Talk:Fox News: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:52, 4 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40: 30 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information.

WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. It is appropriate to overview the controversies and allegations of bias, as these are substantial.

Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say Fox News is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well?

Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.

Concern: Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias?

Wikipedia takes no position on whether Fox News is biased. The introduction highlights the existence of a notable controversy concerning the perception that the network promotes conservative political positions. Neither the introduction nor the article takes a position on whether such a perception is accurate, we merely reflect the consensus of reliable independent sources.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.

Journalism C‑class High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Media C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Television C‑class High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City C‑class Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fox News. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fox News at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Programming

ET	Format^[1]	Program	Host(s)	Location	Description
6a-9a	Opinion	Fox and Friends	Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade	Studio E, NY	The channel's morning editorial program (HD)
9a-11a	News	America's Newsroom	Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum	Studio J, NY	A daily look at what's making news and Politics. (HD)
11a-1p	News	Happening Now	Jon Scott and Jenna Lee	Studio E, NY	A daily look at Breaking News in the world. (HD)
1p-3p	Opinion	America Live with Megyn Kelly	Megyn Kelly	Studio J, NY	A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD)
3p-4p	News	Studio B	Shepard Smith	Studio H, NY	A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD)
4p-5p	Opinion	Your World with Neil Cavuto	Neil Cavuto	Studio E, NY	Business Program. (HD)
5p-6p	Opinion	Glenn Beck	Glenn Beck	Studio D, NY	Political opinion program. (HD)
6p-7p	News and Opinion	Special Report with Bret Baier	Bret Baier	Washington	American politics and world news followed by political opinions from DC. (HD)
7p-8p	News	Fox Report	Shepard Smith	Studio H, NY	The channel's evening newscast. (HD)
8p-9p	Opinion	O'Reilly Factor	Bill O'Reilly	New York	Political opinion program. (HD)
9p-10p	Opinion	Hannity	Sean Hannity	Studio J, NY	A nightly editorial program. (HD)
10p-11p	Opinion	On the Record	Greta Van Susteren	Washington/NY	Nightly editorial program. (HD)
3a-4a	Opinion	Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld	Greg Gutfeld	Studio E, NY	Nightly talk variety program. (HD)

As of October, America's Newsroom moved to Studio H and America Live with Megyn Kelly moved to Studio A, temporarily, as the FOX News Channel prepares the set for the America's Election HQ Studio (in Studio J) for Election Night on November 2, 2010

Thefoxfanatic (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm this please? What is the source used for this, thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martha MacCallum announced that there would be studio changes via/ Twitter, other observations are based on viewing the programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would be original research and a Tweet; these are not acceptable sources. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their new slogan should be: "Fox News: some facts, but mostly opinions". Kevin Baas^talk 14:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; and MSNBC's would be "The place to go for LIBERAL politics." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't tit-for-tat. I didn't say "extremist conservative opinions" though i very well could have. you escalated. let's get back on track. are we putting the program schedule in the article? Kevin Baas^talk 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz Polling Information

In an OP-ED Kurtz, with the Washington Post said some (unnamed) survery said that 7 of 10 journalists thought FNC to be conservatively biased. This is probably true since 8 of 10 journalists are Democrats(per the Pew Excelence in Journalism studies). However, we cannot make a statement of fact that 7 of 10 journalists think this or that based on the second-hand claim of Kurtz. Just because Kurtz does shoddy journalism doesn't mean it should make it's way here as a factual statement. If he can't identify the survery then it is probably not notable. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz is likely a liberal, but he is generally a straight shooter and a good journalist. He is one of those rare journalists who has reported many times on misdeeds of liberal journalists (he's often a good source for unflattering material in WP articles on liberal journalists). Many liberals don't like Kurtz because he will go after their people. That said, I agree that there needs to be better details available about the survey. Drrll (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source identifies Kurtz as a "Washington Post staff writer"; there is no indication the claim is inaccurate or that Kurtz's piece wasn't subject to fact-checking. RS is clearly satisfied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then please tell me who did the survey, when it was done, and what the actual numbers were. As I said before, we are using opinion as a basis of a fact. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arzel here. Like, Drrll, I also respect Kurtz's abilities, but as presented in his column the survey and its results are anecdotal and not notable. If the missing information that Arzel refers to had been included it would be different. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick connected note. You might be surprised at how much "factual latitude" columnists and special features writers are given. On a couple of long-past occasions I complained about"facts" that were presented in columns for my local newspaper, The Providence Journal and was told that the writers were basically trusted by their editors not to make up stuff. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's on post-election polling, then we prefer the sources that don't give the data and methods, apparently; i.e. the ones that aren't scientific to the ones that are. Though I dare so there may be other exceptions that i'm not aware of (i was surprised to learn of that one!). Kevin Baas^talk 13:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that all we really know is that Kurtz has asserted that there is a poll in which 7 of 10 journalists believe that Fox is heavily biased to the right. While a poll showing such results is perfectly plausible its actual existence isn't clearly established. The organization conducting the poll should be named and its existence should be verifiable outside of Kurtz. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name names

