Talk:Fox News

Why is Savage quoted.

To my knowledge Micheal Savage has never been anything other than a guest on Fox News. By quoting Savage it makes it seem like he is a Fox News employee. As Far as I can remember his only tv show was on MSNBC not Fox. The part about Savage should be taken out of the page as it is misleading. Furthermore the entire Anti-Arab section seems to be very close to sensationalism as the only cites are simlar to quotes you could find from just about any network news or comedy, as well as any print media especially in editorials. If there was more information and proof of this so called anti-arab viewpoint it should be added in but as it stands the entire section should be omitted as unfounded.

FTScottsdale 06:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. For one thing, to quote individuals from FNC who voice their personal opinion (as O'Reilly often does) is not fair to FNC. You are right about Savage, so that is even less fair. Arzel 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, writting an encyclopedic article about FNC is not about being "fair to FNC", it's about providing interesting and important verifiable information to the reader, irrespective of how flattering or unflattering it is.

Secondly, presenting "individuals from FNC who voice their personal opinion", esp. on a regular basis, is important because it is representative of the content and nature of the channel, which is a main topic of the article. The channel itself has no qualms about listing its program schedule - even advertising its shows. As an encyclopedia entry, the article should be equally -- if not more -- impartial.

Thirdly, these are individuals that the t.v. channel consciously and deliberately chooses to present to the viewer. They know full well their views and opinions and choose to present those views to the public. That is an executive decision made by the management of the company and that decision is noteworthy.

And finally, they are all political radicals; extremists and are presented on the channel on almost a daily basis -- and that alone merits mention in an article. Not just small mention, either - but substantial mention. No other channel does that.

If we are to leave out information about notable individuals from FNC who voice their personal opinion, such as Bill O'Reilly who has a show on Fox News, then we should leave out their claim of being "fair and balanced", too. Having a news station's characterization of itself without providing any substantial information about its content that is relevant to that characterization is like having a topic sentence without the accompanying paragraph. Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, articles have to be written in a neutral tone.

Secondly, Bill O'Reilly is not a newscaster on FNC. He has a show which represents his opinions, as such they may not reflect the beliefs of FNC. It would be like saying MSNBC thinks Bush should be impeached or resign because Keith Olbermann makes that statement almost nightly.

Thirdly, FNC like CNN and MSNBC present programming which people want to watch, much of which is opinion based. As a result they choose which will make them the most money in advertising.

Fourtly, this is your opinion, what makes them different then the other cable news networks? I would hardly call O'Reilly extremist when both the extreme left and the extreme right dislike him....is it possible to be extremely in the middle? Furthermore, if by your characterization that they "all political radicals; extremists and are presented on the channel on almost a daily basis", then that would imply that both the right and the left presented are extremist, thus validating the claim of fair and balanced (giving both sides a platform).

Finally, if exists research that says FNC is biased against the mid-east through their reporting, then that is a valid criticism, but to say that FNC is biased because O'Reilly makes stupid opinion statements (which change from week to week depending on how things are going) is not neutral. Arzel 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral tone does not mean no negative information. Our encyclopedia is focused on accurate, verifiable information presented in a netural manner, not being "fair to FNC".
2. Bill O'Reilly is employed, promoted, and supported by the Fox News Channel. As such, the FNC organization is responsible for whatever content he presents. Don't fool yourself into believing that they have no say-so (or vested interest in) what Bill O. does -- they most certainly do. It's called editorial oversight and vicarious liability.
3. I don't understand your point (reference "thirdly").
4. Peer reviewed studies (ones that are specifically referenced in the article!) contradict your fourth point entirely.
5. Strawman argument.

Kevin makes very valid points, and his logic is convincing. Some tweaking of the language might be necessary, but unilaterally blanking the content, especially given the volatility of this article, is wholly inappropriate. Please notice the banners at the top of the talk page, which specifically requests that you discuss changes first. /Blaxthos 00:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(resolving edit conflict) To respond to your first point: I agree, generally, that articles have to be written I a neutral tone. I never disputed that, and it is unrelated to any of the points I made. That makes this point both a non sequitur and a straw man argument. Also, I believe it is misguided on account of an important subtlety: it is more important that articles actually be neutral than that they have a neutral "tone"; having semblance of neutral may in itself by misleading, and putting the priority on appearance rather than substance is misplaced. True and objective statements may appear to people with biased views to have a non-neutral "tone". What a person may call "tone" may in fact not be in any way intrinsic to the statement, but a reflection of the readers biases. We should not appeal to any bias, reader or writer. If the article were nothing but an appeal to the reader's bias, it wouldn't tell them anything they don't already believe, and therefore wouldn't inform the reader at all, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. It is more important that articles actually be neutral than that they have a neutral "tone". And in any case, your first point is both a non sequitur and a straw man argument.

As regards your second point: No, it would not be like saying MSNBC thinks Bush should be impeached or resign because Keith Olbermann makes that statement almost nightly. (which he doesn't by the way, in fact, i can't recall an instance where he makes that statement even once - which proves the point i made above about "tone" and the reader's (or, in this case, watcher's) biases.) It would be like saying that Keith Olbermann has a show on MSNBC which represents his opinions. Your second point is a false analogy.

As to your third point: It is intrinsicly obvious that FNC, CNN, and MSNBC present programming that some people want to watch. it is also obvious that some of their shows include different people's opinions on the news. We would not be having this discussion were that not the case. Nobody is arguing against this. In fact, this has been a premise of some of the points that I have made. However, your conclusion: "As a result they choose which will make them the most money in advertising." does not follow from the premises that you offered. And, in fact, you have not offered any evidence to support this argument. Any news source has a social responsibility to report the news accurately and in proportion to its importance, just like, we on wikipedia, have a responsibility to provide verifiable information that is relevant, important, and interesting to the reader, due proportion. The mere fact that we are having this debate is evidence in itself that some people will automatically attempt to fulfill this obligation, irrespective of the existence or lack thereof of any monetary reward, as neither I, nor - I presume - you, are getting paid for our contributions. So we -- and the millions of other contributors to wikipedia, are living proof that mankind will work for non-material rewards. The people who make decisions about what shows to have on a given news channel will not necessarily "choose which will make them the most money in advertising." There are other considerations that come into play when making such decisions, such as their conscience, and, in some cases, their political biases - whether deliberately or not. In fact, fox news claims to be "fair and balanced", which means -- presumably -- that they consider "fairness and balance" in making decisions, which does not always align itself with "making money". Even if they choose the programs they play simply to make money, then it would be material to the article what shows they choose, in that those are the shows that presumably "make money". As I have demonstrated, there are other factors that inextricably influence such decisions, but it is nonetheless important to show what content constitutes a news station, be it FNC, MSNBC, CNN, or what have you. That content, which will invariably differ among the different news channels, reflects the influences that went into their respective decision maker's decisions, which will invariably differ.

As regards your fourth point, I have told you what what makes them different from other cable news networks in the above paragraph. When a person is disliked by both the right and the left, they are generally referred to as an "extremist". No, it is not possible to be extremely in the middle. And no, my claim does not in any way imply that both the right and the left presented are extremist. Nor does it validate any claim of fair and balanced. Nor does giving both sides a platform constitute fairness and balance - there is more to fairness and balance than just giving both sides.

Regarding your "finally": Right, that would not be neutral. It would also be original research. Nobody is suggesting that we do that. This is another straw man argument. Kevin Baas^talk 00:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, it is exactly the same, and he does make that statement often. I listen to him regularly. Arzel 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that when someone says you are making a straw man argument they mean "that is not what i am saying", and then when you disagree with that you are saying "i know what you're saying better than you do.". Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An extremist is some that is far outside the norm. Someone in the middle by defintion cannot be an extremist (10 years of statistical background talking). The fact that some people feel his is an extremist is more of a testiment about them, then a testiment about him. Arzel 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's zero years of statistical background for you: An extremist is someone whose average percentile distance from another person is much higher than the norm. In a guassian distribution, that would be the people at either end of the curve. The people in the middle of the curve have the smallest average percentile distance from other people. Thus, centrist are not extremists. A person may view someone as an extremist when they have a large percentile distance from them. When a person has a large percentile distance from people on both sides of the curve (who are not too far from the middle), that means that they are either far too the right or far to the left of the mean. If they were in the middle, they would not be far from (non-extremist)people on either side. Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that FNC should not allow BOR freedom of speech? I disagree with your response to my fourth opinion entirely, and my fifth point is not a straw man arguement. If you want to say that FNC is Arab Biased (previous mis-statement by me) then simply show some evidence. Even the references provided earlier don't even state that, it is purely OR. Arzel 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. Down with freedom of speech! You understood my argument precisely. How could I ever accuse you of making straw man arguments? </sarcasm> Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The fairness and balance statement is related to "their" belief that they give both sides a platform, if you don't believe that is so, then that is your opinion. As someone in the middle I believe they do, that is my opinion, thus a stalemate. Arzel 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "The fairness and balance statement" being "their" belief that they give both sides a platform: who was ever arguing against that? I think you pulled that one out of thin air. Or you're arguing with someone who nobody else sees. But to humor you I'll leave it open for anyone who actually disagrees with that to speak up... Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't feel it is a straw man arguement (response to Blaxthos). Arzel 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

translation: "Again, I don't feel that you know what your argument is better than I do." Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example. Randi Rhodes from Air America comments almost everyday how she feels that President Bush lied about the war in Iraq, and on a somewhat irregular basis feels that Bush was partially responsible for 9/11 or even directly complicent. Does that mean that Air America is biased against Bush, and that it believes that President Bush conspired to have 9/11 happen in order to attack both Afganistan and Iraq? Of course not, it is her opinion. I don't listen to Rush, so I don't know what kind of stupid crap he spews on a daily basis, but I am sure it is similar in tone. I may not agree with what their stupid asses have to say, but I will defend it their freedom to say without holding their employees accountable. Imagine if you lived in a country where you could not. Arzel 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Arzel, let me try to help out here.

1. Keith Olbermann has indeed called for Bush to resign. I've seen it twice -- hardly often, but Arzel is correct in stating that Olbermann has made that statement. However, it has nothing to do with an article about Fox News.
2. You don't have to believe that Bill O. is an extremist or not. There are plenty of reliable sources that believe he is. Your opinion of the matter certainly does not trump WP:RS.
3. There is a distinct difference between freedom of speech and editorial responsibility. Bill O. is free to say whatever he pleases, however when a network that claims to be Fair & Balanced pays someone to say those things on their network they assume responsibility and liability for what he says. Again, see editorial oversight and vicarious liability.
4. Just because FNC calls themselves Fair & Balanced doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean an encyclopedia must quell reliable evidence to the contrary. Again, see the numerous peer reviewed studies.
5. Do you understand what a strawman argument is? Mischaracterizing an opposing argument so you may easily knock it down does an injustice to the project and shows disrespect of others' opinions.
6. Appealing to patriotism and "freedom of speech" to silence negative information is a red herring and only draws away from the actual issues.

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, you said that our opinions cancel each other out - no they don't. I still have my opinion, and you still have yours. But our opinions don't really matter, because they don't belong in the article. (See WP:NPOV.) Besides that, I think Blaxthos did a pretty good job of explaining my thoughts about your replies. Kevin Baas^talk 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And regards "but to say that FNC is biased because O'Reilly makes stupid opinion statements (which change from week to week depending on how things are going) is not neutral." being a straw man or not - which both me and blaxthos have independantly come to the conclusion that it is a straw man - to show that it is not a straw man argument, all you need to do is point out where either of us have suggested that "FNC is biased because O'Reilly makes stupid opinion statements". Kevin Baas^talk 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

1. Just trying to provide a similar frame of reference.
2. His extremeness is not really at issue, and I don't deny that some may consider him extreme.
3. This is where we disagree. I say that FNC pays BOR to give his opinion, but if I read you correctly FNC pays BOR to give their opinion. Editorial oversight does not pertain to opinion. I am not sure how this is a case of Vicarious liability.
4. True, but neither should it be a case of guilt by association.
5. Yes, I understand. I don't view my first point as a straw man arguement, maybe a non-sequiter. My other supposed straw-man arguement was trying to point out the logical falacy. Kevin claimed everyone on FNC is an extremist, yet they have Left, Right, and Middle on their opinion shows. Just because some believe ther are all extremist doesn't inherently mean they are not Fair and Balanced.
6. Duly noted.

