Talk:Fox News controversies

Archives
February 2006 – July 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 July 2006 – July 2007 June 2007 – December 2007 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Fox News, President Obama and Osama bin Laden

A new section should be added to numerous times Fox News had said "President Obama is dead", "Obama bin Laden is dead" and "Obama is dead", should it be created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have source of any respectable figure calling them out on it?

University of Maryland study

I don't want to quibble about each word used in the description, but it needs to be somewhat accurately reflect what the survey was about. The survey clearly states that it is about misinformation and it also explains what it considers "false" and "correct" information in this context. So no matter how exactly you want to phrase that, you cannot simply state it was a survey of beliefs and fox viewers turned out to have the following believes, such a description would be an utter misrepresentation of the survey and a violation of WP policy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What policy is being violated? How is it being misrepresented? Also this is a violation of WP:PRIMARY Arzel (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you describe the content of a source in a false or misleading manner, that's a policy violation. As I said above the study is cleary about misinformation (starting from its very title to lotsa detailed formulations explaning and talking of misinformation) and turning that into mere "opinion survey", as the old description did, is a gross misrepresentation. Note that at this point this has nothing to do with the study's claims being (objectively) true or not or whether it should be critiqued or not. It is just a question of describing its claims accurately.

As far as WP:Primary is concerned, I don't really see a violation here, in particular in this area, where people cite constantly pundits, newspapers and even blogs arguing against academic university publication on the base of WP:Primary strikes me rather odd and the study is not exactly putting forward a novel idea either. Also if you read WP:PRIMARY carefully, you'll see there is usually no issue with citing reliably published (primary) material, as long as you stay away from personal interpretations, which btw was exactly the problem of the old formulation (by ommission) and the reason I complained. Lastly you might not even the consider paper itself as the primary source but rather its raw data/questionaire, whereas the interpretation of that data by the scientist is not really that different from the interpretation of the data by any (other) secondary source.

Lastly if you seriously want to object against the use of the study at all on the base of WP:PRIMARY, then I'm partially the false person to address. I included the study neither here nor in the FOX News article, I merely corrected its misleading description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon is probably right, that is better to explicitly put the information in qualifiers (i.e. explicity writing something like "the study claims, that ..."). However the edit was still somewhat problematic, as it what again not fully reporting what the study actually says. I tried to fix that, but I but i think my formulation is still a bit awkward, so feel free to improve it. But please note, that a proper description needs to cover the following points to describe the study accurately:

• It needs to be clear that the study defines what misinformation is (but that definition is not universally agreed and might be subject to debate)
• It needs to be clear that they explicitly classify various voters' beliefs as false or true based on their definition misinformation

Just stating the various beliefs without the study's classification of them is omitting the central point of the study being about misinformation (="false" beliefs).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the current wording should work OK. It may be better to use a secondary source to characterize the study, but I don't feel strongly about it. I do think that some of David Zurawik's analysis of the study should be added in another sentence, namely, who defines "misinformed" (already covered in the current text), that certain government agencies are defined as holding the "true" views, and that the study didn't differentiate between the influences of actual news coverage vs. political ads seen on the FNC. Drrll (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation is a completely unambigious term. believing the answer is not a when the answer is a. it can be defined quantitatively in terms of information theory. notice however that there is a common misperception about information (ironically!), namely it is common to percieve it as something intrinsic, where in fact it is a peroperty of a relationship between things. the information ('signal') "in itself" is not a sufficient definition to evaluate it quantitatively. for instance, one may need to specify a source. having specified a source you can then determine the divergence between the model (recieved message) and the source, e.g. as a kullback-liebler-divergence. in the case of binary values this becomes utterly trivial. e.g. "what number am i thinking of?" "5?". "no." now say i am thinking of the number 7. someone else tells you that i am thinking of the number 3. that is misinformation. (notice they must include a source, "me" in order to evaluate whether it is misinformation or not). this is the universally agreed upon definition and it is not subject to debate. Kevin Baas^talk 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The second part: "it needs to be clear that they explicitely...." no it doesn't. that's implied neccessarily. that follows neccessarily from there being information to be informed or misinformed (or not informed) about. to state otherwise would simply be absurd. Kevin Baas^talk 19:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Kmhkmh is correct. describing the content of a source in a false or misleading manner is a clear violation of policy, nto to mention downright unethical. there is nothing ambigiuous or debatable about this issue. it is for that reason that i am replacing whatever the hell that was with a faithfull summary of the content of the report. Kevin Baas^talk 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