Don't debate the adjective many.[1] Instead, find out which prominent people say that Fox News is a propaganda organ of the Republican Party, and attribute the statement to them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that Fox News has a "bias toward the political right" is not tantamount to asserting that fox News is "a propaganda organ of the Republican party." Of course, doing what you say, finding sources that have made that more specific assertion and scrapping the "some/many observers" business might be a viable way to proceed. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

though for more general statements, such as "Fox News has a "bias toward the political right"", the sheer number of such sources would be a practical impediment on anything less than a sub-article devoted to the topic, and picking only a few would be undue weight and unrepresentative of the magnitude. Kevin Baas^talk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree names other than Media Matters who exists to attack Fox News or competitors to Fox Nes.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include a factual statement about FNC, all you need is one relevant peer-reviewed academic article or book from an academic publishing company that states it as a fact or says that there is an academic consensus that it is a fact. Forming a conclusion about how common a view is by conducting a survey of what various people say is original research. TFD (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's find some peer reviewed sources that indicate that Fox News is biased, shall we? I mean, it is, after all an entirely plausible conclusion that they are not biased at all or are biased towards the left. Manticore55 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the main page footnotes 47-49 which are used on the fox Bias claim. 1 is from the Democratic party, the seconfd from Media Matters and the third from FAIR the last two are extreme left leaning groups.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either make a statement of fact based upon a good reference, or else spell out who says what. This "Many people say" formula is very bad. And no, it is not undue weight to pick a few of the most prominent. Jehochman ^Talk 08:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at the subarticle for sources. looking at the summary amounts to assuming the conclusion. Kevin Baas^talk 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 24.136.149.20, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please include President Obama's recent (2010) comments regarding FOX NEWS.

24.136.149.20 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific? Arzel (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Citation Needed

{{edit semi-protected}}

In response to a citation request for "Following this, a senior Obama adviser told U.S. News that the White House would never get a fair shake from Fox News.", under the heading: Obama administration conflict with Fox News, I am submitting this as the source:

http://politics.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/10/23/fox-pushed-team-obama-over-the-brink.html

I apologize if this has already been submitted, as I was unable to find any historical discussion on the issue.Darren Means (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the source isn't peer reviewed. But it could be useful to put it in the News Corp article. But just because it talks about Fox News doesn't mean it applies to Fox News. Manticore55 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am confused. Are you saying that US News and World Report is not peer reviewed, or that this link itself is not peer reviewed? This is the requested citation source, of the above article. As far as it applying to Fox news, the article is specifically about the conflict between Fox/Fox news and the Obama administration. If you are saying that the subject and heading Obama administration conflict with Fox News, do not belong in this article, then you can open another request to do so, but that really has no bearing on the citation I provided. Darren Means (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established by Consensus that anything conservatives don't like on this talk page much be in an academic peer reviewed journal to be acceptable. Regular wikipedia policy and common sense do not apply here. Manticore55 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Or we don't like opinion pieces being used to assert facts. As long is it is properly attributed, I am for inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Gravity is only a theory, as is evolution. Manticore55 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters

Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" organization. Using them as a source to claim Fox News is misrepresenting the facts is the same as using Fox News to claim CNN or NPR is misrepresting the facts and is a violation of the NPOV. I think that section should be edited to remove media matters and use a valid, objective source instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.60.43 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Media Matters is not peer reviewed. Manticore55 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointy trolling isn't appreciated Manticore55. Soxwon (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

point only applies where one is disrupting the discussion in a manner that is not relevant to the discussion at hand, or when one uses satire to over enforce. I am enforcing actual consensus based on previous discussions. WP cites sarcasm with a point with which does not agree, but in this case I agree that consensus is clearly established. I admit I find it humorous, but the fact remains that I see NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that non peer reviewed academic sources are accepted by those that mean to criticize Fox news. I am not enforcing EXAGGERATED consensus (per WP Point) I am enforcing ACTUAL consensus. I am not over enforcing, I am actually enforcing that which has been shown to be the consensus on this article. Manticore55 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the opriginal poster Media Matters has no credbility, they are funded by George Soros and it's only purpose is to attack conservative media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see past (archived) discussion, most recently RSN, outside editors: MM is reliable, media watchdog MMfA has been repeatedly upheld as a reliable source of criticism. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from stuberman, 26 October 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Surveys of people's opinion of Fox news are very different from reputable analyses of program content. Inclusion of a citation from Pew Research Center about the bias exhibited in 2008 election coverage at http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 would provide a reputable balance to popular opinion. Please append the following to the section labelled "Assertions of conservative bias"

A 2008 Pew Research Center study http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 shows positive versus negative coverage tone of Obama and McCain between MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and the media overall. Fox News had the most consistent coverage tone between Obama and McCain (0-12% variation for Fox versus 49-62% variation for media overall and more extreme for CNN and MSNBC).

MSNBC had 43% positive coverage for Obama versus 10% for McCain and 14% negative coverage for Obama versus 73% for McCain.

CNN had 36% positive coverage for Obama versus 13% for McCain and 39% negative coverage for Obama versus 61% for McCain.

Media overall had 36% positive coverage for Obama versus 14% for McCain and 29% negative coverage for Obama versus 57% for McCain.

FOX News had 25% positive coverage for Obama versus 22% for McCain and 40% negative coverage for Obama versus 40% for McCain.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuberman (talk • contribs)

Not done: From the article, "In many ways, the data offer hard evidence to confirm the notion that, at least when it comes to politics, MSNBC is now a counterweight, or leftward leaning alternative, to the tone of coverage seen on another cable channel, Fox." Also, "There are a few aspects of candidate coverage that highlight Fox’s differences with other outlets. One occurred the period from Sept. 15-23, when the impact of the economic meltdown on Wall Street was becoming clear and the political playing field began to shift toward Obama. On Fox, the assertions about the Democrat that week were much more negative (55%) than positive (15%). During the same period, in the media generally, Obama’s positive coverage (35%) exceeded his negative coverage (30%) " -Atmoz (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atmoz, The data indeed shows that MSNBC is left of Fox News but the data does not show that Fox News coverage during the 6 week period surveyed was biased against Obama. In fact the data over 6 weeks shows a slight positive bias in favor of Obama! The data shows that Fox News is general has a negative bias towards both candidates. Additionally, cherry picking a single week where Obama's positive ratings on Fox dropped below the average does not change the outcome that the average ratings were more positive for Obama. This implies that during the other 5 weeks in the survey period Obama's positive rating were higher than the average. I am requesting that this objective data from a survey by Pew of the lack of political bias be included in the Fox News page. Otherwise this article suffers from a lack of objective data other than surveys of individuals' perceptions. For Wikipedia to remain credible it needs to allow content that is reputable even if it isn't agreeable to each editor. Stuberman (talk) 2:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've detranscluded the {{edit semi-protected}} template now that discussion is taking place. --Stickee (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

@Stuberman: I've never edited this article or talk page before. I was simply responding to the editsemiprotected template that was placed on the page. Whenever I do so, I look at the source provided and judge whether I think the edit requested is verified in the source. In this case, I did not. I thought that you were doing your own original research by interpreting the source to a particular point of view. -Atmoz (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America's Election Headquarters

Should the phrase that Fox News uses, "America's Election Headquarters," be put in the section of Fox News's slogans? Is it a slogan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Escaping the "crystal" distraction

We have another observation about the Republican politicians on the Fox payroll.

