Talk:Fox News

Category:Media_bias_controversies ?

Given that FNC is often the center of bias controversies, anyone think adding this catagory would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you added it to the FNC Controversies article which is sufficient. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This category is obviously appropriate. Added. Is this template primarily used to categorize actual incidents, or topics associated with "Media bias controversies"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

@Blaxthos - You could easily check. I think the answer is "both".

@Arzel - That seems acceptable. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've had some time to review the category... it appears that all of the pages in the category are either (1) about an incident of controversy in the media, or (2) about subjects of which a media controversy is the main component of their notability. Although some of us may be of the opinion that a major component of FNC is its reputation for being embroiled in copious numbers of controversies, I agree with Arzel and NickCT -- the controversy article seems like a better fit. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can't see any reason why it wouldn't belong in the category. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately the users aught to have access to this sort of information. Put it somewhere (preferably here). Derrekito (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The line about the donation to the Republican Governor's Association seems a little biased: "...which has resulted in competitors and media watchdogs voicing ethical concerns." It sort of insinuates that it's just their competitors out to get them, no? Gorgs5 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A little help

For some reason I'm having issues inserting this link into the article:
www.imao.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/media_project_poll_info.pdf
Can someone show me how this is done?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• It won't matter. That isn't a reliable source and would be removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link. It is from the The IFC Media Project and describes the results of a Zogby poll. It seems to be reliable, but it would be better to use a secondary source that analyzes the results of the poll. When people say they trust Fox News do they mean the news reporting or the opinion shows? How does Fox News compare with all "mainstream media"? TFD (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Zogby international polls are scientifically done and are reliable(as opposed to Zogby Interactive polls which are not). When they say most trusted they are referring to news shows, not opinion.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• imao.us is NOT a reliable source. The poll may be reliable, but you'll need to find it somewhere else. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Points of order -- "imao.us" isn't the source; they're simply hosting the PDF on the web. The source, according to the actual pdf, is The IFC Media Project. There's nothing that requires sources to even be available on the web, much less detailing what sort of hosting is required. I'm making no claim as to the content of the source, I'm simply pointing out that Niteshift is asserting an incorrect policy interpretation, and misidentifying the source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Then find it hosted on a reliable source, that shouldn't be difficult. How about if people actually try to use reliable sources for a change. How do you know if the operators of this non-reliable source, reproduced it accurately? If they were a reliable source, we could make that presumption. They aren't, so we can't. If I make up a wordpress blog and scan documents in, would you automatically presume that they were accurate? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know if they reproduced it accurately? Really? I see the poll mentioned constantly, Reliable Source, Questionable, Probably Reliable, Don't know,Probably Unreliable, Don't know, Probably Unreliable, Probably Unreliable . Are we just to assume that all these places are misrepresenting the poll?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Then why not use one of the reliable sources instead of a non-reliable one? Then there is no question. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole thread is unbelievable. Niteshift, your argument about hosting has absolutely no basis in policy, and unless you have some credible reason to suspect that the report isn't authentic you're just being pointedly disruptive. So, what policy is this based upon? What reason do you have to believe the report is a forgery? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You're being a lot of things Blax, but NPA prohibits me from listing them. Does the site meet RS? No. Can the same info be found in places that do meet RS? Yes. Simple solution, use the reliable sources and stop acting like a dick. You know damn well that if a site like freerepublic was hosting a document, you'd be complaining about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Referencing how you could make a personal attack, but those pesky rules against such behavior keeps you from doing so, is just as bad as issuing the personal attack (and rather dickish). Can you just not help yourself?
2. You seem to not comprehend the difference between a source and a host. Let's try again: the source is what we care about, not if/where it's posted online.

It's really obvious that you're ignoring that distinction to disrupt the discussion -- it's not an argument based in policy, and serves no purpose. No need to respond -- you're just plain wrong. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Referencing how you could make a personal attack, but those pesky rules against such behavior keeps you from doing so, is just as bad as issuing the personal attack". No it's not. But if you'd like to run to WQA, be my guest. I'll just listen for the laughing....again. You know what, add whatever you want. The ironic part is I like what the poll says, I just think we need a more reliable host to ensure the accuracy. What is being put up there is a copy of a press release where someone at IFC decided what parts of the poll to share and some unreliable website puts up what we are going to accept is an accurate copy of it. That you don't want to find a more reliable source/host is odd. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to believe that this is a forgery? What policy supports your assertions regarding hosting location? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume the article is a forgery, but we should not provide an external link to imao.us. TFD (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement to even have it available online, nor are there any policies that dictate what third party hosts are acceptable, so let's stop making up policies and disrupting discussion. The online link is nothing more than a convenience, and can't be used as an excuse to exclude an otherwise acceptable source. The IFC citation is enough on its own, without squabbling over where it is hosted; just leave the damn link out. This is the biggest WP:POINT violation I've seen in quite a while... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You must not read your own responses. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift that is not a response. You have simply mocked him for his post without providing a single argument for anything in it being incorrect. If you are going to attack other people for arguing against your position without providing a reason for why their position is incorrect then perhaps you should just leave.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• He knows what I'm talking about, whether he'll admit it or not. It doesn't matter to me if you understand it. Apparently you missed all the discussion about why I (and others) disagreed. As for leaving......if you don't like it, then you leave. I'll leave if and when I'm ready to. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rare that I ever have any idea of what you're talking about. As noted by others, you've not once responded to the actual points raised by me and others -- every one of your responses contains personal attacks and ad hominem logical fallacies, and not one has any language related to policy or precedent; you just make things up and then attack editors when you get cornered on it. Do you have some sort of policy to support your continued assertions, or are you willing to drop the policy interpretation you invented? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Blax, you just proved you don't even bother to read the responses. I said 2 posts ago "You know what, add whatever you want." So where am I still objecting? I'm not. But since you don't actually read the responses, you don't catch that and you're still bitching about "support your opposition". Reading comprehension, give it a try sometime. As for your crap regarding "ad hominems", you've whined about that before. You've had that shot down before. You've even made claims of it when nothing personal was even said. But you keep practicing the notion that if you repeat it enough that it'll become true. At the same time, you pretend that you've never done it and been nothing but civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have rescinded your objection, why the hell are you still responding in this thread? Just to bait other editors? Shame on us for trying to respond with policy. Pointy bullshit like this should get you banned. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Because you can't stop talking about it. After I rescinded it, you kept asking me direct questions about it and bitching and moaning about pointy shit. The pointy bullshit and baiting from that point on was all you my friend. I rescinded the objection and you kept yakking about it. If you think you can get a ban out of it, WP:ANI is that way. And when uninvolved people realize that you kept up your ridiculous crap after the objection was rescinded, they'll close it. Shame on you for continuing to beat the drum after the song was already over. Try actually reading what you are responding to and maybe it won't happen again. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread is ridiculous. Niteshift36 made an obviously correct point which seems to have been over an issue that is easy to correct; it shouldn't have gotten further than that. BigK HeX (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit... if you're going to wade in after the fact, be honest about the events -- Niteshift36 was making up his own policy interpretation, got called on it, and had to back away from it. Stop perpetuating the myth that his point had any validity in policy at all. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See, you can't stop. You have to mischaracterize what happened, revise history and continue the topic. The myth being perpetuated here is that you are here to improve the article. What you're really doing is finding a way to continue talking to or about me. The issue was settled. Then you kept bitching about it. Don't tell people to be honest about anything if you're not willing to take your own advice. At least your edit summary accurately described your post. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Niteshift36 backed away from his point is irrelevant. He was right and you are wrong. The webhost is always relevant to the reliability of a source ... similar issues are covered in WP:VIDEOLINK, which says:

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the ...[source].