From the report:

A study of misinformation raises the somewhat delicate question of what is true. When dealing with topics that have been highly politicized, it is common to default to the position that all perceptions are relative and treatment of any position as more or less true is itself inherently political. We believe that such a position is at odds with what is necessary for well-functioning democracy. It is indeed very important for a healthy democratic process to be open to a wide range of positions. At the same time, it is essential that there be means and institutions for achieving consensus about key factors that ultimately affect public policy decisions. On a regular basis government economists come to conclusions about the state of the economy. Such conclusions influence key decisions in the private sphere, as well as government decisions. Such government economists should be, and generally are, open to input from experts outside of government in the course of coming to conclusions. In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion. In most cases we inquired about respondents’ views of expert opinion, as well as the respondents’ own views. While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as ‘misinformed.’ It should also be noted that queries about expert opinion were not predicated on the idea that there is unanimity on issues. On some issues, such as climate change, there is a vocal dissenting minority among experts. Thus questions were framed in terms of whether, among experts, more had one or another view, or views were evenly divided.

Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And let me be clear 'cause it seems that you miss this crucial point: they did not ask people what their opinion was, they asked them what they though expert opinion was, whether it was divided or unanimous. not whether the experts were right or wrong, or certain opinions were right or wrong, as you seem to think. while the latter may be subjective, the former is not. Kevin Baas^talk 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The inaccurate wording i have removed blatently misleads on these very important points stated clearly and in no uncertain terms in the very introduction of the report. this is a clear violation of policy, and ethics. Kevin Baas^talk 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the study goes, this video pretty much casts doubt on it in the best way possible (with facts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ PokeHomsar (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i watched a few minutes of that video. in short, it's a crock of sh**. it's more egregiously fallacious and opinionated than the people here who want to misrepresent it and add their own synthesis and analysis that's directly contrary to the information contained in the report. and it is the worst example of blatent bias i've seen in nearly a decade. it is just downright disturbing, and i wish you hadn't shown me it. Kevin Baas^talk 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You clearly didn't watch a minute of it. He does analysis to contradict the conclusions of the study by casting doubt on the answers to the questions. The answers to the questions were completely false. There's a reason the MSNBC viewers did better than the rest on most of the questions. PokeHomsar (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seemed like he set out to find certain answers and cherry-picked the facts that best supported these answers, and although his analysis was vaguely interesting, I would definitely question his methods. Soxwon (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a fair bit wrong with that video, certainly his appreciation of Crowding out (economics) is flawed. un☯mi 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the video does raise some valuably questions in terms of critically questioning the study and provided some interesting background research, but it has some flaw on its own by cherrypicking the background material and somewhat ignoring some context issues and reading things into the study, which it strictly speaking doesn't claim (but only people using it do).

In some way it might just show that the study should have not used some of the economic questions in a murky area where there are no clear answer from a strict scientific point of view to begin with but only people believing to have them. Some ecomnomic arguments occasionally bear resemblance to religion rather than science.

As far as the WP article is concerned the video cannot be used as a source anyway. And the original point of thread was, that the claims of the study were not accurately/adequately described in the WP article. Which is a completely different issue from the question whether those claims are actually true or not. However that problem with the inaccurate description has been fixed already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Various recent edits introduced the misrepresentation of the study again. So let me reiterate:

If you reference/cite the study at all, you need to do so in an accurate manner. The description of those views of Fox viewers as misinformed and false is a central claim of the study. It does not matter whether you agree with the study's claims or not and it doesn't matter whether they are truly correct or not. In any case you need to describe the study's claims accurately, anything else is a policy violation.