The previous discussion was sidetracked by a false concern about WP:CRYSTAL, triggered by the observation that the four Republican politicians who are Fox hirelings are all prospective presidential candidates. I don't think it's at all within the purview of that policy; it's not crystal-ball-gazing to say that Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and Santorum are all currently being discussed in the media as presidential prospects.

Still, I call this a distraction because it's not the most important aspect for the article about Fox News. Forget everything you've already read about the race for the White House in 2012. Pretend for the sake of the argument that we have absolutely no idea who might be on the Republican ticket in 2012. It could just as easily be Charles Manson. Fine. What we do know, and what's important for the FNC article, is this: Fox News has four former national politicians on its payroll and all four of them are Republicans. That fact is highly relevant for readers who want to determine whether Fox News has a right-wing bias. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the apparent belief that a "national politician" is a specific enough subset of all politicians ... Pat Caddell is a Democrat last I checked. Kirsten Powers is a major Democrat as well. As is Richard Socarides. As is Geraldine Ferraro. All are paid Fox News contributors. "All four of them are Republicans" is false on its face as a claim. WP is great for allowing RS cites - but requires that we at least not post material which is palpably false on its face, no? Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Stelter, Brian (October 12, 2009). "A Volley Between Fox News and Obama Administration". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-05.

[1] Stelter, Brian (October 12, 2009). "A Volley Between Fox News and Obama Administration". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-05.