Your inability to consider reasonable objections is the only bullshit in this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious?

1. WP:VIDEOLINK is a user essay, not a policy or guideline.
2. The primary focus there is that the content on YouTube is submitted by users, who can manipulate videos relatively easily. In this case, we're talking about a web host that does not allow content to be uploaded from people other than the organization running the website.
3. Niteshift36 repeatedly and intentionally misrepresented/confused "source" and "host" to try and muddy the discussion. Several editors made the distinction clear, which he just ignored (as you did as well).
4. I repeatedly asked for evidence of a reasonable concern of forgery, to which I got no response beyond ad hominem attacks.
5. I repeatedly asked for policy in support of his assertions, to which none was forthcoming (because it doesn't exist).

If his objection is reasonable, then someone ought to be able to explain how -- either in policy language, or a reasonable concern of forgery. If your case is based entirely upon a user essay about a site that allows public uploading of videos (which is irrelevant here), then it's not a "reasonable objection". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prove me right again and again Blax. You can't stop talking about me and making accusations of bad faith. And there were no ad hominems that weren't a response to yours. Then you bitch and moan about "why are we still here" and "oh, he made an ad hominem". We're still here because you can't let it go. As for the ad hominems......WP:WQA is that way. I'm sure they'll see you are the innocent party you claim to be. I think I'm done with this discussion. You're not worth further effort. Go ahead, misrepresent and make some more bad faith allegations and get the WP:LASTWORD Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

{{I have a problem with the 4 sources saying that Fox is the most conservative, I can provide a link that says it is more even handed http://rawstory.com/2010/01/poll-fox-trusted-news/ Why not just remove the NPOV it seems to be there to satisfy a fox detractor}Unicorn76 (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From the poll concluding the source is "most trusted" you declare it is "more even handed"? Huh. Even more interesting is the detail of the poll: " there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network. ... The major networks all have the majority trust of Democrats but less than 20% from Republicans". Which you could argue supports a "liberal media except Fox News!" thesis, though I'd read it more as reflecting the documented polarisation effect of Fox. Republicans used to trust the major media before Fox came along. Rd232 ^talk 10:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did Republicans? I was a Republican many years before FNC and I didn't trust much of the major media. It was that distrust that gave rise to a strong conservative syndicated talk radio industry and made FNC a viable, money making option. My media "awakening" came when I was in the Army and stood 10 feet from a CNN reporter, listening to him mischaracterize what was going on. From then on, I started to scrutinize the media a lot more. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"stood 10 feet from a CNN reporter, listening to him mischaracterize what was going on" - yeah, close contact with a situation reported by the media is often liable to lead to trust in the media plummeting! True story. :) Or if you have any contact with the much-mocked (in the UK anyway) media studies. Rd232 ^talk 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how anyone can trust the "mainstream" American media anymore, they are so overtly bias these days. It certainly is not just fox news spin about them lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am merely suggesting we move a POV that is never going to be decided, it's unecessary to have and looking through the archives only a few are insiting it should be there.Unicorn76 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If I don't see any objection to removing the POV of the last two paragraphs of the lead, I will remove.Unicorn76 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of the lead? There's nothing wrong with them. In any case the lead needs expanding, not shrinking, to give a better overview of the article - WP:LEAD. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You and one other poster find the bias of many observors part acceptible, most of us don't.Unicorn76 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you disputing (a) that Fox represents conservative views or (b) that many observers think that or (c) both? Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

C Fox is centrist in it's news reporting and it is obvious the driving force behind the bias claim on wikipedia is Blaxthos.Unicorn76 (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fox is centrist" - I think you'll find that's a fringe view. For example "conservative News Corp TV outlet". Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fringe? Minority opinion maybe, but not "fringe". I don't consider FNC centrist, but I don't consider them any more biased then MSNBC or CNN either. Just because someone holds a slightly different opinion than the majority doesn't make it "fringe". Fringe is a very extreme, negative phrase. The majority of people like chocolate. Just not caring for the taste doesn't make someone "fringe". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I called the view that Fox is centrist "fringe". On Fox's views themselves, I agree with TFD below. Rd232 ^talk 19:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that Fox News is considered comparable to the other news networks, but the opinion shows promote fringe positions. The Fox Report for example is different from the Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity shows. TFD (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at US opinion polls that show a plurality of the population are conservative. Pluralities don't represent the fringe. The true fringe in the US are the liberals--where at the most they represent half the number of conservatives. Drrll (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Every noticed that there are conservative Dems, too? Do you think theya are the targeted audience of the Fox Shows? Face it, Fox isn't simply conservative, its views are largely identical with those of the GOP. And not all conservatives support the GOP, or else there would be no blue dogs.Gray62 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I would disagree with calling them extreme, MSNBC has extremist like Obermann and Madow. But the point is the Fox News report has never had an idelogical bent.Unicorn76 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"But the point is the Fox News report has never had an idelogical bent." Hardly, a resolved issue. Quite a bit of ink has been spilled about their apparent bias. futurebird (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But from whom on their apparant bias, the Daily Kos, Media Matters which is run by George Soros?Unicorn76 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please give what you would consider to be a 'qualified' source as to whether or not Fox News was skewed ideologically to the right? And please cite SPECIFIC examples. Manticore55 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Manticore 55, I put a source form the Media Research Center stating that Fox was polled as the least biased. Someone has removed it.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another artcile showing two studies that shows Fox is not biased, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/23/another-congressman-steps-fox-news-cites-mrc-s-business-media-instituteUnicorn76 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

$1 Million Donation by News Corps to RGA

{{editsemiprotected}} Off site coordinated effort through the Daily Kos

Under the section regarding conservative bias, there should be a citation of Fox News Channel's million dollar contribution to the Republican Governors' Association. There was a reference to this which was removed. The information should be reported by this citation: http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=53792&formType=E72 and this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/fox-parent-news-corp-donates-1.html

FNC's spokesperson was very blunt about the support and, while Fox is not reporting the donation, the organization is not in any way hiding it, as evidenced by this quote: ""News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA's pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy," a spokesperson told Politico.

The only reason to remove this piece of information form the section of the FNC page is to try and hide the information. It is surely relevant to the subject of the paragraph, which is whether or not Fox favors the Republicans and has a conservative political bias. Stephentrask (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. FNC did report the incident. Getting your facts from the Daily Kos' is not a smart move, neither is using an off-site source to coordinate an effort to smear FNC.