If some editor here still has problems to wrap his head around this concept, then think of it as a quote. If you quote somebody, then you have to quote his originally statement verbatim, no matter whether it is correct or total nonense. And if you think the content of the is nonsense, you can add some sourced criticism of it afterwards, but you cannot modify or correct the quote to remove the (perceived) nonsense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kmhkmh, very clearly stated. I share your frustration that it seems some people are making a straw man of the report, and personally i find making a straw man of anything morally reprehensible. anycase you may have noticed my wording. while you changes are definitely a step in the right direction, i was striving for wording that more closely approaches a "quote", as you say; one that more precisely matches the technical precision of the wording used in the report. e.g. w/phrases like "statistical significance" and "correlation", and clarifying that the study was not about belief, but about knowledge of what the distribution of expert opinion was (while remaining agnostic about the opinions themselves). why be vauge when you can just as easily be a little bit more precise, thus being simultaneously more accurate _and_ more informative? anycase that's just a little overview of the thinking behind my wording, FWIW. Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necesssarily a big defender of the current wording, but to me that's something like minimal version I might accept to avoid edit warring. Going below that as in the version before is misrepresentation of the study and policy violation or in a more common tongue simply lying (by ommission) about its content. If you want a more extensive description, I have no objections. But I would prefer if you and the other involved editors (azrael, soxwon, PokeHomsar) were to agree on text proposal on the discussion page first, rather than edit warring over it in the article. Another compromise beyond coming up with our own accurate description of the survey's claims and content, is to agree an various literal quotes giving an accurate description in their entirety. It seems a bit artificial/overblown to me, but of nothing else works that might be an option.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a little something you missed that i'm sure noboby will have any problem with: [1]. Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I also fixed an attribution error and a lie by ommission: [2]. I don't expect these to be controversial, either. Kevin Baas^talk 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the line under, that says "...agencies are defined as holding the "true" positions on issues ...". this is patently false. the report clearly states that agencies are not in anyway presumed (or "defined"!) to hold "true" or "correct" positions on the issues. this is clearly stated in the intro in the text i have quoted above. as this is a matter of verifiable fact (a matter of record, in fact), it should be made clear to the reader. Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I quote directly from the study: "While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as 'misinformed.'" Kevin Baas^talk 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"According to the results of the study many viewers of Fox News falsely believe that most economists think that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 caused job losses, that most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring, and this misinformation about the distribution of expert opinion increases with the frequency of watching Fox News." The wording of this is untrue and false. I read the study and the source myself, nowhere in the study does it say any of the things you have written. Nor is any of this quoted directly from the study, because it's not what the study indicates.

I directly quoted from the study when I said Fox viewers were more likely to believe a certain thing. I left out the charged word "falsely" because it was nowhere in the study you have sourced, and I have no partisan agenda here as that word seems to serve. You are distorting the study. As I stated before I could not find anywhere in the study where it says "many fox viewers believe" or that they "falsely" believe anything, only that they were more likely to believe a certain thing. It is not up to you and your original research to decide whether a belief is false or not. The source does not state that any belief is false -- that is something you added in through original research -- and if you have some sort of agenda of proving that, than do so. If you want to prove that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 did not cause job losses, that the health care law will not worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring you should do it somewhere else where it does not appear that it is simply a partisan injection of liberalness with no real goal. You are trying to use a study about misinformation to disprove certain economic and environmental beliefs among other things; this is not the place or the source for that. Show me in the study where it says something is a false belief. It's not cool to put words in the mouth of a study and claim that it is just and what the study really said.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the comments above carefully and please refrain from starting the same nonsense all over again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording from the study is Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:. As YouMakeMeFell stated, the word falsely is not in the document. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is quote mining and presenting it out of context and this is clearly explained above. The study clearly identifies those beliefs as misinformation or false. Read the comments above carefully in particular the bold print.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote Mining?!?! Seriously?!? That is the quote directly preceeding the section which makes those statements. What we have included in this article is almost verbatim from the study. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what quote mining is, quoting certain pieces out of a document verbatim but ignoring the context and as a result mischaracterizing the information/content of the overall document. As I said before that those views are false or misinformation is the core context of that document. It is is not just sampling arbitrary views but it is sampling views it considers to be misinformation or not true.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no dog in this hunt, but it seems to me your argument (assuming I understand your argument) that, based on this study, "misinformed" is clearly synonymous with "false" may be quite problematic per WP:RS, WP:OR, perhaps WP:SYNTH and, almost assuredly, WP:TRUTH. "Misinformed" is a characterization while "false" is a declaration with considerably more rhetorical mojo.