Additionally, if you read the references, the first is not even about FNC, their is some anciliary mention of BOR, but it still doesn't back up the claim made. Obviously the second one is out. The third was BOR giving his opinion that the Iraqi populous wasn't appreciating what the US was doing for them and it wasn't even on FNC, it was from the Fox news talk radio. Arzel 17:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not claim that everyone on FNC is an extremist. This is a straw man. I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Kevin Baas^talk 18:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You said. And finally, they are all political radicals; extremists and are presented on the channel on almost a daily basis -- and that alone merits mention in an article. Not just small mention, either - but substantial mention. No other channel does that. in what I could only interpret as a response to me stating. For one thing, to quote individuals from FNC who voice their personal opinion (as O'Reilly often does) is not fair to FNC. Perhaps you wish to clarify. Arzel 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had specifically mentioned Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly - and there was another one I was thinking of. I was thinking of these three and meant to refer to them when i said "they are all political radicals". Apparently, in explaining all the different thoughts I had, I skipped over that part and didn't go back to it. But yeah, my point was this: who has someone like ann coulter on a news program?!? No other channel would take such a class-acts' opinion seriously enough to give them air time. And yet you have news anchors on Fox News not only treating her better than they treat some senators on the program, but actually praising her psychobabble with statements like "I think she summed up the issues rather well." She's a frickin' clown! she's not a serious pundit. But they treat her like one and have her appear again and again. No other news channel puts clowns on serious news programs and treats them like serious pundits, and then has them on again and again. They have a bunch of right-wing radicals who've lost touch with reality on as regular guests and call them "pundits", while from time-to-time they put on a moderate democrat and call him/her "far-left", and call it "balance". That's why I don't watch the channel for News. It's not really a real news program. I go to CNN or BBC for news. They're much more serious and their coverage is much more in-depth. Anyways, my point was bascially stating why the section on individual personalities in the FNC controversies aritcle is important. But you're right, I forgot to specify, so what i wrote wasn't what i meant to say. my apologies. Kevin Baas^talk 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Appology accepted, equally sorry if you felt I was putting words into your mouth. Ann Coulter is extreme, she does say things which seem to be purely to infuriate those that would disagree, and I don't agree with almost anything she says. However, I have only seen her as a guest on opinion shows. FNC could probably do better in finding an equally caustic person from the left to balance her out, but given her nature she would probably go even more overboard with he comments (she seems to love that she is a point of conflict). I guess the real question is the degree which someone appears to be left or right, and for most people appears to be personal opinion. Regardless, all of this is opinion, and not related to their coverage of news. Arzel 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "I say that FNC pays BOR to give his opinion, but if I read you correctly FNC pays BOR to give their opinion. Editorial oversight does not pertain to opinion." -- Thank you for bringing up how you read what was being said. I think I can speak for Blaxthos as well as myself when I say that you have read us incorrectly. We are not saying that FNC pays BOR to give their opinion. We are saying that FNC pays BOR to give his opinion. The point is that the political positions of the people that FNC pays to give their opinion is substantially skewed. I did a little research to try to something to clarify this position, and I found that it is clearly presented on Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Criticism_of_individuals. You can also take a look at Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Reports.2C_polls_and_studies, and find a relevant quote regarding guests (as opposed to hosts): "The "signature political news show" of the Fox News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, was found to have a strong bias in their choice of guests, overwhelmingly choosing conservatives over 'non-conservatives' to appear in interviews. This was the finding of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), noted in a study taken across a 19 week period from June 2003 to December 2003. They found the ratio of conservative guests to liberals to be 50:6." To reiterate, we are saying that the statistical distribution of the political positions of hosts and guests that FNC chooses to present is substantially skewed. And this is certainly something that editorial oversight pertains to. Kevin Baas^talk 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, broadcasters are strictly responsible for the content they air (even commercial programming). Ask Don Imus, or the broadcasters that were fined for the "wardrobe malfunction" a few years ago -- editorial oversight applies to anything that is broadcast. Regarding vicarious liability - companies are responsible for the actions of their employees while said employees are executing duties "on the clock." Unlike MSNBC, who fired Don Imus, FNC takes no disciplinary action against Bill O. (or any of their staff, apparently) and continues to promote their shows. As such, they implicitly (or, IMHO, due to continued renewal of contracts and continued broadcasting of content, explicitly) condones their actions. Before you go shouting "original research" please understand that this is used on a talk page to explain to you the why, not as part of the article itself -- WP:OR applies to article content, not to educational discussion on a talk page.  :-) /Blaxthos 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, of course, I could not disagree more. Don Imus was on the MSNBC airwaves when he made his comments with the intent to demean college athletes who never asked to be in the public sphere. CBS may have violated obscenity laws, the case is now under appeal. And again it was something that occurred over their airwaves. Expressing conservative thought and opinion is in no way obscene, indecent, or outrageous behavior. FNC has no analagous situation on Foxnews. Yes, some of the analysis is skewed, yes they are personal attacks, but no more than on any other opinion program since Crossfire lowered the bar all those years ago. In effect Bill O'Reilly is no different than Keith Olbermann. They are two sides of the same coin. They both personally attack people regularly, and have both been involved in controversies for conduct that occurred outside the respective studios. Finally, based on your reasoning above one can equally say that MSNBC also agrees with who Keith Olbermann names the "Worst Person in the World", since they never reprimand him, and continue to trump his increase in ratings. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel & Baas argue statistics

Response to Kevin Bass. I hardly view the FAIR report as a valid study, primarily since it is not an actual research study which has been peer reviewed without full statistics and disclosure of methods used. However, the other one which I think you might be refering is. The Groseclose and Miylo paper, which is a primary reference as evidence of conservative bias. Something I have mentioned before, and something most people seem to ignore is that this study is comewhat contrary to the perception many people would view. A centrist view within that research paper sets 50.2 as a central point for political bias. FNC Brit Hume is a 39.7, which is right of center 10.5 (although not in the absolute value sense.) However, the average media outlet is 62.6, which is left of center 12.4. Thus the results from the study confirm that not only is media liberally biased, in general media is more liberally biased than FNC is conservatively biased. ABC World News Tonight is 10.8 Left, CBS Evening News is 23.5 Left, and NBC Nightly News is 11.4 Left. A lot of this drives the perception that FNC is extremely biased, but it is only in the context of other media choices, because they are all actually more biased the other way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)

Alright, the FAIR report, you want to know the methods used? They count up the liberal guests, they count up the conservative guests, and then they divide one by the other. Viola. Peer review? Try doing it yourself. It's easy for anyone to verify. The other study you mention, the Tim Groseclos report, is highly subjective and interpretative. there's really nothing scientific about it and the sources he used are totally biased. Certainly not objective. and definitely not scientific: what is he basing this on? The political orientations of the hosts and/or guests? what kind of relevant quantitative empirical measure? Garbage in, garbage out. He might have just written down his opinion - would have saved himself a lot of trouble. In any case, these reports are in the controversy section. Which of the two is more probable explanation: every single media outlet except one is biased to a certain side, or one media outlet is exceptionally biased to a certain side? Reality check: the simplest explanation is most likely correct. Anyways, the fact that we're discussing these reports right now shows that we find them interesting and important, which is my point. Kevin Baas^talk 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you disqualify the Groseclose and Miylo paper which was actually published in a peer reviewed journal, and accept the FAIR report? I see you are employing Occam's razor as a defense of FAIR and disregarding the other and in essence your own straw man arguement. Occam's razor, while good in theory, fails miserably in practice. A classic example is that of the orbits of Earth and the other planets around the sun. The simple answer, and the one beleived for some time was that the sun, the moon, and the four viable planets at the time revolved around Earth. Certainly from our perspective, it appears they revolve around us, even today it is difficult to imagine that the movement of the sun is illusion due to the rotation of the Earth. However, as we know now, the complex answer (at the time) was that Earth rotates around the sun. Regardless, the Groseclose and Miylo paper is properly cited and referenced. I realized it has been panned by Media Matter (big suprise), yet it is still used as a reference here as evidence of FNC's purported conservative bias (confused like me?). In any case, this research follows the basic tenet of WP:RS, which I am sorry to say, the FAIR study does not. Arzel 04:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know how i can disqualify said report, simply read what I wrote in the preceding paragraph. As regards WP:RS, I strongly disagree with your assessment. And I was using occam's razor independantly of either report; without either reports - knowing simply that FNC is far to the right of all other media outlets, there are two possibilities, the most probable and the least probable one - which is another way of saying the simplest and the most complex. Complexity is directly related to probability, that's why occam's razor works. minimum message length is a principle used in information theory that is mathematically equivalent to occam's razor, which demonstrates this direct relationship. For instance, when a stream of data is transmitted over a noisy channel, the reciever will always flip as few bits as possible to get a "valid" stream. These "fewest bits" constitute the "simplest explanation", and results in a sequence of bits that is more likely than any other sequence to be the stream of bits that was sent by the sender. This is because there is a direct mathematical relationship between simplicity/complexity (see information entropy) and probability. In the example you cite, the planets revolving around the sun was actually a simpler explanation because it involved a much simpler orbits and a much simpler mathematical model. That is why the model was proposed. The older theory of the planets and the sun revolving around the earth had prevailed up until that time not because it was simpler (it was not), but because it appealed to the senses. Kevin Baas^talk 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously regarding OR we are not going to come to any sort of agreement. In the field of statistics you could argue it does take place, but it is more of an indirect relationship than a result of principles applied by OR. In multiple regression you can have two seperate models predicting the same outcome, one very complex, one very simple. The basic premise is to use the simple one, not because it introducies unneccesary complexity, but because with each additional variable within a model the number of observations needed for significant power is increased, this principle is also used with factor analysis. This is often the case even when the complex model is a better predictor of some event. However, the deciding factor at which the complixity of the model is determined is never quite this easy, and it is easy to make a false association by creating a model that is too simple to account for significant correlation. Within the field of Industrial Engineering, specifically Operations Research, some of the same principles apply. The primary problem with OR is when a desired outcome has already been predetermined. In this case, you have already determined that FNC is biased, thus working backwards you use the simplist model to validate your claim, which is not how OR is to be used, which is why I used the previous example regarding the motion of the earth and planets around the sun. All of this is arbitrary however. The G&M paper follows the basic tenets of WP:RS. The FAIR report is not scientific, and that it fits the predetermined model that you believe is irellevant. Arzel 23:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have different definitions of scientific. My definition requires empirical verifiability, repeatability, falsifiable, requires an experiment, etc.. The FAIR report is empirical, verifiable, repeatable, and requires an experiment. If you dispute the results, the thing to do is to do the experiment yourself, and see what results you come up with. That makes it scientific to me. Who does or does not publish it, who reviews it and who doesn't review it, has no effect on the process that was undergone to arrive at the results. As I thought I already explained to you by way of invoking occam's razor, i am not coming at this from a predetermined model. Occam's razor is only applied when there is no other mechanism to resolve an ambiguity. A predetermined model would constitute such a mechanism. I did not start out with the conclusion that fox news is biased. I started out with two possibilities that arise from an observation which is not in dispute: either 1.) fox new is in the middle, and all other channels are biased to the left, or 2.) on average (i.e. in the aggregate), news channels are fairly neutral, and fox news is an outlier from this average, which happens to be to the right. provided one accepts that fox news is not to the left of most other channels, nor in the middle of most channels, option 2 is the statistically more plausible explanation simply because the normal distribution (the proper statistical function for this) follows the law of large numbers. Notice the normal distribution represents the null hypothesis. That's why i say it is "simpler": given the null hypothesis, it is much more statistically probable. one would have to add non-null hypothesis; premises; assumptions - in any case complexity - to the explanation in order to make option 1.) more probable than option 2.). Lacking empirical, repeatable... scientific results, in the manner described above, that provides sufficent and reliable statistical samples to skew this distribution in favor of option 1.), a person who reaches conclusions by weighing the available evidence would believe option 2.), as it remains the statistically more likely explanation. The report that you prefer does not provide such a statistical sample. The paper i refer to does provide an empirical sample from a repeatable experiment. And this sample actually skews the distribution in favor of option 2.) Kevin Baas^talk 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary problem with the FAIR report is that they defined their population. Also, they don't use a random sample over the history of FNC, they took 5 month of data during a republican sitting president (which by default would result in greater Republicans), and they don't provide any confidence intervals. They also don't list the limitations of the study. By defining their population they introduced bias into their report before they even began. The problem with your two choices is they both make an assumption of bias. The G&M paper has as a null hypothesis that there is no bias, plus they didn't define their population. In option 1, your null is that Main Stream Media (MSM) is more biased than FNC, ie FNC < MSM, or that FNC is not biased, ie FNC = 50 (50 being neutral or no bias). FNC = 50 is the correct test, but this is not what FAIR is testing. FAIR is testing that guests on FNC have equal weight, ie. CON = LIB, but then they make a huge error and define their population introducing bias. Peer review would question the methods and require the study be redone with an independent classification. In your option 2, your null is that MSM = 50, or FNC < 50. The correct test is that MSM = 50, which is what the G&M paper tests, with a result being that MSM ne 50, and additional research stating that yes FNC < 50, with CBS, NBC, and ABC being equally > 50, or in the case of CBS being much > 50. It seems to me that your two options have faulty H1 statements. Option 1; H0 - FNC = 50, H1 - MSM > 50 Option 2; H0 - MSM = 50, H1 - FNC < 50. FAIR is fine for opinion, but it is not reliable research. Arzel 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to have a sample with an undefined population. So to have a defined population is not a problem. One always has a defined population. The problem is not stating it. They did it over 19 weeks. That's a pretty large sample. And it took them 19 weeks to take that sample. If you'd rather they do it randomly over a couple of years, well that would have to be pre-recorded and it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate that their selection was, in fact, random. All one would know is that they had the ability to pick and choose what days, hours, even minutes they took their sample from - and with that, it would be VERY easily for them to manipulate the results, and there'd be no way for a reviewer to tell whether or not they manipulated the results. With a 19-week contiguous chunk, because of the central limit theorem, it would be much more difficult to manipulate the results by choice of sample, and easily verifiable that they didn't have an opportunity to do so, by the fact that it was a 19-week contiguous chunk. That is, having a contiguous sample of a random variable protects against selection bias. That is a GOOD thing. It prevents them from being able to pick and choose; it PREVENTS the possibility of selection bias.

I really don't see how having a republican sitting president is going to make a t.v. station have more republicans on the air, be them hosts or guests. (thought i can see how comparing news stations against a republican-dominated congress would skew your results) That's quite an assumption and unless you can over any evidence to support it, I'm going to have to throw it out as highly unlikely. Esp. for a news channel that considers itself "fair and balanced" - you'd think they'd at least make an effort to have a balance of guests on the station if they pride themselves on balance. All in all, I'm calling B.S. on that one. And not providing a confidence interval? For one, that doesn't throw their methods or results into dispute, it just shows that the actual distribution is 50:6 give or take something or other. Secondly, in order to get a confidence interval you have to have a total population, and how do you propose they do that with time?

