Talk:Fox News

Moving the Criticisms Section

Its not fair to start the Criticisms so close to the beginning of the article, especially when CNN is towards the bottom of their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 Apr 2008

God man, sign your posts and read the above discussion. What do you think we're debating about? TheNobleSith (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is a bit long for a section that has it's own sub-article. We don't need to duplicate information, but rather, sumamrize. Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

'Just a note - conservative and right-wing/Republicanism are NOT the same. There are conservative Democrats (blue dogs) and conservative Republicans, just as there are moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans. Thus, Conservative and Right-Wing are not exactly synonomous. '

Proposed Addition to the FAQ

Based on recent discussion, I'd like to add the following to the FAQ. Please advise.

The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal, shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well. No. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. 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. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories. Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies. Please review the lead again. The introduction takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. It's only point is to highlight that a notable controversy concerning the network is that it has a perception of promoting conservative positions. The lead takes no position on whether such a perception is in fact accurate; to do so would violate WP:NPOV.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the first part. Is including the idea that Fox News might be liberal really a "frequently asked question"? It almost seems like the question itself is fringe.

The second part seems solid. Urzatron (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of these two points. I agree with Urzatron, as I'm sure Ramsquire would, that the insinuation that FNC has a liberal bias is in fact fringe, but we have had that question raised before. I'd be nice to have a solid answer hammered out, and the two summaries don't appear to take a stand on either side of the issue (reads neutral). - auburnpilot talk 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion of these points as helpful and valid. There might be a few grammatical improvements (punctuation and form), but the language seems fine and the points seem spot-on to me. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the second point. The first point sounds a bit harsh in it's wording, and it should point out that the lead does give an alternative view. It currently sounds a bit "biting." Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Kevin Baas^talk 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'm all for it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To Bytebear-- I don't see the "biting", perhaps you can point out specifically what the problem is. These are proposals, so I didn't do a spell or grammar check before posting. I just wanted to know what people thought of the idea. All grammatical and style suggestions are greatly appreciated. To Urzation-- The point of the first sentence is to respond to users who want the "some say x, others say y, and some even say z" formulation that editors often want in the lead. As AuburnPilot has noted, it has come up from time to time. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The biting issue is just a matter or rearanging things so the reader isn't repremanded for asking the question (starting with a "No" is not particularly polite).

The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews 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, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. 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. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories.

How's that? Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed the "No." and swapped the remaining first two sentences. You're right, it is less biting, and I think I know why: it's generally good communication to restate what the other person is saying first, so they know you understand them and are taking their thoughts into account. Additionally, it helps to clarify how what you're saying relates to what they're saying. I like. Kevin Baas^talk 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the improvements made by Bytebear. Of course, I didn't mean to be biting or impolite with the no. I was just trying to give a short answer first with explanation to follow. But BB's version is better. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the FAQ, as there did not seem to be any objection. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong in the first paragraph at all and must be relocated much further down in the article; or you can start a new article about Fox News controversies and criticisms. 64.126.34.118 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what "this" refers to. The proposals in this section are not for the article but for the FAQ. The disputed language which is the subject of the FAQ is not located in the first paragraph of the article, and there already exist a FoxNews controversies and criticisms. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't going in the article. It's just going here, on this talk page. Urzatron (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have made an archive run, removing a lot of material (about 500kB) to Archive 21. Some of the regular editors here may want to break that up into smaller chunks. If some threads were unresolved, I urge editors to reference the archived material, *if necessary*, but try not to reintroduce any inflammatory posts/edits to the current discussion. Please, everyone, be on your best, most polite behavior. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've been meaning to do a history merge of this talk page, as the first archives were done using copy/paste and the most recent archives were done using the move method. I'll likely get to it tomorrow, but may make a stab at it tonight if I can't find something to entertain myself. - auburnpilot talk 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just cut and pasted, feel free to archive however you think best. R. Baley (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (edit to add: Hell, I just noticed that this page is still 88kB big . . .probably need to archive a bit more. R. Baley (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Looking at the archives, only 4 of the 21 were created by moving the page, so we'll stick with the copy/paste method; it's easier anyway. Feel free to archive as you see fit, as we can always reference previous discussion. A fresh start might be the best approach. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Much easier than I expected, but with just under 4400 revisions, I think I nearly killed the server. Never seen so many consecutive database locks... - auburnpilot talk 01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the UCLA section as well. Discussion petered out, and since the consensus is to avoid referencing the lead the point is now moot. We can revisit if the source is proposed for the body at a later time. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems an overzealous vandal fighter reverted your edit, readding the UCLA discussion. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of archiving, has anyone ever considered archiving by topic since many may seem to get ressurected whether here or elsewhere? Sometimes archiving chronologically makes it harder to find previous discussions. It would be a good way to guide newcomers to see how we got to the current affair of things. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty decent idea, though I think we'd need a consensus-blessed blueprint of topics (and what goes where) that we all agree to abide by. Anyone know of any precedents or similar situations? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it may be quite difficult to implement on this page. Our discussions tend to weave in and out of their intended topic, frequently changing subjects more than once before coming back to the original thought (the "Response: UCLA Paper" section being a good example). It may be easier to simply create an index, where we can list certain topics and the chronological archives where related discussion can be found. - auburnpilot talk 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen something before like this, thought it was the Evolution article but that does not to appear to be it. The FAQ gives somewhat of a topic-based archive but maybe something more specific. Those who have been around this article more would know which topics get brought up more so I would defer to them as to what topics could be specifically archived, obviously one-time discussions don't merit this. I think one example for archving could be based on a particular source. The UCLA study comes to mind. Archiving threads devoted to this discussion go in one topic. Another could be the discussions about issue of bias. Basically, highlight topics that keep coming up. Also, just to clarify, this does not mean we shouldn't keep the chronological arhciving. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I remembered seeing a bot that would auto-index talk archives, so I've set it up to do a test run. Should run sometime in the next 5-6 hours. - auburnpilot's sock 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive index for the bot's work. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, it wasn't what I was picturing but still addresses my issue. This is good for articles that draw a lot of discussion. MrMurph101 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Viewership

