Talk:Fox News

Reliability

so at this point its not considered a reliable source ,is it, for wikipedia a for example....

Lead is entirely unsatisfactory

The key criticism about Fox News is not that it promotes conservative positions. The key criticism is that it only promotes biased, inaccurate, one-sided, partisan infotainment masquerading as "news" while at the same time claiming to be "fair and balanced". This needs to be directly addressed in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mixing up the two issues, for which there is only one to argue of. Fox News Channel has been criticized by others for being a one-sided and biased news channel due to their to their seemingly extreme conservative nature. The lead shouldn't be changed because numerous sources (which have already been posted) have stated that Fox News Channel promotes a biased conservative base and not a more neutral one like CNN. Their biased point-of-view and twisting of facts is a direct biproduct of their alleged conservative nature as a news source.BalticPat22Pat 13:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not mixing up anything and the lead as it currently stands does not meet the barest criteria of WP:LEAD, nor does it summarize the most important point of the criticism. It is highly misleading to write, "Critics and many observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" when the primary criticism is concerned with bias, inaccuracy, distortion, and partisanship. Simply reducing this to "promoting conservative political positions" does not even begin to encapsulate the criticism, rather, it completely and totally ignores it. The point is not that FNC is criticized for being conservative, it's that they are criticized for being unfair and unbalanced while they claim to be fair and balanced. The criticism directly addresses their claims; That they are accused of being conservative completely misses the point. The most important criticism attacks their claims, not what other people claim about their political affiliation. Fox News does not claim to be conservative. They claim to be fair and balanced, and that is exactly why they are criticized. Every analysis of their news coverage shows that they are neither fair nor balanced, hence the criticism. Whether they are liberal or conservative is a red herring. Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is fair and balanced ;) and i do not think it needs to go any further into attacking the news channel in its introduction. If we look at other American News channel articles most say nothing of criticism, yet they all have their problems. The sentence on here seems to be along the same lines as MSNBC, both of which statements seem fair, reasonable and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is inaccurate and misses the point, and criticism is not an "attack"; That you see criticism as an attack speaks volumes. Each article is treated on its own merit. This is not an article about MSNBC. The lead does not currently summarize the article and needs to be fixed. As it stands, the most essential criticism about Fox News is that while they claim to be fair and balanced, an analysis of their reportage clearly shows that they aren't. Whether this is because they are conservative is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, the intro does summarize what this article is about. Its about a news channel which some think pushes Conservative POV, the intro says that, i dont see the problem. "They claim to be fair and balanced" is said here "Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting" although i do think we should add something like "and they often use the phrase "Fair and Balanced" when talking about their coverage on air". "Critics and many observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" - This covers the fact that people say fox news isnt fair, it cant be fair if its promoting a certain side can it? The statement sums up ur concerns already, You can find critics of every news channel out there, most do not make it into the intro. Atleast here it does. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, the intro does not summarize what this article is about, and does not meet the bare criteria in WP:LEAD. Furthermore, the criticism is inaccurate and misleads the reader. Whether Fox News is conservative is irrelevant to the fact that they have been accused of making false claims about being "fair and balanced". That you choose to focus on this irrelevancy simply serves to disinform the reader. The lead is not acceptable in its current form. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

But the lead already covers this matter ,although i think "fair and balanced" slogan should be added after the bit about them denying bias. How does it mislead the reader? Saying someone promotes a certain point of view is exactly the same as saying they are biased. I dont see the big problem, it could be expanded but its certainly doesnt seem to be misleading.

Perhaps it would help if you proposed the wording u would like to see instead? i dont mind it changing if its to something better which is "Fair and balanced". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What I want, is for the lead section to accurately summarize the main points in the article. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The talking points allegations are particularly egregious, and should appear in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead does cover the main points in the article, with the exception of a mention of their slogan and the fact its available in many parts of the world. "talking points allegations" is covered in the fact they promote conservative political positions. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. Again, their political positions are completely irrelevant. What is relevant, is that as a news organization they failed to follow basic journalism ethics and standards. That is the point. Continuing to point out their politics is a red herring meant to distract from the fundamental problem under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. Many critics of Fox News Channel state that they put their conservative political nature ABOVE the news that they give. Your argument holds no water. BalticPat22Pat 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm making perfect sense. Critics of Fox News consistently criticize the total lack of basic journalism ethics and standards, "the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability" among others. My argument addresses the entire problem. You are continuing to distract away from this problem by claiming the entire criticism can be reduced to "conservative political positions", when in fact, the problem is much greater and all-encompassing, and touches upon the very foundation of journalism itself. No, I'm afraid the lead is entirely unsatisfactory and must be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Viriditas, your position almost exactly mirrors mine when I first "arrived on the scene" around a half of a decade ago. Since then, we've been through a ridiculous number of RFC's and hundreds of discussions about FNC's bias and the proper way to present it here. All of the RFC's resulted in the same determination (what you see in the lead today), and as such I've done my best to adopt that position as my own.

All of that being said, I think you are making an important distinction that has (to my knowledge) never been discussed previously -- separating the political bias criticism from the lack-of-journalistic-integrity criticism. I think the natural progression has been to lump them both together because of the possible causal relationship (bias begets unethical behavior), and that my be doing a disservice to the article. I am amenable to the idea that they are disparate subjects that should be addressed separately (not all unethical conduct is due to bias, and not all bias results in unethical conduct). Do you have some reliable sources that will help us make the distinction and properly formulate presentation? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Blax, I mentioned this a few months ago and you slammed me for it. Nice dose of hypocrisy, there!PokeHomsar (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to find you some. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_against_Fox_television - Covered by the major media, and the subject of several court cases and two films. "Fox had no legal requirement to report the truth in a news story." "In February 2003, the Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by Fox News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."[1] (see also: Wines, Ethics, Law, and Business, 2006; Boje, Critical Theory for Business and Public Administration, 2009)

2. Allegations of pay to play news coverage: Using the media to influence health policy. (Mason et al., Policy & Politics in Nursing and Health Care, 2007)

3. Karen Ryan's promotion of Bush's Medicare and education programs; State Department produced segments on the War on Terrorism: Fox news affiliates aired government produced segments without disclosing the origin of the material. The code of ethics of the Radio-Television News Directors Association states that broadcasters must "clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders."(Barstow & Stein, "Under Bush, A New Age of Prepackaged TV News", The New York Times, 2005) The General Accounting Office said that federal laws had been violated, because federal money cannot be used for "publicity or propaganda purposes" unless authorized by Congress.[2]

4. History of restrained press freedom; Limited objectivity and scope: A former reporter for the Australian states that "journalists on Murdoch's papers aren't given the freedom to operate as journalists should operate." David J. Sirota of Salon describes Fox News Channel's early Iraq war reporting as a "caricature of state-run television, parroting the White House's daily talking points, no matter how unsubstantiated." Writing in The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg said Fox's approach to television journalism "casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core." Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil describes the limits on editorial freedom in Murdoch's newsroom, with the end result as "a radical-right dose of free-market economics, the social agenda of the Christian Moral Majority and hardline conservative views on subjects like drugs, abortion, law and order, and defence." New York Post journalist Danny Scheehter says that the paper has "little pretense at nonpartisanship or even conventional journalism." John Lloyd of the Financial Times describes Murdoch's commitment to "openly biased media" as a business decision, because, according to Lloyd, Murdoch believes that is what people want. (Allan, Journalism: Critical Issues, 2005) Howeer, according to Higgins & Sussman, "The business of news distorts its public and community character and the institutional responsibility of news organizations to inform and educate, free of commercial or government imperatives, and improve the quality of a democratic civil society...A 2004 documentary film, Outfoxed, exposed the politically partisan news spin orders that regularly came down from Fox TV executives to the network's news anchors and talk show hosts...Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation, is widely reported to strictly control his news outlets, print and television, including Fox News, with staunch commitments to politically conservative values. Murdoch hired Roger Ailes, political strategist to Nixon, Reagan, and the elder Bush, to run the Fox News network. Under such leadership, balanced, journalistic freedom is out of the question." (Higgins & Sussman in Gibson & Lowes, Urban Communication, 2006)

There is nothing new here that hasn't already been covered in Fox News Channel controversies. I think some of the material above shows that the allegedly unethical behavior is caused by business and political connections, not necessarily conservative bias. The use of segments by Karen Ryan and the Office of Broadcasting Services at the State Department were illegal according to the GAO. And, the use of White House talking points merely confirms the practice was widespread. The FCC has enforcement power, yet has never used it to enforce the provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act which "prohibits the Executive Branch from distributing propaganda at home". Fox even argued in their court case "that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States", and yet there is. The fact is, the controversies subarticle contains 3,362 words. Summarizing that entire article with 16 words in the lead amounting to "critics and many observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" is not acceptable by any interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Blaxthos's point is a good one, and there may be some merit to separating the issue of taking a political side from the issue of shoddy journalism. Croctotheface (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence of "shoddy journalism" about almost every single American News channel, most do not go into detail about it in the lead. I think the current sentence on their bias is reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One, the editors point is that "bias" and "lack of ethics in journalism" are two disparate issues. Two, the logic "we shouldn't mention it because there are other ethics violations elsewhere" is not a valid reason to exclude discussion here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact Fox pushes a conservative point of view is noteworthy (obvious to everyone) and justified to be included in the intro, i do not think "shoddy journalism" or what ever way someone wants to describe it is justified because statements attacking news channels of that sort of thing can be found for any news organisation (especially American news channels). Im not trying to exclude discussion, however i do think we should atleast take into account how all other news channel intros are on wikipedia, and i have not come across any mentioning "shoddy journalism". The closest example to Fox would be MSNBC, which currently has exactly the same sort of statement on political bias in their intro. This is fair and reasonable.

