" is better than "critics and observers", but at the moment I'm not too opposed to leaving "and observers" in. I think that the caption "controversy" text is unnecessary and should be removed (or at the very least cited explicitly). Cogswobbletalk 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It still should specifically list the most prominent entities. The statement is still simply in violation of WP:NPOV, which makes it clear that we are to cite facts about opinions explicitly. --66.227.194.89 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing a fact about an opinion is precisely what is happening here. The sources back up the claim and nothing more needs to be said. I, Blaxthos, Cogswobble, JHP, and Ramsquire have explained this to you. - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have much stronger objection to the new wording that was just introduced. "Many critics and observers" adds a weasel word for no good reason. I think it's far better to leave it as "Critics and observers", and my preference is for simply "Critics". Cogswobbletalk 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically citing examples is the only way this item can be resolved under policy. Anything less is just wasting time, and will never fit under WP policies. --66.227.194.89 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem removing "many" from the wording and believe the sentence was better before (re)introducing the phrase. As to the image, while I really don't care either way, I don't see the harm in adding a citation. - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, would anyone mind if we split these two discussions into separate threads? It's getting kind of confusing with half the statements about the caption and half about the intro :-P I'll make a try of it and see if it sticks. Cogswobbletalk 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced Image Caption

I am going to do a complete rewrite of the "Fair & Balanced" caption in an attempt at compromise. Please let me know how you like (or hate) it. --JHP 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My preferred caption is still simply "Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" trademark", since I don't think the image caption needs to be wordy at all. But I won't object to your caption, since it basically just summarizes what's in the adjacent section. Cogswobbletalk 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually find the new caption to be a fair compromise. It clearly states the controversy exists (giving a reason for the image to be there) and that the controversy is related to the slogan. This caption is also backed up by the paragraph and the sources within. - auburnpilot talk 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My model for the caption is the image boxes that often appear in textbooks or encyclopedias. They often have an image of the topic under discussion and a caption that either summarizes nearby text or provides some little bit of trivia about the topic. --JHP 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's still weasely - there was one trademark dispute that really isn't that notable at all. I think its article deals with this issue nicely - we don't need to do any additional work at its presence, other than to note it is a slogan or that it is trademarked by FNC. --66.227.194.89 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the latest problem is that there are also allegations of liberal bias, I removed "conservative" leaving the statement "... controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". This encompasses all possibilities of any bias. - auburnpilot talk 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there were two trademark disputes. How the hell could anyone (except a right-wing extremist) think they have a liberal bias? --JHP 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to Nuke the caption, but maybe we should just have the image :). OK please carry on with the agebda pushing, thanks, --Tom 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you're willing to compromise. --JHP 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I've re-reinserted AuburnPilot's compromise version. /Blaxthos 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the agenda pushing. There has to be reliable sources WHO say there is a contraversy. It is orginal research/POV to slap labels on that caption. Take it to a blog or elsewhere, just stick to facts that can be sourced and verified. Thanks, --Tom 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, stop with the spurious claims of agenda pushing, malformed arguments and flawed logic, and edit warring. Consensus is against you, and further edit warring will be both a 3RR violation and a thumb in the eye of editors who have been working together. Stop the incivility and disruptive edits please. /Blaxthos 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you provide a source that SAYS Fox's SLOGAN has had accusations of bias? --Tom 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what the caption is trying to encapsulate is the "controversy" and accusations in the adjoining section, namely Al Franken's book. The Slogan has not had accusations of bias. Bear with me here, Fox has been accused of bias, and because it uses Fair and Balanced as a slogan, these accusers take issue with the slogan e.g. Al Franken's use of the slogan in his book. Unfortunately that can't go in the caption, so besides these few words of explanation, I have no solution to this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Will you provide a source that SAYS Fox's SLOGAN has had accusations of bias? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?  ;-) I think you're confusing your arguments, Tom. There is no accusation of bias regarding the slogan... The slogan has caused controversy, and we're noting such. This isn't original research. This isn't unverifiable. This isn't misleading. This isn't unsourced. It's simply true. Editors above came up with a more clearly worded version, which seems to have gathered consensus except for you, who would rather remove the image and caption instead of allowing controversy to be noted/explained. Let it go, man... /Blaxthos 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, as the editor above states, the SLOGAN image says that "the SLOGAN has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". My problem is that this makes it seem that the SLOGAN is biased. That may be the case, I don't know since I am not that firmiliar with this article. If that is the case, provide a source. If it is NOT the case, the image caption should be reworded. What can you and I agree on. I preffer LESS than more. How about, "The Fox News "Fair & Balanced" slogan has been the subject of trademark disputes." This appears to be factual I guess. Anyways, cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Massive spelling errors aside, you're changing up your reasoning and logic and missing the point... There is no POV issue when stating fact... and no one can deny that "Fair and Balanced" has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. The controversies go beyond a trademark dispute, and by trying to EXPLAIN the controversies (and all the surrounding sides) you're biting off more than you need chew. I am in favor of just tagging it as controversial.... but I'm going with the consensus version that was put together above. It's verifiable, factual, and concise. It doesn't give any undue credibility to note that it's been the subject of such. /Blaxthos 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My spelling sucks, admitted. So much for my Ivy league education :). Its not about what "no one can deny that" it is about SOURCES saying that "the SLOGAN has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". You need to provide sources/links that say that exact thing, not YOUR analysis. I see this all the time where an editor will say "read the article, its clear that this is what is meant" ect. All I have an issue with is the CAPTION for their slogan image. Again, I have no hourse in this race. I could give a hoot about Fox. You have an admitted bias towards Fox. OK, whatever, we/you/I still need to provide sources for material in question or it should be left out. --Tom 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My previous attempt to resolve the conflict seems to have failed, so I propose a new solution: Completely remove the image and the adjoining caption. There are too many Fox News screenshots in the article anyway. Most of the Fox News images don't provide the reader with any useful information, so if we have one that is causing a huge debate, just delete it. --JHP 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, I would rather have less, than more that, imo, is not properly sourced. --Tom 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it unless someone voices an objection. --JHP 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image that was causing the fight. If you object to this decision, please voice your objections here. --JHP 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in this section in no way indicates a changed consensus to remove the "Fair & Balanced" image, and it was pretty disingenuous to remove it citing "in accordance with Talk discussion." The burden is on Talk page objectors when attempting to change consensus versions, and you (User:JHP) are in no place to demand that editors not restore a consensus version over your edits. Italiavivi 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be less hostile Italiavivi. JHP only removed it after waiting an entire day for any objections, and only after another editor agreed with the change, and he never demanded that other editors not restore a "consensus" version.

I'm reverting to the more verbose version of this caption. It seemed to have significantly more support than the shorter version. Please discuss it here if you change it again. Cogswobbletalk 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not going to revert it now, because I don't want to even come close to WP:3RR, which I think applies to any revert anywhere on a page, not just a particular revert. I'd suggest that someone change this back to the more verbose version? Cogswobbletalk 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, WHO is saying that their slogan is contraversial? All I am asking for is SOURCES, NOT orginal research. Please don't come back with "read the article, oh course its contraversial, everybody can see that" that is the essence of original research. Wikipedia is NOT about the truth but about presenting ALREADY produced peer reviewed material. Anyways, I would rather not even have the image if its going to be "labeled" as such. Cheers! --Tom 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is an image that is causing a fight, and neither the image nor its caption add any useful information beyond that already contained in the text of the article, the simple thing to do is to delete the image. If you don't think the image should be deleted, please explain how it benefits the readers of the article. Also, please propose some compromise text for the caption. Unfortunately, there are some people on both sides of this debate who are so insistent on having things their way, that not only do they revert changes of the opposing side, but they also revert any attempts at compromise. --JHP 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking MAYBE using "disputed" in the caption, but then I thought, no WHAT DO RELIABLE SOURCES SAY?? That should be what we use. Again, I am in no way married to this article or caption so I have no problem if its removed. I do have a problem with the caption if it can NOT be properly sourced. Am I repeating myself :). Anyways, Iam off to a May day celebration and NO, I am not a communist/socialist or whoever it is that celebrates this :) Cheers!--Tom 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

you want sources? you've got sources. Doldrums 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to read/understand those but didn't get to far. Can you please use something that simple folks like myself can view and comprehend? Why not just leave the caption with LESS labeling/description? The reader can read the article and decide for themselves? Thanks, --Tom 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)p.s. I got past the registration issues, but the 4th referecne, the section on Fox is NOT even included in the "review"?? anyways --Tom 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

incidentally, u can read the relevant quotes from those citations, which i've posted below, in the intro section. having read them, would you say that reliable sources bear out the caption i placed? are you suggesting that the reader can read the article and "decide for himself" that several academic sources call Fox's coverage biased, without us mentioning that they do? Doldrums 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

also, do tell me why you think these are not "mainstream/easily verifiable" sources. thanks, Doldrums 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doldrums, this is more about the caption for Fox's slogan and not about Fox's bias. The sources you gave were through google search or something. I personally would like a direct link to the site rather than that google search, thats all. Anyways, --Tom 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, I waited for two days between my proposed deletion of the image and the actual deletion of the image. Nobody objected. Quite frankly, few others wait as long as I did before making their edits. --JHP 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the caption should not have the statement relating to the controversy. The real controversy is the phrase "Fair and Balanced", but the wording on the image often gives the appearance that the image is controversal, when that is clearly not the case. Additionally it is undue weight. The controversy is already being discussed in the paragraph, there seems little point and stating again that their is controversy in the image right next to the paragraph which is describing the controversy. Arzel 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the caption mentioning the controversy, as long as it's done something like this: [1], because it's simply a summary of the subsection next to it, and it doesn't ambiguously label the slogan as "controversial".