Well this is my fourth attempt to try to get this note. Footnote #2 does not support the statement for which it is cited. This website does, and should replace #2 http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=2&media=7. Thank you Biccat (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. For those who haven't looked, the current Footnote No. 2 is from 2004, and is being cited as a source for which network has the most audience currently. Urzatron (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it outdated, but the link (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214) doesn't even reference viewership, but is a survey of journalist perceptions. Could be a formatting issue that got mixed in.Biccat (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Biccat's point is well taken and the citation should be changed. Also, I think the most recent debate has died down and maybe unprotection is in order. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for unprotection would be more helpful? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That, or Stifle's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected; edit as needed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right-wing"

Someone keeps on removing "right-wing" from the section about the slant that critics have accused FOX News of having at first claiming that it was redundant or unnecessary. I don't think it is, since neither "conservative" or "republican" are exactly the same as "right-wing" something that FOX has been called (and I even added a reference to it, but the main entry that goes with that section describes these criticisms in more detail). Now I've been reverted again with a dictionary.com link in the edit summary. Please explain what the problem seems to be. These words are not redundant or synonymous and "right-wing" is something that Fox News has been called. I see no reason for removing it. Please also see the main entry Fox News Channel controversies and the relevant Wikipedia entry on right-wing politics.PelleSmith (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN have been accused as being left-wing, should we change that on those pages as well? Also according to dictionary.com, conservative and right-wing are synonymous[1][2]--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline about "other crap exists" also applies to "other crap doesn't exist." Please do go to those entries and have a field day, but that has nothing to do with this one. Did you look at the main entry for that section or the "right-wing" entry? We all know that "right-wing" is a term used to describe certain types of "conservatives" but it is also not something used to describe all conservatives or all members of the republican party. I'm afraid dictionary.com does not end a dispute simply because it states what we know ... that "right-wing" is a phrase used to describe certain conservatives. The phrase is cited. You should merge the entries for "right-wing" and for "conservative" if you truly think they are simply synonymous and then maybe you have some ground to stand on.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because some people use the words "right-wing conservative" does not mean they are gramatically correct either. It's like saying a person is "a conservative that leans right", it's not necessary. Why add in another word that means the same thing? We get the point.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Although each word has different connotations globally, I think there is an important distinction here. "Conservative" is often understood to mean an association with conservative economic principles. "Right wing", at least in the U.S., is more often associated with the socio-conservative Republican party. In my opinion, the "social conservative" and the "economic conservative" movements came together in what we now refer to as the "right wing" in the U.S.. I don't know if this is helpful in discourse, though I will say that I personally think that "right-wing" more embodies the allegations made. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "right-wing" is much closer to the criticisms being made than simply "conservative" and if one of the two words needs to go its the latter and not the former. The two do not simply "mean the same thing." There are plenty fiscal conservatives that would never be considered "right-wing." I think we should change it to say "right-wing conservative or republican." Mitch can you please answer two rather simple questions here. 1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong? 2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms? It is not quite right to say "why add another word" when this word is pretty apropos to the subject matter at hand (criticisms of Fox in terms of political slant) and when the word was already here, and the matter is one of you removing it, not someone else adding it.PelleSmith (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to get involved here, but I decided to google left-wing conservative and right-wing liberal. Seems they don't necessarily entail one another, but are definitely synonymous. --Ubiq (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to get this serious. The only thing I was concerned with was getting too wordy here, nothing more. We could go on and on saying Fox News has been accused of having a socially conservative, fiscally conservative, neoconservative, economically liberal (which is embraced by american conservatives), christian right, right-wing, rightist, right-leaning, and liberal conservative bias or we could just keep it at a bias favoring Conservatives or Republicans.

For your 2 questions-

1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong?-- No because political conservatism is an ideology while right-wing refers to a place on the political spectrum. Often when many people use the term right-wing, they actually mean radically rightist or far right. It's the same for many people who use the term left-wing as well. Right-wing is like an umbrella term that refers to the entire right side of the political spectrum. There is no reason to put right-wing in with conservatism unless you are really trying to think of a nice way of saying far right which is basically facism which Fox News simply does not advocate.