Attempts to add further criticism of Fox News to this articles intro would put this articles neutrality at risk as far as im concerned, especially as the editor seeking change seems to think this articles intro is currently "highly misleading", which its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The same argument was made by those opposed to the current intro: that such bias and advocacy was common to all media outlets. The editors here concluded that argument was invalid and since the bias and advocacy of Fox was a significant part of the Fox article and far exceeded similar accusations made against other outlets, including it in the intro was appropriate. If the issues discussed here a significant part of this article or its subarticles and it is properly sourced, then it's fair game for the intro. Gamaliel (talk)

The fact they push conservative positions is clear to everyone, the "shoddy journalism" is very different and plenty of sources could be found saying that about any news organisation. The fact there was so much dispute to get the current article intro to say what it says means we should avoid trying to expand controversial stuff further which will lead to even more disputes.

The current wording is fine, although i do think "fair and balanced" slogan could be mentioned in the intro after it saying "Fox denies any bias" .... and have even trademarked the slogal "fair and balanced" which is often metnioned on air. or along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The current wording deals only with the bias issue, and not the ethics issue -- they are not the same thing. Also, again, the existence of unethical conduct by other organizations doesn't nullify its significance here. The real question is if criticism for unethical conduct (separate from the bias issue) by FNC is verifiable using diverse reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By it's very nature "promoting conservative positions" is a violation of journalistic ethics. If there are other instances of "shoddy journalism" that isn't aligned with its bias, clearly it should be mentioned (for example the criticism that many of it programs seeks to objectify women) and would be appropriate for the lead. However to mention both when one is just the means to an end reeks of redundancy. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Every rhombus is a square, but not every square is a rhombus?  :) I can envision circumstances in which they could act in a biased manner and yet not violate journalistic ethics, and I can also envision ethical violations that aren't motivated by bias. Given that, I don't know if they should be inherently coupled -- if there are separate criticisms for unethical behavior, that seems to be a distinct issue... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This article's lead contains a criticism which is clearly redundant -- and seeking to intimidate editors from correcting this is a shameful mockery of Wikipedia's ideals! ChulaOne (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a request to discuss first is exactly intimidation, nor do I see a redundancy in stating "X says this, Y denies". However, on another note (to the "veterans" of this article), shouldn't the lead be "Critics and some observers...". I've been through this so many times, I've forgotten. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do all FNC critics claim bias or some? --Tom (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, but if I had to guess I would say they would. According to the FAQ above "Some critics and observers..." seems to be the agreed upon language, but I do remember it being the other way around at times. I just wanted to clarify which one's "right". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a question of right or wrong, its what folks can live with. Yes, it has gone back and forth over the years. I prefer some otherwise it reads as all critics which I am not sure about. --Tom (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I editted the lead to state that Fox is a "conservative news channel". Is there anyone here (or perhaps I should say, "is there significant mainstream opinion") that would downright deny that Fox is infact at least conservative leaning? --Nick (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works, you have to find significant mainstream opinion saying it's conservative, and you are bringing up a subject that has been brought up many times, and has always come back to the same compromise. Soxwon (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone denies that there are hundreds (probably thousands) of sources that apply the "conservative" label to Fox News Channel. However, I think the issue here is that Wikipedia's "voice" shouldn't be used to make the determination. Now, you and I (and most reasonable people, to be sure) can clearly see the reality of the situation, however as long as there is a significant viewpoint that believes differently, under our core policies it would be inappropriate to apply that label. There are various methods that have been used to "move the goalpost" (for example, insisting that FNC is the "real" center and everyone else is leftist), and so in my opinion it's better to show the relative difference between FNC and other mainstream organizations and leave the reference points (the what is the center argument, and the "liberal/conservative" labels) out. Or, ignore my ramblings... ;-) Either way, Soxwon is right... after like five years and dozens of discussions I am still pretty sure this is the best compromise that's ever been proposed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this really seems to be politcally motivated attempt avoid calling a duck a duck. Personally, I'm an independent, and I'm ready to acknowledge the existance of left leaning media outlets as I am right leaning media outlets. I really think it's important that we include either "right leaning channel" or "conservative channel" in the header because that really apitimizes what Fox News is. Asked to think of a conservative TV News Network, I can't imagine Fox News doesn't jump first to peoples' mind.

The arguement that "We've had this discussion before" doesn't carry water. Additionally, to say "as long as there is a significant viewpoint that believes differently" could be used to apply to holocaust denialism or alien abduction or any other such nonsense. We wikipedians have a duty to write the truth as supported by evidence and as held in mainstream informed opinion. Again I ask, is anyone here really willing to contend that Fox News is not a right leaning new network? --Nick (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point -- we don't decide what's true or not, we simply represent what reliable sources have already published. If you think you have some evidence that consensus has changed, I think you'll find the community uninterested in re-hashing the argument. I will note, however, that the onus for ripping open this scab usually comes from the other ideologically aligned. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"we simply represent what reliable sources have already published." This was the point I was making. When you say "existing consensus", are refering to the political oreintation of Fox News or the way this article should be written. I imagine the latter (as the former is indefensible). If so, please reference that consensus as I find it difficult to believe it exists. I think to suggest that there is consensus is slightly misleading.
I'll admit to being ideologically committed to calling a spade a spade. It seems that as it stands this article fails to do so. I still see no one arguing the veracity of the statement "Fox is a right leaning news channel". I suggest it be included in the lead. --Nick (talk) 3:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to look at the FAQ, you'd have seen that there have been several discussions, RFCs, and other forms of communication on the subject. You need WP:RS saying it's conservative, period. You also need concensus. You have neither so you're case doesn't hold water. What constitutes a bias is purely conjecture and so you can't just say something, you need proof. I know several who think of MMFA as being centrist and others who think that Rush Limbaugh is liberal (I'm serious). You need PROOF! Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no Soxwon -- the concept of "proof" has no meaning on Wikipedia. There is obvious evidence evidence of bias, and there are obvious sources stating such, just as there are plenty of people who believe that everyone else is just plain wrong. In the end the relevant policies are verifiability and due weight. I've seen no evidence that consensus has changed, nor do I see any point in repeating this ad infinitum while new editors (both of you) carp on irrelevant "proof" and "truth" arguments.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Still no reference to where "consensus" has been established. Still no arguement against the assertion that Fox news is conservative. Stop spouting terminology and provide some support for your statements. --Nick (talk) 4:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the already existing mention in the following paragraph adequate? It already states that "Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" in the second paragraph of the lead with two sources given - as well as providing Fox's public response to the criticism. In the article itself, the issue only appears in the criticism section - so repeating it multiple times in the lead seems to me to be an issue with undu weight for that view.

If you want it in the first paragraph, fine, but then the redundant criticism in the second paragraph should be removed, and Fox's public reply to the claim moved up to the first paragraph as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This irks me. It would be like putting in the first paragraph of the page covering the holocaust "Some people reject that the holocaust happened". Mentioning it like that offers credence to the view. Like there is some rational reason to believe it is so. I can find no reliable references supporting Fox's rejection of the charges. --Nick (talk) 4:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have some reliable sources which specifically state the FNC actively supports a conservative agenda you will not be able to add such a statement to the lead. Exisitng research has shown that FNC is the most balanced in reporting of news compared to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC (much to the dismay of those that dislike FNC). As Soxwon has stated, the lead already incorporates the opinion of critics that FNC has a conservative bias, but you cannot state as a fact that it is since there is simply no existing statistical evidence that FNC news is conservatively bias. NickCT there are reliable sources of FNC rejecting that charge of bias. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well congrats Arzel on being the first willing to step up and deny reality. Out of curiousity, are you going to accept things like Pew Research polls (or is "reliable" in your mind only those sources which espouse your views)? Do you acknowledge that Fox New's viewership is overwhelmingly conservative? And if you do, is this not enough to call the channel "conservative"? --Nick (talk) 3:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your should avoid making causal arguments. By that logic we could label almost every other station as Liberal. That conservatives are more likely to turn to FNC is more of a reflection of the liberal bias of other sources. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should avoid making poor arguements. In addition you should avoid contradicting your own point. If you are saying that Fox News stands out from "every other station", you are essentially pointing out that it varies from the norm (something with which I'd agree). Saying, "Fox news is different in that it is the only centrist news outlet" is like saying "4-leaf clovers are different from 3-leaf clovers in that 4-leaf clovers have the right number of leafs". This is a slightly foolish argue. The average is what determines the norm. As you agree that Fox News is a conservative news outlet, can we now put this in the article? --Nick (talk) 7:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I would caution against feeding Arzel... he's made his position plainly clear, and despite what you or I (or a preponderance of the evidence) would show I don't think there is much utility in arguing with someone who admittedly believes that "FNC is proper and everyone else is biased". Again, this is the "moving the goalpost" argument I cautioned against earlier; I don't think you can ever have a meaningful discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge the validity of any viewpoint other than his own. I suggest trying to have this conversation within the strict confines of (1) Wikipedia policy; and (2) improving this article. Anything more just invites more ideological nonsense... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I appreciate your point, arguement, and NPOV; however, your assertion that we have to avoid writing something that you, I, and probably the gross majority assume to be true because it does not conform with some contrived definition of "consensus" strikes me as short sighted and legalistic.
I have however slightly changed my view on this position. Based of my reading of other articles covering other news outlets I think it would be a unusual (and therefore perhaps improper) to call fox news a "conservative cable news station" in the first line (something which I can't find anywhere else). I'm still convinced that as the article stands now it makes the assertion that "Fox News is conservative" sound more controversial than it actually is.
If you read the article for "The Independent" newspaper for instance it states unequivically that the paper is "liberal leaning" (which I, and I believe the mainstream would agree with). This article about Fox News needs something similair--Nick (talk) 8:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I appreciate your position, however I long ago realized that on Wikipedia one must set aside what he knows to be true to work within the constructs of Wikipedia. I have my own thoughts about the "democratization of fact" model under which Wikipedia operates, but until such time as the Wikiway is changed I think we'll have to color within the lines already prescribed. It isn't so much that I disagree with what you're saying as it is I have adopted the community consensus position as my own (as prescribed by WP:CONSENSUS). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, can you point to something that shows "consensus" has been achieved on this point. Reading this talk page, it seems to me to rather contentious. The reason this article is the way it stands now is simply because there are a set of agressive NNPOV editors out there. I think we have to move to make this page more accurately reflect mainstream public opinion as reflect in Pew polls and other sources.--Nick (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the FAQ at the top of the page, with links to the many pages of previous discussion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I did try looking through there. I couldn't find any points at which there seemed to be wide spread approval of the current wording. Could you point it out for me? NickCT (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for continued discussion

There seems to be some continued change/reverting of the wording of the lead, which is different from the earlier more contentious change. However, the edit summary of the most recent change claims that consensus has been reached for it - but I don't see consensus to make a change in the above discussion. The change which NickCT appears to be proposing is to the wording which currently states:

Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting.