If your suggested use of "false" as a contextually legitimate synonym for "misinformed" cannot be supported by a specific quote from the purported source (which, IMHO, is the mandated WP:POLICY resolution for "challenged" content), then I must concur with those objecting to its use. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you skip frankly somewhat ridiculous rule gaming here and read the explanation below carefully and reread the older discussion as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright due to AGF there is apparently some help in text processing needed here, so let me provide it:

• read page 3 - 4 pay in particular attention to: A note on the the question What is "True" and the key findings under point 2 and 4
• now read pages 6 - 17 carefully and note what the study classifies as a correct answers (correct beliefs) and as misinformation (false beliefs).
• Now read page 21 - 26 and pay in particular attention to page 22. One page 22 the quote mined for the article is "Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched to believe that ....". Now if the suggested reading above still hasn't rung a bell, that the studies considers the listed beliefs as false then pay attention to line directly above the quote mined one, which provides the contexts again: "There are however a number of cases where a greater exposure to a new source increased misinformation on a specific issue."
• lastly some help in plain English. If a person beliefs in claim A and claim A is a misinformation then the person falsely believes in A.

Conclusion:

A description of the study results by simply listing various views being more common among Fox viewers without mentioning that the study classifies those views as misinformation or false beliefs (as YouMakeMeFeel, Arzel and JakeinJoisy apparently prefer) is a severe misrepresentation of the study's results. As I've already mentioned in the older discussion further up, I don't care about the exact wording (be it "false belief", "misinformed belief" , "misinformation",....), but omitting one of its a central aspect in the description of its results is clear no-go. --Kmhkmh (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have clearly laid out your original research. The first sentence in the section clearly states that this study is about "misinformation". This is then followed by what FNC viewers believe. You seem to want to belabor the point by repeating the "misinformation" word and then replace that word with your more stronger wording of "falsely believe". Why do you feel the need to emphasize the issue past what the actual study does? It is a correct representation of the wording from the study, you seem to want to impart your own personal opinion into the mix as well. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF??? he has clearly enumerated pages in the report, asking you to read certain section and take note of certain sentences in there, quoting them exactly. how is that OR? that's called READING THE FRIGGIN' REPORT AND ACTUALLY COMPREHENDING WHAT IT SAYS. that's a prerequisite to saying anything at all sensible and accurate about it. now if you're going to shed doubt on the value of reading comprehension then it behoves us to ask: why, pray tell, should we bother to write anything? Kevin Baas^talk 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes he clearly enumerated the pages and laid out a perfect reasoning for coming to his conclusion by using several different pages to make his argument. He then followed it up with a clear logical conclusion to his reasoning. In other words he synthesized several section together to present a novel interpretation thus violating WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH. His primary problem is that the study never says that FNC viewers falsely believe anything, only that they were misinformed based off the definitions used for the questions. The authors of the study attempted at great lenght to not be the judge of the accuracy of the actual statements, which is probably the best thing that can be said about this study. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you've got to be frickin' kidding me. What is your beef with reading and comprehending the frickin' study so that its content can be accurately represented? Kevin Baas^talk 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what quote mining is, but Arzel and JakeInJoisey have made my points; Arzel, by justly using a quote from the study. The quote that Arzel used is presenting nothing out of context, instead, it is representing it in the context that it is originally made, instead of adding the words "falsely believe". JakeInJoisey reiterates my point that the word misinformed is not clearly synonymous with false. If you want to prove that the fiscal stimulus of 2009 did not cause job losses, that the health care law will not worsen the deficit, and that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring you should do it on their respective articles relating to those ideas, because that would be the relevant place; instead of trying to inject that here. You have clearly laid out your original research, which is not allowed. As said, it is clearly stated that the section is about misinformation, it does not need to be stated again because that would be wholly redundant. I think the current revision is quite good.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the discussion in this section carefully from the beginning, before it was started back up again. I do not feel I should have to reiterate what has already been stated very clearly. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, JakeInJoisey's revision was very well written, and very neutral in nature, while your revision is very poorly written and entirely paraphrased in your own opinion.

