Jump to content

Talk:Fox News

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.66.6.108 (talk) at 13:11, 20 June 2021 (→Vague references - clarification needed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Fox's pattern of anti-semitic attacks on George Soros

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#NPOV_issues_on_wiki_with_regards_to_politics, @Masem: has suggested that the section Fox_News#Glenn_Beck's_comments_about_George_Soros should be expanded to cover the entire pattern of anti-semitic attacks that have been made by Fox hosts. I am starting this discussion here to work on wording and establish sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)comments by this sock puppet are struck per wp:talko[reply]

More specifically, I suggest that the section talk in general about Fox's controversial hosts and the network's apparant continued support for them; touching briefly on any specific incidents with them on the assumption that the host's bio page would have more detailed coverage. It's not just Beck that is controversal at Fox, but also Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. My point at the NPOV board is that this article gets a bit too focused on microscopic aspects when those aspects are better covered as part of the macroscopic picture of criticism of Fox. --Masem (t) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Specific incidents" would seem to also include specific long-term TARGETS of Fox's attacks, correct? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way I would envision a section would be "Controversial hosts" and would be read something like (not final wording, this is off the cuff) "Fox News has been criticized for its continued support of its controversial hosts of its various talk and opinion shows. Among such hosts include: (list format here to have two or three sentences on each) Glenn Beck, who has spent several years making anti-Semitic remarks and false conspiracy theories about George Soros. Fox has defended Beck's comments as..." with the understanding that if I went to Beck's page, there's probably a good full paragraph or three about this (and I see there is). Remember that this article (Fox News) should center on criticism of Fox News, and so in talking about Beck specifically, we need to establish just enough (his repeated attacks on Soros) to understand in reasonable depth why Fox is criticized for carrying Beck, not for why Beck is criticized. Leave details of the latter to Beck's page. --Masem (t) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Asking you and others to help provide sources regarding anti-semitism by Fox hosts or regular contributors below. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) ===General background:=== [reply]

Sources re: Glenn Beck

Sources re: Tucker Carlson

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/20/tucker-carlson-claims-he-didnt-use-anti-semitic-trope-despite-suggesting-vindman-has-a-dual-loyalty/

Sources re: Newt Gingrich

Sources re: "Fox & Friends"

"and conservative columnists, such as Jennifer Rubin"

Jennifer Rubin does not identify as a Conservative and has sought to distance herself from that label. Should this sentence be rewritten? Juno (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rubin was a conservative when she had the valor (the gall, I would call it, although that term has negative connotations, so it is best to avoid it) to criticize Fox News. While I do believe that she still considers herself to be a 1990s-kind conservative and not a right-wing populist, it is irrelevant to write down what she believes now. However, if she had cited Fox News as a reason for her denouncing current right-wing politics—which could be mistaken as 1990s conservatism—I could see someone clarifying in the Fox News article that she has since renounced the label, citing Fox News as one of the reasons. FreeMediaKid! 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

In the controversy section, there is a subsection called Journalistic ethical standards. This section should include the case of McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC. This case determined that Tucker Carlson is NOT being a reliable source of facts. This is the argument of the Fox news lawyers. There are many articles about this case including the judge of the case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye 2600:1009:B016:9143:8967:869:58E4:22A0 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 15:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning of fake news and alternative facts in the introduction

The current introduction is not very perspicuous when it comes to the fact, that Fox News had repeatedly spread fake news and alternative facts. The Fox-News wiki-article in other wiki-language-Versions are more straight forward in their introductions of fox news. I at least recommend for other users here, to go for example to the french or german fox-news-wiki artice and use a translator-app, to see how they describe fox-news in the introduction. besides a report in a scientific-journal[1] the sources being used are huffpost[2], forbes[3], Los Angeles Magazine[4], CNN[5], Le Monde[6], Die Zeit[7] and Slate france[8]. Well I guess that if some of the mentioned sources (for example: cnn, Huffpost, Forbes) would be used for mentioning fake news and alternative facts in the introduction of fox news, the editing would most probably be reverted. but what if we would use - next to the scientific report - the english-based Los Angeles Magazine or the french "le monde" or the german "Die Zeit"? With translation programs everyone can check the non-english-sources themselves. So there is no boundary, when it comes to the use of those, right? ----LennBr (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LennBr, TIL that "politologue" is a word. I will be using it frequently. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Propaganda, Persuasion, or Journalism?: Fox News' Prime-Time Coverage of Health-Care Reform in 2009 and 2014". journals.sagepub.com.
  2. ^ "Jon Stewart Calls Out Fox News Over Obama Tape Edit (VIDEO)". Retrieved April 28, 2021.
  3. ^ "Meet The Fox Board That Doesn't Want To Talk About Fox News' Conspiracy-Theory Habit". Retrieved April 28, 2021.
  4. ^ "Fox News Can't Stop Running Faked Images of Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone". www.lamag.com.
  5. ^ "Fox has a conspiracy theory problem".
  6. ^ "Fox News, accusée d'avoir publié de fausses informations sur demande de Trump, est assignée".
  7. ^ Adrian Daub. "Three days of alternate reality with Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham". zeit.de (in German).
  8. ^ "Oui, il faut mépriser Fox News".


Fox News and unreliability for politics

I was overhearing some discussions down at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard #New York Post and found this link. I dunno if it's any helpful, but I just wanted to ask if there is any worth in mentioning more about Fox News and its unreliability surrounding politics-related topics. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyxp2000, in the article? No. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. It's an unreliable source, right? I thought Washington Post was reliable. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it just straightup not relevant? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

add Ron DeSantis to Regular guests and contributors

see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/06/desantis-gives-fox-news-exclusive-signing-new-voting-restrictions-into-law/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/05/06/fox-news-didnt-ask-for-an-exclusive-on-desantis-bill-signing-network-says/ https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-exclusive-desantis-florida-election-bill-signing-2021-5 71.173.64.11 (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are these two not independent enough? Just asking and am curious. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or was it that these sources are not reliable enough? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More likely that the sources do not identify DeSantis as a regular guest or contributor. FreeMediaKid! 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Fox News is available on Foxtel on channel 608. 175.32.196.147 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change Section is out of date.

Without taking a position, such a controversial subject needs to be updated. The references are 10 years old and the amount of research in the last decade is humungous. Some positions of Fox and scientists may have changed.

Vague references - clarification needed

The section about Fox News’s political bias needs to be significantly improved to be neutral. In terms of semantics, the use of the word “conservative” requires clarification and more specifics, as Wikipedia, especially the English version, suits the global English-speaking audience. Moreover, the obfuscated use of “scholars” or passive voice dent the credibility of Wikipedia in the eyes of conservative readers. This is not to say that the bias doesn't exist, but it needs to be more properly explained and supported. 109.66.6.108 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News&oldid=1029515567"