Jump to content

Talk:Fox News: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 62: Line 62:
::Oh fine Zaathras, be the voice of reason and moderation, ''just like Fox'' '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 23:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
::Oh fine Zaathras, be the voice of reason and moderation, ''just like Fox'' '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 23:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a gift. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a gift. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
::This is so clearly the reasonable approach, yet such glaring bias motivates people to suggest that we actually don't call it by it's name. [[User:Heavy Chaos|HC]] ([[User talk:Heavy Chaos|talk]]) 00:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:11, 9 March 2023

Template:Vital article


Discussion to deprecate Fox News. See RS/N

See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

This template will take you to the maintained and updated list.

User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

Excellent work. I hope to see these references utilized in the article immediately—Fox News has proven itself duplicit, and this time they can't deny it.
Moderators should probably be prepared to lock down this page. I'm sure some of the Fox News fans will be doing their best to undo legitimate edits referring to this scandal. 98.251.192.45 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 83 sources now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox as entertainment

Fox News is listed by the TV Guide - a property, coincidentally, owned by Rupert Murdoch - as an “entertainment” channel. In 2007, Roger Ailes said that Fox News’ direct competitors were entertainment channels, citing TBS and USA as examples. In Canada, Fox must label its broadcast “for entertainment purposes”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgardn14 (talkcontribs)

What change are you proposing to the article. ValarianB (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news should not be described as a news channel

As the Dominion Voting System's defamation suit against Fox has laid bare Fox doesn't report the news in good faith. It disseminates right wing propaganda, conspiracy theories, and lies. They should not be classified as a news organization 24.187.50.239 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Above you will see a collapse list of sources. Many of them make your point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At best, Fox News being a news channel is highly controversial and disputed Andre🚐 04:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by classified as a news organization? Like how it says The Fox News Channel...is an American multinational conservative news and political commentary television channel and website...; you want news to be removed? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to "de-news" the opening sentence of the article of, um, Fox News. Their journalistic integrity is certainly in tatters as the Dominion lawsuit exposes a lot of nefarious, partisan activities behind the curtain. All of that can and should go into the article, but let's stay grounded in reality in how the lede describes the subject. Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fine Zaathras, be the voice of reason and moderation, just like Fox Andre🚐 23:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gift. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is so clearly the reasonable approach, yet such glaring bias motivates people to suggest that we actually don't call it by it's name. HC (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]