Note to others. There is an editor working here that is posting at the Daily Kos urging other members to include this information. Arzel (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Very troubling, but sadly not a surprise. Either way this issue clearly is going to need more debate so ive transcluded the Editrequest template as it was rightly rejected. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So, what? As a wikipedia editor, you should be glad about the attention to the encyclopedia. What do you want, that nobody outside reports about what is going on here? D'oh. Gray62 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The donation was actually made by News Corporation not Fox News, according to the Washington Post source provided. TFD (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if this does ultimately get posted, it shouldn't be sourced to Mediamatters and their people's criticism(whose views aren't notable), but more reliable sources like the NY Times and their explanation of the concern brought about by the Democratic National Committee(whose views are notable).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Fox News' $1,000,000 donation to the Republican National Committee not on the Fox News Wikipedia page? It certainly is worthy of mention that a so-called news organization would blatantly support one political viewpoint over another. I'm waiting for a rebuttal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.37.141 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is already going on right above you. Fox News didn't make the donation, News Corps did, and the only one to complain has been the DNC(plus blogs and Mediamatters). Discussion is currently underway as to whether to add it or not, until a decision has been made it is left out.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

News Corp owns FOX News. That's first paragraph already, unless you'd like to scrub that. Rupert Murdoch runs News Corp and hired Roger Ailes. Also listed before the content break. Using an argument that it was not Fox is simply noting a technicality in corporate structure.--In1984 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the article on the Wall Street Journal should point out that the Sun has a topless chick on page 3? Or should the article on the Sun say that the Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world? No, because they are different organizations. TFD (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Using an argument that it was not Fox is simply noting a technicality in corporate structure"

Claiming that it was Fox who was behind the donation is a ridiculous claim that nobody would make. The argument is that News Corps made the donation, and since they have control of Fox they can bully it into being more friendly towards conservatives, not(as you are arguing) that Fox made the donation using News Corps as a frontman.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News didn't make the donation, correct, BUT their reporting about this has been criticized by prominent voices. And the Democratic Governor Association wrote to Ailes demanding a disclaimer in Fox reporting about the gubernatorial races. Of course, THIS point belongs into the Fox News article! Gray62 (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Um - comments from a rather clearly political organization might be construed as being more about the "political game" than anything else. Note their other pronouncements which do not get coverage in anything other than partisan press. WP does not carry comments about banks whose principals give money to presidential campaigns, for example. Why not try making those edits in the bank articles if you feel so strongly about this? Collect (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're nitpicking, ALL the press is partisan! After all, there's a humna being, with his/her subjective views, behind every newspaper story ever written. So, which paper really lives up to your high standard? Regardless, the New York Times and The Guardian, for instance, are very respectable newspapers which are read all around the world. They are used as sources everywhere in WP. And if they report in length about an issue, that establishes notablity. And pls try not to divert form the topic here, ok? We don't discuss the conduct of the banks here. Gray62 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

News Corporation owns dozens of news media including the highly respected The Times and the Wall Street Journal. If one believes that Murdoch personally controls the reporting by Fox News then one needs a source that says that, rather than adding in evidence to promote the assertion. TFD (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually numerous sources have been cited. Is there a particular order you want them in? Alphabetical maybe? Order of sequence? Mr. Murdoch did not make the donation. Newscorp did. Why is that significant? Because the Citizen's United decision made it possible. Other corporations have not made as blatant a partisan donation, nor have the other News Corp organizations as blatantly and as partisianly championed and advocated the Citizen's United Decision or the Robert's Court and the Republican appointment thereof that have resulted in this. How would you like the sources that state this? For they are innumerable, and to state the fact that they don't exist precludes the effort to perform a five minute google search on your part. This is HIGHLY relevant to the main article and to Fox News itself. Manticore55 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Murdoch did not make the donation. Newscorp did. Why is that significant? Because the Citizen's United decision made it possible.

Bzzzzzzzt. Not so (if I read 1 source correctly). Rather surprised me as well but, apparently, contributions to the RGA are/were not covered under McCain/Feingold. Not sure what that does for your argument for significance...but not much I'd reckon. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What source was that? Also bear in mind that Citizen's United over turned more than McCain/Finegold. It overturned well over a hundred years of laws and previous rulings on the subject. There are also numerous sources tying together the fact that FOX advocated Citizen's United and now as a result News Corp is able to blatantly donate in such a fashion. Manticore55 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'll have to re-read the sources that Blaxthos posted in support of the debate in the FNC Controversies to properly source it (I think it may have been Politico but I'll link it when I find it). As to who's tying what together inre Fox, it is an industry du jour from the left. If you've got something, state it, source it, defend it...but it's irrelevant to this discussion...at least thus far. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Really? Isn't that exactly what I've been doing? Meanwhile you're not able to provide the source for your argument? I mean seriously? What PRECISELY do you consider 'irrelevant' to this conversation or 'unsourced'? Manticore55 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile you're not able to provide the source for your argument? I mean seriously?

I'm actually reading the sourcing Manticore55. Remarkable things can happen when you read sourcing as opposed to absorbing chat room banter...

Here's the citation (and I recall the point also being raised in another)...

The RGA is free to raise unlimited cash from corporate donors - even without this year's 'Citizen's United' ruling by the Supreme Court, which opened the door for businesses to make direct contributions to political campaigns. [1]

One last point. Your request for a CU borders on the hilarious. Good luck with that.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected regarding Citizen's United. However thank you for highlighting the excellent source which goes on to say that this is an unprecedented and extremely partisian action. The source, by the way, finds that the significant factor here is not just Rupert Murdoch but also Fox News. So were you reading the source or were you just looking for the one little point that you found that conveniently supported your questionable premise? Manticore55 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So were you reading the source or were you just looking for the one little point that you found that conveniently supported your questionable premise?

Oy Vey. Here's a suggestion. Next time you elect to WP:BATTLE, come armed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My intent is to argue the point. I, too, can quote Wikipolicy, like WP: CRAT. You cite a source that clearly validates my original premise even when I acknowledged that I was wrong on the specific example. I acknowledged my mistake, you, however, did not. Just because you do not like what the source is saying does not invalidate it. WP: SOAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manticore55 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If it looked like a criticism that would continue being brought up six months from now then it would be relevant. This however largely seems to be the DNC showboating for the cameras, and not really a criticism of much significance. It was reported on so often due to WP:RECENTISM just like Lindsey Lohan having Fuck you on her middle finger nail which got even more coverage than this, that story will die down and not be remembered either because it isn't particularly important.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is an issue that is likely to affect the viability of the political process for at LEAST 10 years, probably more like 20 given the current age range of the courts, I would hardly call this WP:RECENTISM. Maybe if Comcast or GE donates an equivalent or larger amount to the DGA, or Time Warner donates to both or either, but until then, we've got a news org that pretends to be neutral, that no one thinks actually is neutral, donating money to the political party it advocates. This is not Lindsey Lohan, not unless Lindsey Lohan suddenly starts pretending to be a journalist. Manticore55 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A politically hostile group makes over-the-top criticisms of FOX which is picked up by competing news companies shortly after they were made, during the "silly season", and were given standard reporting with no in-depth analysis or even framed as part of a larger thematic picture. Sounds like the definition of WP:RECENTISM.

I would formally like to ask for an IP check on both sides of the issue to ensure that there are not professional contributors working for Daily Kos or News Corp working undisclosed in these discussions. Manticore55 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, just promise you will apologize for wasting everybodies time and violating assume good faith after it comes back that nobodies IPs are related to either side. To make a "formal request" take it to ANI.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We have established that I am willing to apologize when I am wrong. Furthermore, it is reasonable in a case where a tag is being invoked involving external actions to look for specificly invalid proxies. Note, I did say DailyKos AND Fox. Manticore55 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"We have established that I am willing to apologize when I am wrong."

That has not been established for anybody. Perhaps you meant:

"It is already presumed that I am willing to apologize when I am wrong"

Of which I would respond that that is not typically presumed on Wikipedia, especially when one suspects another person of being a paid Wikilobbyist.