I also don't have a problem with the caption not mentioning much of anything, as you've currently implemented it. Cogswobbletalk 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro Statement

I have no problem removing "many" from the wording and believe the sentence was better before (re)introducing the phrase. As to the image, while I really don't care either way, I don't see the harm in adding a citation. - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Which version did you think was better? "Critics and observers..." or just "Critics..."? I'm going to go ahead and change it to "Critics..." because that's the one I prefer ;-) but I won't object if someone changes it to "Critics and observers..." Cogswobbletalk 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep "and observers" simply because the opinion is not held just by critics. I believe the studies and link to a comment by a US Rep go to the "and observers" while the fourth goes to "critics" (specifically stated in the source). Combined, you have "critics and observers". - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to leave the "and observers" off because I tend to agree with the anonymous editor that it makes it sound as if everyone who observes Fox News thinks they are biased - whereas it's fairly safe to say that all their critics think they are biased. But as I said, I don't strongly object. Cogswobbletalk 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of the catch-22. If we leave in "and observers" it implies all observers. If we add "many observers" its too weaselly. Observers definitely view the channel as conservative (not just critics), so how do we word this correctly? - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Some critics and observers...". It allows the point to be made without being as strongly suggestive as "many" or an implied "all". Anything that doesn't specifically name who is bound to be weaselly, but I think there's a broad enough section of the population that naming a few individuals or groups is really not appropriate. --JHP 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or what about "Critics and some observers..."? For me that encapsulates it a bit better. Cogswobbletalk 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that and have reinstated the "and some observers" phrase. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can deal with this compromise of "some observers". --66.227.194.89 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

These types of statements should not be in the intro of ANY Television Station. CNN, FOX, ABC, whatever. It is a non-encyclopedic fact and should be reserved for a specific section. It's primary purpose is to criticize, and is not informative. Arzel 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are flat out wrong. Please read WP:LEAD where it clearly states such controversies should be included. - auburnpilot talk 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, please find room in the lead to include Accuracy in Media's stance that FNC is in a stage of a "leftward drift". Surely AIM must be a big enough organization to be represented as counterbalance under WP:NPOV. --66.227.194.89 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No where in the lead is any argument made that there is a bias at FoxNews. The intro only states that critics and observe see (or in other words Believe) that Fox has a rightward bias--it is about the perception of bias, not the fact of its existence. The intro is neutral because it doesn't take any stance. To add your sentence would be to take a position and violate NPOV. IF you feel the sentence should be in the article place it in the bias discussion, but not in the lead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it realy a notable controversy if it is only a perception of bias from a few sources? Arzel 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a notable controversy. What do you want? For us to source every person in history who has ever had the perception? The comment that this is only from a few sources is ridiculous. One source substantiating the perception would have been enough; we provided extra to reinforce the point. - auburnpilot talk 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe that would fall under the undue weight clause of NPOV which states "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". I am not, however, opposed to the inclusion. I certainly don't support it either. I guess I just don't care. - auburnpilot talk 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This topic can have that effect on people. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy in Media are an extremely conservative organisation who always accuse Fox News as well as all the other news organisations of things like "leftward drift". Canderra 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they're a conservative group, they don't matter? The CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) is completely liberal, and we're using one persons' POV from that group as a source for the lead statement that shouldn't be there. Source #6, which is being used as a source to the statement, (yes, statement - if it wasn't a statement, it would be attributed) but it doesn't even address anything related. But the media study is focused on one program, Special Report with Brit Hume, amongst other networks of its time (the study, although released in 12/04, hasn't researched programs since 03). These two sources that were included are probably FUD. So, in reality - you have a Project for Excellence in Media report and one Democratic congresswoman (dig up Howard Dean's comment and that'll give another example). That's two personal opinions of FNC being conservative, and one professional opinion. There is a prominent example of the network being considered left. It's not undue weight. --66.227.194.89 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw your comment after mine, but I see you came to roughly the same conclusion. Arzel 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Canderra, what you said is correct. However, many left-wing editors are happy to use left-wing media watchdogs like FAIR and Media Matters as sources. If left-wing media watchdogs can be used as sources, then right-wing media watchdogs have to be allowed as well. Personally, I don't think such agenda-pushing organizations are reliable sources no matter what their political persuasion. --JHP 00:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the opinion of the owner of the subject itself. It's in footnote 8--and to quote “People think we’re conservative but we’re not conservative.” That's from Rupert Murdoch himself, totally validating that the perception exists, and denying it's truthfulness. That is exactly what the intro does, states the perception and the denial by Foxnews. Also, please note again, he uses people, which may be an admission that it isn't just critics. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From the WP:LEAD Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. Thus this should be both significant and notable. After reviewing the 4 reference sources for the intro (4,5,6,7) the following is obvious.

4 - This is a survey of journalists, who by their definition consider FOX to be the most conservative by either a two to one or three to one margin, the statistics they use are a little confusing. However, ref 7, which uses other research to justify it's study uses as a critera that journalists are two to three times as likely to be Democrats versus Republican. Ref 4 makes no note of the limitations in it's study, and just based off this fact it is not too suprising that they would get those results. In any case, ref 4 is not really a criticism of any source, but a report of how journalists feel, and is certainly not a direct criticism of FOX.

5 - This is a criticism by Democratic hopefulls only.

6 - This is basically 5.

7 - This is the only true research which could be used to back up the statement. However, this study is not critical of FOX or any other broadcast station, futhermore it does not state empirically that FOX is conservative, only that it is more conservative than some of the others. Additionally, ref 7 is specific to FOX Special Report and not to FOX in general.

As such only two of the references clearly state any criticism, and the cricticsm comes directly from Democratic hopefulls and not the general public or even the "general" critic as the lead would imply. Thus the intro needs to drop the "observer" tag, and include the clarrifier that it is Democratic hopefulls, or maybe more specific Democrats that view FOX to have a conservative bias. Finally, none of these is either significant or notable. Arzel 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're 6 months too late for the debate on whether or not the statement will be included. You are welcome to discuss the wording of the statement, but even the hard opposers have worked to find a version of the sentence which is acceptable. Try working with the group, please. - auburnpilot talk 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCC Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.

After reading much of the history I have not found any consistent concensus regarding this issue. It appears there have been several other people that have also made the same comment to be rebuted with "concensus was reached". That aside, I see this article has had considerable discussion, which appears to derive from the fact that some very vocal anti-FNC people want to make sure that everyone knows that FNC is biased, giving the whole article a feeling of bias. In any case, the intro is not factual. Reference 7 does not back up the claim it is referencing. No reference makes any link to the general population which would attribute the word "Observer". The most serious claims of bias come from Democrats, specifically relating to the upcoming 2008 primaries. Arzel 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Azrel said here. I don't think the "consensus" argument should be used to stop discussion here, and I do think that the "observer" word would be better left out of the intro. Cogswobbletalk 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't care if there was a consensus then. The introduction is specifically written within policy and guideline. The references reinforce the statements, as does the section later in the article. Nobody here is anti-FNC, and if you actually read the archives, you would note that I was originally 100% opposed to the statement's inclusion. However, after discussion and a thorough reading of policy, I realized the errors in my argument. I'll link to WP:LEAD one last time, in hopes you (Arzel) will actually read it. The lead must be an overview of the article in it's ENTIRETY. If anything, we need to expand the lead, not reduce it. - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, perhaps you should re-read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:WELCOME, and most importantly WP:VERIFIABILITY. I spent over two hours last night reading through the archives and the reference links in the intro. Please explain to me how concensus was reached when throughout the past 6 months there has been continued questioning of the concensus and a flury of "sour grapes" statements to those questioning the concensus. Please explain to me how ref 7 in anyway possible backs up the claim that FNC in general is biased or that it is critical of FNC. Please show me on any of the references where any claim of observer is made. Arzel 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Arzel, but you're just spinning your wheels here. This has all been covered extensively, and I see no need to continue this conversation when it's plainly covered once every month or so in the archives for the past 8 months. /Blaxthos 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been extensively discussed without any clear concensus and continued arguement. Arzel 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the "it's been covered so there should be no more discussion" argument. Arzel said he read the entire archives and isn't convinced that consensus was reached. I read the entire archives a little while back, and I agree with him. I think there's plenty of room for discussion about the content of the intro statement. Just because the debate has continued for 8 months doesn't mean the debate is over. Frankly, I don't think it will ever be, after all, this is Wikipedia.