The two choices I offered are the one that i offered and the one that you offered, wich are two ways of discussing the same thing. as i explained later, my explanation relies on accepting this, which you do not dispute. From this premise, which we both agree on, assuming no further knowledge about the distribution.... i though i made myself clear. i don't feel i should have to go over the whole thing again.

Look, what is "50"?; What is the center? g&m provides no empirical source for this center point. they just base it some opinions. that's where the logic that i explained comes in, lacking an empirical center point, one uses the reasoning i gave above. this reasoning shows that, lacking extradionary evidence, when a news station stands apart from the crowd in it's political position, it is far more probably that that news station is biased, than all the other news stations are biased. the fair report, unlike the g&M report has an empirical source for their "50", and it is "50:50"; 50 conservative guests for every 50 liberal guests. It's a quantitative measure and it's fairly objective. the only subjectivity is in what qualifies as a "liberal" or "conservative" guest, and most people will be in relative agreement on this matter, and most guests will tell you their position when asked, so it's not really that difficult to determine reliably. It is scientific. your opinion of FAIR doesn't matter. that's the beauty of science. Since the empirical world itself is reliable, all you have to do to prove them wrong is take a 19-week sample and count the conservative guests and the liberal guests, and divide one by the other. regardless of how you feel about FAIR, the result you get, no matter what sample you choose (provided it's sufficiently large and you define it so as to avoid selection bias), you will always get the same approximate result, due to the central limit theorem. That's the beauty of science. Kevin Baas^talk 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FAIR defined what was Conservative and Liberal using their own method of classification. Thus they defined their population and introduced bias. G&M do provide a source for their determination of centristic views. The Central Limit Theorem doesn't apply to the FAIR study. They didn't do a random sample, and in effect it is not really even a statistical study. There results could be defined explicitly that during the five months they viewed, they identified 50 conservative guests and 6 liberal guests (by their defintion). Some of that is biased since many of the guests where members of government agencies, including president Bush further skewing the apparent view to the right. What FAIR did is not scientifically based, and regardless of how you feel about the G&M paper it had to go through a peer review process which would have evaluated the statistics, methods, collection of data, limitations, and conclusions of the research. As to your final claim of selection bias. It is simply untrue that a large sample will avoid selection bias. In fact, one observation randomly selected can be used as a point estimate for a population. It is meaningless in the context of error, but it is still a valid estimate. All the CLT descibes is that if enough samples are collected, their mean will move towards the true mean of the population, but it has nothing to do with selection bias. The only way to avoid selection bias is to take a completey random sample, simple random sample for example. What FAIR did was actually sample the entire population from one time frame. As such their results are worthless for prediction of times prior to or after the time frame they selected. Look Kevin, I have been doing Statistical Analysis for over ten years, and have been cited in several research journals. What FAIR did is simply not the way statistical research is done in the professional world, and has no validity outside the time frame they observed. To say that by taking that specific 19 week period they avoided selection bias is questionable at best. There may have been several confounding variables which they did not take into consideration. They may very well have introduced bias simply by using that time frame. In any case I am tired of this discussion, you have your view, and we have WP:RS which the G&M source is the stronger source. Arzel 05:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am frustrated with trying to communicate with you - it seems that you're not listening. Apparently we're both math guys, so we should be able to assume a level of competency from each other in those fields when discussing this. Instead of restating all the points i made, I will try focusing on just one or two:

Increasing sample size does decrease the probability of selection bias: as the sample size approaches the size of the total population, the probability of selection bias approaches zero. But that is not what I said. The fair study has a number of samples of a random variable, therefore central limit theorem applies. The samples themselves need not follow any distribution. Indeed, all non-random samples are special cases of random samples (i.e. the set of ordered samples is a subset of the set of all random samples), so if your understanding of central limit theorem is correct, then the theorem doesn't apply to anything at all. Having a random sample means having a sample with a high probability of being representative of the total population - another way to put this is to having a random sample means having a sample that is not disproportiately composed of samples that are known to be correlated with a specific result. Now in certain instances, like in an election or in making a controversial claim, one has to choose a sample that is demonstrably uncorrelated to the results, so that a skeptic cannot accuse the gatherer of the samples of picking and choosing ones that would confirm a pre-determined result. That is what I said. For example, say one needs a sample of 140 days out of a population of, say 500 days. If there is no restriction on these days, there are 500 choose 140 combinations one could choose. And because that number is so large, there are very, very many such samples which will show a strong biased to either direction, almost all of which look random. In such a case, a person may say "you didn't pick that randomly, you choose the ones that would produce that result.", and they may very well be right. If, on the other hand, one puts the restriction that the 140 days must be contiguous, there are now only 500-140=360 different choices of sample. Of these choices, very, very few of them will have a significant bias. A person may still say "you didn't pick that randomly, you choose the ones that would produce that result.", but their chance of being right will be much smaller than in the former case. For example, you could give me an unordered list of the numbers 0-64, I could sort the numbers from lowest to highest, pick the top 8 numbers, and tell you the average is 4. I could show you what positions in the list they were at, and you would see that there was no pattern to where i picked them from, and conclude that they were indeed a simple random selection, and i could give you the numbers, and you could verify that those were the numbers that where at those positions, and the average of them is 4. Or, you start with the same list, give me a list of the first 8 numbers, the next 8, the next 8, etc., and say i can pick any one of those 8 lists, and give you the average of the 8 numbers on it. As before, I could sort the lists from the lowest average to the highest average, and give you the average of the top list. Chances are, that number will be much, much closer to 32 than 4. That's what I'm saying. Now I hope I don't have to explain that again. Kevin Baas^talk 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but what FAIR did was simply not the right way to remove selection bias. Even if FAIR did randomly select a 5 month period, it still wouldn't change the fact that it would not remove the threat of External Validity. There are a couple of ways to look at it, but probably the easiest would be sampling methods for biologist counting the number of animals in a specific region. Because of the nature of data, they will divide a region into a grid, of a sizes easily observable, and randomly select plots counting every animal within that plot. If done correctly, you can interpret the results to represent the entire region, even if only a small number of regions (normally n >= 25) were selected. If you apply this to FNC you would split the entire broadcast of FNC into sections, and randomly select sections, counting every guest in that section. However, if you only select one section, you have a N=1, which although a valid point estimate (I had to prove it as part of my graduate coursework), it is not useful in the context of estimating the rest of the population because their is no esitmate of error. It doesn't even matter how big the section is (thus the law of large numbers doesn't apply). That is what FAIR did, but this is what they should have done. Losing indent for explanation. Arzel 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It still matters how big the section is. As the size of the section approaches the size of the total population, the margin of error gets smaller and smaller. Though if what you are saying is another way of stating the ecological fallacy, then I agree with you. But this operates under the assumption that the random variable is not random with respect to your sample space. For instance, if you were doing an exit poll for an election, and polled only in the morning, you should not expect that might not be indicative of the evening results, because the way people vote may be correlated with the time of day - for instance, one party might have a tendency to vote in the morning, and another in the evening.) And likewise the whole is not necessarily indicative of the parts, and vice-versa.) However, this is not the case with a 5-month period of guests on a news channel, as the cons. to lib. guest ratio should be fairly close to 1:1 for every given DAY. If for ANY consecutive 5-months, there's a 50:6 ratio of conservative guests to liberal guests, that qualifies as a strong conservative bias for a prolonged period of time. 22:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If the selection included the entire population up to that time there wouldn't even be a margin of error. But when dealing with time series type data, there is always the possibility of some seasonal effects plus there is also the confounding factor of the party in power (Rep had the presidency, senate, and house at the time). I'm not saying you can't do what they did, just saying it doesn't have any pratical use outside of the time frame used. The same applies to polling data, which is why you see increasing numbers of polls as you get closer to an election. But even these values have limited use and are really only valid for a short period of time. The problem with FAIR is that they seem to use one time period as evidence of conservative bias throughout the entire life of FNC. This may very well be the case, but you can't use the FAIR study to back up that statement. Arzel 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I just said (cf. "any given DAY"), if seasonal effects are significant, then that in itself constitutes a problem. The party in power may be considered a seasonal effect, so to say "plus there is also the confounding factor" is to make the same thing into two things. If the party in power significantly effects the cons.-lib. distribution of guests on FNC, then that in itself constitutes a problem. (though i don't remember the leanings of FNC being all that different when clinton was president) In any case, in order to find such things out when should test them - there may very well be an anti-correlation. But until the degree of correlation or anti-correlation is known, it is proper to assume the null hypothesis: zero correlation. Kevin Baas^talk 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that selecting a sample "at random" is ideal for showing systemic statistical properties, insofar as "random" is another way of saying "minimal correlation with any known aspect of the system". However, it also introduces the possibility for cherry-picking i.e. selection bias because the method that went into selecting the sample cannot be known with any degree of certainty to a reviewer. In any case, if the time-series data for FNC is not gaussian (purely random with respect to time), in which case a contiguous sample would be as indicative of the whole as a non-contiguous sample, it is sub-gaussian, in which case a contiguous sample would be more indicative of events near it than a sample scattered across the whole would be, and lacking any sample over a longer term, it is more probable that current events are correlated with the sample than anti-correlated (sub-gaussian temporal distributions are auto-correlated w/a positive correlation). Kevin Baas^talk 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that the FAIR report uses "one time period as evidence of conservative bias throughout the entire life of FNC." Nor have you provided any evidence that the most recent consecutive 5-month span is any less indicative of the current bias of the channel than 150 days distributed in any other fashion throughout the life of the channel. Kevin Baas^talk 22:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Define their hypothesis to be tested. FAIR seems to have started along the lines that they would test Brit Hume with Wolf Blitzer. Their use of a strict ratio isn't really useful because there is no context of whether it is different than other main stream news. SO the hypothesis should be that FNC has an equal ratio of conservative guests as CNN, with the resulting statistic being an Odds Ratio. A ratio of 1 or close to 1 would indicate a similar ratio.

   The FAIR report is judging absolute bias, and the null hypothesis is no bias; 1:1 ratio of conservatives to liberals. That is useful because it establishes whether or not fox is biased, and to which direction. They are not examining whether it is different from other news stations. They are examining whether it is fair and balanced.

   They can still do that, but it would be a much more practial study to start with a comparison. The best case would to compare all cable news stations under similar situations. You could get an overal view of conservative vs liberal guest rate, and also the difference between each group. I only listed the null as I did, because it seems that is what FAIR initially planned to do, but then didn't know how to do the statistical analysis properly (FNC was staitically more likely than CNN using their data. I don't have the statistical results in front of me right now, but I think I got a 3:1 odds ratio.) Arzel 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Determine the size of the sample needed. Using Power analysis, they would determine the number of observations needed to guarentee at least an 80% power of detecting a difference at the 0.05 level of significance. For this study I would then double that number (reason to be given later).

   they are taking a sample from a theoretically infinite population. Since it's a time-resident variable, they could assume an exponential decay of bias, and given an expected decay rate, use information theory to come up with a guess about what sample size they'd need to produce a certain confidence level for a certain period of time. Or they could determine a period of time and then choose a sample size from that. In any case, their not doing so in no way invalidates their results. It's merely up to the reader to choose a population size (time period) or confidence value, and determine one from the the other and the sample size. It shouldn't be that difficult for a person to get a rough estimate without actually doing the math. But if they want to, they can. Kevin Baas^talk 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

   You can only use what you have. So they should have chosen from the data they had available up to that time, and then update it from time to time. Your approach is much more complicated then they would need to do. And rough tables for Power analysis for this type of data is readily available without any math required. A sample of 100 per arm should suffice, doubled for possible loss during inter-rater reliability testing. (not much more than they did for their study). Arzel 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Sample their population. They could use a stratified sample of time periods like I mentioned earlier, but a much easier way would be to take the entire history of FNC and CNN over similar time frames available and divide that time frame by the sample size needed. Randomly select a start point and then select every ith program and note the guest. This removes any possible selection bias.

   This would constitute a lot of work, without much gain. Also FNC's bias may have changed over time. The report is concerned with what their bias is NOW, and the best way to measure that is by using as recent a sample as possible. This does not constitute selection bias. Kevin Baas^talk 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

   It wouldn't have required that much more work, if any more work. The sample size required is easy to calculate, or even just estimate using rough tables. Assuming my previous estimates of 200, and a four or five year (?) history they would chose roughly every 4th or 6th weekday broadcast (wouldn't want to use every 5th day to avoid a possible day of week bias). Now not only could they test over all bias, but given the time series nature of the data put together control charts and mark the progress of bias over months.

4. Have two independent people go through and mark down the guest as either con/ind/lib. Take these results and compare them with each other using an inter-rater reliability test. If the agreement rate is high then use those which both agree (reason why to double the sample size earlier). It would be best if they could compare with a third party completely outside of FAIR to make sure that their is no bias. It is also important that those doing the rating don't know which guests where on which show to further remove any possible bias. Arzel 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

   You're doing a relative comparison here of your own hypothetical test, and it is not relevant. It would not show, for instance, whether both FNC and CNN are biased to the right, or both biased to the left. It will only show how far apart they are. In any case, they should publish a list of the guests that were on, and whether they were counted as lib. or con., so that anyone can validate the results. Kevin Baas^talk 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

   I think you are missing the beauty of this. Yes they would be able to tell how far apart the two groups were, but the would also be able to test the overall rate of bias, the best of both worlds. They did publish a list of the guests, some are obvious, some should be excluded from the study (president Bush for example, simply because what station wouldn't interview the president if given the chance). Some are questionable, but I didn't go through the whole list. Arzel 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Once you have a valid sample, you would then perform a simple odds ratio test.