2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms?-- If you are refering to the very begining of the article where it says "Critics and some observers of the channel accuse it of political bias towards the political right" I think the language is correct. In fact I think we should change the sentence we are arguing about to "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality." Would you agree?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but I want to point a out a couple of important things here. As you explain yourself in point one "conservative" and "right-wing" are not the same, and given your explanation it should be clear that the accusation of a "right-wing" bias is more extreme than simply a "conservative bias." Removing "right-wing," again given your own explanation, therefore seems like toning down the criticism in a way that is out of sync with the reality of this criticism. Also, the idea that "Fox News simply does not advocate," something or other is moot in this particular section which is not about what they advocate at all, but about what critics claim. To your first point, above your answers, I would say that whatever your intentions were, this explanation is a bit of a straw-man argument. No one was advocating using hundreds of descriptors--only three were present in the text and only one was being haggled over. That said I think your compromise is fine with both wikilinks: "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is more than one strawman and at least one logically false argument made by LuckyMitch. That being said, I do think that the proposed version is fine... let's just avoid the false absolutes and strawmen arguments. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: conservative and right-wing are different. Proof: G.W.B. is right-wing. G.W.B. is definitely not a conservative. Many republicans that I have spoken to have echoed this assessment. extreme right wingers tend to be neoconservatives, like G.W.B. and most of his appointees, and traditional conservatives agree that neoconservativism is quite far from traditional conservative values. I've heard people even go so far as to say they're considering voting democratic because some democrats are more conservative than right-wingers currently in office. right-wing is generally held to be synomymous w/republican, but conservative and right-wing are not synonymous. Kevin Baas^talk 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although the definitions of right wing and conservative overlap quite a bit, they are not exactly the same. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

what term do the sources say. Do they say "Conservative," "Right Wing," or both? Bytebear (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. The "sources," a good number of which can be seen on Fox News Channel controversies use all three of these descriptors. "Right-wing" is commonly used within these, however, in case that's what you were wondering. The reason why I preferred what was there originally before Mitch altered it was because all three are used in the sources--"conservative," "right-wing" and "Republican." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OP, you are wrong. Right-wing denotes extremist conservative views, i.e. on the fringe. All conservatives, though liberals believe otherwise, are not extremists.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information from opening paragraph

This criticism does not belong in the opening paragraph. There is no consensus to have the information remain24.27.151.226 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility be damned, we are not having this discussion. If you blank the section again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing, and removing a product of a larger consensus than any I've seen. For more information, read Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 21, beginning at section 19, titled "19 Opening Paragraph POV?". However, I cannot be more clear: blank it again, and you will be blocked. - auburnpilot talk 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to say "We've actually had this discussion before" than to say "We're not having this discussion again." You are going to see unaware people wandering in again. Count on it. Urzatron (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is a new, unaware person, I'll eat my foot. - auburnpilot talk 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is someone we all know. Kid gloves are no longer appropriate. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. My bad, then. Urzatron (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This ip (and (65.30.76.58 (talk · contribs), 24.27.130.12 (talk · contribs), 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs), 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs), 64.126.34.118 (talk · contribs)) has been used by a troll(s) engaged in mostly racist/anti-semitic disruption and harassment on the talk pages of various articles and users. I have to say it seems so formulaic, so stereotypical that the sincerity of the ip is debatable. But, regardless of sincerity, this is a troll that should probably be blocked on sight whenever the ips revert to type. SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

and i concur it does not belong since it is there in black and white in the controversies section and i have removed it and will contiue to do so it is very obvious that it is not useful and frankyl is out of place,and i dont have a horse in this race one way or another but it is not a matter of disagreeing with content , its an open and shut case its just a repeat statement that is why there is no need for a consenus and you dont start off a criticism about a news media organization in the opening section it suppose about the news channel its self the criticism sections comes later down the section like in any aticle this seems to be just a political motivated stunt--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is no need for consensus"? Allow me to point out that the version in place is grounded in a very strong consensus, and removal of such (especially if you "contiue[sic] to do so") will assuredly get you blocked as a vandal. Please move on. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really more "inappropriate edit warring" than "vandalism." I think if you were to report it as "vandalism," you'd really be reporting it to the wrong place. Urzatron (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro is there to summarize the content of the major points of the article, so repetition is not a valid reason for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 13 May

2008 (UTC)

so puting the rebuttle statement after that one would make it neutral if its okay to repeat one it okay to repeat the other--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The only consensus on the conservative bias of FOX News was reached by liberals and liberals alone. I would first ask that all who voted on this consensus to identify if they are liberal or conservative. A large number of them, mark my words, will be liberal.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the statement to make it more neutral. The previous version was anything but.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is a form of personal attack and I suggest you avoid making them in the future. Consensus was reached not based on the individual political stances of involved editors, but based on a compromise following lengthy discussion/debate. I suggest you take a step back and slow your approach. - auburnpilot talk 03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone who came to said "concensus" was indeed liberal, then the consensus would be obvious. It is undoubtably what happened here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions are unfounded swirls of conspiracy theory. It's quite clear from your userpage and recent contributions that you are here to push a conservative agenda, and a recent discussion on AN/I confirms this. Please restrict yourself to maintaining a neutral point of view and do not attack fellow editors. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Critics and some observers" in the INTRO?

