Talk:Fox News

Marking As Propaganda in Critic Paragraph

I believe Fox News should contain the title propaganda in it's critic section and is in fact a textbook case example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

'Obama administration conflict with Fox News' section removal

This section is ridiculous and contains opinionated words like 'snub'. I may take this argument to higher wikipedia authority if this is not addressed.

Fox claims it is not news, so why are we listing it here?

In court cases Fox claims it is not a news organization. Fox is entertainment. This should be noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit

Sorry, but just throwing a link out isn't going to help you. SOME OF US actually read them. And in your case, the word "Fox" doesn't even appear at that link. Try again.Tgm1024 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "entertainment" doesn't appear anywhere in that article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting really irritated at this sort of thing. I've tasked myself with actually looking through the citations that people drop here and there and I'm starting to become very dismayed at how many of them are just assumed to be related to the subject. I'm convinced that the number of folks dropping citations down without even reading them is on the rise.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• No matter how irritated you get or how many conspiracy theories you invent, the word "entertainment" doesn't even appear in the link, so it sure as hell doesn't support your claim. Don't misrepresent sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

List of studios and shows broadcast in them

I had a list of FNC studios and the shows produced in them that was removed. It was not a TV Guide style list so I'm wondering why it was removed and if I can add it back?(IceManNYR (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

You mean this? [1] For a start, it cites no source, though frankly it looks like trivia - why should it matter to the readers which studio is used for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly crucial, but seems like something people might want to know. Maybe more appropriate for the individual show articles, though I sort of like how this makes it easier to group them (idea-wise, the formatting could use work). But yeah, with sources, in any case. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Andy. It's trivial. Some people might want to know the shoe sizes of all the on-air personalities, but I'd consider that trivial too. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not with Andy nor you. The OP is right: A list of the shows of a network, complete with production locations and personalities is perfectly appropriate here. Fox news, as all networks, is big. What's not ok is the lack of a credible source, and I didn't like the way it was formatted. But I don't believe that your shoe-size analogy "fits".Tgm1024 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bias and Objectivitiy