To instead be:

While Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting, observers and commentators not associated with the channel generally acknowledge that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. The channel attracts a larger conservative viewership than any other major news channel.

What are opinions on this change? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears NickCT is confused about what is meant by consensus. It appears he's thinking about a mainstream of public opinion in the world at large, when we are only talking about the consensus of editors on the particular article. There is no consensus for any change of the wording of the intro, at this point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we'll need to have a long and painful discussion before making that sort of change. Note I'm not speaking towards the content of his submission, but rather of the assertion that consensus has changed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep no consensus for that change, and i oppose the proposed change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Look.... I think I and a number of other people here acknowledge that as the lead is currently phrased, it appears to state that Fox New's political leanings are a matter of significant controversy. As I had stated above, this is a fringe opinion and should be stricken. I think the wording should reflect the general (and mainstream) view that Fox News is a conservative leaning channel.
I had made this point above and people didn't seem to want to completely debate it, so after a while I just went ahead and changed the lead.
Cutting to the core of this issue, I think we all know that there is a movement out there attempting to propagate a myth. As much as Steven Colbert might encourage his supporters to monkey with his Wiki page, Fox News encourages people to do the same. It is up to those responsible among us to combat these kind of shinanigans. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Does fox news accept they are conservative leaning? If they do not, then the current wording is far better than ur changes which basically state everyone one else thinks it is rather than just some observers. I had no problem with the sentence on Conservative viewers though, and would support that being added. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do scientologists accept that they commit organized fraud to dupe people out of cash? Probably not... but that doesn't mean that's not what they're doing. Arguing that someone has to "accept" they have left/right of center opinions before you can say that they do, seems like a silly arguement. Perhaps you're right about not saying "everyone", but, as shown by Pew polls, a majority of journalists will point to Fox News as an example of biased reporting. "Some" is a weasel word, because it implies that it's not necessarily a majority opinion. I think we need an adjective that falls somewhere between "some" and "everyone". Suggestions?NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Most journalists are liberal. That is a fact. Independent review of FNC shows it to be among the least biased in news reporting. That is a fact. What other liberal journalist think is their opinion. Arzel (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh Gamaliel, I can always count on your wit when I need to laugh. I know you and your friends on the left deride this study, but here is your fact. I don't know why people like you disregard research which doesn't follow your predesposed line of thought. I thought all Liberals were supposed to be enlightened? Arzel (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it's like to be enlightened, but I'm sure it doesn't include accepting as gospel truth every piece of hackwork slapped between two covers called a "study", especially a study by two fellows of a conservative think tank whose methodology was widely called into question, a methodology which labeled everything in the universe "left" and labeled the Drudge Report "centrist". Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What was your point? I'm "biased" because I don't believe in a dubious report that just so happens to "confirm" a cherished myth of yours? If this is your standard of proof, no wonder you believe this study is sound. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am against that kind of inclusion since not only is it somewhat weasely it could be applied equally to just about anything without really having any meaning. An attempt at a casual relationship where the cause is implied by stating an effect. Ergo, since FNC has more conservative viewers then it must be a conservative network, or in more fun terms. "If someone weighs as much as a duck then they are a witch." Arzel (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Arzel. Just because the majority of a congregation at a church is baptist, doesn't necessarily mean it's a baptist church. I would however say it's pretty strong circumstancial evidence. Perhaps the tidbit belongs elsewhere in the article. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd never thought of it that way, but I think you have a point here. I and other editors at the JFK assassination articles have long opposed language like "Oswald's guilt is a matter of controversy" because that implies that, outside of Planet Conspiracy, that there is significant controversy. To put it like that or to label Oswald the "alleged" assassin is legitimizes a fringe viewpoint and states that there is a controversy where none exists among serious historians and scholars. In terms of this article, does anyone besides the viewership of Fox believe that Fox is not conservative? The language of the intro is wishy-washy because of the necessity of compromise and consensus that we had to fight our way through, but it is worth considering if this wording legitimizes an otherwise fringe viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur, this discussion (IMHO) is long overdue -- though I've been a longtime proponent of the current intro, if you look back to the original discussion 4-5 years ago you'll see that my views were more inline with Nick's, though perhaps not so well formed and presented. Given the arguments he's put forward, I'll agree with Gamaliel's assessment. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok great. So can I have suggestions for a change? I would suggest we switch "Some critics and observers" for "Most independent journalists and observers". You could cite Pew polls that would support the statement. I think that language would more accurate reflect mainstream opinion, while still allowing for some controversy. For the record, I don't think Fox-News-bias-denialists are quite as crazy as JFK-assisination-conspiracy-theorists.NickCT (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As a man of the world, so to speak, I fully concur that Fox is basically conservative, just as I would fully concur that MSNBC is now basically liberal and that Keith Olbermann is a flaming liberal (or a "progressive" if you prefer). The problem is, and Blaxthos among others has been a leading proponent of this, that we have long held that self identification is a necessary component in openly labeling an entity "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "socialist", "fascist", etc. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess your cable company's version of MSNBC doesn't come with Morning Joe. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say this is one of the best attempts at slight of hand I have seen in some time. Argue the point of your opponent. Argue that if there is a controversy regarding FNC being conservative it is only a wacky fringe controversy which should not be included, but in fact the truth is most people know that FNC is conservative thus there is no controversy in stating so, even without any evidence to back up your argument. I gave (what I thought was) a perfect example of making false cause and effect statements and the retort was an even better example. What is most ironic is that today the vast majority of the world is seeing just how biased to the Left our media really is, and yet some have the audacity to claim the only bias is FNC. It would be funny if not so true and dangerous. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep its scary just how left wing and biased most of the American media is. Everyone knows that Fox is conservative, but to label it as such and not do the same for all the left wing channels seems unfair to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Badmingtonhist. Normally if this wasn't a consensus driven project where verifiability trumped truth, I'd have no problem with a "less weaselly" lead (although I do have some concerns about giving an inanimate corporation a political ideology). However, I think stating "that despite their denials, FNC is conservative" is opening an even bigger can of worms that just isn't necessary at this point. To use the JFK assassination articles Gamaliel discussed as an example, the reason we have to be as forceful there, is due to the fact that there are so many myths and urban legends out there that have no basis in fact but are yet commonly accepted in the general public as true. Here, FNC's political ideology is more in the realm of accepted opinion, rather than objective fact. I'd say that most people know what FNC is and what it does. However, if we do this, then I hope we are prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of such a bold move and what it would mean for NPOV. So to sum up, I do recognize, that there are instances where you should not give much credence to the subject's opinion, but I'm not sure if this is the article. In addition, to do so on a media (as well as political) article will, IMHO, do harm to the concept of NPOV especially where there are verifiable sources that come down on a different track (regardless of what we think of the reliability of those sources). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok... Allot of opinions here and I want to try and address them all.
Badmintonhist- I strongly disagree with your "self-identification" arguement. If I walk up to you and say "I believe in small government, punishing criminals severely, family values, religion in schools etc etc.... But, I am not a conservative", I think you are more than entitled to say "Yes. You are a conservative based off your ideology". It's not like a duck has to say "I'm a duck" to be a duck. If it looks, like one, and it quacks like one.......
Arzel- You're obviously motivated by a POV so I'm not going to try and argue the facts with you. Perhaps you might be swayed by the arguement that FNC shouldn't be masking its conservative colors? I think FNC and Murdoch aim to change the political landscape with thier "Fair & Balanced" claim by trying to make people believe that thier far right opinions are more commonly held than they actually are. I don't think this is wise or convincing. There's a pew poll that asked respondents "I believe most of what I see on _____ news channel". The major news channel to score the lowest was FNC (i.e. respondents found the channel the least believable). I take this to mean most people see through the "Fair & Balanced" claim and treat the channel with skeptisism. Perhaps more than it deserves. If FNC stepped up to plate and wore its colors with pride, I certainly would be more apt to believe it.
BritishWatcher- It may be true that journalism in general in the states is leftist. Let's be honest, different industries do often have political associations (i.e. gun industry conservative, Hollywood liberal). I think it's important to note though that in this article we are saying "FNC is conservative in relation to other jounralistic outlets". Not necessarily "FNC is conservative in relation to general US public opinion".
Ramsquire- 1) Arguing that weaselly words are necessary in an article is a bad place to start an arguement 2) "accepted opinion, rather than objective fact"- I would say it's more objective fact. But either way, at the moment it's worded as though it contentious subject on which there is no accepted opinion.
In conclusion, can we change "Some critics and observers" to "Most independent journalists and observers" and reference that change with a Pew poll?NickCT (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current formulation could be stronger--"some observers," for instance, could be replaced by "many" or "most," either of which would be accurate. Considering that determining bias involves analyzing intent, I can't support something that would turn it into a matter of fact. Ramsquire's "accepted opinion" description strikes me as right on the money here: the article should have strong wording that reflects the "accepted" part, but we should not leave out the "opinion" part either. Croctotheface (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree Croctotheface. You like the change "Some critics and observers" to "Most independent journalists and observers" ?NickCT (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As to your points above-- The guideline WP:WEASEL explicitly states that when the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify, it is fine to use weasel words (it's also highlighted in the FAQ at the top). So although you may not like it, it is acceptable in certain instances here on Wikipedia. Further, you call out and then dismiss Arzel due to his POV, and then hang a lampshade on your own. Should we dismiss you as well? My point is, be careful about assigning motives to editors and just deal with the arguments they present. Finally, the language "generally acknowledge that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" has Wikipedia taking a side in this controversy, which violates WP:NPOV. We're supposed to present both sides, not come to a conclusion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really that we're thinking of "Weasel"s in the same context. But regardless, I think the current wording leads to a false impression that has to be changed. Re Arzel- Arzel is clearly coming from a political standpoint. I like to consider myself independent; equally ready to call MSNBC liberal leaning as I am to call FNC conservative. Even so, I'm not going to argue that my POV is somehow better. I'll admit to having allot of POVs that aren't mainstream. I will however repeat that as this article stands, the lead does NOT reflect mainstream POV and ought to be changed. I actually agree that my initial choice of words (i.e. "generally acknowledge") was perhaps not the most appropriate as it does seem to "take sides". So how about we change "Some critics and observers" to "Most independent journalists and observers" and reference that statement with a Pew poll. That seems to me to correct the false impression that there is significant debate over the issue, while leaving open the fact that there is some debate. NickCT (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you basing this on? What poll? Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm being an obstructionist here (because I'm not), but if we are going to do a piece-meal change, my preference is to just leave it as is. Right now I'm thinking more along the lines of "Some critics and observers/Most journalists and observers/Many people/etc. of the channel denounce/criticize/etc. Fox News Channel for what they perceive to be its promotion of conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides." In the body of the article, we could flesh out the accepted opinion stuff dependent on the language of the sources and also delve into the potential violation of journalistic ethics again dependent on what the sources say. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have long been in favor of evaluating proposed changes to one article without comparing it to another article -- saying that MSNBC and Fox News are foils is a false dichotomy that ignores other important factors. Instead of trying to "move the goalpost" as Arzel suggests, we shouldn't try to "reference the center", but rather show the relative difference between other networks and Fox. It's the delta (ie relative position), not the absolute position -- Arzel's argument attempts to interpret the ideology in terms of his idea of the "absolute center", when in reality there is no such thing (hell, by European standards most all Americans are right-of-center). The only accurate (and neutral) way to represent the circumstance is via their position relative to others (IMHO). Ramble done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to attribute my ideology. If you wish to show relative differences then you set up a very subjective yardstick with which to measure. You make the statement that FNC is conservative compared to the other MSM, but fail to acknowledge that in reality FNC is closer to the center than the rest. The fact is that there is a relatively easy center to measure from (positive/negative stories from either the republican point of view or the democratic point of view). By this measure FNC is closer to the middle. Now, FNC's opinion shows are definately more conservative, I don't think there is any debate, but by the same token MSNBC and CNN are more liberal, no debate their either. However, when just looking at their news reporting (which I think many people hear fail to look at), FNC is very much down the middle and the existing studies have shown this to be the case. Arzel (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire- I like it, but eliminate "what they perceive to be". At best it is redundant. At worst it seeks to minimalize thier opinion. I prefer "Most journalists and observers of the channel criticize Fox News for biased/its/etc.promotion of conservative political positions".
Blaxthos- I respectfully disagree with you reluctance at comparing Fox News and MSNBC articles. I think we agree than Fox News and MSNBC are at opposite ends of the spectrum. So wording about the bias on one, should be similar to wording about bias on the only. This is the "fair & balanced approach.69.251.189.69 (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read up on false dichotomy. I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum because you ignore my points. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask again, where is the reliable sourcing saying it has conservative bias? Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to hit a variety of points and finish with the main one. First, in response to Gamiel's jab: I don't usually rise early enough in the morning these days to take in much of "Morning Joe" or its competitors, however I am pretty certain that "Morning Joe" does not provide anything close to ideological balance for "Afternoon and Evening David, Chris, Ed, Chris Again, Keith, Rachel, Keith Again, Rachel Again, Etc.". Even Fox News has some token liberals.