Again, I agree with Arzel specifically in that I think the intro statement would be better off without the "observers" part. Alternately, a better "observers" reference could be found. Cogswobbletalk 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogwobble and Arzel, no where in the introduction is there a statement that Foxnews is conservatively biased or that there has been research done "proving" any bias at Foxnews. The intro is only stating "People (a group too numerous and diverse to be quantified-- see WP:WEASEL) BELIEVE (again it is just a retelling of a perception--does anyone deny this perception exist?) Foxnews is conservative and that Fox denies that this BELIEF is true. Normally, I don't like sending people to the archives or shutting off discussion under the "consensus has been reached" argument, but it may do you guys well to actually re-read the discussion. In any case, I'll summarize: when the intro stated "Foxnews is a conservative news network" many editors were up in arms, and changed it (correctly IMO) to the "consensus" version (meaning the version we are arguing to keep. I could use current but everyday that changes) which is simply attempting to state that "Many people believe FoxNews is conservatively biased, however Fox denies this". If you have any suggestions on getting this out more clearly, please advise. But note that it is not just critics that have this perception, and that this perception relates to Fox's noteworthiness. Therefore, it stays in the lead and to only state critics is misleading and violates NPOV under the undue weight provisions. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To all those who wish to remove "observers", please come up with a reliable source supporting your position that it is only critics who hold this perception. Otherwise we shouldn't remove sourced information with unsourced info. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously considering a Rebuttable presumption regarding this issue. Do you have any idea what kind of precedent this would result in? Did you read what I had said earlier? NOWHERE in any of those references is there any mention of a general public concensus that FNC is biased. Those reports deal specifically with a Democratic perception that FNC is biased. As to your assertaion of what people believe, that is pure opinion. If you want an acceptable NPOV version clearly state the facts backed up with the two primary references. Possible suggested starting point: Critics consider FNC to be more conservative than other contemporary news organizations. with refs 5 and 6. Clean, concise, no weasle, not inflamatory, neutral. Arzel 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can go along with Arzel's suggested rephrasing. But are we really sure that only critics consider Fox News to be more conservative? I strongly suspect that even conservatives believe that Fox News is more conservative. That's why they like the channel so much. How about "Fox News Channel is widely considered to be more conservative than most competing news organizations"? If the entire debate is about the word "bias", then let's get rid of that single word but still keep the word "conservative". --JHP 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that there is a "general public concensus_[sic] that FNC is biased". Did you read what we've all been saying for the last 8 months? You miss the point entirely, and I'm starting to find it difficult to come up with a response that doesn't involve "you didn't read" or "you do not understand". /Blaxthos 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'll be ignoring this user on this topic. It's clear that he/she is coming from an angle, that I just can't decipher. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How does removing "observers" violate WP:UNDUE? I've seen a lot of mention of this policy in this discussion, but most of the arguments that claim support from "undue weight" seem to be in contrast to what the policy actually says. Nothing in WP:UNDUE says anything about giving undue weight to any particular source. In fact, WP:UNDUE explicitly mentions that prominent adherents of a position should be named.

Furthermore, I disagree strongly that the "too numerous and diverse to qualify" exception somehow justifies any wording of the intro. The example used in WP:WEASEL for this exception is the rather benign "some people prefer cats, others prefer dogs". I just don't think that's even close to being equivalent to this issue.

To clarify, I don't have a problem with saying "Critics accuse..." and then citing some specific critics. I think this satisfies WP:UNDUE by naming prominent adherents (through the citation), and it satisfies WP:WEASEL by citing some example critics. Again - in my opinion, I think that "observers" is much more weaselly since it fails to qualify the holder of the opinion. Cogswobbletalk 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are we back to this again? We went through this in October. Are you sure you've read? This is the intro, and naming individual critics to try and characterize the entirety of the controversies assigns that critic (or observer) undue weight. Read WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV (and where this was covered back in the day). /Blaxthos 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(to Cogswobble--edit conflict) Just so I understand where we are coming from... You view a scientific survey of journalists where almost 70 percent believe that Fox is biased, and you get from that they must be all critics? In addition, you were the very person who found the quote from Murdoch, that said "People" and yet you want the intro to only state critics in direct opposition to two of the sources that have been provided, one of which was provided by you. I don't see how that could be done.

As for undue weight question, it is not the source, it is the elevation of a specific type of source. For example, if we said Greenwald, we would be elevating the "far-left" to the holders and denying more moderate and conservative persons who also hold the perception. (At least this is what the consensus was when I proposed naming specific persons-- see the archive).

Finally, I don't have a problem with "critics accuse", and it dovetails nicely with two of the sources, but it directly contradicts two others.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify a little more. I am not at all opposed to "Critics...". I am weakly opposed to "...and some observers..." - I just don't think it's necessary, because I just think it is more weaselly than necessary, I'm not going to make proactive arguments to get rid of it, but I will weakly support other people who do. I would be opposed to "and some observers" because it fails to quantify entirely, implying that all observers feel that way.

As far as the "undue weight" thing - this statement "it is the elevation of a specific type of source" is exactly what I have a problem with. I don't see any mention of that in WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying it's not an argument you should use, just that I don't see it in WP:UNDUE.

Also, from what I've seen, the strongest and most prominent criticism of Fox News is qualifiable as coming from Democratic or left wing sources, so I don't think it's misrepresentative to cite it as such. Cogswobbletalk 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about using numbers, but you made three points and I need to keep it clear (multitasking). 1.Fair enough 2. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, I'm just letting it be known, that a) the discussion occurred previously and b) what the consensus voice was. I would actually prefer to name specific people, but I see the point that doing so narrows down the group of people we are referring to to the exclusion of others. 3. In the body of the article, that distinction is made much more clearly (and also in the Controversies article as well). But since the introduction is a brief overview, it would be misleading to make that distinction, considering the sources used. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

noting State of the Media 2007 journalists survey finding:

At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. [...] Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.[2]

Doldrums 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

one more source

Fox News had never been known for its impartiality: most of its program hosts freely mixed opinion and news. In times past the cable network had won favour with conservative politicians and viewers because of its definite right-wing sympathies. Now Fox News had proved that its brand of war coverage, full of bombast and vigour and patriotism was a crowd pleaser.

-Rutherford, Paul (2004), Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq, University of Toronto Press, p. 105

Doldrums 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

more sources

Featuring overtly conservative talk show hosts and programming and outright ideologically biased news reporting, the network nevertheless brands itself "Fair and balanced". [...] In some ways, the network doesn't shy from the "conservative" label placed on it by critics because it argues that "the American people" believe the news media is liberal, and hence the network is therefore offering a corrective choice.

-Jones, Jeffrey P. (2005), Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 51, ISBN 0742530884

Fox uses a different approach to news from its main competitor, CNN. It is 'populist, politically partisan (despite its claim to be "fair and balanced") and aggressively patriotic' (Tait 2004b, 12). As far as its owner, Rupert Murdoch is concerned, Fox is a 'really objective news channel', in comparison to the liberal approach taken by CNN.

-Harrison, Jackie (2006), News, Routledge, p. 164, ISBN 0415319498

Commentators have called its 24-hour cable-news channel a politically conservative alternative for news, but Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes disagrees. "We said we were going to do fair and balanced news, and that scared them" he said.

-Maynard, Nancy (2000), Mega Media: How Market Forces Are Transforming News, Trafford Publishing, p. 45, ISBN 0970129203

Explanations for [FNC's] new-found popularity typically revolved around the stridently right-wing, pro-war stance informing its reporting and commentary, generally said to be more "in tune" with public opinion than CNN's more neutral stance. The openly partisan agenda of Fox - its logo "fair and balanced" being derided by critics as a misnomer - was discernable at a number of levels.

-Zelizer, Barbie; Allan, Stuart (2004), Reporting War: journalism in wartime, Routledge, pp. 6–7, ISBN 0415339979

The Fox News Channel [...] attributes its success to a "Fair and Balanced" (its tag line) approach. But others feel that Fox has a distinctly right-leaning tone that actively courts conservative viewers disillusioned by a perceived liberal bias in the media.