   If you were doing this kind of analysis. Again, the FAIR report attempts to measure the absolute bias of FNC by comparing the # of cons. guest w/the number of lib. guests. It is not comparing two news channels to see where they stand in relation to each other. That wouldn't be very useful. Kevin Baas^talk 22:44, 27 September

   You could still test the absoulute bias. A properly designed study, with properly collected data will allow you to do many tests. Arzel 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this would be a great study and publishable, with very few (if any) internal or external validity threats. Arzel 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)

Having fun, are we? You don't need a degree in statistics (I have one, btw. Well, a concentration in a Math BA, anyway. Yes, BA, not BS. Ah, well...) to see the main problem with the FAIR study is that they seem to define anyone to the right of Chomsky as "conservative". They applied the same methodology to the famously right-wing News Hour with Jim Lehrer and came up with statistics very nearly as skewed to the right as they did for FNC. Andyvphil 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then yeah, that throws the test out the window. But I highly doubt that what you say is true. Kevin Baas^talk 22:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FAIR's radio program is broadcast on one of the local PBS affiliates each Friday, and I'm relying on my memory from some time ago rather than web lookup, but they are on the gibbering fringe. Doubting me is ok. Will dig up some cites for you when I have time... ok, look at [1]. And "...FAIR find[s] that the NewsHour has a pattern of favoring center and right voices while largely excluding those on the left."[2] What you see depends on where you stand. In this case, considerably to the left of PBS. Andyvphil 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that PBS, in general, is a very neutral and informative station. I haven't watched it in a long time, but I recall finding newshour to be an exception - i found that to have a strong conservative bias. Also, the 700 club, what channel was that on? That's obviously VERY conservative. Anyways, I was looking for evidence that FAIR seems "to define anyone to the right of Chomsky as 'conservative'". I don't have time to read the two links right now, but I'll check them later. The matter in which you described them didn't make it sound like they contained such evidence. Kevin Baas^talk 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FAIR's claim that the NewsHour largely excludes voices on the left is prima facae evidence that they must be defining anyone to the right of Chomsky as non-left. But if you think Lehrer has a "strong conservative bias" I'm left asking...what planet are you on? Massachusetts? Andyvphil 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I haven't watched it for a long time. In any case, it doesn't constitute prima facae evidence. One should look at the list of guests and see if each individual guest is correctly categorized. Kevin Baas^talk 19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

we return to our regularly scheduled program

Response to Blaxthos. So long as you don't violate federal decency laws regarding language and nudity most companies within this industry will allow anything to be said or written in the form of opinion, unless it is slanderous or libelous. The Imus situation is an interesting one. He was not fired specificaly for what he said, he contract was canceled because of public outcry regarding his comments. I thought that might be your responce for VL, but that doesn't imply to free speech, unless through the actions of the free speech the individual causes some harm, such as swearing on air which is already covered under federal law. This is why the stations are fined for the actions of the employee. But for the most part free speech overrules, with few exceptions. Since BOR is paid to give his opinion, FNC couldn't do anything anyway without violating his right to free speech, unless what BOR did already violated some federal law. If he said something so egregious to result in public outcry, they could fire him, like MSNBC did with Imus. Less clear is what is the case if he were to say something which is slanderous in the context of giving his opinion. Arzel 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Firstly, writting an encyclopedic article about FNC is not about being "fair to FNC", it's about providing interesting and important verifiable information to the reader, irrespective of how flattering or unflattering it is.-- True.

2. Secondly, presenting "individuals from FNC who voice their personal opinion", esp. on a regular basis, is important because it is representative of the content and nature of the channel, which is a main topic of the article.-- Also true, however, please note that all networks have disclaimers that regularly run saying that the opinions expressed may not be the views of the network.

Besides being irrelevant (i.e. non-sequitur), this is also false. Kevin Baas^talk 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Thirdly, these are individuals that the t.v. channel consciously and deliberately chooses to present to the viewer. They know full well their views and opinions and choose to present those views to the public. That is an executive decision made by the management of the company and that decision is noteworthy. Wrong. The executive producers, hosts, and guest availablity determines who gets on what individual show. Although higher ups may have influence on who gets on the channel, the final decision is usually made at a lower level. Unless there is verifiable reliable source, that NewsCorp, or an executive at the company affirmatively pressed for a guest, that assumption is original research.

Umm, yeah, like i said, it's kind a heirarchiacal thing with Mr. Murdoch on top. Oh, and if a guest can't make it, well, they pick a different guest. Or can i say that? Is it original research? Some might call it "common sense", others, not so much. Yes, there is a sort of "bueracracy" in a corporation. Kevin Baas^talk 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

4. And finally, they are all political radicals; extremists and are presented on the channel on almost a daily basis -- and that alone merits mention in an article. Not just small mention, either - but substantial mention. No other channel does that.-- Irrelevant personal opinion of the editor. Not to mention the association fallacy implicit in the proposition.

And you would call Ann coulter and bill o'reilly... moderates? I'm not familiar with the "association fallacy", nor the concept of implicit fallacies - all logical fallacies must, by definition, be explicit. Kevin Baas^talk 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel: I think you are confusing the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech to individuals with the issue here -- namely, Fox News Channel chooses its content. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the discussion.

Ramsquire: Regarding #3 above... I believe that in the quote "individuals that the t.v. channel consciously and deliberately chooses to present to the viewer", the word individuals references the people with programs (namely Bill O., Britt Hume, etc.). You are somewhat correct in that the producers and hosts determine the guests presented, however they're all parts of the same machine -- Fox News Channel.

/Blaxthos 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We were kind of going off on a tangent of OR for the purposes of discussion, but the underlying points are valid. BOR is going to say what he wants to say regardless of what FNC wants him to say. He, and others, were strongly critical of Bush's failed immigration policy. If one is to believe that FNC is nothing more than a talking points memo of the Republican party then this position flies in the face of that. Arzel 04:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)±

No it doesn't; that conclusion does not follow from the premises that you offered. Kevin Baas^talk 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out the inherent stupidity in this statement. The idea that Bill O'Reilly isn't a Republican or conservative because he criticizes Bush's plan on immigration is one of the most pathetic arguments I've ever heard. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and essentially every right-wing Republican talk show host in the country blasted Bush's immigration policy. They did so from a CONSERVATIVE angle. Being critical of Bush from the RIGHT is not objective criticism, it's ideological criticism. It's like AL Franken saying "I'm not a Democratic partisan, I criticized Clinton for welfare cuts, for free trade, for Don't Ask Don't Tell", it's pathetic, and only a ruthlessly stupid human being would buy into it. Partisan is ideological and well as party-based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.191.221 (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To Kevin Bass-- I'm just responding to what you wrote. As for the association fallacy, your belief that Ann Coulter, and Bill O'reilly are extremists does not make them so. Even if they were certifiable extremists, to imply malfeasance to Fox for having them on is guilt by association fallacy. OTOH the belief by some that Arianna Huffington or Keith Olbermann are extremists does not make them so either. When it comes to political belief there is truly a wide spectrum. BTW-- on any given night on any channel I can see Coulter spewing her opinions, so why is it a problem when Fox lets her on?

I never said that ann coulter and BOR are extremists make them so. Though it's quite possible that their statements and behavior have influenced my beliefs about them - and I would say that they have.

And no, it's not guilt by association - it's guilt by liability. It's not that they're merely "associated"; it's not as if they're mutual strangers who happened to walk in a door together. There's a distinct and substantive relationship between them, and a clear and unmistakable asymmetry of power and control.

Some people would call mickey mouse an extremist. So what? One needs something more quantitative and objective than here-say.

They show her on other channels too, now? What a joke. Kevin Baas^talk 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading #3 again, I may have misunderstood your point. Since the issue that started this discussion was a quote by Savage (a guest on Foxnews), I figured the individuals you were referring to were guests. However, if your point was about the hosts being hired to do shows, then that would be something different, obviously. As for #4, we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding your analysis of the association fallacy. Yes, unfortunately (IMO) Coulter can be found on NBC, CNN, PBS, the Comedy Channel, HBO and several other channels on any given night. I thinks she's been blacked out at MSNBC after her insult to a Vietnam vet, but I could be wrong on that one. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be different definitions of "association" - I read in "guilty by association" that the associated has no power over the event and therefore no culpability. And since obviously FNC has the power to choose whether to start airing any given new show on FNC, to cancel a show on FNC, among other powers, the first condition, "no power over the event", is not met. If that's not what you mean by "association", then it is merely a difference in vernacular. I think the Comedy Channel might be the most fitting channel for her. As regards her insulting a vet - I wouldn't be surprised. I'm only surprised that other channels run the risk of having the sh@t that comes out of her mouth come out of her mouth on their channel. But I guess I just have higher standards than some people. Kevin Baas^talk 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To Blaxthos-- the individuals mentioned in #3 are the guests. The quote reads that the "T.V. Channel" (i.e. Foxnews as an entity) chooses the guests to have on. That is not true, and I do not buy this conspiracy stuff about Foxnews being some cabal operated in a different business model from all other news operations. GE owns NBC, and their news divisions, CNBC, MSNBC. I am sure there is spin/propoganda/guests/etc. GE would like to get out during their news broadcasts. However, I trust that the journalists working for them would act ethically, and not let that pressure color their reports. Outside of the opinion shows, which do reflect a more overt political bias (in my opinion) I feel the same way about Foxnews.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

Just out of curiosity does anyone know if FNC gives the "The opinions stated on this show do not neccessarily represent the opinions or views of FNC." spiel before or after the BOR show? Supernathan 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not. /Blaxthos 22:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the disclaimer a few times. However, I can't remember when, specifically. I don't recall if it was in a general commercial block, before a certain show, or before a certain guest. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

2 points, #1 I am not complaining but was there a reason my question was relagated to it's own lonely little section? And #2 this page is structurally messed up from a dates perspective... posts are being made out of order. This is confusing for me (a relative regular to this page) so it must be incredibly difficult for someone new to the page to read. I don't feel comfortable moving things around because of the cat-fight like atmosphere but someone may want to address this when they have some time. Thanks.Supernathan 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I re-sectioned your question to make it easier to follow the thread (see #2). No offense or judgement on content was intended - my sincere apologies if it appeared as such.
2. I agree wholeheartedly. I have been out of town for a few days and am finding it difficult to decipher the conversation as well. And so...

I propose that we all agree to work together to keep things in chronological order by doing four things:

1. Post new discussion at the bottom of whatever section is being discussed.
2. Start each post (or paragraph) with "To foo", addressing the editor to whom we're responding within the post (or paragraph, if replying to multiple editors).
3. Do not break into the middle of another editors' posts to reply to points singularly (see #4 below) -- doing so makes it very difficult to decipher who said what, and in what order.
4. Use numbered lists whenever possible (like we've been doing) for points and counterpoints.

/Blaxthos 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I use the page history. I find it much easier to follow when each point is threaded. And easier to type up a response when i don't have to go back and forth between where i'm typing and where i'm reading. I think it's also easier for a newcomer to see the threads, rather than having to back-reference all the time. But I guess I'd be willing to use numbering if that's what everyone agreed on, though it seems to make the arguments more aggressive - as if you're showing off how many points/counterpoint you have, rather than trying to cooperatively find the best solution. Kevin Baas^talk 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers just make it easier to refer to specific points -- my intent isn't to quantify points. /Blaxthos 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have said "one is". I was actually thing of my fear of how I might come off if I use numbers that way. Kevin Baas^talk 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fundamental problem with the way WP designed their talk pages (I don't claim to have a solution). But I agree with Kevin Baas, I use the history to find new comments. Arzel 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the method you guys personally use to read the talk pages, does anyone have a problem with agreeing to follow the points I listed above? Thanks. /Blaxthos 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree. I normally try to do that, the discussion with Kevin Bass notwithstanding. Anyway that discussion is probably not really appropriate for this talk article, interesting as it might be. If anything it has probably added some levity to the this article, given the previous disagreements in the past. Arzel 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we need the article itself, the talk page, then the "get a beer/soda and blow off some steam" page. At the end of the day we all have a lot in common; we all want to make Wikipedia better we just have different ways of getting there. Somebody get to work on that beer page. Supernathan 16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Day. I have been away. Despite the head-butting between Mr. Blaxthos and I. I agree 100% with Blaxthos. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Do we really need to mention bias allegations in the intro? CNN's article doesn't mention its bias allegations. Weatherman90 02:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

CNN don't use the advertising slogan of "Fair and Balanced". zoney ♣ talk 11:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And this means what? CNN uses "The Most Trusted Name in News", are they? Arzel 13:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been covered ad infinitum by multiple RFC's and a wide-ranging consensus. Arzel, you of all people know this because you've participated in the last large discussion about this. It would show a lot more good faith if you would get on board with it instead of using the opportunity to try and incite more strife -- a compromise is just that. To Weatherman: Please see the Talk:Fox News Channel/FAQ, and remember that the content of CNN has no authority on the content of this article. Bias is not mentioned because of their slogan, zoney. Thanks. /Blaxthos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interjecting anything, and I am not trying to restart the debate. However, The arguement that FNC uses "Fair and Balanced" means nothing, and if you think about it is more likely to restart debate if I hadn't pointed out the futility immediately. Arzel 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to point out the irrelevance of both slogans to the issue at hand. However, instead of taking an adversarial position without any explaination of the issues, please take the time to point out the Talk:Fox News Channel/FAQ and the consensus (plural?) that have been determined. What you did is no better than what Zoney did, and contributed nothing more than more hostility. /Blaxthos 19:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the only "evidence" presented is one UCLA study (which has been refuted by various other studies) and a few Democratic figureheads. The Project for Excellence study is not accurate; in fact, it quite clearly states that "But any sense here that the [Fox News Channel] was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data." [3] --75.21.175.79 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that only fox news is type cast as bias shows that wikipedia is bias. Liberals own the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus

The citations do not support the text. They would support the following: Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and some journalists say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions,[2][3][4]. This change is necessary by NPOV. The last link is broken and should be deleted. Raggz (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted without first coming to TALK. Fine, we can discuss the proposed text here.