Addressing NickCT's point, the ideological "self identification" standard did not originate with me, in fact I argued pretty vigorously against it when it came up almost a year ago in connection to the Keith Olbermann bio. However, it carried the day then championed by Blaxthos among others. Directly calling Fox News "conservative" would, of course, violate this "standard" (or "understanding"). More significantly, as Croctotheface points out, it would treat an inherently subjective opinion (albeit a widely held opinion) as a matter of fact.

Moving on, while I rarely disagree with Ramsquire, and am delighted that he has come out of retirement, I can't understand why he is considering a formulation such as "most journalists and observers denounce/criticize Fox for what they perceive to be its promotion of conservative political positions". This would be especially objectionable in the lead where it would clearly carry negative WP:Undue. Moreover, I see it as factually inaccurate. "Most observers" of Fox News are its regular viewers, many of whom probably believe that Fox promotes "conservative political positions" and, far from denouncing or criticizing it, enjoy it for that very reason. A similar statement, substituting the word "liberal" or "progressive" could be made about MSNBC viewers.

Thus far, I favor Croctotheface's suggestion to make the statement about the perception of conservative bias somewhat stronger without treating Fox's conservatism as an absolute fact. Saying that many people believe that Fox is conservative is stating a fact. Directly calling Fox conservative is stating an opinion. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist- thanks for the kind words. We are not actually as far apart as you indicate. What I was attempting to get a across was a more forceful statement on the perception of bias--hence the phrase "what they perceive to be". Instead of the critics simply saying FNC has is it (as it is stated in the current lead), I'm trying to go the next step and say not only do they say it, they also disapprove of it. However, I see that it is contingent on whom we are referring to in the first clause. It works better with "Some critics and observers" naturally. To the anon- as has been said repeatedly now, we can't say FNC is conservative. That would violate NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of replying separately to a bunch of comments I'll just say my opinion is somewhere around what you and many of the other editors here are saying. My JFK analogy was useful to a point, but you are right, we probably shouldn't come out and say outright that Fox is conservative. Wikipedia has never been about stating what we think, no matter how obvious it is, but reporting the facts. But I think my point was clear, and I think many here agree, that this compromise we forged doesn't accurately or completely report the facts and promotes the minority view that there is some kind of serious dispute about Fox's orientation. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm astonished that you can spell Olbermann correctly, a feat that I struggle with on my best day, but you mangle my simple user name so badly. Anyway, I don't anyone seriously thinks a token Alan Colmes (or as Al Franken puts it, Alan Colmes</small)>) "balances" the fair and balanced Fox, anymore than two commentators make a network that has a three hour daily morning show headed by a former Republican Congressman liberal. But to bring up MSNBC or CNN or whatever is an argument that promotes the false equivalence discussed by Blaxthos above, and isn't an argument at all, really, since this discussion is about Fox. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Some critics and observers?

How is one a critic of something unless he/she has already observed it?

"Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions."

No, that sounds like someone who doesn't want to admit that it is a bit biased.

Reality: "Some observers say that FNC promotes conservative political positions." Tdinatale (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The critics and observers language was a compromise between editors who believe that only critics have this perception and those who believe "everyone" has this perception. I would support either version. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To satisfy the idea that the the perception of Fox's conservatism is widespread, how about: Many observers say that the Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds biased, but it is absolutely true. Although we could argue that their far right TV shows with hosts such as Huckabee and Glenn Beck ... Bill Oreilly and Sean Hannity FAR exceed the 2 (most liberal) liberal hosts on MSNBC. Regardless, FNC is very far to the right that even Billo admitted. The intro needs to change to reflect their conservatism instead of just giving them leg room by saying "some" people think they're biased. No, they ARE biased. Tdinatale (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to back that up? Because again, this is relative depending upon whom you compare it to. I'd be willing to argue very strongly that Olbermann, Matthews and co. are just as biased as those on Fox, and that Fox isn't that far from center (otherwise they wouldn't get the highest ratings consistently). Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Again with the false logic -- FNC's ratings have nothing to do with the "center". Remember -- more people watch CNN for shorter periods of time; FNC has a smaller userbase, they just watch fervently for hours and hours upon end, which actually gives more credibility to a rabid fringe than a centrist position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then where do you get the justification for calling it conservative? Soxwon (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