-Vault Guide To The Top Media & Entertainment Employers, Vault (company), 2005, p. 115, ISBN 1581313373 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Doldrums 11:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why it's necessary to address this in the intro at all. Criticism traditionally goes in the body. We don't start our article on The New York Times by talking about how liberal its critics claim it is. It seems needlessly antagonistic to insist it be included in the intro here. Besides, even if a compromise on the exact wording is reached today, it will come up again in another month or two. Why not just give it its own section and end the drama before it starts? Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

why in the lead - see Q1 in FAQ at top of page. my previous response (and other comments) in Archive 16. as for "it'll come up again", i hardly need point out that exactly the same argument can be made for leaving it out - in a month's time someone will turn up wanting to know why a notable feature of FNC is missing in the lead. the appropriate way to handle such things would be to sum up the arguments in a subpage and note the prevailing consensus on the FAQ above. Doldrums 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why it's necessary to address this in the intro at all. Criticism traditionally goes in the body. We don't start our article on The New York Times by talking about how liberal its critics claim it is. It seems needlessly antagonistic to insist it be included in the intro here. Besides, even if a compromise on the exact wording is reached today, it will come up again in another month or two. Why not just give it its own section and end the drama before it starts? Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

why in the lead - see Q1 in FAQ at top of page. my previous response (and other comments) in Archive 16. as for "it'll come up again", i hardly need point out that exactly the same argument can be made for leaving it out - in a month's time someone will turn up wanting to know why a notable feature of FNC is missing in the lead. the appropriate way to handle such things would be to sum up the arguments in a subpage and note the prevailing consensus on the FAQ above. Doldrums 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "consensus". It doesn't mean "more people said X than Y, so X wins". It means "the people who said Y have been irrefutably proved wrong or have withdrawn their opposition, so X is the only remaining valid option". That hasn't happened here. Not by a long shot. And citing somebody's (whose?) idea of an "FAQ" doesn't mean nobody ever gets to ask those questions anymore. That's not how a talk page works. Kafziel ^Talk 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated numerous times, one of the reasons Foxnews is notable is due to the belief by many that it advocates conservative political positions, as well as the fact that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and that it is the number one cable news network in America. To highlight two reasons for its notability and dismiss the third, would seem to violate NPOV. Also, the conservative bias is discussed in detail in the body of the article in the history and controversy section. Under the guidelines of WP:LEAD, a sentence or so of the intro should be dedicated to each subsection of the article whenever possible. Finally, I disagree strongly with the edit protection of the article, as the only person edit warring was Threeafterthree (who could've simply been blocked under WP:3RR, the other editors were removing his changes until a consensus was reached on the trademark caption issue. No one was edit warring in the intro for the past few days. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel, you can look at it one of two ways. If you want to understand why something is the way it is, you're welcome to read the FAQ and the archives to realize why the community has created the current version. By doing so, you'll learn that every point that has subsequently been brought up, considered in the formulation of this version, and has been satisfied. Or, if you're trying to invalidate your vote-counting argument, there still haven't been as many "oh hey why are we doing it this way?" johnny-come-latelies as there were participants in the original RFC (RFC's and other actions, actually). So, either way, we put the FAQ up to show that, "hey, you're not the first person to wonder why this is done this way... maybe this will help explain it." Given all the oversight this process went through (and continues to go through) it's going to take more than en pessant editors mis-applying nuanced policy. /Blaxthos 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like. The other editors who were reverting his changes had no more right to do so than he had to make them. He did not violate 3RR (and if we're going to talk about blocking someone based on the spirit of 3RR, then I could have blocked everyone involved - it wouldn't be my first time). Reach consensus (not just a bunch of people shouting louder than some other people, as I explained above) and then the article will be unprotected.

You can disagree all you like. Wow, there's a great attitude to have on a consensus driven project. Also, editors don't have a right to delete what they deem bad faith changes? Finally, I said "COULD'VE" been blocked, NOT "SHOULD'VE" been blocked, meaning you could have gone to a less extreme measure, than blocking the entire article based on the conduct in one small part of the article. I ask you again to reconsider your edit protecion. Vigorous debate on the talk page is NOT edit warring. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not consensus-driven. It is unilateral. That's why admins sit through a whole long process where the community discusses whether to let each of us have the ability to do it. The consensus was yes (unopposed, in fact), and that consensus extends to my ability to protect this page without talking it over first.

And, no, editors do not have the right to delete what they deem bad faith changes. At least, they don't have the right to do it over and over and over again. The only exception to 3RR is vandalism, and POV disputes, stubbornness, and bold edits are specifically listed under what is not vandalism. Kafziel ^Talk 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any personal stake in this article. In fact, I agree with you. I was just offering an easy way to get the page unprotected that everyone could maybe see fit to agree on (for the time being, at least - the future is not my problem). Fox News is not in any way notable because of the criticism. The criticism is notable because Fox News is already notable. It was notable long before the criticism. The only way to keep from POV-pushing here (as you've just proven, by saying I should have blocked one side but not the other) was to lock the article. You don't have to listen to my input - as I said, I was just making a quick suggestion, and have no real opinion here - but the protection stands until some better consensus is found. Kafziel ^Talk 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel, you're jumping in without knowing the history at all. We had upwards of twenty editors participate in multiple RfC's to reach a consensus, and now you're completely gutting the effort by saying consensus hasn't been reached. You have two admins and probably half a dozen editors with a thorough understanding of the situation, and you are advocating locking the article. It is very presumptuous for you to walk in, take one look, and then make a declaration based on the last few days on the talk page. Add in the "you can disagree all you like" and it adds up to a very inappropriate action and attitude that's solely without merit. Additionally, you're basing the "no consensus" declaration on what's going on with the introduction (which is a very clear consensus, sans one or two editors who won't review the history) when you were asked to issue a 3RR block on the (insigifnicant) image caption issue (which is clearly a 3RR violation). As someone with "no personal stake", you should either recuse yourself entirely or take a little more time to actually try and understand the issue... This isn't an issue of "The Wrong Version" as much as it is "The Wrong Solution", as noted by Ramsquire. /Blaxthos 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "jumping in". You came to me, I didn't come to you. And I didn't declare this an edit war; you did. A person can't violate 3RR unless someone else is on the opposing side, reverting him. So unless it's vandalism, which this was not, then it's an edit war. As far as I'm concerned, if you file a report at 3RR, you're telling me things have gotten out of hand (on both sides) at whatever page is involved. So I don't generally take requests from either side of the dispute. In fact, if one side is particularly pleased with something I do, I've probably done something wrong, because I'm not here to make you happy or help you win an argument. I'm here to facilitate the discussion, to let you all settle it yourselves. If it seems to me there is active discussion on the talk page, then I'm not going to block any of the participants. I'm going to protect the article to stop the edit war and let everyone keep talking. It's pretty simple, and it doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge about the entire talk history of every article. I won't offer any more advice about the article, but I won't unlock it for the time being, either. Kafziel ^Talk 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to block an editor for violating 3RR. You have come and imposed a complete lockdown of the article instead. Beyond that, you've stated that you believe if a 3RR complaint is filed, then everyone must be out of order, and the best thing to do is to fullprot the article in question and "facilitate discussion", right? So, every 3RR report means "both sides are out of hand"? No sir... there are still some editors who understand the history, apply precedents & policy correctly, and still run into editors who won't play by the rules and violate our policies. We asked you to enforce a rule, not to lock down the entire process (and thereby giving legitimacy to editors who either don't understand, or don't care about the rules). That's not what we ask our admins to do. /Blaxthos 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on. I think you're getting a little melodramatic here. I did enforce the rule - nobody is edit warring anymore. That is the purpose of 3RR. There are no policies on Wikipedia with the express intent of blocking users on request. Even at AIV, it is up to the discretion of the administrators and sometimes other solutions can be found. If Threeafterthree was refusing to discuss his changes or respond to warnings, I would have blocked him. Since he was willing to talk about this (and since he did not violate 3RR, a fact which seems to have escaped everyone), a block was not appropriate. Kafziel ^Talk 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins are aware when there are deliberate attempts to break WP:3RR, and can differentiate that against edit warring. Simply put, if there is one person that commits the vandalism - that may be a violation of 3RR. But the fact that this has been challenged by many editors makes it obvious that it is an edit war. Either way, those editors that have been claiming there is "consensus" clearly have a lot of dissent and it is not obvious (nor has it ever been, IMO) that there is a consensus to include the item itself. Perhaps the greatest quandry of this all is the sources themselves for the statement. If users themselves are not able or willing to back up their sources when challenged, they shouldn't be there. We've seen it from a select group of editors that stubborness and nonexistant heirarchy plauges the actions of users here. Perhaps the greatest thing said on this talk page was that Fox News is notable because they're Fox News - they're not notable because of their controversies. Either way, the past is the past - it's obvious discussions start now. One reminder - this is not October. Don't think it is October. According to the Gregorian calendar, it's May. Keep that in mind, and remember WP:CCC. --66.227.194.89 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{editprotected}}

On the main page at this moment, the article is locked from editing. Reading through the history section, it appears the section relating to the Fox News Alert was vandalized prior to this occurring with some of the sentences included in the section, such as, "On FOX Kids News Channel the piercing chime is replaced with a clap of thunder but the swooshing sound is still intacted", which I don't believe is a valid entry and to my understanding should be vandalism. If an administrator can revise the edits done on this section, that would be great. Thank you! Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence has been in place for more than a month, being introduced here and the following edit. If you wish to propose a solution, please try and be specific. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Take out the Kids...Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also changed "intacted" to "intact".