"Furthermore, it is reasonable in a case where a tag is being invoked involving external actions to look for specificly invalid proxies."

Only members of DailyKOs are suspected to be here by reasonable people. Expecting actual employees of Fox and Kos to show up is beyond paranoid.

"Note, I did say DailyKos AND Fox. "

So your not assuming good faith on either side then? Is that supposed to be a "good" thing?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN. One would need a source that explains the relevance to Fox News. TFD (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. [2] One would do wisely to pay attention to the entire discussion at hand in the section before commenting on it. Manticore55 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved, the source states News corp not fox news there for it does not belong in this article. Lets all move on now thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Its been 'resolved' has it? Well I'm glad to know that. WP: CENSOR Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it doesn't get its fair say. Did you READ the article? Here's a quote of the head line. Manticore55 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel proclaims the slogan: 'Fair and Balanced'. But Murdoch - never shy of revealing his political leanings - has handed over a million dollars to the Republicans, in one of the biggest ever political donations by a media organisation.

The article then goes on to mention "Fox News" in connection to Mr. Murdoch's decision approximately 6 times. Also, at no point in the article was News Corps 'vast media holdings' 'including the Wall Street Journal' 'The Times' etc mentioned at ALL. WHY? Because anyone with the ability to analyze the political situation understands that FOX is a partisan news network, and that this is a partisan donation, and that $1 million to the RGA is an unprecedented political move from a 'news' organization. I'm glad that's 'resolved' then. Manticore55 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

But The Times and The Wall Street are owned by Newscorp. You need a source explaining why the donation is relevant to Fox News, when it is not relevant to those other publication. It may be clear in your mind, but that is not how WP works. TFD (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs 14-18 of the article are pretty explicit in that the White House's 'war' with Fox has caused them to abandon any pretense at neutrality and speculates that this donation may be a symptom. That's pretty relevant. Manticore55 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear that there is going to be no consensus to add this issue to the article. The donation was not made by Fox News or on behalf of Fox News, that is what matters. Unless you have new sources and evidence, i am not sure what more debate on this matter will accomplish. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Because anyone with the ability to analyze the political situation understands that FOX is a partisan news network[[3]], and that this is a partisan donation[[4]], and that $1 million to the RGA is an unprecedented political move from a 'news' organization[[5]]"

Not all people with any ability to analyze the political situation arrive at your conclusions. This donation was made out of fear that many businesses have that Obama's policies will hurt businesses, and they will, it was made thus for business reasons not made because of political reasons.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit:Just to specify, Fox is biased, like all media organizations, but is not partisan.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That, as stated in the article, is precisely the point. The donation is unprecedented. This is not a question of bias, it *IS* a question of partisanship which is why it is worthy of inclusion in the article. I think the business angle is a fine example of a counterpoint for why Newscorp SAYS it made the donation but that's not the point. A significant number of other neutral (or 'anti Fox biased or however you want to say it) sources view this move as extremely partisan and political by Newscorp and the article directly points to this as a result of the White House (and Democratic Party's) reaction to FOX news. Thus making it relevant to the article. Manticore55 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"A significant number of other neutral (or 'anti Fox biased or however you want to say it) sources view this move as extremely partisan and political by Newscorp"

One source has viewed this move like that: the Democratic National Committee, which is not "neutral". The whole crux of my argument is that they are the only ones making the criticism, thus not being notable. You seem to be assuming that every news group that reported on the DNC's criticism was agreeing with them, the media reports on the war in Iraq, are they agreeing with that? Unless the media actually takes a stance you can't argue that all of them view things the same as the DNC.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because last time I checked the article wasn't written by the Democratic National Committee. And in Paragraph 12-14, the article does actually state that other news organizations don't do this. How many sources do you need? The primary reason I've been harping on this *ONE* article among many is the fact that you're pretty much ignoring what this one says, so if I went out and found more, you'd be just as inclined to do so. Now, I understand that borders on a breach of good faith, but that is not my intent. I am simply pointing out that you are stating that one source says something when one among many presented articles quite clearly says otherwise (by 'presented' I refer to the Fox News Controversy article which mentions the same thing. Manticore55 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Channel4 story? Because what I read there was "Executive director of the Democratic Governors Association Nathan Daschle said..." and "Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugnan suggested..." and nowhere did I read "Executives of Channel4 have come out to denounce the move as a clear breach of media ethics". When I say one source, I am referring to multiple sources only discussing one source of criticism, the DNC. What you need is multiple sources of criticism, not of reporting.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WK:SOAP Um...why does it have to be criticism to be relevant to article? The source said it is unprecedented for a media company. I'm trying to improve the article by adding relevant information. The donation is relevant information. I'm showing you why it is relevant. I don't care about the DNC's criticism of Fox. Who cares? The donation, however, is relevant. Manticore55 (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So now you argue it's not a criticism, but a historic donation? Take it to News Corps article then. The only relevancy you could argue for it on Fox is if you argued that it made them appear bias, but if your just arguing that any donation of that size needs to be reported, then report it on the News Corps article. Jeesh.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually if FOX News is the REASON for the donation then its entirely relevant. The fact that you've failed to hear what I've been arguing indicates that you aren't listening. Manticore55 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide neutral sources that specifically state Fox News Channel gave a donation to the RGA. So far nothing i have seen clearly states that there for it does not belong in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "unprecedented" see [6] for Goldman Sachs' large donation (a bank, and a lot smaller than NewsCorp). [ http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.php?cmte=DSCC&cycle=2004] way more. [7] NewsWeb Corp - also for a lot more. [8] even more fun. So we are looking at a huge company making a much smaller donation than a much smaller company made repeatedly ... BTW, NewsCorp also gave money to the DNC [9] making all of this totally worthless as a side issue being pushed for political purposes. Collect (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's rather nice. Is Goldman Sachs' a media company? Alright, then let's keep out the WK:SYN and stick to the issue at hand shall we?

Goldman Sachs is a financial company - NewsWeb is a media company. Amazingly enough we would have to point out that NewsCorp gave money to both parties which does rather reduce theemotional impact a bit. Care to say howyou would word that fact? Collect (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher is demanding that I provide a source that he (assuming good faith that he has been following the article and isn't just making stuff out of thin air) knows is factually incorrect based on what was provided in the article. His condition for inclusion is that FOX News made a donation to the RGA. The article clearly doesn't state that because they didn't. Britishwatcher knows this (assuming good faith that he read the article and desires meaningful contribution to the discussion at hand.) However, I'm afraid that the question is whether or not the fact that NEWSCORP gave the donation to the RGA has to do with the fact that FOX has been politically 'attacked' by the democratic party and thus has no need to maintain the pretense of impartiality. Thus your conditional is irrelevant to the point I am making. Manticore55 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"His condition for inclusion is that FOX News made a donation to the RGA. The article clearly doesn't state that because they didn't." I am glad we can all agree that Fox news Channel did not give a donation to the RGA. There for the issue does not need to be mentioned on this page thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The headline of this section is $1 Million Donation by Newscorp to the RGA. Are you even having a discussion or simply repeating the same point over and over again in hopes that I'll go away or believe it? Because failure to listen to what I am saying would be Bad Faith. I am explicitly stating that the failure of Fox News to give a donation to the RGA does not address the relevance of that donation to Fox News. I have offered sourced evidence of relevance. You are offering data that we both agree is not factually correct nor which relates to the actual topic at hand. Manticore55 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest i do not really care what you choose to believe or not. The fact is there is no need to include this matter in this article unless you have some other sources which might change things. It is clear from this talk page there is going to be no consensus for the inclusion, i think we should all accept this and move on, but i have no problem repeating myself over and over again :). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I found your comment:

"Paragraphs 14-18 of the article are pretty explicit in that the White House's 'war' with Fox has caused them to abandon any pretense at neutrality and speculates that this donation may be a symptom. That's pretty relevant."