Why is there mention of the 'controversy' in the intro? The articles of every other media corps that have been accused of bias (MSNBC, NYT, BBC, etc.) make no mention of this until their "criticism" or "controversy" section. Can't imagine an reputable encyclopedia jumping in to these claims so early on in an article.—DMCer™ 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FNC's article mention it in the lead because the allegations of bias from tha network are so extreme (there is even a sub article about them, there are so many). Contrast with the other media corps you referenced, which do not have so many allegations of bias against them. TheNobleSith (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when is that a unique thing? Maybe you should see CNN controversies (which have more sections than the corresponding FNC article), Criticism of The New York Times, BBC controversies, and Criticism of the BBC. All of these deal with bias on the part of the organizations. It seems a bit bias of Wikipedia that FNC is the only article that mentions these allegations in its intro; though it unfortunately seems these things are becoming increasingly common here.—DMCer™ 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All of these deal with bias on the part of the organizations. That is true, however FNC is the only news source where all of it's supposed bias is on one side(conservative, in this case). As such, it's controversy is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a statement in the lead for CNN. If you check the archives you will see I suggested that this statement not be in the lead, it was supported and the statement removed, and has been gone since. The same cannot be said here. Is there a double standard? You tell me. The rational usually given is that you can't compare articles. Arzel (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for using the statement in the intro here included the fact that the perception of Fox's conservative advocacy was incredibly widespread. CNN and the BBC, etc., simply do not compare. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually we didn't use public perception because there were no reliable sources that discussed public perception. The primary sources were members of the DMC, liberal web sites like MMfA, and a PEW research study report on Journalists opinions. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Arzel... there is no "double standard" that you imply exists. The controversy itself is what is so widespread that it warrants inclusion in the lead here; controversies regarding allegations of bias involving the other news sources mentioned are not nearly as massive as the one that surrounds Fox. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am hearing is a lot of opinion, but the real story is that the DNC buckled under to MoveOn.org. Interestingly, FNC has been viewed as the least biased network on the 2008 presidential election. You want bias, how about MSNBC, I suprised they don't have a ticker listing the number of days until Obama is elected president. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about MSNBC or it's supposed support of Obama. Even if you want to make the case about MSNBC being biased, you could easily say FNC is even more biased in the other direction. Everyone surely saw their coverage of the Reverend Wright controversy, when all they did was run a loop of Obama's pastor 24/7, despite other important events going on. MSNBC is only seen as liberal by conservatives who are upset it doesn't bash Obama 24/7 as FNC does. Once again though, this is all beside the point. The article is not talking about actual bias, it's referring to FNC's widely perceived bias. Two different things. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead mentions the criticism because WP:LEAD suggests notable controversies should be mentioned, and because consensus determined it should be mentioned. The FAQ at the top of this page outlines the basic points, and links to the archives that contain previous discussion. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a "reputable encyclopedia" that didn't mention that controversy in the lead... it's so prevalent that one of the two major political parties in the U.S. refuse to participate in debates hosted by FNC. The presence is firmly grounded in policy and consensus, as AuburnPilot referenced. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