By the way, wow - that section (describing the various sound effects in detail) has to be one of the most boring things I've ever read. That's worse than listening to other people tell you what they dreamed about last night. I mean, it's bad. But anyway, it's fixed. Kafziel ^Talk 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction:Again

In an attempt to reach a new consensus (if necessary) re: the introduction, I ask those who wish to see change to please state which of the following statements you disagree with, if any, and how the intro can be changed to accurately reflect these principle or any additional ones.

1. Many people believe Fox News to be conservative.
2. Many of the people who believe Fox News to be conservative are critics from the Left side of the American political spectrum.
3. However, some moderates and independants also hold this perception.
4. Not everyone who believes in this perception is a "critic" of Fox News.
5. Fox News denies they are conservative.
6. This perception of bias at Fox News is one of the aspects of its notability, alongside its ownership and ratings.

Simply put, which of these statements is disputed and why? If we can get past this then we can work on actual language that embodies this and is acceptable to all. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Without admitting that consensus has changed (I don't believe it has), I agree with everything except the #2/#3 combination. The rest is documented and verifiable from reliable sources -- let's not try to characterize those who believe one thing or another... let's just state it exists. /Blaxthos 00:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(Consensus hasn't changed, but since we are being ordered to discuss it more by those with greater knowledge than us, we have no choice) I agree with you but there have been attempts to limit the perception to just the Left and/or Democrats. That's why I put that in. If we can get widespread agreement on those two perhaps there could be some consensus. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was never established, Ramsquire. The moment you and the other editors who have delayed consensus making in the first place realize that, the sooner this article will comply to WP standards. --66.227.194.89 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically:

1. "Many" is an opinion, and can only be backed up by facts about the opinion itself. We haven't seen any large, reliable studies to prove this, either in American or International markets.
2. Most are, but as NPOV states, we cannot give undue weight.
3. "Some" is an example of undue weight, especially when there are no specific citations to back up the statement that is being made.
4. From the sources, all but one (final media report by university) were. Be sure not to sensationalize the results (especially not just certain portions, either) of that report, however - FNC was found more centrist than the big three on news analysis. That's not what the lead says happened in the report.
5. Fox News denies that they are biased period.
6. Unfounded accusation, brought forth by users who have, throughout the period of editing this article, displayed this on many accounts. For examples... well, let's make this fun: "check the archives" ;-)

--66.227.194.89 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and at this point I don't care if I get blocked for saying this, but your post makes you come across as an absolute idiot and troll. Especially when you say consensus has never been established--even after the RfC when all of those editors agreed to varying degrees with the "consensus" version. A more logical and rational argument would be that consensus has changed, or is in the process of changing (I don't agree with it, but it is a reasonable position to take considering the last few days). If it is changing then we should soon see by what takes place in this discussion. BTW-- I take it that you agree with the six points above. You didn't say which ones are inaccurate. If you took the time to read, you would see that I am just fleshing out parametes of what should be represented in the new intro. We'd get to policies and guidelines later. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I support completely Ramsquire's statements, and I'll do you one better. I charge that 66.227.194.89 is none other than our old friend Cbuhl79 (talk · contribs). Notice the timeframes (with regards to Cbuhl79) of the following:

• 02:47, 29 October 2006
• 18:47, 24 December 2006
• 18:42, 24 December 2006
• 04:49, 28 December 2006
• 05:12, 28 December 2006
• 21:42, 22 February 2007
• 21:55, 22 February 2007
• 23:27, 28 April 2007
• 23:43, 28 April 2007
• 04:21, 29 April 2007

Talk about agenda pushing, sockpuppetry, and refusing to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. This isn't a changed consensus... this is the same sour grapes from the same editor who was rebuffed and later the subject of an ArbCom request. At this point, I'd advocate checkuser to expose this for what it really is... /Blaxthos 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong, Blaxthos. I am not Cbuhl79. But this isn't the fist time you have made this mistake... my sources indicate that you've accused another user of being the same (which turned out to be undeniably false) sockpuppet. But one thing is sure - if users don't agree with you, they must be sockpuppets or harming the project. Read my responses, please. You certainly should at least answer them if you won't let me edit the article. --66.227.194.89 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no more agenda pushing by this anon user than I see by you. You both are pretty committed to a certain thing being said or not said in the intro.

And I can't see anything in WP:SOCK that suggests that even if this anon user is cbuhl79, that they're in any way guilty of sockpuppeting. Cbuhl79 is clearly no longer active, ergo, this user can't be acting as a sockpuppet. If cbuhl79 was coming back as an anonymous user, there is absolutely no policy against this, and it certainly isn't sockpuppetting. That user was never blocked or censured.

I also note again that you misrepresent the ArbCom issue - cbuhl79 was never even blocked, much less the subject of an actual ArbCom decision. There were two ArbCom requests which were as much about the behavior of several of the still active editors as they were about cbuhl79, and in any case, they were both rejected, and are therefore pretty much moot.

Finally, I simply find it absurd that you still continue to insist that immutable consensus has been reached, and that editors who wish to continue discussion are somehow "refusing to abide" by it. Cogswobbletalk 01:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can clear this up:

1. I'm not pushing any agenda other than assuming good faith regarding the proper formulation of a consensus version. This is not the version I originally advocated, but am now advocating as part of an extremely hard-earned consensus.
2. If it is Cbuhl (and it is), then he's already shown that he's unwilling to abide by a consensus to which he doesn't approve by calling additional RFC's in bad faith, making unilateral changes, wikilawyering (shopping for a policy he can use to effect the changes he wants).
3. The conduct was so egregios as to earn an ArbCom request, and beyond that, if it had been issued a week or two earlier then ArbCom would have certainly heard the case -- we've not since had a vote so close. Certainly there is no misrepresentation of the standing of the case, and I request that you show us where other editors in this discussion have been before ArbCom in any sort of defensive capacity. I certainly haven't.
4. Returning as an anonymous IP (much less logging out to effect changes while actively doing the same with a named account) is definitely nefarious (if not textbook sockpuppetry or canvassing).
5. Conensus was reached... if you're trying to say consensus has changed, I point you to the records clearly repeated over the last few months. If you're trying to say consensus was never reached, well then you're just plain wrong, and you've got at least 18 editors who would disagree with you, as we were the ones who actually worked towards reaching it. Beyond that, even if you count the sockpuppets we still haven't come close to that many editors claiming that consensus has changed.
6. WP:LEAD, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPOV issues have been addressed (at length) -- just because a few editors refuse to actually abide by the policies (and the consensus of a slew of editors here) doesn't mean this is a worthy discussion. Furthermore, jumping on the bandwagon every time some anonymous or unknown editor asks the question is not the answer. The rest of us have come to a consensus, and it's high time you start supporting the community instead of inciting problems every time this comes up. All those issues were asked, answered, and explained a dozen times.
7. At what point do you think consensus be reached? Do we go over this again and again every time some editor comes along and asks the question? Perhaps we should show those editors how "hey, that issue already came up... here's what happened and why". All it takes is reading the archives...

Please, cogswobble, start working WITH the community instead of AGAINST it every time someone raises the issue. /Blaxthos 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I can respond to almost everything you've said here by simply saying - just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. Cogswobbletalk 02:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How many do you need before you'll consider it? I can probably direct you to quite a few... And what, exactly, do you contest as being incorrect? /Blaxthos 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you already said you would be ignoring my comments, I am not sure what point there is in responding, but I will present my arguments nonetheless and hope that you abide by WP:AGF. Additionally, I am not Cbuhl. I am not a sockpuppet. I have become involved because of what appears to be rampant criticism in articles on WP.

1. Many people do appear to view Fox News to be conservative, however Many is a debatable word since many people view the other major news sources to be liberal or at least more liberal, as a juxtaposition there are those that view Fox to be Neutral and others liberal, while those that view Fox to be conservative view the others to be Neutral. It is an endless circular logical problem, which will never placate either side of the debate.
2. I would say Most.
3. Believes which perception? The conservative nature or the conservative bias?
4. Again, which perception?
5. Actually Fox claims they are more neutral than other main stream media sources.
6. I would say that Fox's claim to be neutral and the criticism of that label is the real notability.

There is more to this than the statements you have made. One of Fox's main claims is that mainstream media is liberally biased, and that they offer equal weight to both sides of the argument. Reference 7 in its analysis state statistics that state the media in general is more liberal than the average American by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin. As such if Fox follows a neutral agenda (as they claim) then you would achieve the results in reference 4 which state that Journalists view fox to be more conservative by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin. Under this pretense Fox is more conservative than other mainstream media is, but is it biased? The only real claims of actual bias are from references 5 and 6, which are from democratic hopefuls. In the 2007 state of the media review http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/narrative_overview_publicattitudes.asp?cat=8&media=1

In contrast with a decade ago, there are no significant distinctions anymore in the basic believability of major national news organizations. About a quarter of Americans believe most television outlets. Less than one in five believe what they read in print. CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times.