Do I need to respond? They suggest that their might be a different history going on. They then describe the White house/Fox conflict and then go on to discuss improving relations between the two. Sounded more like a touching reunion story than an "explicit" statement that their feud with the white house "has caused them to abandon any pretense at neutrality". Is there another channel four article that you are referring to?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. WP:CRYSTAL Reporters cannot read minds. They can, however, offer reasonable analysis. Reasonable analysts have pointed to a reasonable correlation between FOX News and the donation. Given that the article also states that it is unprecedented, it becomes relevant. Manticore55 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am stepping away from this for a few days. The arguments here have reached the point of the surreal and ridiculous, failing to listen to what I'm saying and instead resorting to emotional counter reactions by a partisan blog's call in the forked article. Rather than emotionally respond in kind, I will return with several sources in a few days. Given the traffic of this incident and the volume of comments, I will no doubt have to create a new section assuming one does not already exist. Manticore55 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reasonable analysts have pointed to a reasonable correlation between FOX News and the donation." - When you do return could you please produce a list of these reasonable analysts? With the sources for each thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post pretty much sums up the who, what, when, etc. in this recent blog post (emphasis mine)...

Media Matters to run ad on Fox News touting News Corp's $1 million donation to GOP

[snip]

News Corp.'s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association is perhaps the best ammunition yet for those trying to undercut Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," and Media Matters is doing its best to keep the story going. But in a general sense, other news outlets have been surprisingly receptive to Fox's claim that it's a legit news outlet, so it's anbody's guess whether this story will continue or whether it will die quietly.

UPDATE, 4:07 p.m.: In one place above I erroneously described the donation as coming from Fox, not News Corp. I've edited the post to correct.[10]

This "controversy" barely survived the current news cycle to say nothing of tomorrow's. Anyone tried a Google News search lately? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would expect to hear about this again during election time but yest, it appears to have died down. Give actions another day or two and then we can re-evaluate. Soxwon (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" paragraph doesn't make much sense

WHY are there some controverisal issues discussed in length in that parapgraqph, while others aren't even mentioned? There is a seperate article about Fox News controversies, so, as I see it, the paragraph here should briefly list ALL of the controversies, because of the problem of deciding which controverises are ore important than others. And the in length elaboration belongs into the article! The arbitrary way this is handled now doesn't make much sense to me.Gray62 (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY The section is (supposed to be) a summary of the main points, however partisan editors don't like that and continual vandalize the section by getting into undue specifics. Perhaps if we could limit the total to a few of the most notable or egregious criticisms it would be easier to incorporate them into the article and we wouldn't need a seperate article but unfortunately, some want to turn this article into a laundry list of everything from MMfA, FAIR, DK, and others that they think better denegrates FNC, hence the need for a criticism article which is already against WP policies. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That section is in serious need of trimming, its clear at present its giving undue weight to the controversy, especially as there is a whole article on it which is meant to handle the detail. I think the "Criticism and controversies" section should be cut down to 3 or 4 paragraphs in total. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think even better remove it entirely and simply spread it out among the main article itself. I think the whole reason 'controversy' sections are discouraged is because relevant and factual information is conveniently bottled into one little section skewing the factual tone of the rest of an article. Most of what it says should be throughout the entire article. Manticore55 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the garbage in that section is not needed in the article at all. There would be nowhere appropriate to mention most of it for a start. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Actually I think even better remove it entirely and simply spread it out among the main article itself." You probably know this already but for those who don't that is a widely held view by the Wikipedia community. The existence of criticism pages is ridiculous, and sections are just as bad. If there is a criticism section, then why not a praise section?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So what should we do about the problematic section? Some how i can not see full deletion of the section getting support, but how do people feel if we try to trim it down at least? Making those 4 sections into 4 or 5 paragraphs would seem like a reasonable way forward. Having those sub headings encourages more content to be added which is not needed for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News accuses itself of links to terrorism

Is Fox News a reliable source for accusing itself of links to terrorism?

If not, are they a reliable source for anything?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner

Hcobb (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Yet another conspiracy theory connecting the "Carlyle Group" to Bin Laden and thus to Osama bin Laden. Hate to tell you this but it involves specific contentious claims per WP:BLP about a Saudi official, and is barrable on that grounds alone. Then there is the issue of saying "A knows B who knows C who knows D therefore A backs D" rationale. Then try to link this to Fox? Gotta be kidding! Did you know that FDR held stock in companies which did business with Nazi Germany? Your "source" refers to Jon Stewart's comedy routine <g>. Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was all true it would not belong in this article. Why do people always want to bring things about NewsCorp to the Fox News Channel article :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But Fox News broke the story. So while they might be both terrorist connected and a lousy news organization they must now be at least one of these. Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way it does not belong in this article thanks, to mention it would without doubt be giving it Undue Weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually stories reported by news organizations are presented in articles about the subject rather than about the news organization. For example, articles about Barack Obama are included in his article, rather than articles for the New York Times, Fox News or CBS. TFD (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a view on what to do with this (well it may have a more likely home at News Corp), but I do feel the discussion is misrepresenting the source slightly. "Al-Waleed owns a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation. Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake — purchased in February — in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate. Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons." [11] Rd232 ^talk 14:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well one things for sure, it does not belong on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding the word Partisan to the overview

So I know how Wikipedia defines Partisan. And I believe I can find plenty of sources to back that up. I also know Wikipedia policies involving sources and what sources would be legitimate. But since a significant portion of the body commentariate here seems to be...well...let us say...."conservative" regarding their viewpoints about the legitimacy or partisianship of Fox News, I thought I'd use a higher standard. You see rather than try to explain the significance of the million dollar donation by Newscorp to the RGA in the article, I realized that we had to establish something more basic first before my discovery of sources would have meaning.