The text presently is very poorly supported by the citations. Why not upgrade the text to better reflect the sources? Syn Raggz (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't a better version, and I'm not saying it is. But that passage has been the subject of extreme debate over a considerable amount of time. Changes are best debated here prior to making any changes. So present your desired change and reasons for the change and we can debate the change. It will also take a few days for this process to move forward as there are several people that have commented on it in the past months. Arzel (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not arbitration then? Is the process moving, or has it been seized up? Is there any point for me to hang around and debate?

Any arbritation would find that the present text is poorly supported by the citation offered. Why not just find a citation that supports the point that some wish to make? Raggz (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well concensus can change. The best step would be to start here and begin some discussion as to what you would like to see. I'll be offline for the next week, so this will likely be my last post on this topic for a while. Best of luck. Arzel (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A question

Is there a list of Fox News experts they have frequently (ie, whenever the topic they're an expert in comes up)? I'm looking for a certain retired general who was onboard with Fox during coverage of the Iraq war, and I'm not talking about the one who was fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.179.241 (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there used to be something like that in the main article - a list of regular guests/guest commentators - but I think it was moved to Fox channel personalities because certain users were utilizing it to do the Fox-is-right-wing thing over again: listing all the conservatives, and anyone who wasn't conservative as having 'socially right-wing' or 'libertarian' leanings. Just check there and hopefully you'll find your answer. Edders 09:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, not even close -- do you just make this stuff up?? It was moved to Fox News Channel programming due to WP:SIZE concerns; there was absolutely no accusation that certain users were utilizing it to do the Fox-is-right-wing thing over again. Unbelievable, and yet I don't find myself all that surprised. /Blaxthos 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I totally fabricated the archives from, say, 2006 which of course absolutely did not involve edits over the course of that year to the fox online personalities section. This section did not include a long list written in the style I noted which was eventually removed altogether. Furthermore, I didn't include anything like "I think" and "believe" in the above response to show I could only guess at the reason for their removal. But I guess that wouldn't suprise youEdders 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this section in the archives will refresh your memory as to why it was moved. If that doesn't help you remember, then check out this section, which clearly states when it was moved and why. Please note the absence of any discussion pertaining to it being "utilized to do the Fox-is-right-wing thing" -- it's simly not true. Also, you clearly said "I think" (read what you wrote). Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh Jesus, look up WP:Sarcasm. Edders 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FBI Fire Memo

Anyone know anything about this 2003 FBI memo about an ALLEGED terror plot involving forest fires, which Fox is now reporting as being a RECENT memo? Shouldn't this be in this Wiki article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.17.184 (talk)

Depends, are there reliable sources supporting what your saying? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann did a piece on it a few days ago. Whilst I would caution using Countdown as a singular source, I'm sure some digging could find the original sources. However, this seems pretty recent and isn't fodder for the main Fox article; it would be more appropriate at Fox News Channel controversies. /Blaxthos 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My response was a stock answer that I've begun to give when editors do entries like this. It may be that my assumption of good faith is waning, but if one can take the time to state on the talk page, something should be added to the article, they can take the same time to just add it to the article themself. If the only problem is with sourcing, someone should place a {{fact}} tag on the new sentence. However, I've been here long enough to know that posts like these are often bait. As for the actual topic, yeah, I'd need to see more objective coverage of the issue. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Firing Employees For Refusing To Lie

Anyone know anything about the allegation that Fox fired some reporters for refusing to lie about milk? Shouldn't this be in this Wiki article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.17.184 (talk)

No idea what this is about...? Still would be better suited elsewhere. /Blaxthos 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He is referring to the specific issue of the Bovine Growth Hormone issue invloving (I belive) Fox 13 in Florida. It is an issue specific to a FOX affiliate and doesn't appear to have anything to do with FNC in general. Arzel 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is talked about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTVT-TV#Monsanto_controversy Arzel 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork, Arzel. It clearly has no relevance here. /Blaxthos 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No Prob. I had heard something about it a while ago, so there wasn't too much legwork to be done, but thanks. Arzel 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Akre and Wilson allege corporate involvement,[4] so the "only a Fox-13 issue" argument doesn't hold much water, but I agree [5] that the place to start with this material isn't here. Andyvphil 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I watched the video as well, but all you have is a very one sided view of the story. I'm not saying it didn't happen the way they are alleging it did happen, but I am a little leary about believing everything they said. There is a lot of hearsay without references to back anything up, plus the case was dismissed. If an independent third source can be found making the link then it should be included in the controversies section, but for now I think it should remain entirely within the Fox 13 article. Arzel 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that they make the link to corporate. The truth of their claims is not at issue here, and the specific legal issue on which they lost their appeal is irrelevant here. And in Controversies, which is where this should go first. And there are plenty of independent third sources. Biased and/or gullible, perhaps, but independent, and qualifying as what Wikipedia quaintly calls a "reliable source". Andyvphil 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After a little more searching, there does appear to be some link since Murdoch purchased that specific station in the 90's. I'll continue my comments on the controversies talk. Arzel 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Before people assume that this has nothing to do with FNC, it's worth noting that the lawyer of record for the case was supplied by FNC and not by the affiliate, and Ailes himself was sent memos at the core of this case. There is no question that this case was about FNC and its policies at its core. --64.180.50.173 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Roger Ailes again

It seems we're back on the Roger Ailes nomenclature debate. I know that we had a talk disucssion about this (probably over a year ago); given recent edits I believe it is time to revisit the issue. I believe that his former position is germane because:

1. Ailes was at one time a political consultant for the Republican party.
2. There are longstanding allegations (from countless entities) that FNC is sympathetic to the republican party (to put it mildly). The controversy is so great that we include it in the lead paragraph for the FNC article.
3. Making note of his past does not violate WP:NPOV -- saying "former Republican political consultant" does not carry a particular connotation or POV; it's simply a verified fact.
4. Stating the fact without drawing any conclusions (as it does not) does not violate WP:OR/WP:SYN as it does not publish facts not in evidence.

Thoughts? /Blaxthos 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Cherry picking a certain title (""former Republican political consultant") over others ("Award winning Broadway producer") is obviously intended to push a POV - that his old business relationship with the GOP was a significant factor in his getting the FOX job. If you are truly not intending to push this POV with that edit, but merely making note of his past without drawing any conclusions, how about we change the sentence to "In February 1996, after award winning Broadway producer Roger Ailes left America's Talking (now MSNBC)..." ? Or ""In February 1996, after Emmy-award winning director Roger Ailes left America's Talking (now MSNBC)..."  ? Isarig 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to either of those (regarding "Emmy-winning"). However, the Emmy has little relevance to FNC; the accusations of bias certainly do (so much so that it's mentioned in the lead). Is it coincidence that the channel formed by a former Repblican consultant oft stands accused of having a bias that favors Repblicans? Maybe. Is it relevant to this article, and should it be stated so that the reader can pontificate? Absolutely. /Blaxthos 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that it is relevant to the article is a POV, surely you realize this. If there is a reliable source that claims that Ailes was hired because of his old relationship with the GOP, we can quote that opinion - but as it is right now, it is POV-pushing by WP editors. You are welcome to the opinion this his winning an Emmy is irrelevant to FNC, but that his GOP consulting is. An alternate viewpoint, which I am sure you will hear from Fox management, is that winning an Emmy is a testament to the caliber of talent being hired, proof of their ability to create hit TV shows, and an indication of how well they understand prime-time TV audiences - all qualifications that one would look for when launching a new TV news station and hiring its president. At the same time, they will tell you his consulting for the GOP has no obvious relevance to his TV job at FNC (or at CNBC, for that matter). A similar argument can be constructed for his prior job as an award winning Broadway producer, or his being a well known author of books on communication strategy. It is in fact, quite telling that the article about CNBC, where Ailes was president prior to FNC, does not have any mention of his role as a former consultant to the GOP. Apparently, he was talented enough to get that position without needing to lean on the GOP. To favor the former POV over any of the latter, through the carefully cherry-picked title selection, is the epitome of POV-pushing. All of his previous careers have a place in his personal WP article, but not here. Isarig 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of its recent insertion, it is clearly a POV push into the article. The editor which inserted it, has also made a run of articles inserting various opinion and other critical assertations either without RS or any sources (not that this needs one). That said, I am not against having it in the article, but perhaps it should be placed in a seperate area so that the context is appropriate. After the mention of political bias? We could add it there. Thoughts? Arzel 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we're at least moving towards common ground, Arzel. However, I refuse to evaluate content based on who made the contribution. In your first few sentences, you say that it is "clearly a POV push"; two sentences later you say that "I am not against having it in the article". That makes it seem like you're saying you would be more agreeable if it were contributed by a different editor. That's not sound or valid logic -- please see ad hominem fallacy. /Blaxthos 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. Arzel 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It woudl be appropriate in that context (after the mention of allegations of political bias) if it is sourced to a relaible source making that argument. It would be innapropriate for WP editors to juxatpose this fact with those claims. Isarig 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but stating Ailes' past career doesn't require a "reliable source" that is "making that argument". In fact, we're not making any argument at all. We're not saying that his political past has anything to do with FNC's percieved bias; we're simply stating the fact that he is a former Republican operative (which certainly has relevance here). It would seem that WP:V is more of the governing policy; clicking the wikilink to Roger Ailes does more than enough to satisfy that he was a former political consultant. /Blaxthos 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating Ailes' past career doesn't require a "reliable source" in Ailes' WP page. Stating it here, as some support for the contention that FNC has a conservative bias (which is exactly what you are doing above - going from "Ailes was at one time a political consultant for the Republican party" to "There are longstanding allegations that FNC is sympathetic to the republican party", hence the former is relevant to the latter) is a clear cut case of WP:SYN. Please don't do it. If there is some 3rd party making that claim, we might quote it in the relevant section, but a WP editor can't juxtapose those two facts to make a point. Isarig 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Isarig: Saying that Ailes was a former Republican consultant in the article makes no sythesis and no point. By mentioning it in the FNC history section instead of the controversy section we avoid insinuating that his former profession might induce bias at FNC (which, as you noted, would have to be attributed to a reliable source). Scrubbing the article of this information is not the answer. /Blaxthos 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it makes no synthesis and no point, why do we need it? Why pick this one job, out of the dozen he held previously? If we must mention some past job, why not award-winning Broadway producer? Isarig 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is germane to Fox News Channel specifically. I would also contend that previous Emmy Awards are also germane. /Blaxthos 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it germane to FNC, but not to CNBC? Isarig 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, the financial channel CNBC doesn't have the reputation of conservative bias that Fox News Channel does; on the other, I never said it wasn't germane to both. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I did. /Blaxthos 08:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So it's germane to FNC because FNC has "the reputation of conservative bias"? Isarig 15:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly considerable controversy that exists regarding allegations of conservative bias. Why is it so important to scrub Ailes' past from this article when such controversy exists? /Blaxthos 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because that violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN. The controversy is noted in the lead. The controversy is noted in its own section later in the article. And the controversy is noted even further in its own article on WP. The real question is why do we need to overegg the pudding with this original research? Isarig 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating a verified fact outside the confines of the bias section on a germane subject is not synthesis or original research -- it neither draws nor implies a conclusion. /Blaxthos 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles here. Once again: If it makes no synthesis and no point, why do we need it? Why pick this one job, out of the dozen he held previously? If we must mention some past job, why not award-winning Broadway producer? If it neither draws nor implies a conclusion, how is this factoid germane to FNC, unless it is intended to insinuate that his GOP relationship is related to selection by FNC? Isarig 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative -- saying something like "Fox News Channel exhibits conservative bias because of Roger Ailes' past as a Repblican political consultant" is synthesis. Noting that Ailes has past involvement with the Repblican party draws no conclusion, however it does provide germane information that may be relevant and gives the reader the opportunity to evaluate it for himself. Scrubbing the content entirely shields the reader from something that may be relevant -- we don't want to SAY it's relevant, but we don't want to ignore it either. /Blaxthos 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you claim it is germane is that you, Blaxthos, thinks his GOP relationship is relevant to his getting the job at FNC. That is original research which is not allowed. If some 3rd party reliable source makes that claim, we can attribute it to them, but juxtaposing these facts in a way that suggests they are releated is not permitted. Isarig 23:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must disagree with you -- I've made no synthesis, and have only presented information (that may or may not be germane) for the reader to evaluate. That is not a violation of WP:OR/WP:SYN, and I would submit that trying to use those policies to exclude verified information is a misapplication that does no justice to the subject. /Blaxthos 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you several time how a job he held years ago, in a different industry, is germane to this article, and your response has been that it is germane because of the allegations that FNC is supportive of the GOP. You are welcome to that opinion, but it has no place in the article. If someone other than yourself made that connection, quote their opinion in the relevant section. Otherwise, it is your personal research which is not allowed. Isarig 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement and assertion is now reliably sourced. I've changed the language to follow inline with the source. /Blaxthos 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. we can now use that, in the relevant section which alleges bias, along with Ailes' response Isarig 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Judith Regan