From the FNC Controversies page. "A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush".[33]". Does the CBS page have controversies listed in the lead....I think not. Your ground is mud. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, unless you have a new point to make that hasn't already been addressed, the intro will remain as it is. Arzel, you were a witness and participate in the discussion, so you are aware of how we reached the point where we are. Any new editor to this discussion should read the FAQ and the archives, and if they have something new to add, we'll address it. However, the tired argument that CNN or MSNBC doesn't mention bias isn't persuasive and has zero validity. - auburnpilot talk 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to point out a little of the hypocrisy here. FNC is obviously the most biased new source, everyone says it is. If you can't see that it is then you are a naive rube, hence this is why it only presents here. However if anyone presents any evidence that FNC is not regarded the most biased source then we must fall back on the rule that you can't use other articles as a guide for this article. So which is it? FNC is obviously the most biased so it is apt to include in the lead? Or you can't compare articles? Because the argument above seems to be the former. AuburnPilot I have no beef with you, but if the former is the reason (which Gamaliel, Blaxthos, and The Noble Sith seem to be arguing) then that reason is not valid. Personally I don't see why it should be included in any, unless there is a major specific instance that is a topic within the article. Bias is hugely subjective, one person's bias is anothers unbiased reporting, and to say that FNC is significantly more biased than the others is purely opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The FNC bias controversy is more significant than any related controversy with any other news organization. This has nothing to do with what happens on other articles. Also, Wikipedia is not adjudicating fact, we're simply noting the fact that the controversy is widespread. The policy is clear, the consensus is clear -- three RFC's and the wording has changed maybe two or three words over the last two years. I, for one, grow tired of having to explain this to you every month, Arzel, most especially since you were here for at least half of the consensus-building. Whether you fail to comprehend the logic, or you fail to respect consensus, I really don't think we should have to explain it over and over ad infinitum. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, my opinion is this: The controversy about FNC's supposed bias is far more widespread and controversial than any other news source. That has nothing to do with whether I think it's biased, whether you think it's biased, whether Howard Dean thinks it's biased. The controversy needs to be mentioned because that is a significant portion of what FNC is notable for (not the majority of what it's known for of course; it is the highest rated cable program). Notice that the article does not make a stand on whether the claims of bias are true, it merely mentions them. It also mentions that FNC and others deny the allegations. It mentions the cotroversy without taking a side. I see no problem with that. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that it has nothing to do with whether you or I think it is, but then state that it is. Isn't that your opinion? See this is the problem I see. Everyone here assumes that it is, yet I just pointed out above that CBS is viewed in a Rasmussen poll as being the most biased. So which is it? And if you are going to use that as a reason, then the previous concensus is based off the opinions of editors and not the facts. Blaxthos, I am not the one that brings this up on a regular basis. I will state that I don't think your argument is a strong one. And I find it ironic that the Rasmussen poll which finds that CBS was the most biased networked is not even mentioned there, yet it is used here to prove that FNC is biased.  :) Now you can all talk your way out of that if you wish, but until you or others can prove to me that FNC is the most biased, this argument that you are presenting holds no weight. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. The article isn't saying the FNC is the most biased and no one wishes it to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, Arzel... this is about the controversy, not the bias. And regarding "you don't think the argument is a strong one": How many RFC's do you need to consider the argument a "strong one"? Wikipedia has spoken at least three times in the last two years, and it's always been in line with what I've pointed out to you every time you try this. I don't think we can get much stronger than that... Best of luck! ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading what The Noble Sith said in the second paragraph of this section. Try also reading what the lead says. It doesn't say controversy, it says Bias, well at least it had, now it uses the politically correct term of conservative political positions. I'll say it again, the reasoning is based purely on opinion with no solid factual evidence to back up the comparison to other major networks. You should have just stayed with that logic like you did when I first brought this issue up, because this sudden switch by several editors only confirms what the real reason is. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arzel, I thought you had a firmer grasp of the fundamental difference between the controversy and the bias. WP:LEAD says that "notable controversies" should be detailed in the lead. The controversy surrounding FNC's alleged bias is enormous... many believe that it is the single most defining issue surrounding the organization. As we all know, the lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. As such, Wikipedia must address the controversy in the lead of the article -- this is without question. Wikipedia must, of course, address the issue neutrally and take no position regarding the correctness of the allegation... however we could no more ignore it than we could omit the fact that the White House is White. Please stop trying to confuse the issue, or argue it's not germane. Clearly its presence is grounded in policy and in the largest and longest running consensus I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Time to accept it and move on. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that many people feel that way, I don't deny that. I'm just saying that it appears to be based largely on opinion. The few sources that do talk about it are mostly inconclusive where the perception of bias and thus the controversy around it, are not much different than the perception of bias and the controversy surrounding most of the other major news networks. The reflection here is that FNC is so far over the line that there is no comparison. This, I believe, is a reflection of what WP is. Dominated by younger, college educated individuals who tend to shift Democratic. So much that I (whom most people consider me to be quite liberal in real life) appear to be ardently conservative. Maybe the real question we should ask is why it is such an issue in this article. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You still miss the point, Arzel. You keep addressing it as an "opinion". The opinion is irrelevant, we're talking about the controversy. To put it another way, the content of the controversy is inconsequential, it's the controversy itself that we're obligated to discuss. That some don't feel it's correct, or that you feel that the content similar to other news organizations, has no relevance here. I feel like I have a better understanding of your viewpoint, and I hope I'm being more clear about the difference between controversy and content ("opinion"). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, is your beef with this article itself or with WP as a whole, because I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement This, I believe, is a reflection of what WP is. Dominated by younger, college educated individuals who tend to shift Democratic.. Try to decide what you're problem is before you just start causing arguments please. I feel like I'm playing a game of ring-around-the-rosy. And I apologize fpr that rude edit summary, I was tired and not feeling very patient. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've tried to stay out of this particular discussion, but Arzel you're out of line and just plain wrong on your assertions. Maybe you should try reading the archives, and the FAQ. Since the initial RfC, the consensus has always had the lead stating "conservative political position" (perhaps during one of the dustups someone changed it to bias, but it was changed right back). Also your position that anyone has changed their position is likewise without merit. It has never been about stating FNC has any actual bias. If it had, AP, myself and others would never have consented to its inclusion. You lose credibility when you make up stuff that just doesn't exist. There is a difference between "allegations of bias" (the term Noble Sith used) and "actual bias". No one is taking the position of "actual bias" (in the article at least). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, You are correct, it only mentioned bias as FNC response to the intitial statement. However, taking conservative political positions is implicitly stating that FNC is biased. You even commented on it in the Archives. Let me just add this. To all of you who feel that the bias opinion should not be in the introduction: I agree. But, what I or you feel is unimportant. It is what the consensus determined. As stated numerous times. The concensus is a) to not mention it in the introduction, since it is one of the factors of Foxnews's notability, Note, that you were making a distinction between a statement of fact that FNC was biased and simply the allegation that FNC is biased. Pretty much all of the discussion talked about the way to make the bias statement.