Is Fox news partisan or not? I think it clearly is given the definition above, but this isn't the question I'm asking. I'm not arguing whether it is or it isn't yet, but I'd like the people who think Fox ISN'T partisian to tell me what sources they would or would not consider legitimate for proof positive that it was? Ie what is THEIR viewpoint on the matter. Thanks. Manticore55 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there are certainly people that claim FNC is partisan, and there are already mentions in the article of claims of bias which would be a slightly less claim than patisan. However, this is not that same as making a statement of fact (which is what I think you are trying to say). By the clear definition above FNC is clearly not partisan by the definition of partisan. The donation of Newscorp does not equate FNC to being partisan, especially since Newscorp has donated to both political parties. Some commentators are partisan by their nature, but the news they present is not from a partisan point of view. As for the basis of your question, I don't see how anyone can answer your question unless you provide some sources that make your claim. (note: I fixed your redlink) Arzel (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As Arzel has said, NewsCorp has made donations to both political parties in the United States which makes their donation to the RGA irrelevant. Not that it wasnt already irrelevant as this is an article on Fox News Channel, not NewsCorp. But either way this article is not going to say Fox News is partisan, to do so would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources not our personal opinions. If Manticore55 has a rs that supports his opinion, then it should be provided. But it seems no one who wants to put in negative information about Fox News has ever presented any peer-reviewed articles or books from academic publishers. TFD (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was very well sourced, in order to comply with WP:NPOV we could not just state it as fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless it was a consensus view. But right now we do not even have sources that establish it to be a minority view. TFD (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Partisan news sources by definition are openly supporting one side over the other. You can accuse Fox of bias, but partisanship is just ridiculous.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So, then the consensus as I see it from the majority of the commenters here is....there is *NO* source that they would accept that indicates that Fox News is in fact Partisan. A minority state that "Reliable sources" would be acceptable per wiki guidelines. Thus, I think, based on these comments that we can accept that no one here thinks there is an objective method of saying Fox is partisan short of them flat out saying "We are the Voice of the Republican Party"? Manticore55 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an objective method of saying Fox is partisan: using reliable sources. However, if there is no consensus in reliable sources that it is partisan we cannot say that it is only report it as an opinion. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy: verifiability, neutrality and no original research. TFD (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with my statement in which I stated that I am familiar with Wikipolicy. I would say that failure to read my statement is an instance of bad faith. My statement, which was a question, was, to those involved in the article, what do you consider to be sources that would be able to offer a consensus and that would be reliable, and the answer appeared to be 'none.' Thus, if I were to find several sources that said Fox was partisan, I'm presuming they would automatically be discounted because there are no such sources...which would, I believe, be a violation of WP: Good Faith. I am *AWARE* of Wikipolicy, I am simply asking for examples of sources that would pass the bar for this particular article that would pass the definition of defining Fox News as Partisan. I can hardly be violating verifiability for trying to establish a threshold of judgement on the issue, or neutrality or original research. Manticore55 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No sources exist at present to justify stating as fact that Fox news is partisan. I hope that answers your question. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be 'no sources exist of which I am aware'? I mean doesn't saying flat out that *NO* sources exist is a violation of Good Faith? Manticore55 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that consensus on this article btw? Four Deuces, Wikiposter, Arzel, is it also your contention that there are *NO* sources that exist? Manticore55 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, "peer-reviewed articles or books from academic publishers" are acceptable. Of course we must then determine the relative prominence of the views expressed there. No said no sources exist (unless you misinterpret BritishWatcher's comments), but that no one has provided any. Do you understand why sources are required in order to add text to articles? TFD (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am confident that as of today, no sources exist that would justify this article stating as fact that fox news is partisan. It just isnt going to happen, no matter how many sources are found. Some sources may be found that justify stating they view it as partisan, which if notable enough might be allowed into the controversy section, but it would have to be balanced. But it sounded to me like Manticore wanted the article to state as fact that Fox is partisan, something we can not do. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do want to state it as fact that its partisan. Yes TFD, I understand why sources are required, but before I go looking for them, I want to make sure that I'm not essentially wasting my time. Now I want to be clear, you are stating that there are acceptable sources and that they must be prominent (ie let us say, hypothetically if we took a random sample on a google search and 2/3rds of them said that Fox was partisan (and I'm not saying this, I'm simply asking) would that be sufficiently high to meet the standard of 'prominent'? Manticore55 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You will be able to find no sources that justify stating as fact fox news is partisan so yes it would be a complete waste of your time (and ours). BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying BW. You are saying that no such sources exist. I am, however, attempting to find consensus on what the acceptable threshold is for calling Fox partisan factually. Manticore55 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not one. We can not state as fact fox news is partisan, unless they openly declare themselves as a partisan news channel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I understand that this is your opinion. I disagree, I read, "refers to fervent, sometimes militant, support of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea" and conclude that if a prominent number of sufficiently reliable sources agree that they fit that criteria then stating as factually so is just fine. And I'm pretty sure I'm well within Wikipolicy to do so. The only questions are consensus, and the definition of how prominent the sources must be, and how reliable the sources must be. Which is why I'm trying to determine consensus on both. Manticore55 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of WP policies. There is a difference between reasoned opinion and what people happen to post on the internet. Please read WP:RS. TFD (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Manticore to answer your question, yes, you are wasting your time. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate or promote a position, although not as visible you may want to try a blog like the DailyKos, they will accept anything you put forward against Fox news.(Edit to Akerans down below: go ahead and indent or outdent my comments if ever you feel the need to)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Manticore, it is not possible to answer your question. You are asking what sources that we would accept that promote your position. However, I don't believe that there are any sources that promote your position, therefor I cannot comment on sources which I don't believe exist. Wikiposter, I outdented your continuation. I hope you don't mind. 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of refs we would accept.

1. Republican National Committee, stating Fox works for them and that they coordinate all their movements with an established counsel devoted to purely that
2. Fox News, self admitting being partisan
3. News Corps, proclaiming that Fox is partisan
4. National Academy of Sciences, declaring a scientific consensus that Fox is partisan

I would start with these.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Are these the sources you would suggest to tell us how old the earth is or whether global warming is a hoax? Please show respect for people who read these articles. TFD (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3 are what is needed to state Fox News Channel is partisan. Wed need clear sources from those, although the NewsCorp/FoxNews sources would be the key two. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that list, especially 1, 2 and 3. If Manticore55 can find reliable sources with refs stating it by those 3 i would support inclusion on this article that Fox news is Partisan. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually none of these would be reliable sources. Please find a peer-reviewed article or a book from an academic publishing house that supports your view. TFD (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several that go both ways, there has been mountains of debate on this very subject and multiple RFCs. In short, Manticore55 is beating a dead horse that has been discussed a thousand times over and short of overwhelming new evidence or some incredibly conclusive evidence that was somehow overlooked things aren't going to change. Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I don't think you understand my post. If any of these sources declared this then they would be obviously enough for inclusion into this article, the fourth was more of a joke, but would be acceptable also. Please show respect to other posters on this thread.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand your post. By that logic anything they say about themselves takes priority over reliable secondary sources. Do you believe everything you read on Fox News? You should go over to the library and pick up journal articles and academic books about American broadcasters and see what they say. Pretend that you are writing an article for an encyclopedia that requires a scholarly approach, rather than writing for a blog. TFD (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

God, four deuces chillax, we typically go by what a group calls themselves when referring to them in the lead. Also, you do not believe a "scientific consensus" would not be enough? Lastly, don't even pretend anything on Wikipedia is "scholarly".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be scholarly and many articles are. Unfortunately some editors see some articles as an ideological battleground. And no we do not use subject's self-description in the lead. We use the descriptions that are found in reliable sources. Your "scientific consensus" as you mentioned was a "joke" which is not a constructive use of talk pages. Journalism actually falls under social science and therefore opinions presented in peer-reviewed articles and books from academic publishing houses would be acceptable. Your time would be more productively used in finding sources. TFD (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My time would be more productively used not continuing this discussion. You're wrong but you can continue arguing your points if you feel the need to.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We can not state Fox News is partisan as fact, even if it is peer reviewed. For neutrality reasons we must state this as opinion. Only if the organisation itself declared it as partisan would there be justification for saying it, if thats how others viewed it as well. But i do agree, this is a pointless debate because we all know there is absolutely no source that would justify such a statement of fact in this article and there would not be agreement to insert it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: " A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources." TFD (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, TFD, I find your opinion the most reasonable in this. I mean if I could theoretically find a scientific study comparing Fox news and the Republican party to say...the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to Pravda then that would be a reliable source, but you seem to be alone in that opinion. The fact that a scientific paper to the effect PROVING that Fox News wouldn't be sufficient based on consensus kind of determines my effort and commentary for future events. Regardless, thanks for answering. Manticore55 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is rare in social sciences. However if you find a majority or significant minority opinion then that may be included but must be described as such. Don't assume that most editors would object to inclusion of valid sourced opinions. The problem is that none of the editors of this article have provided sources from journalism studies. TFD (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead again

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.