57 million cume viewers for FNC compared to 74 million cume viewers for CNN in 2008. You are right, 57 million is a rabid fringe. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about ratings? Just because they have high ratings doesn't mean they are more centered, it could mean the exact opposite! They have high ratings because they're always angry and yelling at people whom they disagree with... like Jerry Springer. Imagine that. Tdinatale (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but we're getting off track again with what amounts to a debate about the comparative ideological biases of Fox and MSNBC. Wikipedia already notes that some folks think that MSNBC has moved to the left. That can be refined later. Here we're supposed to be discussing if and how the statement about Fox's alleged bias should be modified. My formulation is pretty basic but I think it should be satisfactory. What do others think about it? I apologize to Gamaliel for leaving a syllable out of his name. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I just think "some critics" needs to be removed (and same with the MSNBC) article. It just looks stupid. Why would one be a critic of something if they did not already observe it? In both articles, if it just said (in each article respectively) "Some observers say MSNBC/FNC promotes liberal/conservative political positions." Tdinatale (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks. No harm done, I just thought it was funny because I can't spell KO's name at all. Gamaliel (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to change? Tdinatale (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow.. Gone for the weekend and so much talk to catch up on! I agree with the elimination of "some". I'd like to move back to the language that Ramsquire was orignally considering though. My proposal is "Many observers of the channel criticize/say that Fox News for intentionally biased promotion of/promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides."
The reason I think we might want use "critize" is because simply using "Some observers say" sounds like FNC just happens to be right leaning, rather than that FNC consciencely promotes a conservative agenda.
Blaxthos- Please don't hate me for disagreement on your false dicotomy arguement. I'm not arguing that the Fox News article has to be written the same way the MSNBC article is written (and include the same language). I merely argue that there should be a uniform approach to addressing allegded bias between articles and was holding up MSNBC as an example.NickCT (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick I couldnt agree more... Although "viewers" instead of "observers" would make more sense? Tdinatale (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some sources that back up your claim that many observers/viewers say that FNC is intentially promoting conservative political positions? That is a pretty big hurdle to leap. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry fellows, but no. Whether a word such as "criticize" or a word such as "say" is used says nothing about whether Fox is "doing it on purpose". Moreover it's not our task here to judge how deliberate Fox's presumed conservatism is. An awful lot of "observers" have said that Fox News is pretty conservative. Some have criticized Fox for this but many have also praised Fox for this. Our task is to be neutral in presenting verifiable facts. It is not to join either chorus. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I think you may have come across the reason the lead, as flawed as it is, should remain unchanged, and exactly where the controversy lies. It's not in whether FNC has a bias, but how the perception of bias is viewed. Your sentence- Some have criticized Fox for this but many have also praised Fox for this-- could easily read Many have criticized Fox for this but some have also praised Fox for this depending on your POV. Since there is no way to verify which sentence is right, as there are reliable sources for both formulations, I really don't think there is any way to come up with a stronger lead (although if there was it would be preferred) without giving WP a voice on the matter. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My only proposed modification is to replace "some critics and observers" with "many observers". I think it is a bit less awkward, and satisfies the consensus here that many people, whether they are sympathetic to Fox or not, believe it is more conservative than the other networks. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What planet do you people (arzel and badminton) spend most of your time on????? 1. Try the the famous Chris Wallace interview with Bill Clinton for starters. 2. The 3 Fox cluster friends in the morning always promote the conservative positions, NEVER had I EVER heard ANYTHING positive about the Democrats (in fact one morning I turned on fox news and I saw, and I kid you not, 2 white teenagers, wearing tuxedos rapping about how good conservatism is. Ok, I'm honestly sick of hearing "well you gotta prove or show how they promote the conservative cause." My god turn on the TV, wait 30 seconds you'll see! I'm sorry for you conservatives who don't like hearing this but psh, I'm sorry. And don't tell me "they're not doing it on purpose." My ass, I'm sure Fox Noise CEO Roger Ailes, a longtime Republican consultant would have NO desire to promote conservatism. Tdinatale (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire- I take your point. Suggest change to "Many observers of the channel say Fox News intentionally biases its promgramming to promote conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides." This statement makes the "observers" POV ambiguous (i.e. niether critizing or praising).
Tdinatale- arguing with Arzel is likely pointless NickCT (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We all come to this realization at one point. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To Badmingtonhist- I can live with changing some critics and observers... to many observers....

To NickCT- I just can't get past the use of intentionally without seeing any reliable sources, supporting that viewpoint. Perhaps you may want to try to develop that theme in the body of the article first and then see if it's possible to get into the lead after its fully fleshed out. But at this point, I can't support it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 DoneTdinatale (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. Considering the number of editors involved in this discussion, I just wanted to give them an opportunity to weigh in before making the change. Although, I'm hopeful that this will be the end result. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire- My preference would be to leave "intentionally" in, but I'm not insistent on that point. My arguement for leaving it in is this - From the polls I read, many of the questions are phrased like "Which news organizing applies the most spin to its programming?". It seems to me that if someone answers that question with "FNC" (as a majority of journalists did) it means that they believe FNC does not just have a biased POV but also INTENTIONALLY adapts its programming to push a particular POV. In other words, I think there is an important differentiation between someone who is reporting from a particular viewpoint and between someone who is trying to push a viewpoint on other people (which I think is what FNC is ultimately accused of doing). That is what I wanted to get across with "intentionally", though perhaps I'm trying to fit too much in a word. Anyway, even without "intentionally" I think that "Many observers of the channel say Fox News biases its promgramming to promote conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides." beats what we currently have...... NickCT (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Using a poll in the fashion you suggest to state FNC does anything intentionally would be a form of original research. Such synthesis of sources is expressly prohibited. You need a source to explicitly make that claim. As for the new proposal, speaking for myself only, I guess I could live with it... somewhat ;). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we stick with "some". "Many" has some problems as it is somewhat of a WP:WEASEL word, "some" is also a weasel word, but has less of a quantifiable definition. "Many" also implies some large unquantifiable number. "Some" on the other hand does not have a specific quantifier, it could be large or it could be small. Since there is not quantifiable number of people that have reported this position within the relm of reliable sources it is not possible to back up the "large" amount. The only existing source for a possible "many" is the State of the Media reports which is specifically tied to journalists. The problem being there that journalist self-identify as liberal by about a 4 to 1 margin against those that self-identify as conservative. Arzel (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the problem with the article as it is written now is that the word "some" is used. "Some" fails to capture the fact that this is a mainstream opinion. If you could come up with a word that was a little less minamalizing than "some" I'd support it.
On your point about journalists, as I've said a number of times, we are saying people believe FNC is a conservative media outlet. This means FNC is conservative IN RELATION to other media outlets. It therefore would seem appropriate that we represent the views of journalists in the article, as journalists can probably be said to have an expert understanding of the news media. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who says that this is the mainstream opinion? Any word that you use to make some objective determination about how people feel is going to be a weasel word and thus in violation of NPOV. If you want to use the only research that makes the relational comparison (FNC is conservative compared to other MSM networks) then you will also have to accept the fact that FNC is more balanced that the other MSM networks as well. The statement already includes (by proxy) the statement of journalists, in that some critics feel FNC supports a conservative point of view. If we want to add specifically that some journalists feel FNC supports a conservative point of view go right ahead. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A Ramussen Report poll in 04 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politicly biased network in the public view. This was in the shadow of Dan Rather's memogate scandal which probably skewed things a little for CBS. Anyway, I think this poll demonstrates that Fox News being biased is a widely held mainstream opinion among the general public.
Regardless, I still think the opinion of journalists trumps the opinion of the public at large, and journalists overwhelming cite FNC for bias. Imagine if you wanted to know whether a labotomy is an effective medical procedure. You would consult a doctor, not the general public. Similarly if we want to know whether FNC is biased, we should give deference to people in the media industry (i.e. journalists).
Regardless of this, I think we have reached a general consensus that the statement needs to be more forceful. My vote is still for: "Many observers of the channel say Fox News intentionally biases its promgramming to promote conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides." (perhaps with the exclusion of the word "intentionally"). I am strongly against obfuscating the wording by changing "many" with "some". Excluding Soxwon and Arzel, does anyone have serious issue with this wording?NickCT (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A study of the 2008 election showed that FNC had the most balanced reporting of the election of all mainstream media news sources. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that was spot on. Well said, although while the metaphor was cute, this is much easier to comprehend (than a lobotomy) and thus a "doctor" isn't really needed in this scenario. Everyone knows FNC is strongly biased, not just a little but a lot, and even bill oreilly admitted this. Therefore, "many observers.." makes sense. Tdinatale (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BOR did NOT admit that FNC is strongly biased. Please don't make stuff up. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a couple problems with NickCT's proposed wording. It's awkward sounding and it suggests a a non-neutral point of view. It sounds as if Wikipedia editors are scolding Fox for being a naughty boy. I would avoid both "intentionally" and "biases" (an awkward verb, anyway). I still like my own formulation and think that it should be acceptable to most editors in this discussion: Many observers say that the Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur, that does look better. Tdinatale (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I support both Badmintonhist's version and reasoning re: the awkward verb use. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist- To a certain extent I agree. My worry though is that "promotes conservative political positions" is ambiguous. That could mean they have bake sales for the GOP or something. How about "Many observers say that the Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions through/with biased programming/news coverage"? NickCT (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD only requires that we give a brief overview of the controversy,i.e. the what. Badmingtonhist's version does this. To get into the how leads to undue weight concerns since it is elevating one method over others, as well as implying that this is the nuts and bolts of the controversy. I understand that your opinion is that bias coverage of events is the germane controversy. However, there have been no reliable sources presented explicitly making this point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If ambiguity is your worry, Nick, then we could make it: Many observers say that the Fox News Channel's programs (or programming) promote(s) conservative political positions. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I must reiterate that "Many" is a WP:WEASEL word and presents a NPOV violation. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist- I can accept "Many observers say that the Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions". I still really think that "intentionally promotes" or "seeks to promote" should be used. The reason is that, if I make a cop & robbers show that has a "tough judge" character in it, someone might say that my show promotes conservative political positions because it is constantly displaying tough-on-crime story lines. While that might true, it might not necessarily have been my intent in making the show to promote conservative political positions. I don't think the "many" we are refering to in this rewrite are saying "Fox news programming promotes a conservative agenda simply because they chanced to hire a bunch of conservative commentators". Instead, I think the "many" are saying that Fox News designs (i.e. with intent) its programming to advance a particular platform. The latter opinion isn't really represented by simply saying "FNC's programming promotes conservative political positions". Does this make sense?
In conclusion I call for "Many observers say that the Fox News Channel's programming seeks to promote conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides".
Arzel- Did you ignore the polls I posted? Suggest something less weasely than "some" and I might listen.NickCT (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Less "weasely" then "some"? What you suggest is more "weasely". I am aware of the poll you cite. Are you aware of this, which shows that FNC gave almost equal coverage to both McCain and Obama in terms of positive, neutral, and negative stories during the 2008 election? (Pos/Neutral/Neg FNC - McCain 22/38/40, Obama 25/35/40) (MSNBC - McCain 10/17/73, Obama 43/43/14) (CNN - McCain 13/26/61, Obama 36/25/39) Now you tell me who was biased during the presidential election. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Arzel. "Some" is weasely because it doesn't suggest a mainstream majority position. "Many" does, and therefore I think it's less weasely. To your point on presidential coverage; yes! I did see that poll, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it were true. But I really think this is the exception that proves the rule. I think Fox made a conscience effort during McCain/Obama campaign to be "fair & balanced" because 1) it was a very hot button political issue which would place FNC under the most scrutiny, and 2) I don't think the GOP was really into McCain that much.NickCT (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nick, read up on WP:WEASEL. Also, I love your "yeah, but Fox was only fair because people were watching them...." logic regarding FNC during the election. Why then was every other network so biased against McCain? Apparently the MSM didn't feel any need at all to appear unbiased. Why do you refuse to accept any research that doesn't prescribe to your point of view? Arzel (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention studies done before the 2008 Elections that have shown less bias by Fox than by other media outlets. Bernard Goldburg cites several of them in his various books. Oh, and he worked for CBS. Bytebear (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To NickCT: Reread Ramsquire's last point. The reliable sources on which we are basing the statement don't say whether Fox is being intentional or deliberate in it's conservatism. Putting our spin on the information gleaned from those sources would amount to WP: Synthesis, a branch of WP:Original Research. I usually try to avoid Wikipedia jargon, but your "intentional" proposal falls pretty clearly into those categories. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Many isnt' a weasel word when everyone knows it's true, you don't need a reliable source for that, it's common knowledge. We don't have to play the whole "well they say they're not biased, so they must not be biased" game... it's pretty obvious, I mean come on. In the south all they ever air is Fox news. By comparison, "some" looks like a weasel word because it looks like they might have a bias or they might not have a bias, and there's no arguing that they are not "fair" and "balanced." Tdinatale (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think it was possible to defend a weasel word by using several weasel words, (everyone knows, common knowledge, pretty obvious, all they ever air, there's no arguing). Do you have an argument that doesn't revolve completely around argumentum ad populum . Arzel (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To Arzel- unfortunately, with reliable sources pointing in us in several directions as to how pervasive this perception of bias is, we have to use a weasel word. I prefer "many" over "some" because it encompasses anything from a super majority to simple plurality. In common language "some" is usually meant to denote a minority or a dissenting opinion (which may or may not be mainstream), while "few" denotes a fringe, and "most" implies a majority. The reliable sources seem indicate that the perception of bias is mainstream whether or not it is accurate.