1. non-sequitor

2. pure opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up

3. also, just plain false, and baldly so

4. why did you bold that?

Kevin Baas^talk 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the previous discussion, and I disagree with your conclusions Kevin Baas; I'm sorry you don't like some of Wikipedia's policies on certain matters such as original research... we all have to work with them here. I, and a few others, opt to use direct evidence through quotes from the source, while you try to paraphrase in your own views and make completely weak and childish arguments like "this is crap". You have a section about critical thinking on your talk page and you make a statement like that? Wow...

How can the revision be cleary biased when it uses direct quotes from the source.. that one of you pulled? Unless of course you are implying that the source or study is somehow biased. Just because you think someone is biased doesn't make it so, and it doesn't diminish their argument either. Instead, it makes you look like the kid who crys wolf, i.e. you call someone biased whenever you have no good argument for yourself or points of your own, and it diminishes your own argument if you have any. Kevin Baas, you are simply showing your inabiltiy to be an effective editor on this matter.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF?!?! Now you are making dishonest arguments and putting words in my mouth! When did I say i don't like any of WP's policies on OR?!?! I love them!! When was i trying to paraphase? I never was! I am trying to use direct quotes, and you guys are fighting that! And how can you possibly call "this is crap" an argument?!? Do you even know what an "argument" is?

How does the existence of direct quotes preclude completely the possiblity of being clearly bias? How does it follow that the source is biased? When did i imply that i think me saying something is biased makes it so? What arguments? Who did i call biased? I've refered you to my arguments above, which nobody has even tried to refute yet! Discuss content not contributors! Don't insult people! Don't you find it ironic a little bit ironic that you are the one being disrespectul and patronizing and and all and you are using the word "childish"? And you haven't even made a single argument yet, or discussed any of mine whose "conclusions" you purportedly refurte and thus feel you can hand wave them all withtout saying anything about them and then that's the be-all-end-all-final statement on them, all you have said here is been insults that don't even make any sense! Kevin Baas^talk 13:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Arzel: You were confusing original research with original writing, that is to provide an accurate summary of a source in your own words, which is our essential job as editors. The notion, that calling a view false, which the study defines as not being the Truth or misinformation would constitute original research is utter nonsense. I suggest you reread the arguments above carefully . Keep in mind a(n accurate) reformulation in your own words is not original research but drawing your own additional conclusions is, but did not do the latter above but just the former. I didn't draw any additional conclusions but I just explained what the study actually says and which parts you need to consult in particular to understand that (rather than focusing on a single quote).

@YouMakeMeFeel: I'm not sure whether you haven't fully understood the issue (at least judging by your earlier postings). This is not about WP stating whether Fox viewers are more likely to have false views, but about WP accurately describing the content of that study. This means WP needs to state, that the study claims Fix viewers are more likely to hold certain views the study characterizes as false or misinformation. The issue with old version was that it didn't do that. However JakeinJoisey's latest edit has fixed the issue with an alternative formulation, so apparently he has understood the problem now.

@All: Imho JakeInJoisey's is acceptable as it is not a misrepresentation anymore (contrary to the version he originally preferred). Whether Kevin's or JakeInJoisey's is better is matter of editorial judgment and I don't have strong opinion on that. However the old mischaracterization is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confused in thinking that they are different. You are not a reporter, WP is not a reporting entity. WP is not an originator of original thought, and if your summary includes original thought or synthesis of existing information then you are breaking core WP policies. Your summarization to "explain" what the study is talking about is your perspective of what the study is talking about, ie, original research. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said already there was no original thought involved nor a synthesis of different sources, there was an accurate summary of one source. And it is not "my perspective", but what the study itsself says and there isn't really any wiggle room "personal interpretation" on that matter. The study clearly classifies the discussed views as misinformation and as not being the Truth (and I gave you the explicit places in the paper, where it does that). And yes understanding a source is requirement for using it properly and has nothing to do with original research either. To be rather frank, if you're seriously claiming the study doesn't describe those views as false or misinformation, then from my perspective you either haven't really read the study or you're gaming. But be that as it may, if you insist on seeing original research here, feel free to request a third opinion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone change the Glenn Beck area