User:Niteshift36 and User:Arzel, you can not simply revert information because you don't like it. This edit, [[2]] is placed in the correct section, and correctly sourced. One of Fox News main anchors/hosts speaking about a potential bias in Fox news is very applicable to this section.EzPz (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss this, then you need to NOT start with you bad faith allegations. While you're at it, mind the 3RR and stop abusing Twinkle. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable addition. I'm not sure why it's being removed. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it's worth discussing. But if this is going to start with bad faith crap that ignores explanations given already and just says it a matter of not liking it, then I don't see a reason to waste time with him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, I see you weren't really discussing it. My error. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36,I am minding the 3RR rule. Check the history page and you will see I reverted the removal of the sourced information 3 times, not 4. If your not going to participate in the discussion, then I ask that you not continue to revert my edits please. EzPz (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I warned you. You get warned at THREE. Then if you pass it, you violated it. Get with the program. The material was contested. I even explained why I reverted it. YOU completely ignored the fact that I explained it and fabricated a bad faith allegation that I just don't like it. Then you come in here and lecture me on the 3RR warning? No, I have to give you the warning. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am with the program, so I'll say it again, I did not violate the 3RR rule, and I wasn't going too, because I am aware of it. You say I ignored what you said? You are ignoring the fact that I am posting correctly sourced information in correct section's of said articles.
EzPz (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension. Nobody said you violated it. Get it? Warning you AFTER you violate it is stupid. I need to warn you BEFORE. So enough with your silliness. I haven't ignored the fact that you had a source. That's why my edit summary didn't mention "unsourced". Just because there is a source for something doesn't mean it belongs here. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Say it isn't so....bias in the news media? Must be a first...I mean, CNN, MSLSD, CBS, NBC, ABC AND the BBC have never ever never been biased.--MONGO 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the thing, this isn't even about bias or non-bias. This is about cherry picking a quote from a conversation by a single FNC host and acting like it was spoken to represent the entire network as some sort of official proclimation. The quote is not accurate. Wallace says TWICE "I think", showing it is his opinion. The TRUE quote is "I think we are the counter-weight....". What is presented here is "We are the counter-weight....". Why is "I think...." left out? Even if we had a reason to leave it out, the quote would be accurately given as "...we are the counter-weight". So what we've done here is take a 5 second quote from a 24 minute piece, present it incompletely, present it in a different context because the "I think...." part is left out and then act like it is the official position of the network.
• So I'd like one of you supporters to tell me why the "I think....." is left out and why it's ok for the quote to be presented without the first part and nothing showing that the quote starts in the middle of the actual sentence. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to move on from the 3RR discussion, as the page is protected and seeing as you did the same thing as me, 3 reverts it seems just plain silly to keep talking bout it. So back to the main issue at hand. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, attributing potentially biased quotes is fine, as long as you attribute them to the person who said them, and do not attempt to list them as facts. And I personally just don't agree with the cherrypicking assertion. The discussion between Mr. Stewart and Mr. Wallace in the video is on the very topic listed as where I posted this quote, bias in Fox News. And here is the real point, that I believe makes this quote acceptable, Stewart is making claim about non-Fox news sources, and a claim about Fox News. Chris Wallace is actually in agreement with Jon Stewart, in that Chris Wallace says that Fox is the counter-weight. It's not a debate about whether Fox is biased, Chris Wallace actually agree's with him. As for representing the whole organization, this is not meant to nor does it represent the whole organization. The subject/topic of the quote, again, is on the topic I posted it under on the Fox News page, it's not a slick or shadowy attempt to trick people. It is in context. Thank you for your time.
  EzPz (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• And yet you spend time still talking about the 3RR. Either you're moving past it or you're not. With all that answer, you still never addressed the very important point that the quote is incomplete and being presented as being complete. Why did you leave off the "I think...." and start the quote with "We are..."? Not only does that make it out of context, it makes it inaccurate. Context is lost when you remove the part showing it's his personal opinion (he says "I think..." twice and you fail to put either) and instead present it as a complete statement of fact. You can't remove the part showing it is personal opinion and claim it's in context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think we're just going to disagree on that then. With quotations, unless you post transcripts of entire conversations, you're always going to end up posting just a piece of the pie, not the whole thing. So the issue becomes whether or not the quotation posted is honestly in the spirit of what was meant when the author said it. That's where I think the quotation is correct, it is in the spirit of what Chris Wallace meant.
  EzPz (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not advocating the whole conversation. I am, however, advocating the whole sentence. Further, it is absolutely incorrect to start a quote mid-sentence and fail to indicate that this is not the start of the sentence. Even the essay on WP:QUOTES says "If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details)..." points it out. You removed part of the sentence, didn't show you removed it, then capitalized the word "we" as if it were the first word in the sentence. That is deceptive and presenting out of context. No college class would permit that sort of shoddy work and we shouldn't either. Your presentation changes the actual statement. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you know Wallace meant? You don't, yet you are clearly trying to imply what you think he meant. This is the very definition of POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The inclusion of third party sources covering this renders the cherry picking objection moot. If the quote does indeed begin with "I think", then I support including the full quote. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• If it does? The source video is on the page. He clearly says "I think" (twice) in front of what is quoted. So are you saying you restored it originally without actually knowing what the source said? Guess what? Mother Jones (an activist site) left out out the "I think..." in the opinion piece you added. That source should be removed. The Gothamist source does actually mention, outside of quotes" that "he thinks". The Atlantic Wire is the only one who actually presented it correctly and they said "I think we're the counterweight...". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes much difference either way, but in the interests of compromise and collaborative editing, I agreed with your suggestion that those two additional words be included. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "third party" sources are quite biased, but I cannot say I am suprised. You have been trying for years to "prove" that FNC is biased. Nothing like selective quoting on the behalf of MSNBC. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss this, then you need to NOT start with you bad faith allegations." Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please remove my quote as it is being used out of the the context I made it in....and I DO know what I meant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? I assume you object to all bad faith allegations, not just ones directed towards yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well your assumption is incorrect because the quote is being used incorrectly. I will ask you a second time to remove the quote. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer not to believe the uncharitable explanation that you object to some bad faith allegations but not others, so please explain or withdraw your request. Gamaliel (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, I won't play your game Gamaliel. You quoted me. I know my intent far better than you do. I have politely asked you twice to remove it as a quote. If you don't want to be civil, that's your choice, but you won't lure me into some silly exercise in trying to convince you that I know my intent better than you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea what game you think I'm playing, and I could ask you the same question. One editor made a bad faith allegation, I quoted an editor at the beginning of this section objecting to bad faith allegations. That's it. Anything beyond that is something you are projecting on to this issue. I haven't the slightest idea why you object to being quoted here, and I'm baffled why you are spending so much time objecting to the idea that you object to a bad faith allegation. This one is a head scratcher. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I won't waste time trying to offer an explaination that you likely won't accept anyway. All you had to do was remove the quotation mark. It would have been the civil thing to do, but you have refused to be civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why on earth is quoting you an uncivil act and why are you taking it as such? Your behavior is very puzzling. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Did I say quoting me was uncivil? No. I said refusing to remove it when I requested it was and I requested it because I feel it's being misused. If you're going to fake innocence, at least fake the right stuff. Bottom line: Whether you "understand it" or not, the request was made and you'bve refused. I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of expressing yourself adequately using your own words. I'll reserve my opinions on why you refuse. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see no misuse of your words, and no explanation from you on how they are misused. It is not a matter of incivility to refuse a strange request, especially one coupled with no explanation, only an increasingly bizarre series of accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing bizarre about the request. The request hasn't changed, so even if it were "bizarre", it couldn't be increasing. I know my intent better than you. I am the expert on it. For you to require an explanation is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to explain it. If you're not going to remove it, then don't. But don't think for a second that I believe you are so bewildered by the request that it requires an explanation. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I never claimed to know your intent. All I know is what your words say, and the words you wrote here were equally applicable to either bad faith accusation. To insist that the intent of your words is substantially different from their obvious meaning, to complain that someone took those words at face value and quoted them as such, to repeatedly insist that someone is uncivil for not immediately complying with your unusual and unexplained complaint, and to spend hundreds of words complaining about a minor matter without spending any of them explaining the core of your complaint, well, that's pretty bizarre. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing unusual in the request and frankly, it shouldn't require an explanation. It would have taken nothing for you to use your own words or even remove the quotation marks. No effort at all. If was the simplest of requests. Your refusal is intentional obstinance. You've spent hundreds of words trying to justify something you could have solved with a simple edit, so how that's less "bizarre" is a head scratcher as well. In any case, you can have the last word. I'm done hoping you'd actually be civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any use of the word civility which equates it to "doing exactly what you say for no explicable reason". I've been more than civil during your bizarre temper tantrum, especially in the face of your weird accusations, all of which could have been avoided with a simple explanation. But really, the only explanation for your petulant refusal to provide an explanation is that you support bad faith allegations when they aren't directed at you (as witnessed by your own bad faith allegations directed at Bishonen here and on his talk page, not to mention at AstroChemist.) and you don't like being inadvertently exposed as a hypocrite. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Niteshift, in response to what you said about using quotations, with [] brackets and ... ellipse -> That's exactly what I did do. Look at my edit and you'll see exactly those things. On another note, in the interest of moving on with life, I am willing to accept 'I think' being added to the quotation. My objection was never really with that. My objection was to my edit simply being reverted. It never should have been erased. We all could have saved each other time and effort, if you were more willing to compromise Niteshift and made suggestions instead of simply reverting. If anyone is being uncivil, it's you Niteshift. You are making rude remarks in almost every single post on this talk page, to either myself or Gamaliel. That's all I have to say at this point, that I'm willing to go along with a consensus of 'I think' being added on.EzPz (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, you did the elipsis AFTER the sentence. the omitted material is at the start. If the material is not there, it should appear "...we are the counter-weight...". This let's the reader know that there were words in the sentence prior to what they are seeing. Instead, you capitalized the word "We" and make no indication that there were words before it. That is wrong. It is still wrong and it will always be wrong as long as there is no elipsis in front and the word "we" is capitalized. This is simple stuff. Anyone who has written a proper paper knows this. You can deny your own incivility all you want, but it's there, so don't lecture me on it friend. Lastly, I love how you're "willingly" to actually make the quote accurate. Amazing. So we all agree that the version that is currently in the article is inaccurate? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can we abandon this series of accusations of bad faith and simply all agree that "I think" should be included in the quotation. Any objection to including this phrase? Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• After we fix it so it's at least truthful and not misleading, we can discuss if it belongs in the article and, if so, where. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:Gamaliel, I have no objection. EzPz (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting into an argument about this, just saying I agree with Niteshift about the misquote. That's not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Does it belong and where