To Tdinatale and NickCT-- we edit based on what we can verify through reliable sources, not on what we know or think to be true. I respectfully ask you to stop advocating for original research, and to only refer to what the sources explicitly claim. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire, I must respectfully disagree. While "Some" (read: who knows how many) people think that "Some" means a few, the true definition of "Some" is an undeterminate number. That some people don't realize this doesn't mean that we should write the section to accomodate those that are ill-informed. On the other hand, "Many" implies a Large number and puts a wiki-weight on what that number is. In my Webster's dictionary, one defintion of "Many" means the "Great Majority", and given the discussion of Tdinatale and NickCT that is certainly what they believe and think it should say. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel- Pick a word that acknowledges that FNC biasing the news is mainstream, majority held opinion an I will consider it. "Some" in my mind does not do that.
Ramsquire- My arguement is that there are number of people who believe Fox News intentionally biases (i.e. spins) the news to promote a conservative agenda. You think this is original research? I beg to differ. In fact, I think the logical conclusion of a poll saying "X number of people believe FNC is biased" is that X number of people believe FNC is intentionally biasing the news. Do you have have anything that suggests otherwise?
"Many observers say that the Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions" doesn't capture the probable POV of the "many observers" accurately. "Many observers say that the Fox News Channel's programming seeks to promote conservative political positions" does. I again call for the latter.NickCT (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your demands. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His (NickCT's) point seems reasonable, logical, and correct to me... I say go for it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A while ago, I would have been shocked to see you advocating original research. Sadly not anymore. Whatever happened to presenting information in the same manner as the source does? I'd love to know when your change of heart occurred-- that editors could come to conclusions outside of sources simply because it was the logical next step. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. One last time--please follow the link to WP:OR and read it please. We don't write what the source implies or suggests, or what we feel it is trying to say, or take information to its logical conclusion (the very definition of synthesis). We only summarize what it explicitly states. The source says a number of people believe FNC is biased... that is all we can write with THAT source. I don't need to come up with anything else because I am not going past what the sources state. You are, therefore you need to come up with a source that makes that specific claim. And even if you were to come up with one, the "intentional/non-intentional/delibrate/just using popular hosts to satisfy a niche market/ratings--i.e. the "how and why stuff-- is better suited to a discussion in the body of the article and not in the lead IMHO. FTR- Arzel, you are right in that some can denote a large unquantifiable number and would grammatically fit here. For example "Some" people in the world are Muslim is equally as accurate as "Many" people in the world are Muslim but in most texts you will see the latter formulation mainly due to the popular usage of some today. I think using that word here will just lead to constant complaints from editors that we are trying to present a mainstream view as simply a dissenting opinion. For practical reasons Many is better. My two cents on it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will concede your point. It is not my preferred choice of words, but if concensus is such (and it seems that it is) then I will accept "Many". Arzel (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What would satisfy you, Ramsquire? Would a source that presents a majority of respondents belief of FNC's bias be sufficient? Are you arguing that you need a verbatim source that uses the words "a majority of people believe Fox News is biased"? It seems like this original research claim is more about gaming the system than it is following a rule -- the intent of WP:OR (and, in fact, the explicit purpose) is to deny original research and synthesis of thought; it is not a blunt instrument used to require a word-for-word regurgitation of source material. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From your response it is clear you haven't actually read Nick's proposal or any of my previous edits. Specifically, "the seeks to" language in his last version. Taking a source that says "many people believe X does Y" to say "many people believe X's primary purpose or intent is to do Y" is a significant leap, and a lot more than summarizing the source(WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!). As for your gaming crap...if you hadn't gotten the hint over the last few months, I don't give a rat's ass about your conspiracy theories. You're a dishonest dick, and everyone who has come across you long enough is wise to your lawyering and contorting of WP to fit your bias. Pity that I took so long to recognize this. Due to good faith, I guess other's play along. NOT ME!!! (I guess I'm going to get a tag on my talk page or report on ANI now.) :rolleyes: Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire- Isn't there some wiki rule about not using phrases like "dishonest dick" and "gameing crap" :-) Anyway.... look, I appreciate your point. The thing is though, I think FNC intentionly biases news, you think FNC intentionly biases news, and you and I think that the "many people" think that FNC biases news. Just because the polls we're looking at asks "Do you think FNC is biased" instead of "Do you think FNC intentionly biases news" shouldn't prevent the language I'm trying to include. Frankly, the proposed wording lends much more credence to FNC's rebuttal and the observer's claim. Anyway, I'm going to do more research to see if I can back my "intent" language. Until then, I grudgingly accept the new language ("FNC programming promotes conservative...") as it stands solely because it's more accurate than that which currently exists.
Arzel, you never address peoples' points. If you don't bother listening to others, don't expect to be listened to...... NickCT (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right in a sense. I'm afraid, you just witnessed a long slow building process that just erupted there. Just keep in mind that "Dick" is in reference to an meta essay about editor conduct. Specifically certain editing behaviors to avoid engaging in so as to avoid being labelled as such. (Ironically one of the items there was that referring to people as such, often makes you one, so I concede the point on those grounds.) It was not a direct comment about how he lives his life outside this place or him personally. Two "gaming" was in response to his accusation. But back on point, and why I came here, Arzel's has conceded to Badmingtonhist's version (well at least the "many" clause), so barring any further stated dissent, I guess it could be changed to say "Many observers say...programming promotes...". As you've seemed to notice, I have no problem evaluating whether to add the deliberate/intent language once I see some RS's on it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire, your petulant outburst is unfortunate but not surprising, but is immaterial to the discussion here. I find that your obsession with the semantics of argument to be of little substance -- a reading of most of the sources we've historically used (with which I'm quite familiar, obviously) leaves little doubt that the belief of the authors (as well as the people who's responses are upon which they're based) intended for bias to encompass intentional bias. Your assertion that it's ambiguous, and that any one of these could have possibly meant that Fox News accidentally exhibits bias is downright laughable -- their programming is exclusively conservative (Hanity, Beck, and O'Reilly (oh my!), the organization is run by a former Republican party operative, and they're under constant criticism for biased coverage. The channel sells a brand to a particular crowd, and I find it absolutely unbelievable that you contend that anyone could have interpreted the sources to have meant unintentional bias. In almost every case bias is intentional, and for a lot of people (self included) the word's default meaning implies intent (otherwise it's qualified as unintentional). I just don't believe the intent of the WP:OR policy was to exclude obvious and generally agreed-upon facts due to semantics. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest doubt that if some editor wanted to throw in words such as "deliberately" or "intentionally" regarding MSNBC's move to the left Blax would be leading the fight against it. He's led similar contradictory crusades in the past depending on whose ox is being gored. Ramsquire and I have seen it all before. That tendency, combined with Blax's pedantic tone gets pretty hard to take. As to the substance of the issue at hand I haven't the slightest doubt that Fox's conservatism is "intentional", but then most political actions are, so throwing in such language is gratuitous. It's adding an extra, not directly found in the sources, as an editor's emphasis. Again, kind of like Wikipedia is going out of its way to adopt a scolding tone. It is unencyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Need I point out the logical fallacy of equating FNC and MSNBC for the purposes of content decisions on Wikipedia? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I only brought up MSNBC to illustrate your partisanship, Blax. A partisanship very, very clear to those who know your editing history. My main point, pertaining strictly to the article at hand, is that language about intentionality is gratuitous and unencyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen! Please... let us maintain decorum. Remember that the goal of the righteous Wikipedian is to share the light of knowledge. That said, I believe we have reached general consensus on "Many observers say that the Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides". I suggest we change immediately, and continue the "intent" debate later (hopefully in a more civil tone).
Badmintonhist- I disagree with what you say about "intentionality is gratuitous". As I pointed out earliear, a person or entity can "promote a conservative political position" unintentionally. For instance, if I am pro-life I might have a negative view of an Ob/Gyn who performs abortions. I might relate that biased POV to you without the express intent of affecting your opinion. On the other hand, if I actively considered how denigrate and defame the Ob/Gyn through phrasing (i.e. weasel words) and exageration, I am essentially "spinning" my description of the Ob/Gyn. In other words, a biased story can arrive "passively" from a biased person (i.e. someone with a particular POV trying to give an honest account of what they saw) or "actively" (i.e. someone exagerating and "spinning" the account to affect your opinion). I believe the mainstream opinion is that Fox does the latter, and I don't feel the new wording really acknowledges this. NickCT (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just let Blaxthos continue to argue against points that no one has made(his typical M.O.- stick around and you'll see more of it). While he does that I'll be happy to see the lead changed to what it seems everyone agreed on so far. And as I have said about four times now, I'd be willing to evaluate the intentional stuff at a later time. Just so everyone can get this: I-am-not-against-it-going-in. I-am-against-using-the-current-sourcing-as-veriication.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk about that mean old Blaxthos all you want; it certainly doesn't move anything forward, and I'm not here to make friends or please the politically motivated. If I misunderstood and thusly misrepresented your position as "never-not-going-in", I apologize. I still think that it's fighting over a point that is implicitly obvious within the current sourcing, but it's refreshing to understand the nuance of your position as "not never". With regards to the rest -- the repeated attempts by the righties to drag MSNBC discussions here and the FNC discussions there is complete bullshit, and I'm oft decried by those editors (and others) for not letting them run hog-wild with "FNC is the most balanced network" and other ridiculous claims. If that pisses them off, fine; if that occasionally irritates reasonable editors, that's fine too. I choose to edit political articles, and I don't oft get worked up when loons screech foul when they don't get their way. For the record, please to note that I've stayed mostly out of this discussion, and only tend to wade in when people make false comparisons, espouse fringy or unbalanced viewpoints, or try to misapply policy; and I am fine with the new proposal given that the main crux of NickCT's point continue to be (productively) discussed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok... Consensus reached. I'm going to try to change the article this evening. If someone gets there before I do, that's fine.
Blax- I appreciate your campaign. Don't let Ramsquire get you down. He is just being a stickler for the rules, and on occassion I think being a stickler clashes with doing what is obviously right. I also agree with your critism of "righties". It has always seemed to me that righties more so than lefties will look fact in the eye and deny it outright when it doesn't conform to their ideology. I think it was Steven Colbert who put it nicely with his "Reality has a liberal bias" sentiment.
I would however like you to spell out what you mean by "false dicotomy". I take it to mean that someone makes the arguement that if X is true than Z must be true too, and if Y is true than Z must be true. Furthermore, X & Y are the only options so therefore Z must be true. When you complain about referring to MSN are you saying that MSN and Fox shouldn't be considered polar opposites?NickCT (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in with a 3O: the current wording of the article reads as though accusations of intentional bias are a fringe opinion. There does seem to be consensus here that it's not a fringe opinion. The lead needs to be changed to reflect this consensus. "Many" instead of "some" is a positive step in that direction.