That's not correct. We aren't Fox News, and we don't allow the "some people say" gambit on this website. "Many observers" have not asserted this at all. Many scholars, media critics, journalists, and media organizations maintain that Fox does not report news at all, nor does it subscribe to the most basic standards of journalism, such as good sourcing and objectivity. "Some people say" this is nonsense. The primary criticism is not that Fox promotes conservative political positions, and it never has been the primary criticism. The criticism is that Fox does not report news or practice journalism. That is the criticism. Yes, they desperately want us to believe that the criticism concerns their conservative POV, but it doesn't, and that needs to be changed. Fox doesn't get to write this article. This particular criticism has been picked out because it best promotes the interests of Fox, that is to say, the more people who believe that Fox is criticized for its political position, the more people leaning from the center to the right will say, hmmm, maybe the liberal media is picking on the little guy. This is a deliberate form of propaganda placed in the lead to prevent actual criticism. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest an alternative wording? I think that sentence is fairly neutral. This article is certainly not pro fox, it covers in far to much detail criticism / controversies already. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can, but I've previously discussed this and my comments are in the archives. You could try expanding it to include and summarize the main criticisms, rather than pointing to the one that doesn't criticize them at all. Every media outlet has a political position, so this criticism is all but empty. Fox is criticized for claiming to be a news channel, but not using journalistic standards of objectivity or reporting. Media critics frankly don't give a damn about political positions, just as long as they are reported with fairness and balance, the two things missing most on Fox, yet ironically, the two things they claim to offer. I notice that the quality of references in this article is very weak, with almost no scholarly sources in use. Why not? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede must summarize the article, and not make OR or SYNTH in the process. All cites must be reliable sources, and, frankly, the editors who WP:KNOW the truth, are not editing in accord with WP policies and guidelines at all, but in accord with what they "know." Collect (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead does not summarize the article, and the use of multiple cites in the lead is a huge red flag that something is wrong. Good and featured articles don't require sources in the lead, because the lead adequately, and more importantly accurately summarizes the topic. Which good and featured articles have you worked on, Collect? And, why are there no scholarly sources in the article, specifically, scholarly sources that have criticized Fox News? You may want to read Cla68's essay, Collect. According to him, editors who don't try to improve articles to good or featured status are probably activists pushing their POV. What do you think about that? I notice that this article isn't able to rise above a C-Class rating. Could it be because it is being controlled by activist editors? What would Cla68 say? The lead has been questioned for years, with no edits being allowed to fix it. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Provide them. Most of the editorialists I have seen have axes to grind, it seems. I suggest using google books for actual printed stuff. Articles I have worked on include Huey Long, Prem Rawat, Judaism, and somewhere around a thousand more <g>. For some reason I do not keep any track of which have ever been "good" or "featured" - "Sufficient unto the day ..." or the older "It is not up to us to complete the task ..." are both applicable. Is there any real reason you wish to know which articles I have ever worked on? I even wrote one from scratch Christopher Burnham, and even wrte one for Simple Wikipedia as well. I have posted on commons, wikiversity, meta, strategy, and simple (see SUL stats). In a "prior online life" (working for a major online service) I have read well over 4 million posts, written over 200,000 posts, and managed well over a gig of image and text files (when image files were generally under 20k in size). I have read well over 10,000 books in my life now, and still read (albeit skipping the kissing scenes in romances <g>). BTW, (another EC above) the bit about "pushing" POVs has absolutely nothing to do with making GAs. In fact, most editors never push for GA. Have I worked on GAs? Yep. Do I count them? Nope. Collect (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've created a total of one article on Wikipedia.[12] Congratulations. Now, all you have to do is expand it beyond an unassessed stub. As for your contribs, you might want to take a look yourself.[13] In any case, there are still many problems with this article, least of all the lead. You will not find an experienced editor who will agree that the lead section best represents the current "Criticism and controversies" section. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that your big articles include lots of articles on "this year in jazz" and the like, I submit that your cavil is errant. I have worked on many hundreds of XfDs - and you not. Written essays and contributed to major policy pages. You not. Been active online for three decades. You not. Been paid for magazine writing. You? Been paid for artwork. You? Helped mediate several controversial pages. You? Each editor does what he or she can - starting articles is not where I have worked, though I could add a few hundred biographies of dead people easily. Value each editor on that basis. Collect (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The "many" wording is covered in the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and is quite firmly supported by nearly a half-dozen RFC's spanning half a decade. If your comments are "previously in the archives" then you should be well aware of this established wording and the RFC's that have formed and repeatedly validated it.
2. The oversourcing in the introduction is due to the fact that editors such as yourself routinely show up and challenge the introduction, despite it being supported by the article text.
3. Your rationale for changing the introduction, specifically "they desperately want us to believe that the criticism concerns their conservative POV, but it doesn't", is a violation of our original research/synthesis of thought policies, and is based upon what you believe is the truth (which has no relevance here).
4. Finally, your repeated violations of WP:AGF ("it is being controlled by activist editors", "editors who don't try to improve articles to good or featured articles are probably activists pushing their POV", "This is a deliberate form of propaganda placed in the lead to prevent actual criticism.") is both unnecessary and makes it look like you're here to advocate your beliefs instead of considering a longstanding consensus.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Many" is not a recommended term as it is not the term used in the body of the article. And "critics" seems accurate. As "many" is not supported, while "critics" is, I would trust you would retain "critics" as being a neutral statement of what is in the body of the artcle! (noting that the rest of the comments above are clearly not directed at my position). Collect (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this article is controlled by editors who won't allow it to be improved, and who insist on using extremely poor sources, cherry picked for a certain ideological POV, with no scholarly sources in use. This is why the article is currently C-Class. There is no incentive to improve it per Cla68's essay on this topic, namely POV pushing that values stability over accuracy, that can't be challenged by B, GA, or FA reviews. This is why I've said it's propaganda, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the time to read through the archives of previous proposals. If you want something in the article changed now, you need to make the proposal clear now so that i can oppose it. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the current lead section best represents the article per WP:LEAD? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current lead is more stable than it would be if we started adding silly claims that suggest Fox News is not a news channel and doesnt do journalism. I can understand the conservative POV claims about the channel, but the idea it aint even a news channel is laughable and if this introduction even hinted at that it would make the whole article a joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, tell me what kind of journalism do they do? "Some people say" isn't journalism, it's personal opinion pretending to be news. So tell me. Surely, they've won awards for the journalism, right? Investigative stories, reporting awards, correct? You do know that reporters report stories, I hope. Besides being the first media outlet to report that George W. Bush won the 2000 United States presidential election despite the fact that Al Gore won it with 543,895 more votes, I can't think of a single story that Fox News has ever reported. Can you? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Voter intimidation in the 2008 presidential election, they reported that news story whilst other media outlets in the United States gave very little coverage to such a serious issue. I happen to think Fox journalism is something the USA needs right now because without it, the biased "mainstream media" would have more of a monopoly on the information. However this is not about what you or i think. The fact remains we have to comply with WP:NPOV and at the moment the introduction is fairly neutral, to give more undue weight in the introduction to the critics of fox would be problematic and not in the interests of this article, as it will lead to instability. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded or modified per WP:LEAD to match the primary claims in the "Criticism and controversies" section. This has nothing to do with NPOV, so please stop bringing that up. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is infact that section which needs serious trimming because at the moment it violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the critics, there is for example no section on praise for Fox News. The introduction does not need changing to fit more of the stuff from that section in it, the section needs changing. I will continue to bring up NPOV because that is my primary concern when considering proposed changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but you're still avoiding my point about WP:LEAD. I realize that you may not be familiar with how to write lead sections, in which case I will give it a go in the next day. I recently helped rewrite the lead section for Glenn Beck, and I would estimate that 80-90 percent of my changes are still intact. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is more important than WP:LEAD. I am happy to look at proposed changes to the introduction, and if they maintain neutrality and improve the intro to be more in line with WP:LEAD i will support it. But it has to be neutral, and it can not give undue weight to fox news critics. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you are still missing the point. NPOV and LEAD are two different things. As the controversy and criticism section and subarticle note, Fox News has received a great deal of criticism, and the current lead doesn't best represent that content. Please have a look at WP:LEAD where you can learn more about how to write a good introduction and summary of the topic. Please also notice that the criticism of Glenn Beck is not just neutral, but covers and summarizes the main points. The criticism in this article only covers one aspect of the criticism and fails to summarize the other primary points. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are two different things, what i am saying is NPOV is more important than LEAD. Just because this article gives clear undue weight to critics/controversy of Fox News channel does not mean we should change the introduction to reflect it. We should be sorting out the minefield in that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction most certainly needs to be changed, and if you read WP:LEAD, you'll notice that it says, "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." So, here's the problem: The article is currently at 57,894 bytes and contains three paragraphs. The thing is, the entire lead contains only eight sentences. This is somewhat unusual, as a lead section of this size would probably contain on the order of two to three times that many. In other words, the three paragraphs are really only one paragraph when you remove the line breaks, and should be expanded to summarize the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)US Presidential elections are determined by Electoral Votes - not popular vote. Collect (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Fox called the election before any other media network. That is pretty significant, historically, yet not a word about it in this article. Why not? David W. Moore, formerly with the Gallup Poll, thought it was important enough to write a book about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Some networks "called" Florida before the polls had closed. The normal rule in life is that someone is first - at least Fox waited until after the polls closed! Care to elucidate on that? Collect (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you are missing the point. Encyclopedia articles often highlight significant historical events, focusing on "firsts" and unique items associated with the topic. For example, according to the Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, "Fox News Channel is the first of the United States news networks to implement a news ticker at the bottom of its screen for supplementary information about the attacks." Apparently, all the news networks copied Fox after they added the ticker. This is something I recall seeing live, but I wasn't aware Fox was responsible for it. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They called the election first and it turned out to be right. Sounds like good journalism! I think its a rather disturbing method of announcing/declaring results, but it is the American way, Fox was simply doing its job. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As you may or may not know, the election results were disputed, and David W. Moore, whom I refer to above, is just one author who wrote a book about it. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The recount was disputed - and the NYT, inter alia, found that no reasonable methodology would have made a difference in the recount result. Collect (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Moore's central thesis is that Fox's early call influenced the outcome of the recount and court decision. Perhaps you should do some research on it. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically its his opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is his opinion. On Wikipedia, we represent and attribute significant opinions. As a former pollster for Gallup he has some insight on the topic and his book is based on first-hand reporting from the scene of the election he was covering as a journalist. Are there any articles you've written where you've had to cite the opinions of an author? And as for the controversy concerning the election recount, that's a significant historical event. Howard Dean even told Sean Hannity at the 2008 Democratic Convention that resentment over the disputed election results in 2000 was one factor leading the call for a change of government. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, this guys opinion does not belong in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would generally agree, however, it is notable that Fox called the 2000 election in favor of Bush. Notable items like this could appear in the lead section if there was enough content in the article supporting it, but I'm using this as an example. I don't see it appearing in the lead anytime soon. If anyone is interested, the subject is covered in some detail in the article, John Prescott Ellis. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Many observers especially considering the partsian nature of the refrences is an obvious POV why not just remove it?Unicorn76 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If we can't even put in the lead that Fox is partisan, why bother at all? This article is clearly compromised. Manticore55 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can put that in the lead, but it isn't the primary criticism. The primary criticism is that they are not "fair and balanced" as they claim, and that they act as an extension of the Republican Party. The idea that the primary criticism has to do with the notion that they promote "conservative political positions" is a subtle form of misdirection. Bush's first cousin, John Prescott Ellis was working for Fox the night of the 2000 election against Gore, and called the election for his cousin, even when the Associated Press said it was too close to call. When Bush became president, Fox News did not criticize a single thing he said or did for eight years, and in fact, acted as an informal mouthpiece for the administration and promoted their policies, justifying two wars and ignoring economic and social issues like health care and jobs, issues that concern the average person. This is the complete opposite of what a news organization serving the public is supposed to do. Other criticisms concern Fox's penchant for fear mongering and divisiveness, stirring up race issues and attacking anyone who disagrees with their religious, conservative agenda. I believe I've summarized the general criticism against Fox. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The claims are editorial in nature at best - as for someone being someone's cousin, that is gleefully irrelevant entirely. Networks do not change votes in a recount in the US. Nor in the UK. Nor in Australia. I fear you wish to emphasize what you WP:KNOW to be "fear mongering and divisiveness" rather than relying on WP policies about reliable sources. Collect (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