Anyone else running across the stories about Judith Regan accusing Rupert Murdoch and an executive of FNC of pressuring her to lie to federal investigators regarding her affair with Bernard B. Kerik (purportedly to protect Giuliani)? Olbermann reported it tonight on Countdown, and it's being run on the front page of the NYT website (and will be in print tomorrow no doubt). See Ex-Publisher Says News Corp. Official Wanted Her to Lie to Protect Giuliani. /Blaxthos 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll find a little more in this British newspaper artical: "Fox News's status as a politically impartial channel is at last being exposed as a fiction". Wayne (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'reilly admits bias on FNC

I was thinking it should be added that bill o'reilly admitted that "fox news tilts right" into this article since he works for the company and admitted that these accusations against the channel were true. I dont have the link proving he said this right now, but if you go back to the article as of one of my revisions from may, 28, 2007, you can find it.Crd721 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This information is within the controversies section, but it is not an admission of bias. The full commentary was in relationship to the war in Iraq, not a general belief that FNC is biased. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is a news commentator, he offers the equivalent of a newspaper editorial. Bill O'Reilly is not Fox News, nor is he an employee (there is an element of program ownership, he in effect sells his program to Fox). Raggz (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Media Bias Studies

Question...
Anyone think the following two papers should be included in this article in some way:
http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/QJE%20offprint.pdf (2006)

http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical%20Review%20offprint.pdf (2005)

News article about 2005 Study - http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
It seems it would be appropriate given the amount of discussion concerning bias.
Andymease (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ha. I have commented on this before. It is actually already included in the article (ref 5). It is used as a reference that FNC is biased, even though the actual results show that FNC is only biased if you believe that almost all other networks are similary liberally biased. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct about the study conclusions, at least from what I saw in a cursory overview of the main points. I also see the reference you are talking about though it appears to be from 2004 as documented: ^ Groseclose, Tim and Jeff Milyo (2004). "A Measure of Media Bias". Department of Political Science (UCLA) and Department of Economics (University of Missouri). Retrieved on 2007-10-16

A quick look at the link also showed 2004 as the year of origin which would suggest it is an earlier study than the two I referenced earlier. That reference is also a link to the web archive as the original page is not there anymore. Andymease (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Same study, just at an earlier stage. Hard to convince me NPR Morning Edition is only moderately left (I used to listen to it a lot at work, before turning to audiobook MP3s), and the problem with the Drudge Report being "left" seems to indicate a fundamental problem with the methodology, not merely an idiosyncrasy. It's not what you point out, but whether you point at it with approval or derision that matters. Andyvphil (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I doesn't appear to be fundamentally flawed, only that you believe so because the results don't match your preconcieved notion of what it should be. I have done this kind of statistical analysis and it is valid and has been peer reviewed and published, all that is required of WP. Arzel (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say that you can't use it, just that it's crap. Lot of crap passes peer review. I've pointed out the flaw and the prime example. Your response is obtunded credentialism. Andyvphil (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Andyvphil and thanks for joining the conversation, though we can't really dismiss the study because of our personal opinions. There are other studies sited as opposite references that some people may not agree with as well. What does everyone think about this one? - http://www.journalism.org/node/8197 - reading the section on Fox News they say "But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data." Do you find this more credible? Andymease (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The studies are not placed in the article for support that FNC is biased. The article in no way makes that claim, and if there is language in there stating that, it should be edited. The studies were placed in there, however, to show that there is a widespread perception that FNC is more biased than other news networks. The Project for Excellence in Journalism (or whatever the group is called) is used for the sole and narrow purpose of how widespread the perception is among journalists, of all political persuasions. However, I have no problem of using those studies in the controversies article to balance the accusations of bias mentioned there. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little harsh, saying the UMo study is crap. There's undoubtedly some correlation between the pseudo-ADA numbers they use as a proxy for bias, and reality. But there's no way to validate the results. They admit the Drudge number is wrong and come up with an ad hoc explanation. They think the NPR number is right and see no need for an ad hoc explanation. I think they're wrong and do need an explanation for why NPR's leftism isn't fully reflected, and as far as I can see they have no scientific basis for asserting their opinion on that is better than mine. Andyvphil (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume as Centrist

I propose this language for the LEAD: One study determined that the Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume was in a statistical dead heat as the "most centrist" news program in America. The source is reliable and this conclusion is contextually important. Raggz (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, characterize Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume as 'Centrist' - that way people will understand that Wikipedia is just as reliable as a source of information as is Fox News. Dlabtot (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated to several people that this study says that, and that that ref is currently being misused. You are funny Dlabtot, you assume people that WP is a reliable source of information now.  :) Arzel (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I don't assume that, which is one of the reasons I didn't say it or imply it. Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the source says that. (Does anyone say otherwise?) The source is reliable. (Does anyone say otherwise?) Therefore it may be included. (Does anyone say otherwise?) Raggz (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Focus groups

As anyone who watches Fox political coverage knows, they've become quite fond of using Frank Luntz's focus groups with dial testers, which are essentially a running measure of how positively the group responds during a debate or speech second by second. Although I can understand why a politician watching would find this immensely useful and the network claims it is very popular among viewers, doesn't it seem a bit like the way TV shows used to (still do?) add in fake audience laughter as a cue to viewers for when to laugh? Honolo (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use citations for any additions otherwise its WP:OR. Thanks, --Tom 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox news alerts

I removed a bunch of unsourced material. Again, I am not disputing this material per say, its more about providing sources rather than watching the show and doing OR based on what we see. Anyways, --Tom 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed original research material again, thanks, --Tom 14:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Center for Media and Public Affairs "study"

An editor has now twice tried to insert the following language into the article:

There has never been a serious study or objective examination proving the network has a right-wing bias. In fact, a December 2007 study/examination by the nonpartisan media watchdog group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox New's evaluations of all Democratic presidential candidates combined was 51% positive and 49% negative, while the networks evaluations of the Republican presidential candidates 51% negative and 49% positive. The study, however, did find that Fox's coverage was more balanced than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

A cursory examination of the source reveals that the founder of this "nonpartisan media watchdog group" is actually a contributor to FNC. As such, any claims made are suspect and are a conflict of interest; we certainly should not allow such massive claims to be added to the article based on work done by them. Reverted (twice). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what is a conflict of interest. Arzel (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the founder of the group is on FNC payroll. It's clealy COI and inappropriate. Reverted once more. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The group and founder have been described as non-partisan by several groups (evidenice per the WP article on them). Unless you have clear evidence that this is somehow biased there is no reason for exclusion. Additionally, it only states he contributes to FNC. There is no evidence he is employed by FNC. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the lead is not be saying that there IS a bias, only that there is a widespread perception of a bias, and that FNC denies any bias. Arguing whether the perception is true or false in the lead is inappropriate. The better place for that discussion would be the controversies article with a brief summary here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC - CMPA study

Arzel (talk · contribs) and Deaniack (talk · contribs) have repeatedly insisted on inserting the following language into the article:

There has never been a serious study or objective examination proving the network has a right-wing bias. In fact, a December 2007 study/examination by the nonpartisan media watchdog group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox New's evaluations of all Democratic presidential candidates combined was 51% positive and 49% negative, while the networks evaluations of the Republican presidential candidates 51% negative and 49% positive. The study, however, did find that Fox's coverage was more balanced than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

I believe this is massively inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. The founder of the Center for Media and Public Affairs is a paid contributor of Fox News Channel, and has a complete conflict of interest. As such, any "study" is suspect (negative results wouldn't bode well for his continued tenure at FNC).
2. The language "There has never been a serious study or objective examination" is subjective and original research.
3. "Balance" is relative.
4. The Center for Media and Public Affairs does not pass our reliable source guideline. Additionally, the article on the group is completely unreferenced.

Please comment below. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above comments completely. Unless there is some evidence that Lichter had any input into the report, its a red herring. At best, you are implying conflict of interest and malfeasance at worst, when there is no evidence to suggest either, except your own personal feelings. Balance is the antitheses of relative thought. The WP:RS argument does not hold water either. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has been used by many other organizations and media outlets aside from Fox, and certainly is more reliable a source than MMFA, which currently dominates the criticism fork of this article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. According to WP:Summary the blurb should go into the controversies article, with a brief summary here. Also, if the study is being put forward as proof of something, I'd agree that it is improper. However, if it is being used to simply state that a study took place found that the perception of bias many people have is without merit, I don't see how it can be kept out of the article. Every significant viewpoint should be included in the article, under WP:NPOV. If there are reliable sources attacking the study on the grounds you mentioned, that should be in the controversies article as well.
2. Agreed, that is editor opinion and would need to be sourced.
3. If it is simply a re-telling of the study, and the study used that language, then its reliably sourced, and fine.
4. I'm not sure why you feel this way, the contributor work of Lichter shouldn't disqualify the entire Center. Which portion of RS does CMPA fail? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarrification - Arzel has not repeatedly insisted upon that version. I restored a neutral version one time. Arzel (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arzel is correct, he reverted once. My apologies for not being clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more clear about my problems with the text. For one, there will never be proof of bias -- it's inherently subjective, and saying things like "There has never been a serious study or objective examination" both disparages other studies with different findings and implies that this study is correct. In academia (and every other field) the direct involvement of the group studying something with the subject being studied is automatically a conflict of interest and is an immediate disqualifier. In fact, in most cases (including our legal system) even the appearance of COI mandates recusion. Beyond all of that, the allegations of bias go far beyond a simple examination of the micro-issue of "evaluation of current US presidential candidates"... cum hoc, ergo propter hoc -- even if the study is correct, it certainly doesn't logically follow that bias must not exist. I don't object completely to having opposing views, but I have a serious problem with the language that is currently being introduced, and I really feel that the COI problem necessatates more objective sourcing. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the initial wording was inappropriate. However, that the study be automatically disqualified because Licther is a contributor to FNC is a bit of a stretch. Medical research (which I do) often involves situations where those doing the research work for and report on the institution they work for. I have been part of several published articles that would fall into this category. Now you may disagree with the study, you may feel Lichther is biased (many of the same sites which already dislike FNC do). But CMPA has had its research publised in national newspapers and cited in professional journals for many years. Besides, it is not like this research is saying "Proof FNC is not biased!", which is along the lines I think you may be thinking. It is a general report on the 2008 presidential election, and its findings to this point. It is certainly a less biased study than the propaganda research on BOR (questionable null hypothesis). Alos, compared or some of the stuff put out by FAIR and MM, both whom target FNC with their critism, how can you keep this out while keeping their studies in? Arzel (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Using phrases like "propaganda research" certainly doesn't move the discussion forward, especially since this discussion isn't about other organizations' studies. Newspapers are not peer reviewed journals; I would like to see some supporting evidence for you claim that their studies have been published in professional journals (which, I assume, you mean are peer reviewed). Regarding your question "how can you keep this out while keeping [other] studies in", it's very simple -- the other studies aren't done by persons who are also paid by FNC. Again, that is an immediate disqualifier in any field I can think of (academia, legal, scientific) -- you can't get paid by a subject you're studying and expect people to assume that your results will be neutral/objective/unbiased. Suppose you published a paper that said your employer (contract or full-time) was dishonest or biased... how long do you think you'd keep your job? You can't expect people to believe your results are honest if you're in bed with the subject, bottom line. It's not academically honest. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can believe what you want. I am listed as an author on several papers published in major peer reviewed medical journals. I have been doing statistical analysis for over 10 years at a major medical institution, and the simple fact is that many studies would violate your COI implications. To avoid bias people in my profession (statisticians) abide by a code of conduct that they report the results in an unbiased manner. The peer review process helps maintain this standard by rejecting publications which appear to violate these standards. Occasionally I have run into situations where the results of analysis were exactly opposite of what thought to be the desired outcome, and those "in charge" wished to stop the publishing of the results, however we published them anyway, and no one was fired. I suspect if they would have been fired the eventual lawsuit would have been substantial, and the results would have been published anyway. Occasionally people do violate this code of conduct and are thereafter rejected by the scientific community. You are really grasping for straws here. As for Lichter here are some of his peer reviewed publications. I suspect you won't be able to read anything more than the abstract unless you have a subscription to the publication.