To me it appears the real debate is whether there is actual observable bias which is distinguishable when compared with other mainstream media, and there does not appear to be. I will grant that journalist', which are more likely to be liberal, consider Fox to be conservative as a whole, but it does not carry over to the general public, at least not according to the sources cited including the additional one I included here.

I have two general problems with the current iteration.

1. Criticism of a politically charged nature within the lead is quite rampant on WP articles, which appears to lead to considerable argument and edit wars. Although this affects articles that could be viewed as either liberal or conservative, there is far more criticism directed at articles considered to be conservative. This only furthers the belief that WP is liberally biased, and does nothing to help the overall credibility of WP.
2. The statement in the current iteration is not backed up by the references listed and appears to be primarily driven by the fact that personal opinion is that FNC is biased.

And yes, I do have an agenda, I wish to see WP universally neutral. Arzel 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I said I was ignoring you because I didn't know where you were coming from. You appeared to be responding to things I wasn't saying. Considering the previous sockpuppetry and other trolling by a certain editor, I wasn't sure what you're angle was. I didn't say I'd ignore you forever, and on all articles. I'm now officially out of this discussion but since you asked a question that only I can answer, I'll answer it. Generally speaking (not about Fox in particular), I would say that if the discussion concerns a journalistic enterprise, having a "nature" is the same as having a bias. They are supposed to be neutral and not have "natures". FTR-- your re-iteration of #6 is identical to what I wanted to get across. So if you want to replace it with that go ahead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Ramsquire, apologies for getting sidetracked.

1. Disagree - in that "many people" is too ambiguous

2. Agree

3. Agree

4. Weakly Disagree - I think if you are accusing Fox News of bias, then you are a critic. Note that I don't think that "critic" has a negative or positive connotation.

5. Agree

6. Weakly Disagree - If this were a near universal perception, then I would agree that it is one of the most notable things.

Cogswobbletalk 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As a first step to resolving this conflict, I strongly suggest getting rid of the word "bias" due to its negative connotation. Can we all agree on that? In the "Intro statement" section above, Arzel suggested "Critics consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than other contemporary news organizations." That's OK by me. --JHP 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to use Arzel's suggestion. The word "bias" was also removed so it now reads, "Critics consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than competing news organizations; the channel says it is not conservative." Please vote on whether you find the new text to be acceptable. --JHP 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes (salting the jar to encourage others) --JHP 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is unacceptable since it only identifies "critics" as seeing Fox's rightward tilt. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to say "Critics and some observers consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than competing news organizations; the channel says it is not conservative." Is this acceptable to everyone? --JHP 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. I prefer to leave out "...and some observers..." for reasons stated above, but I am not opposed to leaving it in. Cogswobbletalk

• Weak support. Although I don't like the word observers under the current context it does read neutral and less inflamatory. My primary objection is that the references don't really back up the claim of observers, but I am not also not opposed to leaving it in. I imagine some may consider the word "some" to be weasle. Arzel 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This brings up a question I had yesterday: Do conservatives consider Fox News to be conservative? (Or perhaps less liberal?) In fact, isn't this why many conservatives prefer Fox News over its competitors? Personally, I don't like the "and some observers" phrase because it is wordy and gives the sentence an awkward feel. However, it is proving very difficult to satisfy everyone. --JHP 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is deeper than that. I think that some conservatives have been told over and over and over that FOX is biased that there is a backlash to the point they feel other stations to be liberal and that FOX is the only neutral source. I believe it has reached a point that even if they may have felt that FOX was biased they block it because so many on the left say that FOX is biased and that you must be a red-necked rube or retarded to believe anything they say. Just listen to Randi Rhodes for a while and you can get a good idea of the divide between the two spectrums. I believe that people in the middle fall into two camps. Those that feel FOX is biased do so because they either truely believe it, or because it has been said so many times that they feel they are agreeing just to be part of the group. Those that don't feel FOX is biased either truely feel they aren't or are tired of being told FOX is biased. The result is very little middle ground. Ironically, IMHO, democrats are guilty of the very thing they claim FOX; repeatedly stating a fact that they believe to be true when it may not be. Arzel 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

Given the fact that there is clearly not consensus about the intro statement, I don't think the FAQ should be pasted at the top of the page. The discussion is occuring and should occur in the talk page, there doesn't need to be a "FAQ" that primarily presents one side of the argument listed at the top of the page. Cogswobbletalk 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FAQ does not say there's consensus about the intro. it serves a useful purpose by giving a concise overview of the issues involved, something that's sorely needed - look at the length of the discussions on this page and in the archives. if you think it leaves out significant points or is one-sided, feel free to edit it. Doldrums 12:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ strongly implies that those are the official, consensus-supported answers to common questions. That's not true. At best, everyone is experienced enough to know just to ignore it. At worst, having it there discourages new users from asking questions or starting new discussions. Kafziel ^Talk 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification... those were consensus supported answers to the questions presented. It was all taken directly from the RfC that occured in October of last year, and is all plainly visible in the Archives from that time period. Not only are you willing to come in at the 11th hour and declare what's factual, but you're completely unwilling to find out what actually occured. Quel suprie. /Blaxthos 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the FAQ away again. I originally objected to it's inclusion because I think it discourages discussion on the talk page, and this still applies. Again, I find it curious that editors here can talk about how "consensus was reached" in the same breath that they complain about the fact that this issue has debate has been going on for months. That's a strange definition of consensus. Cogswobbletalk 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was reached. Read the archives. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh...if consensus was reached, then why has this discussion continued nearly unabated for so long? And why have at least four editors that I count who have "read the archives" agree that consensus was not reached. Cogswobbletalk 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the 18 or so editors who put aside their differnces and hammered out an mutually acceptable definition is consensus. If that is not consensus, then consensus is impossible on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, consensus is not unanimous agreement. There has been one holdout editor who resorted to trolling and sockpuppetry to keep the debate alive. Foolishly Blaxthos, Auburn Pilot and myself, not realizing we were being duped kept responding in good faith, thus keeping the debate alive. And regardless of claiming to have read the archives, you can't have possible read this and say that there was never a consensus. You will also see consensus by many of those same editors not participating ins his bad faith RfC which coincidentally was started less than an hour after the first one ended. If there was no consensus, you'd think more of the original editors would have continued hammering home their points. [3]. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the above editors, this article was well-handled by both RFC's and peer reviews. The consensus version stands against the edit warriors. Italiavivi 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, there are a group of editors here who are discussing the intro now, but I guess the fact that you claim that consensus was reached months ago mean that nobody is ever allowed to discuss changes to this again? Cogswobbletalk 16:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the archives again, and still disagree that full concensus was reached. This is somewhat of a moot point now that there are more than one questioning the result. Arzel 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. Which makes at least four different editors in the last two archive pages who have "read the archives" and dispute the consensus claim. (Myself, Bytebear, Offorbythepeople, and 66.227.194.89). You claim that "one holdout editor" does not make a lack of consensus. Are you claiming then that every single person who has continued to object in some form to the current intro is the same person? Cogswobbletalk 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, maybe you guys are just unclear on what constitutes a consensus... it doesn't mean everyone agrees with every point. It means that the community as a whole has agreed on a specific wording or issue... not that a few people who don't like it can take every opportunity to make spurious claims that the consesnsus is invalid or doesn't exist at all. /Blaxthos 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

stare decisis et non quieta movere

I'm done with this, guys... forget the project-wide RFC's and editorial review that's already occured. I no longer have the interest or the patience to deal with the same repetitive arguments that use the same broken logic, especially with editors who refuse to both acknowledge proper policy and the efforts that have already taken place. Most of you know me for my extreme patience and persistance, but truely this is more than I'm willing to deal with. Good luck... I fear this article will deteriorate into the blind leading the blind, but I certainly don't hope it to be so. Sorry to abandon those who have been here trying to keep the sanity, but I don't doubt that many of you will be joining my exodus if you haven't already. Best of luck. /Blaxthos 03:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your admitted bias towards Fox, this isn't a bad idea. Take a break and then come back refreshed. I am sorry to get into it with you over a stupid caption to a image, but I thought I would start out with something small, but even that was difficult. What makes this project amazing is that it is trying to catelogue ALL information ever known to mankind and is open to 6 billion editors from different perspectives. Cheers, --Tom 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, don't try to characterize me as admittedly biased -- just another example of your willingness to twist the facts to suit your agenda (not the first time, judging from your talk page). Also, please don't bring yourself onto my talk page uninvited. Thanks. /Blaxthos 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

blah, blah, blah. Somebody was talking about me on your talk page, so I responded. Anyways, --Tom 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s., Would you like to give an example of "twisting the facts" per above? Didn't think so. --Tom 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"your admitted bias" - where is my bias, and where is it admitted? This has deteriorated into trolling... hopefully the other editors won't bite. /Blaxthos 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you make your agenda perfectly clear here [4]. Again, would you like to provide a source for where I "twisted the facts". --Tom 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"I (and many others) have worked hard for a long time to ensure that their bias is noted and presented in a way that does not violate our neutral point of view policy. Anything added to the project needs to be WP:Verifiable by citing reliable sources within the article. At no time may editors add their own commentary or analysis to articles, as it constitutes original research and violates WP:NPOV. " -- yep, my agenda is stated and crystal clear. That is the textbook definition of a neutral point of view. /Blaxthos 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I love how nobody here actually works for, or is personally affected by anything done by Fox yet it's probably the article with the most trolling and flaming (on both sides) I've ever visited. :) In the spirit of adding tenuously relevent sentiments in a different language - C'est la vie. I think everyone should have a break from the bias sections of the article for a while and focus on building up some of the drier details - Network history, ratings etc. - to cool off. I don't believe any of that stuff has actually been changed in months. Edders 13:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I am going back to edit articles about Jewish/Arab issues since those folks are so calm and even keeled compared to folks around here :) geesh! Anyways, glad I stopped by, cheers! --Tom 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous non-free images.