As a more general point, this article has been neutered with unencyclopedic irrelevancies and spin to water down and distract from simple facts. The White House provided FNC with talking points; I can't see any contention at all of that point. The fact that we don't know which commentators got the talking points, and content-free non-denials that interview responses could have been clearer, should not be set up as counterweights to this notable fact. Rvcx (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed RVCX. Ramsquire is being a bit of kill joy here demanding that we find references explicity stating that the belief "Fox spins the news" is a majority opinion before we strengthen the language.NickCT (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These arguments have struck me as based on a misunderstanding of WP:NOR. The guidelines on WP:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance seem fairly clear that determining notability and weighing the reliable sources relating to different theories is entirely within scope and not original research. If it weren't then we could only really cite other encyclopedic sources. If this continues to be a source of disagreement over WP policy then I suggest the matter be raised at WP:FTN or WP:ORN for clarification. Rvcx (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points before I go away for a while. (A planned life event, and nothing to do with what's happened here). One...possibly the most frustrating thing on this project is how many people are willing to attribute positions to people who have never made them. I understand that reading through discussions like this can be difficult and we can miss things or misread it. But four times now, I've read my position, and quite frankly... it just isn't mine. I never said the sources were ambiguous, I never called for regurgitation or plagiarism of the sources, and I never said Fox's bias is accidental or even speculated on where it comes from. I never said that we need a source for Fox spins the news (that phrase is the same as promoting conservative positions in my eyes, and I've beeb a leading proponent of that language in all the discussions and RfC's here). As a side comment, if one could find a RS detailing the Moody memos, I think that may be a good start on the intentional stuff, but I guess someone else could find sources saying that any bias comes from the host they hired and isn't an institutional direction thing. I'd actually like to read some discussion of that in the body of the article. Two... if I ask for sources, it's not an obstructionist ploy, or being a stickler for rules. It's often based on the contentiousness on the article, I'm a vet here, and I know that if we don't cross every T and dot every I in a few days the article will erupt again. What's wrong with taking the time to give the strongest presentation now, rather than half-assing it, and paying the price at a later date. It's for practical considerations, and thus why I am shocked by the cavalier attitudes toward the policy by some. Third, although I believe I am right with my interpretation of WP:OR here, it is only my opinion. If one wanted to RfC it, or take it to a noticeboard for clarification, I'd have no problem with that. And if community consensus is against me---I'd live with it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist changed the lead to eliminate some wording about Fox New's "giving room to both sides". He says he doesn't "recall the part [he] deleted as being part of any "concensus".)". Badmintonhist, that wording was proposed by Ramsquire and repeated 6 times by me as being the "new wording" (see Ramquire talk 22:48, 28 August 2009, and my talks 13:42,16:49,22:11 August 2009, and 18:52, 1 September 2009, 02:31, 2 September 2009, 03:59, 3 September 2009). I think this is the "consensus" version as no one objected to that wording. I'm actually ok with your change though, but I'm pretty sure it the "giving room" version was the consensus...... NickCT (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yay it's changed! good job to all who engaged in this discussion! Tdinatale (talk)

It seems the only reason to put the many observers see Fox as promoting a conservative view is a classic POV unless every other network entry is going to have the observor is promoting a liberal view. Why not just remove it?