[1]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 {{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
 {{becivil}}
-== Every potential 2012 GOP candidate works for Fox News (except for Mitt Romney and everyone who holds office) ==
-Does anyone think [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=opinion this] is notable? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:Considering that the article does ''not'' claim "every" - it specifically excludes Romney, for example - the claim is trivia at best, and probably inaccurate trivia to boot. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:Its not an academic journal.  Non pro fox news sources require academic journals to prove something, and even that isn't quite enough to convince people to achieve census.  Clearly the New York Times is too biased to report bias. [[User:Manticore55|Manticore55]] ([[User talk:Manticore55|talk]]) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-::*One columnist, who is a self-described liberal, expressing an opinion doesn't make this an "issue". [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::It has been established ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_27#Adding_the_word_Partisan_to_the_overview|established]]) that a hundred columnists is not enough if it claims FOX news is biased.  And besides, you are correct.  It doesn't matter if the liberal columnist is right or not.  If almost all the major Republican candidates are working for Fox (and the other one is a millionaire who self funds) that doesn't matter to this article.  Of course, even if it were my opinion that it did, consensus is that it has to be established by an academic journal if it is an anti fox fact.  I do find this ironic since, FOX advocates anti academic bias, such as advocating against Anthrogenic Climate Change.  Source?  I'm sure there is an academic journal I could find somewhere.... [[User:Manticore55|Manticore55]] ([[User talk:Manticore55|talk]]) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::*That's hardly a valid comparison. One guy giving a theory doesn't make something an "issue". Manufacturing an issue based on the opinion of one guy is a [[WP:UNDUE]] issue. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::: Agreed. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::the thing is it's neither a "theory" or an "opinion", it's a demonstrable assertion.  BIG difference. And I mean WHOOPING. strangely there seems to be a great excess of people who couldn't tell the difference if it ran them over like a freight train.  However, regardless of the veracity, it's a sourcing issue. [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
-In all fairness, Paul Krugman is a well-respected and highly regarded economist. Were this an issue of economics, I would advocate inclusion. This, however, has to do with politics, and is thus just another voice in a sea of opinion. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
-:I actually have to agree.  Using this article as RS to raise this point would be similar to using the editorial section of the WSJ or virtually anything from Fox News as a reference.  I was just [[WP:FORUM]]ing here.  Don't mind if we hat this section.
-:I think it is an interesting point though.  Very unusual that so many potential candidates should work for one media outlet. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
-::The election is two years away, there is plenty of time for another candidate to emerge. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 03:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::True true.... [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::It is unusual that all five potential candidates are former office-holders.  Anyway, Krugman's opinion is not notable in this case.  [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::How many presidential candidates in the past 100 years can you name who were ''not'' "former office holders"?  (Clue: Ike was the only one from either major party).  Can you name any Dem possibles who are not office holders or former office holders?  "Unusual"?  Not by a long stretch!  [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Clue correction: [[Wendell Willkie]], but certainly you're right that most presidential candidates have been elected to something else first.  A more important point is that Fox has four prominent Republican politicians as regular paid contributors, while offering the same kind of invaluable exposure to the following Democratic politicians: _____, _____, _____, and _____ (assistance in filling in the blanks is requested). [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::Willkie -- the Democrat, of course!  2 out of a hundred or so possibles over 25 election cycles?  So "unusual" is still inapt.  Meanwhile Pawlenty, generally listed as a possible, is not a Fox commentator.  Nor is Romney.  Figuring out Dems is tough because no one announces against an incumbent this early at all - thus making the implicit question impossible to answer.  Fox does, however, regularly have Dems on the air, to be sure.  Just not "presidential hopefuls" because that, currently, is a null set. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::Yes, Fox has politicians of both parties as occasional guests.  The issue is having politicians as regular paid contributors.  During the Bush administration, there were plenty of prospective Democratic presidential candidates; I'm not aware that any of them were hired as regular FNC contributors.  Furthermore, even though, as you state, the Democrats currently have no presidential hopefuls who are situated similarly to Gingrich-Huckabee-Palin-Santorum, they do have former elected officials.  (Note that CNN has picked up Eliot Spitzer.)  Fox's roster of former-electeds-turned-contributors appears to be "balanced" as four Republicans and zero Democrats.  This information is certainly relevant (although, of course, without my snarky reference to the "fair and balanced" slogan). [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 15:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-{{outdent}}What is probably most notable is the number of possible candidates that do not currently hold office.  If you don't hold office, you have to do something to keep your name in the news.  In the 2008 election, all of the major Democratic candidates were senators and therefore unable to hold paid outside positions.  I can't think of a single major candidate from either side that wasn't a govenor, senator, or representative in 2008.  In 2010 you probably won't have any Democratic candidates to worry about besides Obama, and the only other possible challengers to Obama are already serving or working for him, so the "balance" in relation to the 2010 election is not relevant.  [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-===The source is ''Politico'', not Krugman===
-The attacks on the Krugman column as opinion, and therefore irrelevant, are completely misguided.  Krugman wasn't offering an opinion; he was stating an objective fact, and ''then'' offering opinions about it.  If the Krugman column were all we had, it would be adequate sourcing for the underlying fact.
-But, of course, the Krugman column isn't all we have.  Krugman expressly credited ''his'' source, [[Politico (newspaper)|''Politico'']] (whose President and CEO, incidentally, is a former assistant to that well-known Bolshevik, Ronald Reagan).  Let's focus on [http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=506E9A42-0184-3BF7-6F2F8D12EC95F5F3 this article] in ''Politico'', which establishes the fact -- Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum are all prospective Republican candidates and are all on the Fox News payroll.  The article goes on to point out some of the issues raised as a result.  Of greatest relevant to our article is that Fox is providing four right-wingers with "a lucrative and powerful pulpit".  ''Politico'' states:
-<blockquote>Their Fox jobs allow these politicians an opportunity to send conservative activists a mostly unfiltered message in what is almost always a friendly environment. Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party.</blockquote>
-In addition to what the situation says about FNC's overall right-wing bias (Krugman: "Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan"), the ''Politico'' article refers to the issues of the disadvantaging of other Republican candidates and the problem of Fox News reporters who must cover their co-employees.
-This is an unprecedented situation that certainly deserves mention. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:I'd say that's probably notable for a 2012 election article, too. [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::I would have to say that I'm on the fence, as it appears that the story received scant coverage outside of the Paul Krugman column. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fox+news+contributors%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=nws:1&ei=54usTPbbM8SjnQfX7aXhDA&start=0&sa=N google news search for "fox news contributors" (quoted search)] notice the first link with 15 news items [http://news.google.com/news/more?q=%22fox+news+contributors%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dKiANUs73XqS3IMwbpem0BBTNGTsM&ei=U4ysTKieFM-gnQeOl-nYBg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CC0QqgIoADAA] [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::Isn't this mostly a [[WP:CRYSTAL]] situation?  [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::How so?  [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::Because it is making an assumption about who the major 2012 GOP field will be.  According to the 2012 election page there are a number of listed potential candidates that are not included in this opinion piece.  Furthermore, this is something that cannot even be verified because there is no way to verify that it is actualy true.  If in a few months when people actually start to declare their bid it turns out to be true then it will probably be a topic of discussion and possibly worth inclusion.  Right now it is opinion and not really that notable.  [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::It is not making any assumption.  The information can be verified easily, just by looking at the 2012 election page that you mentioned. (in almost the same sentence in which you said it couldn't!) And as was already mentioned, it's not an opinion on whether the potential gop candidates are all paid contributors to fox news, it's an objective fact.  [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::All? Romney? Pawlenty? Seems that all < all substantially.  [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::I'm loathe to say it, but I agree with [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] re [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::All those candidates on the 2012 election page are sourced by at least two reliable sources.  that leaves, however, the adjective "major", and its narrower scope, left unaccounted for.  yet looking at the five claimed major ones, esp. in relation to the others, i don't think you'll find much disagreement, esp. among pundits.  so it probably wont' be too difficult to find sources for that. [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::Unfortunately the 2012 election cycle is already ramping up -- it only seems subdued because of midterm election season now, and candidates don't wait as long as they used to -- so WP:Crystal is moot. I agree with James says, this should be incorporated into the article. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::*I can't think of Republican who has announced their candidacy at this point. Was there someone I am unaware of? If not, it's a bunch of speculation and [[WP:CRYSTAL]] looks like it could apply. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::If it was about people who have announced their candidacy that would be a valid point, but it is not about people who have announced their candidacy.  it is about people that are widely held to be considered "potential" candidates.  e.g. by pundits and the like.  it happens every election cycle.  it does not follow that if people have not announced their candidacy saying that they are "potential candidates", as verified by numerous reliable sources, is "speculation".  for an example, see the 2012 election articles and the sub-articles on "potential candidates". (which btw, might be a good place for this info.) [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::::*"Widely held" based on sheer speculation and nothing really factual. But it still comes back to the grumblings of a person or two that didn't end up with widespread coverage and whether or not that rises to the level of being a significant enough issue to inclued. At this point, I'd say no. If it becomes a bigger issue, then perhaps. But at the present, I can't say it merits inclusion. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::I do have to agree with that general sentiment, and also the election is still kinda far off.  and somewhere on the election pages might be a better place for it, if like you said, it gets more coverage. [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-{{od}}
-The criteria for inclusion is not necessarily whether the prospective candidates have announced. Names are listed at [[United States presidential election, 2012]] and [[Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012]] if they've been discussed in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
-:That is exactly why Krugman's claim means nothing.  If you use his information about the 2010 field then it is [[WP:CYRSTAL]] if you don't use his information than he is substantially off the mark, because the field is far greater than what he is claiming.  [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
-::We're not just talking about Krugman's opinion piece anymore. As James says above, the original source is '''''Politico''''' [http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=506E9A42-0184-3BF7-6F2F8D12EC95F5F3] a news outlet with conservative connections. They name the major candidates working for Fox News, all of which have been listed by other sources as potential candidates. In addition to the quote already mentioned above, there are other observations worthy of consideration for inclusion:
-::* <small>"At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety. With Fox effectively becoming the flagship network of the right and, more specifically, the tea party movement, the four Republicans it employs enjoy an unparalleled platform from which to speak directly to primary voters who will determine the party’s next nominee. ..."
-::* "Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network. But it’s such a lucrative and powerful pulpit that '''Palin, Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee''' have every reason to delay formal announcements and stay on contract for as long as they can."
-::* "The idea of the four prospects — and especially the former Alaska governor — facing media questions only on a network that both pays them and offers limited scrutiny has already become a matter of frustration in the political and journalistic community — and not just among those the intensely competitive Fox is typically quick to dismiss as jealous rivals.  ..."
-::* "What worries some in the political and media community, though, is that behind Palin’s incessant attacks on what she calls “the lamestream media” is a strategy to de-legitimize traditional news outlets so as to avoid ever facing any accountability beyond Fox."</small>
-::-<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::This discussion deserves a follow-up since the next election cycle is starting. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 05:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 == Programming ==