I do agree with User:JHP that this article has far too many unnecessary non-free images. I propose removing all copyrighted images from this article save the primary Fox News logo, the screenshot of the channel's coverage, the "Fox News Alert" card, and the "Fair and Balanced" trademark. Italiavivi 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The FoxNews.com logo is significantly different and represents its online presence. As is the MSNBC online logo. It deserves placement to represent its other division. - Mike Beckham 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The FoxNews.com logo is the all-caps word "FOX" imposed over spotlights, just like every other Fox logo. Wikipedia should avoid non-free media where possible; the MSNBC online logo is probably inappropriate for fair use as well. Italiavivi 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is different colours, different look totally. I have to say your going OTT with removing all images. For representation of certain things like their online operations images are important. It is significantly different to the main logo and therefore deserves to be displayed. Same goes for MSNBC. - Mike Beckham 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I advocate removing all images? I believe I listed above four images of value to keep in the article. I'm still not sure how "FOX" imposed over spotlights is significantly different, but we'll see how other editors feel. It is a non-free image headed for deletion regardless, and trying to craft a fair use rationale for it will prove most difficult in a deletion argument. Italiavivi 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes here - Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Introduction:Again

There's been a lot of reverting of the intro statement lately. The thread here - Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Introduction:Again is a discussion about the intro statement. If you revert or change the intro statement, please discuss it in that thread Cogswobbletalk 16:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that thread is where you are trying to make your case for changing the consensus version. Your tactic here, pretending that your version has any manner of consensus (and that editors here must come argue with you if they don't endorse your changes), is very disingenuous. Italiavivi 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...that thread is where at least four different editors are discussing a change to the intro, and at least three have explicitly supported a specific version. I'm not saying "my" version has consensus. In fact, the version that is currently being discussed isn't even "my" preferred version. I'm also not saying that people shouldn't be discussing it, or changing it. Just that they shouldn't change it without discussing it.

Are you saying that no one should ever be allowed to change the introduction because an immutable consensus has been reached? Cogswobbletalk 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one should consider the community-wide RfC with 18+ editors participating in the formulation of the old version instead of insisting consensus has changed when there are two or three people who refuse to recognize the consensus... "at least four different editors" isn't even close to the participation from people from all over Wikipedia last October (where every point you now make was brought up and pondered (and answered) by the group). How do you justify a group of 3 or 4 editors (some of whom have been accused of sockpuppetry) trumping a group five times larger that already reviewed those points? Wear everyone down till they are so frustrated they give up? Cogswobble, you've jumped on every opportunity to try and push this change instead of respecting the community consensus already in place, and in the process have frustrated almost every regular contributor to this article. /Blaxthos 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are in fact saying then that an immutable consensus has been reached? Cogswobbletalk 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the burden for showing consensus has changed is higher than 3 or 4 editors... the larger (and more intricate) the consensus-building effort/team was, the larger the burden on those alleging consensus has changed becomes. So far you've given no answer as to why you and your cliq of 3 editors should trump the effort of so many editors just 8 months ago, especially given that that group already spoke to every issue you've raised. Explain that... /Blaxthos 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you are saying that three or four editors aren't entitled to discuss a change to your immutable consensus? I suppose all of the editors who have ever participated since then would have to agree in order to change the consensus that was undeniably reached 8 months ago? Cogswobbletalk 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, what exactly is this immutable consensus version? Because as far as I can tell, the current version has only been around for a few days, and not counting the removals, it has been changed slightly many many times in the past few months. In fact, the discussions to which I was referring to above were discussions on how to tweak the intro statement. You seem to be accusing everyone who wants to modify or improve the intro statement of demanding that it be removed. Cogswobbletalk 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss all you like, but don't go making false claims that consensus does not or never did exist, and be prepared to show us how consensus has changed before demanding changes. I believe you're either being purposefully dense or downright sarcastic, and I ask that you go and read the policies before claiming that you're on the high road. All of your questions (regarding what constitutes a consensus, and what you have to do to show that it's changed) are addressed in WP:CCC and WP:CONSENSUS. As far as "what is this consensus version" -- it's clearly linked like three times above. Obviously you don't actually read what we type (or the archives)... how many administrators and editors need to point it out to you? The only thing I demand is that you assume good faith regarding the consensus version, and that you actually show us how consensus has changed before changing the article. The "tweaks" and "modifications" you're trying to effect were already considered and rejected by a group much larger than the three (relatively newcomer) editors that are here now... why should we throw out a large group's consensus decision based on the (already covered!) issues raised by a few editors? /Blaxthos 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so hostile to any suggestion of improvements to this part of the article? My first edit on these talk pages was asking for a source in the intro. You responded in a hostile manner: [5]. In fact, a source was later found and added (and is still there), and there was agreement among several editors about this change. At various points throughout the past few months (not counting times when it has been removed), the intro statement in the past has read:

• Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions.
• Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions
• Although Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions
• Fox News is seen by critics and many observers of the channel as advocating conservative political positions
• Fox News is seen by critics and observers of the channel as advocating conservative political positions
• Critics and some observers of the channel see Fox News as advocating conservative political positions
• Critics and some observers consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than competing news organizations

So which version exactly is the immutable unchangeable (unless by a mega-super majority) consensus version?

Where have I unilaterally demanded that the statement be removed or changed? I've voiced my support (to some degree or the other) for several of these versions, and I've participated actively in discussions here. In fact, I've only made a tiny handful of edits to the article itself.

And what part of this [[6]] am I completely failing to misunderstand? Cogswobbletalk 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was so hard for you to find...

Fox News is seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions; however, the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.

— Archived Consensus

.

Obviously since then we've added some references, but that's the language & content reached by consensus. I believe there has been more discussion and consensus regarding critics and observers in which you participated... /Blaxthos 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so how come the text has changed so many times since then? And please explain how I am misunderstanding this diagram - Cogswobbletalk

Actually, I think I'm understanding the diagram correctly, which is why the intro text has been changed numerous times. Cogswobbletalk 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Willfully forgetting your own participating, posting huge charts... Shame on me for feeding the trolls. /Blaxthos 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so people who want to discuss changes are trolls. Gotcha. Cogswobbletalk 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to have consensus regarding something that people are currently fighting over, because consensus implies general agreement. (Don't believe me? Look up the definition.) The people claiming consensus regarding disputed topics are merely fabricating consensus in order to get their own way. Unfortunately, there are some people on both sides of these debates who are so insistent on having things their way, that not only do they revert changes of the opposing side, but they also revert any attempts at compromise. --JHP 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When past consensus-building involved 18+ editors, and current objections involve three? And when the objections of the three newcomers were already exhaustively covered in past RFCs/Peer reviews? Claiming that there's already solid consensus on the matter is hardly fabrication. Italiavivi 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The references included DO NOT back up the statement being made. Reference 3 indicates that Journalists (which have been identified as being liberal by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin as being liberal) sampled from the largest media sources (not all sources) identify FNC as being conservative in nature. References 4 and 5 are from Democratic hopefulls and leaders which are critical of FNC. Reference 6 examines specific programs on various channels and finds that FOX special report is more conservative than most other programs in the review. However, that difference is equally as far from center as those that would be viewed as left. Additionally it is not critical of FNC. As such the current statement is referenced by sources which do not back up the claim of the statement.