cumulative audience

"In CNN’s decade-long struggle against Fox News, one measurement by which it has consistently surpassed its rival is in “Cume,” short for cumulative audience. This calculation refers to the number of individual (or “unique”) viewers who watch a channel over a fixed period of time.8 Ratings, by contrast, measures how many people are watching at any given moment. If more people watch CNN over time, though fewer at any given moment, CNN can claim that it has a wider reach. And indeed, historically CNN has used this metric to sell itself to advertisers despite Fox’s advantage in ratings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin1975 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Source: Nielsen Media Research on Media Bistro.com, retrieved on October 3, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin1975 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Marlin, that Cume reference is something that CNN has been using to try and downplay it's losses to FNC. By all that matters, and all that stations use for rating purposes FNC is far and away the leader. CNN POV has no place here. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is not CNN but how Nielsen Media Research measures it. Fox uses one part from Nielsen as does CNN. Even CNNs wiki has the same data that fox has higher ratings but lowwer cumulative audience. So either remove ALL data from the Nielsen Media or include it all. I have made the Fox wiki less biased as I included all data from Nielsen.--Marlin1975 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Go here this is how they are judged, that is just how it works. FNC is far and away the leader, it is really not even open to discussion. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Judged"? "Leader"? Let's try to treat this a little more clinically, Arzel -- this isn't about judgements and winning, so let's avoid that sort of loaded language. As far as I can remember CNN has always surpassed FNC in total cumulative viewers. This is generally covered in college courses that deal with the CNN effect, and the available data pretty conclusively shows that FNC has a smaller base of fervid viewers who watch for long periods of time, whilst CNN has a wide audience who tune in for short news summaries (which, incidentally, is why CNN Headline News was formed). To ignore this (significant) difference in FNC vs. CNN viewership results in an imbalanced perception -- both statistics are significant in a holistic treatment of the subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I can always count on you to start a battle when one does not exist. By Judged, I am saying that is the way "They" those that matter judge these things. CNN uses CUME to try and say that they are number one in total viewers, yet that is not the way advertisers rate these things. FNC has been far and away the most watched network of the three major cable news networks. Here is a nice little article that talks about CNN's use of cume. Regardless, this is something that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. If CNN fanboys want to force the issue and say that they have the most cumulative viewers on the CNN page that is fine with me, but to imply that FNC is not the number one watched news network is simply fantasy. Arzel (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Quel suprie... Arzel, you seem to be confusing the "raw numbers" with your own personal "interpretation". The numbers are factual, accurate, and germane to the topic at hand. Your interpretation (including how CNN "uses" them) is synthesis of thought... regardless of what you think they mean, that doesn't change the fact that they are verifiable facts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos......That is how CNN uses them, this is a reported fact from the state of the media report. Would you PLEASE stop accusing me of presenting my own personal interpretation, I have used what OTHER EXPERTS have said to define what CNN does. Arzel (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have included the info from Nielsen Media Research. So either remove ALL stats based on their work or leave them all. What I added is their full rankings and removed the Bias from the Wiki article. You seem to be bent on slanting it and only publishing what makes fox look good from the Nielsen stats. --Marlin1975 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the language around a bit (removed stuff like "surpassed" for example) to get the same point across. However, I do think CNN's periodic use of Cume to claim "Most watched Network" status is indeed contested, and could be explored further in both articles by editors who have actual knowledge over why Cume is not considered the same as the regular Nielson number. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nielson measures hours watched, cumulative metric measures total number of viewers. IMHO, I think the interpretative slogans offered by both networks are irrelevant marketing smoke and mirrors and should have no influence here; however I do believe that Wikipedia articles should offer an unambiguous statement of fact (that FNC dominates one metric, and CNN dominates the other). As far as I know none of the verifiable facts are in dispute, and so I fail to see how marketing slogans should have any role in our discussion here... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, I'm not saying it should, and I honestly don't know where you pulled that one from. I'm saying that a discussion of why one metric is preferred over the other (if that is the case) could be explained in the ratings section. On second look, perhaps I should have put a period behind "..."Most watched Network" status is indeed contested..." to avoid the run-on. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even insisting on inclusion or exclusion of the slogan's disputed status in the article; my proffer was to squelch Arzel's attempt to tell us how he "judges" FNC vs. CNN, and to answer your question about how the two measurements are derived. I'm sorry that I gave the impression I was critiquing your edits. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a lesson in interpretation? I am not judging the criteria being used. Advertisers use the standard Neilson ratings. Those are the ratings that most people understand. CNN uses the cume to try and sell themselves. I don't even know why this being discussed. FNC is absolutely crushing both CNN and MSNBC in raw ratings that advertisers use, this obfuscation of the facts to try and imply that under some vague statistic CNN is number one is very misleading and has no place in the lead. For example, in July, FNC was the #3 cable network, CNN was #15 and MSNBC was #26, this isn't my judgement, these are simply the facts. Arzel (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not concerned with what advertisers use. We are not concerned with which measurement is the "right" one. We are not concerned with how CNN "uses" the measurements. We are not concerned with how FNC markets the measurements. We are not concerned with your synthesis of thought. We will present the verifiable facts to the reader (read: "both measurements") without any of the interpretive crap you (or FNC or CNN) are trying to use to spin this. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we concerned how a competitor interprets the numbers? What happened to unbiased third party sources? This reeks of POV. Bytebear (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like POV, but it is also verifiable fact, which makes exclusion tough. My only suggestion was a sentence in the ratings section that says "although there is a difference between cume and X, X/cume is the preferred method of judging ratings because..." As someone ignorant of how this ratings stuff work, I'd find it would be an interesting thing to learn -- which is, you know the point of an encyclopedia ;). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I am suggesting is that we rely on third party sources to comment on these stats. We can present statistics all day and make conclusions, but that would be original research. Do we have sources that discuss these stats? Bytebear (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that at this point I wouldn't need to state that requested information be verified, especially since all in this discussion are experienced at Wikipedia. I apologize if my request sounded like an open door for original research. I was giving editors here credit for knowing that synthesis is not allowed. Anyway, I'll drop it and get the information elsewhere. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For one, I don't think that the numbers themselves are contested -- they are what they are. For two, why are any of you trying to do any interpretation at all? My position is that we simply lay the bare facts out there, and don't say anything about how people "use" the numbers or what is "preferred" (a very subjective POV focused solely on advertisers). Just say something to the effect that FNC is the leader in the Nielson hours viewed metric, and that CNN has a larger cumulative audience who tend to watch for shorter periods of time. Simple enough? It's what has been done for at least the five years I've been around... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see how you can have one w/o the other, provided that they're both used and are both considered reliable. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

CUME numbers are only available to clients of Neilson. The raw ratings are those that are reported in thirds party sources and are the only ones used on a regular basis. Arzel (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant on all counts -- how they're used, or how they're distributed. Don't try to use them at all, just bloody state them. Done and done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing that context, or lack thereof, does not affect POV? Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should help resolve the issue. Third Party Source stating that CUME is not the industry standard nor are they publically available. Ratings Arzel (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Industry standard" == advertising concerns. This is an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to advertising metrics. The information exists, it is reliable and verifiable, and it is germane -- It would appear to me that the only reason to exclude one or the other is to attempt to spin the perception. Just present the facts, and let the reader interpret them. There is absolutely no policy, guideline, or practice that justifies exclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on Blax. You are spinning so fast, your feet are lifting off the ground. If you want to include these metrics, you have to do it with context, which is that these numbers have never historically been used to define vieweship. Bytebear (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "context" you mean... "Fox has a smaller number of viewers who watch for long periods of time, CNN has a larger total number of viewers who watch for much shorter periods of time". If you guys insist on adding a blurb about how ratings are computed by total hours (not cumulative viewers), whatever. I think it's unnecessary and it seems intended to somehow sell "FNC is better than CNN" (Arzel especially), but if the consensus that it's a necessary inclusion then okay. Beyond that, I've seen no references to policy that would indicate that we should exclude germane and verifiable information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, It has been stated like this for quite some time, you never seemed to have a problem with it before, now that CNN is trying to sell itself as number one you suddenly have a problem? My primary issue was with the seemingly SPA that wants the lead to present a CNN POV and the addition of a contrived paragraph to strengthen the POV of CNN. If you notice there is currently a sentence in the ratings section which makes the distinction, with which I don't have a major problem. Your arguement that I am somehow trying to sell "FNC [being] better than CNN" is extremely ironic since it is CNN that is trying to sell itself as better than FNC which is what brought us to this point. Arzel (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The only "Fact" is that CNN started using CUME to sell themselves after they fell into 3rd place behind MSNBC. It would be undue weight to present CNN's point of view, especially on this article, when the vast majority of the ratings world doesn't use CUME ratings, and the vast majority of the public doesn't even have access to them. Arzel (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That debate just kept going, didn't it? Dumaka (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a few days to try and comprehend Arzel's position and I just can't understand why he continues to focus on what CNN/FNC do with the numbers. Arzel, your argument seems to be focused on debunking CNN's purported "use", which is completely irrelevant. All we need to do, indeed all I am advocating, is that we say each number and how it's calculated. Rating == hours watched, Cumulative audience == total number of viewers. That's it. EOF. Nothing more needs to be said. Just state the facts. No interpretation. I don't know how to say it any more clearly. Other observers: is my point clear and correct? Am I missing something? Help me out here... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't really understand Arzel position either while I was reading through this debate you all were having.Dumaka (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with saying it leads by Nielson and is ranked however high by the other rating. I don't see why CNN needs to be brought into it at all. If others think that it should be fine, but I think it better just to list Fox's rank in both cumalulative audience (and a quick explanation of what it is) and Nielson's. Soxwon (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yellow journalism

It has been sourced and is non-pov. No reason to delete. Dumaka (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is every reason to delete. A blogger's inherently subjective opinion is hardly an objective fact. Otherwise, we would simply keep in every Wikipedia article every negative (or positive, for that matter) thing said about Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC, or any other topic by someone on the internet. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if you can use newshounds, what's to stop me from using WND or Free Republic? (other than the fact I never go to the sites) Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing is nowhere near the quality that sort of label would require. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK you all may be correct. However, let's get one thing straight, none of you will be able to sign my yearbook...Dumaka (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can arrange to have it signed by Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and some of your other favorites at Fox News. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just died a little inside...Dumaka (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, it's nice to see people can still laugh at themselves (and each other) sometimes. This place gets so SUPER SERIAL sometimes.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox: Discovery

What should be done with television, could not be described on television at this time. Please pardon excessive technical communications difficulties. thanks, Rudy.75.248.42.29 (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

The ratings section... wooow talk about a POV... While it's statistical, there are a lot of weasel words. I also have a hard time believing that it's growing in the key demo, and frequently uses the wrong tense to show that any slip in the ratings was in the past and cannot still be happening. Tdinatale (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You should probably do some research before basing your opinion on your own belief. FNC's viewership has been growing almost nonstop since early this year much to the dismay of the dems and liberals. Arzel (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those liberals are so going downhill since the GOP has been spot on the last 8 years. Save the conservative nonsense because I won't hear it. Thanks! 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the "Ratings" section is not so much that it's POV but rather that it is much too long and detailed. Adopting the approach taken in this article, by 2020 most of the article would be on the channel's ratings. A brief summary of it's general position relative to its competitors, occasionally updated, is really all that is needed. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thats exactly the problem.

The Daily Show

Does anyone know what The Daily Show segment is called in which they show contradictory Fox News segments back to back? --24.3.79.47 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)