My statement that I struck is out of line, I reviewed the history and I confused this with something else, sorry Blaxthos.

That said, the first poster questioned the lead statement. The Noble Sith stated that FNC's bias was so extreme that you could not compare it with any other network. However, according to the Rasmussen Poll, CBS is (was at least then) percieved as the most biased network. Gamaliel and Blaxthos then stated that FNC's controversies were such that you could not compare FNC with any other network (though I think the CBS false military report on Bush was a pretty big story). All I am saying is that if this logic is going to be used to back up the reason for inclusion here but not in the other major network articles, then it is a weak arguement. Arzel (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you. I did not say their bias was more extreme, I said the controversy about their supposed bias is. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to remember what you wrote. You said the allegation that they are biased is so extreme.... Just what allegations of bias do you feel are extreme controversies? Arzel (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that it's not about actual bias but the perception of bias. The lead does not imply anything (at least it's not meant to imply anything). It takes no position on whether FNC is biased. As to your other point, at FNC the perception of bias is so extreme that a major U.S. political party boycotted debates there. The perception is real and extreme, whether or not the actual bias is. When CBS, ABC, or CNN are boycotted for a similar reason, we could then discuss how to handle it here and or at the other articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that if you believe the CNN page or MSNBC page needs to have information in them about their notable controversies in their leads, then the thing to do is to go to those pages and edit them. That really is not a valid argument for changing this page, because it could just as easily be said that those pages need to be more like this one. Therefore, I would have to say that that is a nonstarter. At the same time, contrary to what some editors would have you believe, it IS appropriate to raise the issue again if you believe that a NEW CONSENSUS is possible. The page-ownership "we" language and "It's not changing" language used on this discussion page over and over needs to stop. Bottom line, it's good that you raised the issue again, but I do not believe you've demonstrated that this article needs to change. Urzatron (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Give us a break. Who are you to tell AuburnPilot how to frame his response? Walk a mile in his shoes first. Taking his quote out of context to make a point about an argument no one is making is really bad form. Very disappointing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't name any names and have no plans to do so. Urzatron (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I commend the lOP for bringing this topic up. It needed to be said. I'm personally ashamed at the responders for their obviously liberal biased claims. "Widespread and most well known bias"? How can you even begin to prove that? There is enough EVIDENCE to the contrary claiming that Fox News is anything but biased. The fact is, they SHOW both sides to an issue, something the major networks rarely if ever do.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy here isn't one at all. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats will always decry Fox News for being biased. End of story. The fact is, they don't want "risky" uestions asked of them by conservatives. That's why they don't debate on FNC. They should though, considering FNC beats the three main news broadcasts in ratings every year...PokeHomsar (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read section 4 of the FAQ. There is no attempt to "prove" anything. It only states that there is a widespread perception (not just Democrats) that FNC promotes conservative talking points. You have not raised any reason for the lede to change, so I suggest you move on. There are over 2 million other articles here and many of them need work. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Should This Stay?

Someone added this to the article:

The liberal group MoveOn.org distributed a DVD highlighting examples of bias entitled Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.

I don't really have a problem with the way it is worded or anything, but is it notable enough for inclusion? TheNobleSith (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It really should be cited, at the very least. Urzatron (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed is certainly significant enough to mention. Gamaliel (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have watched Outfoxed, it has some hard evidences. It should stay.Speaker1978 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong in this article. It belongs in the Fox News Channel controversies article. Bytebear (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable controversies are to be briefly noted in the main article; the exposure is clearly demonstrable via its #1 selling status at Amazon.com. We're not going to go scrubbing it from the parent article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that OutFoxed in and of itself is notable. I do not think it is. Perhaps the idea that Fox News is "conservative" but not this specific video. You are pointing to a tree, when the guideline is meant to summarize the forest. Bytebear (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Number one at Amazon means it's notable. Nice try; notability does not apply to content anyway... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Forest for the trees. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted a policy to you that invalidates your argument, and I've also given you evidence as to why it would be notable if your assertion were correct. I fail to see your point, save the insistence that negative content be scrubbed regardless of policy. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you quoted a guideline, not a policy. and my argument isn't that OutFoxed isn't notable. But it is one of many sources that claim bias by Fox News. To single them out would give them undue weight (which is a policy) given the forest of sources out there. Bytebear (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