[[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] Arzel (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add, how do you know that Lichter is a paid contributor? The defintion of contributor is "a person who gives to a charity or cause: benefactor, benefactress, donator, donor, giver." Being a contributor does not nessecitate that he is paid. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Are you really arguing that, in this context, "contributor" is being used to mean a "benefactor to a charity"? Comments like those are what makes it really hard for me to take the things you say seriously and continues to erode my ability to assume good faith. I doubt anyone here really thinks that he isn't paid for his work for FNC, and arguing pointless symantics of language makes me think you're just out to use whatever argument might work. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not define the word, so do not jump down my throat, perhaps you should take it up with Webster. In the world of academia, of which Lichter is, people often contribute (in the sense that they give) time and expertise to help further research in a given area. Do you have proof that he is actually paid by FNC to do this research? I have yet to find anything that explicitly states as such. Research from CMPA has been used for at least the last couple of decades. Lichter himself teaches at GM, and has done research through them. WP:RS clearly makes him a RS. Seriously, I cannot believe this is even a discussion. MM actively attacks FNC on a daily basis, and yet their word is treated like gospel, while a professor with numerous publications and scholarly works associated to him is dismissed because those same leftist organization say he is biased? Is this the twilight zone? Arzel (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are willing to grant that the COI concern is more valid if he is indeed on the FNC dime, right (otherwise why bring it up)? As it turns out, "Robert Lichter [is] president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and a paid consultant to Fox", according to this article in the Columbia Journalism Review. Those talking heads you see on TV who are giving their opinion... they're compensated. All of them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to grant that Lichter has several peer reviewed publications and is a professor at a major university through which many of those publications arise? I read the altnet story, it is linked on several blogs and other sources. It is also the only source which makes that connection, usually as a way to dismiss the research without actually arguing the study (the perfect strawman argument). Just because someone may or may not be compensated for their time (which I don't believe is always the case), doesn't mean they are biased. By your logic, everyone that gives their opinion is really just giving the opinion of the news channel they are working for. Is the whole world you live in a giant conspiracy theory? Regardless, the simple fact is that this is a WP:RS. You don't believe what it says, fine. You think it is biased, fine, there are several sources to make a remark stating such, we can do so. But if you are going to fight this because you feel he is so biased as to make the article hopelessly POV (ok not you, but G said as much), then we have some serious problems with all of the other biased sources. You do realize the irony here. You and a few others, are trying to srub information from this article (well the related article at least) because of your own opinions regarding a WP:RS which passes official WP policy. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still trying to argue that "consultants" for major news networks volunteer their time. That's laughable, especially in the face of the Columbia Journalism Review as a source. Reference your "strawman" comment... I'm not sure you understand what a strawman argument is. I have not stated your position at all (and certainly haven't tried to use my characterization of it to more easily knock it down); I have simply shown that the study has serious COI problems and can't be included for that reason. Regarding the rest of your diatribe, one must not prove that a conflict of interest necessitates bias; one must only show that there is a relationship between the supposedly objective researcher and the subject being researched -- lawyers, judges, and scientists routinely recuse themselves from cases and studies for the mere appearance of a COI exactly because of this reason... they don't want the validity of their hard work/research being questioned over a possible COI. Whether bias exists or not is irrelevant; the mere existance of such an inappropriate connection taints the validity of this study. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to join this discussion so here are my comments. The study is inappropriate for inclusion for the reasons explained by Blaxthos at length, so there is no need for me to repeat his words. Additionally, its inclusion is a violation of NPOV in general and the undue weight clause specifically, as there is a short paragraph glossing over years of complaints and criticisms, followed by a paragraph twice as long using a biased study to dismiss the preceding paragraph. Mentioning the study might be appropriate given the following conditions: 1) a reliable source is found showing someone other than Fox and the study's authors take it seriously as an reliable academic work, and 2) the study is mentioned briefly and at appropriate length in the context of an overall examination of criticism of Fox's bias. In its current state inclusion is impossible. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the main article (as does Ramsquire). I have moved it there, so perhaps discussion should move there as well. CMPA has been publishing this report since 1988, and Lichter has many peer reviewed publications (as I noted above) so the question about it being a reliable source is answered. Arzel (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How could they publish a report on FNC starting in 1988 when FNC didn't debut until 1995? If you agree that it doesn't belong, why did you re-insert it? In any case, it's COI and inappropriate no matter where it appears. I'm sure that as this RFC progresses others will help you understand such as well. The discussion should/will remain here, as the RFC is open and consensus is not yet clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do a little research, not all of their work is FNC specific. They only added FNC to their report recently because of it's percieved controversial nature. Regardless of any of these facts, this source falls within the highest levels of RS. They are listed within George Mason University under their research areas. Arzel (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that if the study is being used to refute the list of cristicisms in the article, then it is inappropriate, and also fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV. However, if it is simply presenting an alternative viewpoint, and a significant one (as it is the viewpoint of the article subject) then it belongs--in the controversies article per the summary style of Wikipedia. The criticisms of the CMPA belong as well. Any language which gives this study primacy over other research or presents it as authoritive also should be excised. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The COI problems persist regardless of the FNC-related article in which the study is cited (and is necessarily suspect/inappropriate). Studies that purport to be scientific (as this one does) do not offer "viewpoints" -- editorials do that, scientific research does not; otherwise it moves from analysis (objective) to opinion (subjective), which (ironically) would fit the COI concern perfectly. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't see the conflict of interest you mention. I will assume that Lichter and his group do not lose their ethical obligations since he receives a check from FNC. I am just not that cynical. I'd be more inclined to see a conflict of interest if Fox commissioned the study. Second, please forgive the inartful writing on my part. "Presenting" should be "Supporting". I never meant to claim the studies in and of themselves present a viewpoint. Here (meaning the controversies article), there are two viewpoints presented and this study supports the one of the article subject. As both sides should be presented, it is totally proper to include this study along with the concerns raised about potential conflicts of interest and/or methodology problems. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ramsquire, Arzel, and TDC on this issue. The source meets the requirements of WP:RS and can be used to source a common viewpoint that should be represented under WP:NPOV. Without evidence indicating the study is biased or has been influenced by FNC, there is no reason to exclude it from the article under guise of WP:COI. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I'm not saying WP:COI has any relevance here. The conflict of interest of which I speak is the generally accepted practice of excluding "objective" sources that have prior relationships with the subjects in question (as in academia and legal professions). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a fringe viewpoint, but I don't see any problem with it being included, since the assertion that FNC is in reality 'fair and balanced' is so ludicrous as to be recognized as false by the overwhelming majority of honest people. This is just another example of a pointless political argument on Wikipedia. Face it, people know that Fox is biased, and citing a bogus study that claims they aren't isn't going to change anyone's mind. Leave it in if you want, but realize that all you are doing is making Wikipedia less credible. Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please comment below. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)" I do not understand your question. Raggz (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict over ratings with CNN

These two statements from the two articles appear to contradict each other:

• From Fox News Channel:

"Fox News currently leads the cable news market in the United States.(15)"

• From CNN:

"CNN rates as America's number one cable news source.(3)"

I'm not sure whether these statements are both true and based on different statistics/demographics, whether they are outdated/untrue, or what the case is. Either way they should be looked at and altered if need be or otherwise clarified to avoid confusion. --Alegoo92 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref 15 is the end of the year statistics from 2007. Ref 3 In terms of cumulative (Cume) Nielsen ratings or "unique viewers", CNN rates as America's number one cable news source is from early 2007 and is a report on 2006 statistics. Ref 3 states that FNC dominated the three major news networks, however CNN retained the largest number of unique viewers. Both statements are correct and technically not conflicting. If one is only to use the Neilson base ratings then the CNN statement is not currently correct, however it is not technically incorrect as currently stated. The best bet would be to update the current CNN statement with the end of 2007 statistics. I suspect a new "State of the Media" report will be out shortly with more current results. Arzel (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Marketing slogans aside, the most current data (I've seen) continues to suggest that CNN has the largest number of unique viewers, and FNC has the highest ratings (viewers watch for longer). I've also heard it explained as "CNN has a larger reach, FNC has a longer duration" -- CNN viewers (of which there are more than FNC viewers) watch in short bursts, whereas FNC viewers are more dedicated and spend longer segments of time watching. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Does CNN still have more unique viewers than FNC? Probably, however, we can't say that CNN still leads FNC by citing 2006 statistics when comparing to the end of 2007 statistics, that would be OR. I did a search on the 2008 state of the media to find out the results from 2007 and I was not able to find it. When that report comes out we should put in what it says. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be "OR", it would simply be factually incorrect. Slow down with the accusations, Tex. I agree, just wait until the 2007 stats are out. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has done anything on this in well over a week. I am removing the tag on the mainpage. See my comment on the CNN talkpage. Rooot (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed: Murdoch's War on Journalism.

Someone should add a link to the bias allegations section, as this documentary was all about Fox, Murdoch and right wing bias. IMDB link - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418038/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.102.16 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed, a partisan documentary, deserves no more mention here than The Great Global Warming Swindle deserves mention on Global Warming. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia ?

How come Australia is colored on the map, But Australia is not named on the list where fox is broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic and Evangelical Bias

A recent editor added that FNC is biased in favor of Catholics and Evangelicals. He/She included a reference, however that reference is not accessible by most people, however if it is true it is a reliable source (being a university press). I did some additional searches, and have been unable to find accusations of promotion of Catholic views, not even MM is criticizing FNC for positive Catholic bias, there are a couple of posts about anti-catholic bias on FNC (which is ironic). Are there additional sources that talk about this? Arzel (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

After a little searching it would appear this editor has a history of confrontation regarding what they consider Chritisan influence, specifically in India. Arzel (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm not arguing for inclusion, but I would like to take a moment to point out a few obvious problems:

1. Your argument seems to be focused on the Catholic angle, where the added text and source seem to lean more towards Evangelical Christians (which you left wholly unaddressed).
2. "He/She included a reference, however that reference is not accessible by most people" Really? A simple google search shows that the book (especially the part that was used as a source) is readily available via google books. How many people reading Wikipedia won't have access to google?
3. Once again (third or fourth time now)... There is no requirement that a reliable source be accessible by most people (which I assume you mean hyperlinked). Reliable and accessable via the web are not terms that have any relevance to one another.
4. is a reliable source (being a university press) - WP:RS has no special caveat for or against "university press", AFAIK.
5. The editors' edit history has absolutely no relevance. I find it particularly enlightening that not only is it the first thing you went after, but that you took the time to actually reply to yourself in pointing it out. Comment on content, not contributors.

Again, wow. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW is right, instead of responding civily to my comments, Blaxthos show just what kind of person he is by making a huge rant against me. Just what the heck is your problem?

1. What are you talking about, I specifically mentioned Evangelicals in my opening comment, my second comment deals with Christians, (which is the code for evangelicals that this editor uses, try doing a little research).
2. See next.
3. Again, what are you talking about. I specifically stated it is a reliable source, if it is true. However it is also a challengable statement so read up on WP:RS because you are wrong and I wasn't able to find anything related to the statement the editor was making. And please don't give me your hypocritical comments regarding what has to be hyperlinked, when the shoe has been on the other foot you have had a completely different view.
4. Can't you read? I said that it was a reliable source.
5. The editors history does have relevance when it is not easilly possible to read the supposed reference to see what he is talking about. I placed a message at their talk page, and noticed that almost all of their messages are regarding christian influence, for which this person is very strongly against. Now I don't have a problem with that, or even with their views, but when someone has a problem with Catholics and specifically Evangelical Christians places charged comments that FNC promotes the view of Catholics and Evangelicals (and although doesn't say it doesn't promote the views of other religions) with a source which you can't easily read you have the right to question the motives of the editor. So get off your high horse, you question my motives on pretty much a daily basis. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Once you mentioned "Evangelicals" in the first sentence, you never again mentioned them. You railed against the editor's contribution later in your original post, however you only talked about Catholicism and how FNC isn't really pro-Catholic (so the entire contribution is questionable. While I tend to agree with your assertion about Catholicism (FNC is not pro-Catholic), I will not discount the entire contribution part & parcel.
2. Again you assert things like "it is not easilly possible to read the supposed reference to see what he is talking about", which is completely false. All you need to do is google for the author (which was supplied in the reference provided) -- John Arnold Schmalzbauer, and you get almost the entire book to read for free via google. Check this out, you can even search within the book. Searching for "Fox News" brings up...
3. the actual source, which seems easily possible to read the "supposed" reference to me. Beyond that, the Schmalzbaur "supposed reference" actually has footnotes that cite his sources.
4. "you are wrong and I wasn't able to find anything related to the statement the editor was making" - you must not have looked very hard. See the hyperlink in #3. By the way, I've never said sources need to be web accessable -- that's an assertion you've tried at least three or four times now. Either show us a policy/guideline that backs up your position, or stop asserting falsehoods.
5. You said "supposed reference". For one, a University Press does not automatically imply reliability (go read WP:RS again). However, in this instance the source seems to do a great job of referencing his work and seems to have a good track record for reliability and accuracy. My point was simply to not automatically assume that WP:RS is linked to a "University Press" (which you did). Once you decide something is a reliable source, you need to stop putting in qualifiers like "supposed reference" (which you also did).
6. "The editors history does have relevance when it is not easilly[sic] possible to read the supposed reference to see what he is talking about." Well, as evidenced above it is "easily possible to read the supposed reverence", so I guess his contribution history doesn't matter much after all, right? Or maybe WP:NPA was in effect the whole time, and you should have always commented on content, not contributors.