It makes him sound negative and almost evil. Never once has he mentioned socialism on his program or critized President Obama's policy. He is not controversial and this should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.126.57 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

i don't know what you're refering to here, but if you've ever listened to him, well, HE makes himself sound that way. so maybe you're just confusing quotes and verifiable stuff with content/analysis? i don't know. just something to be wary of. we can't put our own opinion in even to "balance it out". we can only put in notable an due weight facts. Kevin Baas^talk 14:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You should know better. Please, try to WP:AGF and avoid WP:BITE in the future. You might also try paying some attention to timestamps, as articles can change in a week. †TE†Talk 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

i don't see how that was a violation of either. i did not assume any bad faith on the part of any editor or use ascerbic language with respect to any editor. i reserve the right to clearly and frankly state relevant facts, anecdotes, and opinions. as far as timestamps go, articles CAN change in a week, but they usually don't. Kevin Baas^talk 15:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps You should know better as well? The unsigned poster clearly lied. I can in less than 10 seconds find 10 examples proving the claim the person made false. The fact is, the claim that "Never once has he mentioned socialism on his program or criticized President Obama's policy." is an absolute falsehood. It isn't unreasonable to assume that there was bad faith on the part of that editor because the mischaracterization is so clearly agredious to the events that occurred. Here is a link to the first video that popped up when I simply looked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GOk_sXt9I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.42.88 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Union Poll

On wed Feb 23 fox showed a poll that stated that Americans were opposed to unions. But they flipped the results because teh pool actually said that Americans favored unions.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/fox-reverses-poll-results-to-portray-public-as-anti-union/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.83.247 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The First Casualty of "War"...

We need to come to some consensus understanding here. IMHO, MMfA claims of "controversy" related to Fox News are insufficient to satisfy WP:RS standards for inclusion unless supported by the provision of clearly related and reliable third-party sourcing. On that basis, I have reverted a recent edit by User:128.172.143.140. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo Manipulation

I noticed in the photo manipulation section when you click on a picture it says purpose: "To show the manipulation done by Fox News Channel to a photo of Steven Reddicliffe." and "To show the manipulation done by Fox News Channel to a photo of Jacques Steinberg."

Is there any citation that shows that Fox New Channel manipulated the photos themselves as this person is claiming? You can't just make a claim that a news channel manipulates photos and show no proof. Sure, they may have aired a photo that has seemingly been altered, but that in no way proves that Fox New Channel altered, or otherwise manipulated the photo themself. If there is no proof they manipulated the photos themself, then this dubious claim needs to be removed, like many of the other dubious claims made by "Fox haters" that troll these articles.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether most of the trolling here is done by "fox haters" or "fox lovers".

But be that as it may, this is the somewhat the wrong location for that question, since it is not a issue of this article and the subtitles for the pictures used in it, but it is the problem if the image file. The metadata there can be edited, so you can fix that or simply raise the question on the discussion page of that image file.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters for America Source Deletions