An documentary that can sustain its own article on Wikipedia certainly has due weight for inclusion here. WP:N gone, WP:UNDUE gone, what's next? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in a summary article, which this is. There is an article appropriate for discussing Outfoxed, and that is the Outfoxed article, and the Fox News Channel controversies but on those issues, this article is a summary of the forest, not a description of the trees. Bytebear (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but this individual tree is notable enough to at least be mentioned here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? There are many critics of Fox News. What makes this particular critic more notable than others? Adding it is undue weight, which contrary to Blaxthos's statement that I am "policy shopping" has been my point all along. I remind him to assume good faith before making further unsubstantiated accusations. Bytebear (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight would apply if we only mentioned this critic, or if we devoted a large section to only this critic. Gamaliel (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed (MoveOn.org) is the only critic mentioned in the section (possible the article). Bytebear (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that section should certainly be beefed up. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a sub-article, I would go with summarized rather than beefed up. Bytebear (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomato, tomato, whatever we call it, I think we essentially agree. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to go relegating all criticism or negative information to a POV fork (effectively hiding it from the relevant article). As I pointed out previously, an article on something that can sustain its own existence certainly must be mentioned here. With regards to the "only critic mentioned", I think we should expand treatment of the subject rather than try to excise it entirely. Failing to mention these elements of the subject removes any chance of credibility for the project. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that was a sub-article is for, so you don't bloat the main article? Right now, there is only one critic listed. You can either add a bunch of other criticisms (bloating the article, and duplicating information already provided in another article), or you can summarize. I really doubt that Wikipedia as a project will suffer credibility issues by summarizing (such dramatics). I vote for summarizing. But I am glad you finally agree that one tree is not a forest. Thank you. You still seem to think the subject is "Outfoxed: but it isn't. The subject is criticisms, and more specifically accusations of bias No one is suggesting excising the subject, but you are so focused on saving this one tree, you are now accusing me of burning down the entire forest. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right... we will summarize each notable controversy here. As I explained above, this content is clearly of greater proportions and consequence than most of the others listed (as it has its own article). Just like in the lead, we should summarize notable concepts with related articles here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 selling status on Amazon.com for a day does not make the movie mainstream in the least. It is only popular in liberal circles, and that is it. If you wanna make the argument it is mainstream, prepare for a losing battle.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New further reading section

I created a further reading section so that things that do not belong in the external link section have a place in the article. Basically, the further reading section may include articles that are relevant to the Wikipedia article. These further reading articles basically are articles having information that can be added to the Wikikpedia article on Fox but have yet to be cited in a footnote. From the further reading section, I removed

• "Fox Factor". USA Today.
• "Q2 '06: FNC #9 On All Of Cable TV". Media Bistro.

since they only contained a blurb on Fox. Feel free to add these to the article in a citation. Bebestbe (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some observers?

What are these "some observers" the article speaks of on the lead-in to the article? This needs references or it must be removed to meet quality standards.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

POV?

This article just screams liberal POV, whether some editors deny it or not. The fact that "critics and some observers" is not sourced proves this. The article needs balance. What "some observers" do the editors of this page mean? What "critics" are they referring to? I know it's the lead-in, but the least that can be done is remove "some observers" as it shows a liberal tilt.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To say "some observers" shows a liberal tilt doesn't make sense. As I said above, this has all been discussed and is explained with the FAQ and archives. The current wording, and absence of sources, is a product of consensus. See WP:LEAD for more information on the fact that the lead should mention notable controversies and that the lead does not require sources. I am happy to discuss new points of contention, but please familiarize yourself with how we arrived at the current wording. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I applaud your effort to continue to assume good faith with this guy, his contributions, iuser page, and significant discussion at WP:ANI is plenty enough evidence that WP:AGF may be abandoned. I'd caution against feeding the troll beyond this point. Just my opinion... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, this article has a pronounced conservative POV by omitting the numerous examples of Fox misdeeds that would show its right-wing bias. In the latest one, Fox photoshopped the images of two New York Times staffers who had dared to report Fox's ratings slump; their reward was to have Fox broadcast distorted images of them, without, of course, any disclosure to the viewer. See [3] and [4] for details. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of trying to label the political viewpoints of the editors, either right or left, can someone please look at the policies before coming here? Couldn't it just be that the editors here are trying to present a neutral article, in compliance with relevant policies? The reason that the info James wants isn't in is because it just hit the blogosphere yesterday and also because there is a controversies article which could cover it in more depth, provided there is a consensus that it is significant for inclusion. On a personal note, (and at this point, I don't care if it is taken as a personal attack) the extremism presented by both Pokeshamsar and James Lane disgusts me. It is people like you two, who wish everything and every issue become a battlefield, without room for compromise, that presents the biggest threat to the country, as with it, no problem will ever get solved. Grow up and put down the political swords, and try to work with people who may view things differently from you because everyone has different experiences. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't jump to conclusions about JamesMLane, who is an excellent editor of long standing, based on this single comment, nor should you lump him in with the likes of an insulting edit warrior. I think the point he was trying to make is not that OMG this single thing is missing, but that this article, for whatever reasons, omits many prominent issues and criticisms of Fox and his hardly a liberal hatchet job. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump to any damned conclusion I want to jump to, and state any opinion I feel like stating--Thank you. It seems to be the way the place goes and I really don't appreciate the admonition! It's good that you know that Lane has been an excellent editor, but when you post crap like he just did, and I'm in the place I'm in, you'll get the response I give. I'm tired of muzzling myself and to what effect. Yesterday I ended my third "wiki-break" in as many weeks, and I still come back to the same garbage I left. If I'm wrong about JamesLane, I'll apologize, but I don't see any difference from his post and Pokeshomsar. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC

You are confusing "I disagree with you" and "You can't do that". Obviously you can do whatever you want, but when you lump in an excellent editor of long standing with a brand new troll, it's not exactly the kind of thoughtful behavior I've come to expect from you. The problem here is perhaps JML's mistake of engaging the trolling instead of ignoring the offending editor, which makes it easy for onlookers to lump the two in together. Also, I'm familiar with the edit histories of both users, where you evidently are not, so that makes it easy for me to distinguish between the two. We all fall into that trap sometimes. I know both of us have snapped at trolls like RPJ, and perhaps an uninitiated onlooker might fall for RPJ's "I don't know why you are offended" routine. But I digress. I know this article is frustrating for everyone involved because it attracts partisans and trolls by the bucketful, but let's not make the mistake of taking a notch out of good editors because we're frustrated at the bad ones. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When an editor posts at a talk page, we don't get to see their edit history or their rating by the community. They are judged by their post and that goes for admin or troll, me, you or anybody else. And I am certainly not now going to start checking user contributions before I respond to what I see. JML's "mistake" was not in responding to Pokehomsar's garbage but with providing his own or maybe more accurately, providing language that appears to be the same.-- "To the contrary, this article has a pronounced conservative POV by omitting the numerous examples of Fox misdeeds that would show its right-wing bias." That is the same sentiment Pokehomsar, Cbuhl, Jsn933, amd several other trolls have stated here, but now its coming from the other direction. Now because you apparently are familiar with his edit history, you are attempting to provide some additional context to his quote, but the plain reading of his edit is not ambiguous, and I believe any reasonable person would take it the way I did, i.e. he believes the article has a pronounced conservative bias, not “one could argue that the article has a pronounced conservative bias.” Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede your last point, and I think he should have framed it with that qualifier or the statement could be interpreted as rather unfair to the editors here. I do agree with James in that I think the article is overly favorable to Fox and doesn't sufficiently reflect reality, but given that a pack of howler monkeys descends upon an editor every time he/she points out something negative about Fox I think it is the best compromise that could be hammered out given the current state of things and reflects the hard work of a lot of good editors, and James' statement doesn't recognize that. In the end though, I think the lesson here is not to engage trolls at all. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon my own review of the contributions of JML, it appears that you were right about him, so I left an apology on his talk page for incorrectly addressing him with my diatribe (let it be clear, I meant everything I said about the rise of these extremist POV warriors that seem to be cropping up on article after article-- they do disgust me. I am not and will not back down from that). Anyway, I'll be taking another Wiki-break in a few hours. My next step may be to take some articles out of my watchlist, or to just quit the project altogether. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are far too many extremists, and it is too difficult to get rid of all but the most obnoxious of them. I hope you don't quit. You might consider avoiding the political articles for a while. When I need to unwind, I work on articles about music or comics or obscure people nobody cares about. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That came out wrong, if this upcoming break doesn't work, then I may refactor my watchlist to take out some of the more contentious articles, that are in there because I added a comma, but which I have no real interest in. I'm not thinking of quitting in any imminent time period. However, at some point down the line it is an option, of course, but I'm not a quitter so that wouldn't be my next step as my comment implies. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the story about the doctored pictures came out ths morning and has yet to be corroborated by a third party, and there is no response yet by Fox News, it really is a non-issue at this time. It falls under "ongoing news story" which can reveal new facts. And even if the altered images are true, it is POV to make claim as to why they were doctored. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet the facts stand strong unless NBC "doctored" the original FOX-broadcast. Watch it here [5] Funny? Disgusting? Maybe both. --Floridianed (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctored photos

As editors have now pointed out, there is strong (I would say undeniable) evidence that FNC is doctoring photos in their broadcasts in a retaliatory manner. Despite the usual suspects' attempts to whitewash negative information, an ethical breach this serious must be mentioned in this article. References:

• "Unhappy with story, Fox News alters photos of writers". (MSNBC)
• "FOX News Doctors NY Times Photos". (AOL News)
• "Fox News Airs Revised Photos of 'NYT' Staffers -- Sifton Calls It 'Disgusting'". (Editor & Publisher)
• "Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters". (MMFA)
• "Fox News Airs Doctored Photos". (Drudge Retort)
• "Media Outlets Slam Fox For Doctored NY Times Photos". (Huffington Post, reprinted from MMFA)

Anyone feel up to dealing with the howler monkeys?  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulletpoint 5 is actually the "Drudge Retort". Drudge isn't covering this, at least not yet. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, thanks Ramsquire.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This has not only been a very active topic of discussion on the blogosphere, but had received a fair share of notice from other media outlets. I think it's becoming enough of a scandal to warrant mention in the article.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)