Lets stop bikering about whether concensus was reached since it will not help move this discussion forward. Arzel 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was clear consensus which resulted from the participation of 18+ editors in the RfC and Peer Review systems. On the other hand is Cogswobble, Edders (a clear POV-pusher with a spuriously intermittent edit history), and an anonymous IP. I'd say the past consensus is pretty strong compared with the reverts/deletions that've been made over the past week. That aside, you're completely out of line making these changes over the objections of myself, Blaxthos, Ramsquire, and others. Italiavivi 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A few facts: A) THERE WAS A CONSENSUS. To deny that there was never a consensus, is simply not true. It's right there in the archives. However B) CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE, and maybe it has and I've been willing to concede that it may have (although I still don't see evidence of this change, to me it seems to be new users raising old arguments.), but C) THERE IS NO "NEW" CONSENSUS either, based on the continuing discussions and the fact that the current version reads almost identically to the old version that was SO bad. Finally, D) there was sockpuppetry invovled previously, it's in the archives. See Archive 18 and User:Skypad for a confirmed case and my workspace for an unconfirmed case, of let's just say "weird coincidence". One more thing-- several editors who participated in the RfC's have claimed that there was a consensus with diffs showing how the consensus was reached. I am now askingany editor who claims to have read the archives, to please, by using the diffs, show how consensus was NOT reached back then.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has such a disorganized mess of rules, guidelines, and instructions that it seems there is always something new to bite me in the ass. It makes me feel like I am wasting my time trying to edit Wikipedia. I had no idea that you could archive talk pages. How can you tell if a talk page has archives? How can you access the archives if someone else hasn't already posted a link to the archived page? Do I have to read all of the archives, or is there a quick way to find out if there is a preexisting consensus? --JHP 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. How do you archive a page? --JHP 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it surprise me to learn that at least one of the new voices didn't even know what an archive was? How much you guys wanna bet he's not the only one who hasn't actually read the history? Quel suprie... /Blaxthos 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ainsley Earhardt

need to add Ainsley Earhardt

lists

to put things in perspective. feel free to add to list or ask for cites. i haven't bothered to dig them (citations) up for some. Doldrums 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who ...

say Fox is conservative/biased

say its not

Fox critics: Newshounds, Outfoxed Media watchdogs: FAIR, MMA, MRC's L. Brent Bozell III calls[7] Fox "a conservative alternative" to "liberal TV news" notable Democrats Democratic underground, Daily Kos, Move-On crowd Journalists in SotM2007 survey: 69% vrs. 20% (for most "liberal" source) of national journalists 42% vrs. 17% of local journalists (see page 16) half dozen books on Journalism by academics, journalists (search for "Rutherford" in Intro Statement section above) Notable Journalists/media persons: LA Times editor, Ted Turner Media reports from USATODAY (+ reprinted at AOL news), Hartford Courant, Washington Post LA Times NY Daily News, Miami Herald, Media Guardian was[8] every one of the news sources (excepting Fox News itself) in the top 20 google results for "fox news ten years" (for coverage of Fox news on its ten year anniversary).

Fox News

• "Outfoxed" is not notable. Neither is MoveOn.org, Newshounds, all other blogs, FAIR, MRC or MMFA. None of them are notable enough to be added in Fox News' article, but their position on FNC should be in their articles. Not every Democrat is notable, but prominents like Howard Dean are. Ted Turner is a competitor, as are the participants in the study and the LA Times. Doldrums, you seem to have a very strong stance on this subject. The problem is, WP:RS speaks for itself in these cases. --75.21.179.121 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, according to the study where 69% of journalists cite Fox News as conservative, 34% of those journalists consider themselves liberal, 54% consider themselves moderate, and 7% consider themselves conservative. It's still a compelling and useful statistic, but it's worth noting that this sample (journalists) tends to be far less conservative than the public, which is split 20/41/33.Cogswobbletalk 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As utterly retarded as such blogs are, I think they still merit a brief mention. I believe reps from FAIR are occassionally asked to contribute to discussions of media bias etc. on the major News channels, same as how the conservative MRC guy is on Fox (and I think MSNBC once?) now and again. But to add to 75's point, who pointed out that Turner and Times are competitors - the Guardian is basically the New York Times of Britain aside from its anti-Americanism (only despises Republican leaders moderately more than it does Democrats :) That doesn't stop it being labelled a notable source. If we're going to list just about every liberal or lefty institution in existance we could just as easily end up doing the same for conservative ones like National Review, LGF, Powerline, Republican Senators etc.

At the end of the day many people DO say Fox News is biased. The problem is A: Virtually every single one is liberal or leftist and B: Exactly the opposite is said by most conservatives. Indeed, Fox itself was established - according to Ailes -because a lot of people (i.e. conservatives/republicans/libertarians/whatever) saw the "Mainstream Media" as dominated by liberals, hence why their slogan is "Fair and Balanced" to differentiate themselves from their competitors. There are minor exceptions all over the place - Goldberg saying Fox is biased, Kerry saying he got a "fair shake" etc., but I think we can all agree this is the general state of things.

Yeah, Jonah Goldberg is a total "leftist." There's no shortage of conservatives willing to concede Fox News' bias toward their favor. Italiavivi 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, on the one hand if CNN has a line about their alleged bias in the intro, then Fox sure as heck should have one too. On the other hand, is this general wikipedia policy? I'm not an expert on wiki policy so if we could at least come to some consenus about that we could move on.

WP:LEAD is already crystal clear about inclusion of controversy in articles' introductions. Italiavivi 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a section that DOES merit immediate deletion is the alleged bias parts in the "History" section. The "History" section should be exactly that - a history of how and why Fox came about, it's challenges etc. Either dump the POV-pushing in the cesspit that is the seperate Fox criticism/controversy article (I'm guessing it's probably there already) or get rid of it all together. Doing Uni exams atm but after Wednesday I'll be able to devote more time to this whole punch-up and hopefully make some progress. Edders 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'll steadfastly oppose any attempt by you to whitewash the article. Italiavivi 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Edders, we should probably at the very least move some of the bias parts in the "History" section elsewhere, unless they explicitly pertain to the history of Fox News. Cogswobbletalk 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Quite honestly, I'm not here for FNC's article. I have been here to analyze WP policies on a hot-button issue. After seeing discussion on many other articles, I came across FNC's article. The most interesting part about this analysis was that when users or anons had dissenting views on other articles (such as Israel, Hezbollah), many of them were resolved peacefully.

However, on this article... when a certain view is held, a sockpuppet check was automatically ordered. Now, this should be put in the top section to work on. That does not equate to maintaining civility.

Disgusting to say the least. Valuable contributors to Wikipedia have been lost because of these actions, which seemingly appear to be from the same group of users (not all, but most, who claim there was "consensus" are behind this).

Please grow up, those who are doing this. I am not Cogswobble. I'm pretty sure the other anon is not Cbuhl. And yet users attempt to make it appear as if we are. I ask all users to check all timestamps, all edits that are accused of being sockpuppetry. Most of these are not even related, yet are cited as sockpuppet actions. It not only degrades the argument these individuals are trying to make (civilly), but it also is a personal attack. As all users of Wikipedia are volunteers, this is probably the worst thank you that can be given. And for that, certain users should be ashamed. You will not see me participate in any more discussion on this subject, because despite having and showing respect for everyone else here, some users felt as if I was not entitled to the same. For that, I have no desire to work anymore here. --75.21.179.121 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are a few editors here who's primary argument against any change seems to consist of appeals to a long-ago consensus, and accusations of sockpuppetry against anyone who disagrees. I have to say I'm sorry that the tactics that some of the editors here appear to have worked on you, especially since the accusation against you was so ludicrous - [9]. Cogswobbletalk 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

At least you've moved beyond denying the past consensus. Now then, combine that with the extensive discussion and number of editors involved in that consensus building. Italiavivi 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've been following this Sockpuppetry thing closely, but from working on the Richard Perle article I know what a pain in the bum it is to get attacked as a vandal, a sockpuppet, an employee of the subject or the subject themselves just because I got rid of POV and totally unsourced potential libel. Whether 75's been treated unfairly or not people need to consider how angry it makes editors when they're accused of such stuff. Edders 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone on the political left believe that Fox News is hurting the GOP?

Is this a true fact? Liberal viewers and critics of Fox News are claiming that the Republican Party and their approval as a unit is being hurt by anchors of Fox News. When the liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters, Daily Kos, Newshounds are debunking the Fox News stories and helping the competition roughly CNN and MSNBC gain ratings, could this be a sign that Fox News' "alleged" partisanship is hurting the Democrats or the Republicans? Is that true? LILVOKA 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Foxnews.com

I added {{POV-section}} to Foxnews.com header because of partisan claims re: contributors.--'oac' (old american century) | Talk 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro phrasing - Can we start from here?

This page seems to have a tendency to make people pretty argumentative. Let me just clear a few things up, I'm not saying that I think the intro statement needs to be removed, I'm not even saying that the intro statement needs to be changed. I was just a little perturbed at what seemed like an effort to preclude discussion regarding the introduction.

As we all know, consensus can change, and wikipedia is constantly evolving and changing. A few sections up, JHP, after an objection from Gamaliel, offered this version:

"Critics and some observers consider Fox News Channel to be more conservative than other contemporary news organizations."

This version was supported explicitly by myself, JHP, and Azrel, and implicitly by Gamaliel (since his objection was met). I'm not trying to argue at all that this version is the best version, or that the previous version must be changed, but let's just talk about here and now.

Right now it appears that several editors object to this version, and would explicitly support the previous version. If we can all discuss how to improve this article, then all the better. If the bulk of opinion is clearly behind any version of this intro, then I for one won't have any problems. Cogswobbletalk 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)