Now that the quote is no longer inaccurate, we can start the rest of the discussion.

1) Why does it belong as the second sentence in the section? Why is the most recent event, one that seems fairly minor, forced into a prominent place so early in the section?

2) Why is it here at all? We have a single FNC personality giving his personal opinion. He doesn't even say that they are boased, he says they're a counter-weight to a bias. Interpreting it as a bias is opinion. Why is his opinion more valid than any other FNC on-air personality? A couple of left leaning sources (and yes, Mother Jones is left leaning) decided to discuss it, but most did so in opinion pieces. This is being treated like it was a press release or the network stating an official position. It was one guy, making a remark about his personal opinion, and we're reading into it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not belong because it is impossible to interpret without POV pushing. It is clearly not an admission of bias as some would claim. One could argue that it is actually a claim that they are not biased. The only way to truly know for sure is to ask Wallace exactly what he meant. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick check of Lexis/Nexis will reveal that the Wallace statement is widely discussed among many different types of news outlets. I just threw in the first couple of google hits with my initial edit. I have no objection to moving the quote to later in the section, but the coverage warrants inclusion in some form. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The question is not how many outlets discussed it. That alone is not what determines inclusion. A hundred sources covered the fact that the new Miss America went to the beach yesterday, but that probably doesn't belong in her bio either. I think that the essay WP:RECENTISM provides good guidance here in suggesting the 10 year test. Note that most of the coverage was not recent at all. It got coverage in a news cycle or two then the world moved on. Where is the enduring coverage of it? Isn't it odd that an on air personality makes a single statement and it gets this much play in the article, a (now) complete quote and placed in the second sentence, yet when Rogar Ailes and Rupert Murdoch deny allegations of bias, there is a partial quote, further down in the paragraph. Even more interesting is that what Wallace says and what Murdoch said aren't really that different. Both said there is a liberal bias and they provide the other side. That doesn't necessarily mean a conservative bias. That is being read into it by editors here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Recentism does not apply here, and comparing Ms. America going to the beach to the interview is like comparing applies and oranges. Recentism, as stated in the essay is for articles overburdened with documenting events as they happen. Well, this is certainly not that. The second reason is articles created on flimsy transient merits, again obviously not that. Suggessting a 10 year-moratorium on posting this fact does not make logical sense. I can't stress it enough, the section is Fox News bias, and this quote is directly applicable to that section. It absolutely has a right to be in this article, and this particular section.
  EzPz (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is recentism, you arrived late just arrived late. The item was covered for a short window and then essentially fell off the map. Just because you came across it 2 years later doesn't suddenly make it new. And I'm sorry you missed the obvious about the Miss (not Ms) America use. It was simply an illustration that just because a number of outlets cover something for a short time, it doesn't immediately become worth including. It was not a literal argument against inclusion of this item. Further, I didn't suggest a 10 year moritorium, nor does the essay. Please don't put words in my mouth. the essay uses that as a gauge for enduring value. I have suggested that this single quote by a single employee doesn't really stand up well when compared to that gauge. The section is about Fox bias, however, this quote never says Fox has a bias. It says Fox counters a liberal bias. Please follow me for a second..... If I accused you of taking a bribe and knew it was false, it could be libel. If you provided video evidence that the charge was false, you didn't have to commit libel to counter it. You simply presented a different set of facts that brought the libel to light. Countering a liberal bias doesn't require a conservative bias. That is an assumption on your part. To say this has a "right" to be included is a stretch of the word, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Um, I very much understand it was an illustration, but it was a bad one. It still doesn't make sense from your perspective as an argument. And at this point, it's clear you aren't interested in an actual discussion. You are simply interested in fighting.
  EzPz (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

I protected the article for a week because of the ongoing edit war. User:Niteshift36 has now asked me on my talkpage to remove the disputed material while it's being discussed, and told me s/he thinks a week's protection seems overly long. I'll answer here. It doesn't have to be a week, I'll be very happy to unprotect if and when the conflict is resolved and people are able to form a consensus here on talk. The recent editing of the article is a sad sight, and I must say the thread above isn't very encouraging either. I hope people use this editing lull for some constructive discussion. As for me reverting the article back to a different version, no, that won't happen. Please see The Wrong Version. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

• I thought my request was polite and not unreasonable. I don't think it warranted the sarcasm. thanks for your input. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

{{edit protected}} In the lead of the article it is stated that Fox News Channel had 17 million subscribers when it debuted. Although the {{cn}} template follows the information under "history", it is stated there that 10 million people had the ability to watch the channel when it debuted. I haven't researched the situation and don't really have the time, but these two statements contradict. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The 17 million claim is also unsourced. There is a citation immediately before it, apparently backing the launch date claim only, but it is dead. I suggest both numbers be removed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the edit protected template until a consensus is reached (or at least a few users comment). Rjd0060 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I know of one library where I might have access to the answers.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add "I think" to the beginning of the quote by Chris Wallace in the "Objectivity and bias" section per the consensus above. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Please replace the infobox logo with File:FoxNewsChannelLogo.png, as this is the official logo, and not the rendering we currently use. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)