These claims are documented criticisms published in reliable sources and I've just paraphrased them for you. According to these sources, it is relevant that the individual responsible for calling the 2000 election was related to the person running for office. That's called a conflict of interest, and journalistic ethics avoid it. Additionally, several studies were published or released showing that people who watched Fox News were less informed about basic issues than people who watched other news stations. Studies seemed to show that Fox's audience is consistently misinformed and lacks the necessary information needed to make good decisions in a democracy, information the public expects from a media outlet. Viriditas (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me any RS which says that a cousin is estopped ethically from commentary on events. One cite, even. Assertions about what you WP:KNOW fail to impress at this point. It looks very much like your only goal is to cast broad aspersions on anyone and anything connected with Fox. Mayhaps you should examine George S.'s commentaries on Clinton, who was his actual employer? Try making all this sort of edits on his article and see where it ends up <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, if you have a problem with a cousin of George W Bush working for Fox News, do you have a problem with Nina Totenberg or Jeffrey Toobin reporting on the Supreme Court when they are friends with specific Justices? Drrll (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, Fox news is evil, they push propaganda, they stole the election, the suck, they aren't fair and balanced, they are not a news organization, yadda, yadda, yadda. Now that we know how you personally feel about them, we expect you to craft a fair, NPOV, thoughtful, lead? Sorry if I have my doubts. But please, draft one, post it hear and let the games begin.--Threeafterthree (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)ps, also when even Blaxthos!! questions you, I know you're toast :)...sorry Blax, just kidding oh course :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)