About 70% of this article is MMFA opinion on Fox News Channel. MMFA is not an unbiased source for news and information as it has now stated openly it wants to destroy FNC as a news source. I suggest that MMFA content be deleted and replaced with independent news sources. Kilowattradio (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that with the development that MMfA declared that it wants to take down FNC, plus the campaign they run (http://www.DropFox.com) to have advertisers boycott FNC (not to mention their activist arm Media Matters Action Network), MMfA can hardly be justified as a reliable source about the FNC. Drrll (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-iterate what I stated earlier. We need to come to some consensus understanding here. IMHO, MMfA claims of "controversy" related to Fox News are insufficient to satisfy WP:RS standards for inclusion unless supported by the provision of clearly related and reliable third-party sourcing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using MMFA sources per se. Sources can be biased, but they need to be accurate. Is there any problem regarding the accuracy?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the only issue. Context is the other problem. Example. Paul said, "People say that I beat my wife, this is not true." It is accurate to say Paul said, ".. I beat my wife..". MMfA and other such sites add their own bias to a story making it difficult to maintain a NPOV. They may report accurate statements, but they present them out of context, or they focus on trivia. Futhermore, since they are actively trying to destroy FNC, they cannot be used as a primary source for a controversy. That MMfA says something is controversial is not enough. We already know that they are extremely biased against FNC. Just because they say something is notable doesn't mean that it is. Independent 3rd party sources should always be used to lay the foundation of notability for any supposed controversial event. Arzel (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Providing context is important yes (and imho a part of accuracy in the bigger picture, that is accurate descriptions or reporting take context into account and provide misleading cherry picking in your example). I agree that a 3rd party source picking up on MMFA an story is definitely better as far notability concerned (and possibly better for context as well). However that does not conclude that MMFA cannot be used at all. If it is accurate and the context appropriate on a particular issue, it could be used directly as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is accurate and the context appropriate on a particular issue, it could be used directly as well.

MMfA content, as I read the opinions of a substantial and growing number of editors contributing to prior and related RS/Ns, is in decline as a reputable source and WP:RS is, by no means, a given. MMfA's recent declaration of "War" on FNC will, in all liklihood, exacerbate that decline and will (IMHO) be reflected in subsequent RS/Ns on MMfA's RS status.

For that matter, many experienced editors have opined that NO source possesses some WP:RS "imprimatur" and that the WP:RS of ALL sources are subject to contextual editorial consideration with an associated focus on WP:UNDUE. As one editor stated in relation to a particular source generally held as anathema to those of the left persuasion, if MMfA content is legitimatly notable, there will surely be less-biased sources from which to draw WP:RS sourcing, particularly in relation to alleged FNC "controversies". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with that, but similarly as in my posting to Azreael, I have to say you are not delivering an argument that MMFA can't be used at all (rather the opposite actually). That this article should not rely heavily on MMFA because that is likely to violate WP:UNDUE - I agree, but that's a different issue (no use at all versus overly reliance).

As for MMFA alleged decline of reputability (or its accuracy and context), I'd like see some evidence rather just hearing the opinion of an individual editor. It is not the first time that MMFA is being discussed here or elsewhere and so far afaik the essential result was always that MMFA can be used. That assessment might change - sure, but it is not going to change simply because an editor states vaguely that its reputation might have declined or dislikes it in general.

So the bottom line is, I'd like to see some concrete and convincing evidence regarding a possible lack of accuracy, correct context or a recently tarnished reputation. That's concerning using MMFA at all. As far as an overly reliance on MMFA is concerned I agree that would be violating WP:UNDUE and hence needs to be avoided. I agree as well, that in general 3rd parties sources should be preferred.

On that note I don't really see MMFA as a source for sourcing the existence or notability of Fox News controversies (that indeed needs to come 3rd party sources, MMFA publications alone don't create a controversy), but rather as a source providing details on a particular controversy. Say the controversy is that "Internal memos require fox news staff to use certain (politically slanted) terms" (that needs to be reported in 3rd part sources) and then MMFA might be used for providing specific or additional details (content of various memos)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So the bottom line is, I'd like to see some concrete and convincing evidence regarding a possible lack of accuracy, correct context or a recently tarnished reputation.

Perhaps the following from "Mediaite" (whose politics are no state secret) might fill that niche quite nicely. Here's their closer as an appetizer...

Media Matters was once a pioneering project that is now generating lower quality content than ever before. And with surprisingly small readership and diminishing sphere of influence (particularly considering how well-funded they are) maybe their donors should be asking if that money could be better spent funding websites where the Media actually Matters. [3]

There's more than partisan "smoke" in those RS/Ns I alluded to...and this was Mediaite's take BEFORE MMfA's declaration of "War" on FNC.

P.S. A link to "recently tarnished reputation" will be forthcoming as soon as I can find it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not the item I had in mind but, for currency, this should suffice. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)