So, to summarize, you've taken a contribution from (as you described above) a reliable source and in the same breath started calling it a "supposed reference" and removed it entirely, claiming that it is impossible to read and find out what the "supposed reference" actually says when the source is freely available via google books, and is itself referenced. You've now claimed you have the right to attack the editor who inserted it based on a false assertion that the source isn't available. That is the sort of behavior that makes me ashamed for you, even if you're not willing to be ashamed for yourself. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you should be ashamed of yourself, you are starting to sound a lot like Olbermann, I mean "WOW". A point of clarification, I never said it was "impossible" to read, I said it was not easy to read. Furthermore, I didn't say it shouldn't belong or couldn't belong, or anthing like that. If you would have read what I said instead of focusing on critiqueing what I said you would have seen that I questioned it because it made a claim I have never heard before, referencing a book which is not easy for the average reader to find. Now I will grant that when a book is used it is fine to reference the book without a hyperlink, however when that book is used to make a questionable claim or a claim that is likely to be challanged you have a scenario where someone can put into an article their own POV backed up by a reliable source, and as a published book I don't see how this would ever fail RS. I was not even questioning the good faith of this editor, although given the entire scheme of things it is interesting to note that they have been involved in some disputes related to religious bias. As to the Evangelicals or Catholics, it matters little, it is a Red Herring to the greater issue of bias in favor of Christian values (which is why I didn't further the point). Seriously, this was a simple of issue of if it should be mentioned, yet you turned it into a huge bash against me, good job! Arzel (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The more pertinent issue isn't whether it is reliably sourced, it's whether the view in the source represents a significant viewpoint. Perhaps, it does but I have not seen this particular charge before (not that I am the arbiter of such things). Also, if it is a significant viewpoint, the edit seemed to state the opinion as fact, when it should have been attributed to the author in question. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discussion back on track, Ramsquire. My major point was the ad hominem basis for the argument towards exclusion by Arzel, and the misrepresentation of the availability of the source. As stated in my original response, I'm not arguing for inclusion. I tend to agree; should there be additional indications of this being a significant viewpoint it might need revisiting, but for now it seems more of a fringe issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks Ramsquire, considering Blaxthos is the one that took it off track to begin with, and thanks to Blaxthos for getting in another sly little attack on me. Arzel (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Juuuust a little clarification here. No attack was made, Arzel... I simply challenged the logic you used to reach your conclusion (ad hominem irrelevancies) and your blatant misrepresentation of both the availability of the source and the need for it to be easily available via the web. If you don't like being challenged then I suggest being a little more forthright regarding the things you say. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I took Arzel's saying that the source isn't accessible as meaning that since it isn't hyperlinked, regular readers couldn't as easily verify the source as if it was in an online newpaper article. Turns out it is in Google books, and if someone wanted to go an extra step they could have it rather easily. I don't think Arzel was trying to mislead anyone, in this case. As for the prior history of the editor, Blaxthos is right we should comment on content not the contributor. But there are trolls at this project and knowing that an editor has a history of blocks, personal attacks and warnings on a single issue is relevant so that the talk pages are not wasted feeding trolls. To sum up... Blaxthos and Arzel you guys should really look to get some kind of dispute resolution, the arguments between you two span several talk pages, articles, and months of time. I know I may live in a glass house here, as I've also had problems with Arzel, but this constant arguing between you two is getting worse considering the lengthy replies based on a relatively simply issue that we all seem to agree on. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph POV?

Why does the opening paragraph to this entry mention that some people criticize it for having a conservative bias? This may be a criticism that is well know, but it has no place in the open of the entry, it should be in a criticisms section. I went to the CNN entry to see if it was simlilarly mentioned in its opening paragraph that some people see it as having a liberal bias, an no such mention was made. I do not know if there is a wikipedia standard to cover this. Understand that I am not trying to get the comments made that Fox News is conservative removed, rather that they do not belong in the opening paragraph. Nor is it sanitizing the article to ask that they be moved to a more perinent section. Any one else have comments on this Rocdahut (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check out the FAQ at the top of this page, that specifically addresses the concerns you now raise. Please note that we have had at least two (or three) requests for comment to find a consensus version. Also, please consult the governing guideline, WP:LEAD, which specifically states that a brief mention of notable controversies is appropriate and prescribed. I would guess that allegations of bias in the CNN article may not be covered in the lead because, compared to FNC, there is significantly less controversy (on that issue). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The brief reference seems appropriate to me, the debate about whether Fox News is more balanced than other media, or conservative slanted is central to any discussion of the channel. If you feel the CNN page needs a similar reference, you could discuss that at the CNN talk page. Dean B (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If the brief reference to criticism is going to remain in the opening of the entry (which it should not!) it should not simply note what "critics" have said and then how Fox has responded. If it mentions "critics" from one side of the debate on bias, it should mention "critics" from the other side too... not just Fox's response. I have added that information. We could even take Fox's response out because the sentence is about the view of critics, not the view of Fox. The necessity to give a balanced showing of critic's opinions is the reason why I think the criticism information belongs further down in the page where it can get more space for adequate treatment. I also took the reference to the founder and CEO out of the "criticism" paragraph in the opening section and moved it to the "founding information" paragraph. The founder should be listed with other info about the launch of the network, not with "crticism". The opening entry was obviously biased... and still is even just by including criticism in the opening entry. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that we're discussing this here at the moment, it might have been better if you'd discussed this here before editing. But I think you're right about the reference to the founder - thank you for doing that. I think references to other channels don't belong in the introduction on this page. They may belong in pages about other channels. I think it would be possible to word something that refers to both FNC's claim to be more fair than other media, or to its fair and balanced slogan, and the claim that it is conservative. But it would be better to word it directly about FNC rather than have most of the paragraph being about other networks. Your additions also make the paragraph very long, and I think this issue deserves only a brief reference at this point in the article. Dean B (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the intro does seem to be there just to present a bias. If anything it should go in a history section. Murdock is already mentioned in the first paragraph, and as such this third paragraph is expanding on already given facts, and becomes redundant. Bytebear (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted, as the previous version was the product of multiple RFC's and a fairly stable consensus; the new version was both undiscussed and introduces massive POV issues. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change Jsn9333 makes some valid points. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The debate needs to mention both sides, not just one view of critics and then Fox's response. However jsn9333, there is no need to bring in the "liberal media" into the text. Mention one side of the debate, mention the other side, mention fox's response... done. If liberal media is referred to that must be treated fairly from both sides also. Unc 2002 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Unc 2002. I might be willing to compromise on leaving the "liberal media" out. I would think the word liberal could be used in some sense though, since the conservative accusation is stated. But I do see your point and I'll think about it. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the debate. Please familiarize yourself with previous discussion and consensus on this issue. Both sides should be mentioned in the article, but the lead should summarize widely held perceptions and not attempt "balance" by artificially expanding perceptions that are not widely held. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as "undue weight", the example given on the page you link to is that the "flat earth" ideas are not listed on the "earth" entry, because they are held by a fractional minority. It is ridiculous to assert that the opposing view that Fox News presents the news in a balanced fashion is that of a similar fractional minority. We're talking about the ratings leader in cable news. Add to that, as stated above by Arzel, the most recent Pew research (state of the media 2008) states that FNC has the most balanced in audience and doesn't mention conservative bias in regards to the channel. It does mention liberal bias in regards to the media. It is utterly ridiculous to assert that a reputable source reporting on the view held that Fox News is more balanced then other networks is to be excluded because it has undue weight. Gimmee a break! Your reasoning seems either awfully flawed or based on something other then undue weight worries. Is undue weight truly your motivation, or is there something else driving this effort to make sure only the views of one side are presented in the reported critical analysis of Fox News? Jsn9333 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox being a "ratings leader" has nothing to do with perceptions of their political orientation, so that argument doesn't make any sense. I'd call it ridiculous, but you said we weren't supposed to use that word. And then you go use it yourself. But I guess the rules are whatever you decide they are at any given moment. My reasoning has been clearly stated and is in line with Wikipedia policy, as opposed to your behavior, which has constantly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I haven't been a saint myself, of course, but then I usually don't respond well to your kind of snide behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

- To Gamaliel, when I said "add to that", it meant I wasn't depending on "ratings leader" fact to make my point. It meant you should keep reading (the facts you failed to respond to) to see the gist of my argument. The argument (when not spliced into pieced by you) goes like this: Ratings leader, combined with the most balanced audience according to Pew, combined with the NYT and other sources reporting about "a lot of" people turning to Fox in order to get more balanced news... shows that the other side of the critical debate, which you want to exclude from the lead treatment, is *not* a position of "undue weight." It is a very common position in this country, not to be compared to the "flat earth theorists", which is the example of a "undue weight" position wikipedia guidelines give. P.S. I never said ridiculous was an illegal word. I meant you should not use it *if* you were going to call people uncivil for asking you if you perhaps might be letting pro-liberal bias guide your decision to call a very common counter-view one of "undue weight" by default. Given the absurdity of your claims of "undue weight", it is a fair question to ask. . . . The position that "others turn to fox news for a more balanced view" ("a lot" of others according to the NYT piece) just cannot be reasonably said to be one of "undue weight". Therefore, either you are by nature unreasonable, or there must be something other then the reasoning you are providing driving your desire to have the lead present only one side of the critical analysis. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am unreasonable when people like you attempt to twist my statements to conform to their pre-imagined conceptions of my views. I am astonished that you can't refrain from keeping this personal in the slightest. If you keep trying to make it personal, don't whine when people get unreasonable. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, If my suggestion that liberal bias might be behind your absurd reasoning is "personal", then your suggestion that I am "artificially" expanding perceptions that are not widely held is personal. Both those suggestions could or could not imply an accusation of dishonesty. But you don't see me whining and complaining about your civility, do you? In reality, neither of us has personally attacked the other. Rather, we are discussing like adults (or at least I am trying to). No one doubts the current treatment you propose is one sided. The question is whether the critics from the other side have "undue weight", which is the reason you give for not including the other side. You should question any reasoning that results in your calling the view that Fox presents the news in a balanced way "fringe" when public perception is that the media is liberally biased, according to Pew Research, and the New York Times and other sources report about "a lot of" people turning to Fox in order to get more balanced news. By the very definition of fringe that makes the view from the "other side" (that Fox is balanced) not fringe. It is reported to be held by a lot of people by reputable sources. Your reasoning is not holding up. Something else is going on here, and you would do well to do some introspection and figure out what that is exactly. I personally have no idea what it is... but I wonder. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no idea why you keep pushing a version of the lead unsupported by the citations and why you have a rotating list of citations, quietly dropping the most outrageously irrelevant ones when called on it. Something else is going on here, you would do well to do some introspection and figure out why you are looking for citations to back up a preconceived view instead of looking at the evidence and then developing an appropriate version for the article. I personally have no idea why you are doing this...but I wonder. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To Dean - It is not fair to list what critics from one side of the debate say, but not list what critics on the other side say, especially since this criticism information is at the top entry and not in a section of its own. Information from critics on the other side of the "conservative bias" debate who are *not party to Fox* needs to be included for this section to be fair. Fox itself does not count as a critic on the other side of the debate... Fox is what the debate is about. To include the other side's view, something about other U.S. media must be included because the argument from the other side is that Fox is viewed as conservative because it is in stark contrast to a mostly liberal media. I know it makes the paragraph longer... so to appease you I have taken out the information about critics saying the former news source(s) turned to the "right" to grab some of Fox's ratings, and I have removed info about Fox's responses to criticism... again, b/c Fox's is what the debate is about and fair treatment must involve other outside critic's opinions. I have also removed the line "or otherwise appears to be conservative", because it is redundant. The only purpose that redundant line served was to add 4 more references to the point already made and supported with 3 references... that some critics think Fox promotes conservative positions. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To Blaxthos - The reference to the founder is to be listed with the paragraph about the founding of Fox, not with the paragraph about criticism of fox. I have changed it back, and I will keep changing it back. Your version presents a biased picture of the founder instead of simply presenting the information an encyclopedia is meant to present, namely who founded the network. Having the criticism section at the top of the page is biased enough without putting the founder with it instead of with the founding info paragraph. Also, see note to Dean above about fairness in listing criticisms from both sides of the "bias" debate. I will continue to make these changes to keep wikipedia as unbiased as possible. If one critical view is presented, especially in the opening entry, then the other side should also be presented. If you want to do another consensus then so be it. But the opening as you want it to be is extremely biased. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph does seem to be there just to present a bias. If anything it should go in a history section. Murdock is already mentioned in the first paragraph, and as such this third paragraph is expanding on already given facts, and becomes redundant. Bytebear (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, which specifically quotes WP:LEAD. The mention of notable controversies is clearly appropriate. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You do know that consensus can change, and the FAQ can change as well. We are not bound by what it says in any way whatsoever. Be careful of WP:OWN. Bytebear (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To Blaxthos - Simply saying "there was a consensus" is not adequate. Consensus can change, especially when new ideas are introduced. You have not responded to the ideas I have presented other then to say "there was a consensus". That defeats the entire purpose of consensus... which was meant to be malleable if persuasive arguments can be made to change it. This "talk" page is meant for discussion... not for maintaining old versions at all costs because they once had a consensus. What is your response to the arguments I have presented? It is not fair to list what critics from one side of the debate say, but not list what critics on the other side say, especially since this criticism information is at the top entry and not in a section of its own. Information from critics on the other side of the "conservative bias" debate who are *not party to Fox* needs to be included for this section to be fair. Fox itself does not count as a critic on the other side of the debate... Fox is what the debate is about. That is my main argument. What is your response? What is wrong with my idea? How can having criticisms from both sides of a debate included make an entry worse? You are arguing in support of having only one critical side of a debate presented. We should report both sides of the debate and let the reader decided. The other issue is of course the biased placement of the CEO information with the conservative criticism instead of simply as a fact listed with all the other facts about the founding information. I don't like Fox News any more then I do any other channel, but the bias in this opening entry is incredibly easy to spot. P.S. - I have added another source that more directly states the side of the debate I have presented to balance out the one-sidedness of the original wording. Jsn9333 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez, "consensus can change", "the faq can change"... "wikipedia policy can change..." yes. everything can change. (next thing you know, you'll be citing WP:IGNORE whenever someone brings up wikipedia policy) The law can change, but that won't keep you out of jail for breaking itm, and that won't make crimes have any less of a negative impact on society - i.e. it's besides the point. simply stating "consensus can change" is not adequate. " and the faq isn't there in order to be non-changeable, it's there to provide answers to questions. (such as some of the ideas that have already been discussed ad nausuem. Furthermore, people haven't just stated "there was a consensus". People have provided valid reasons why things are as they are. diminishing their arguments into simply "the consensus was..." and then countering with "consensus can change", besides dismissing(ignoring) all of the points that were made out-of-hand, is adding a non-argument to a straw man argument. Yes, the talk page is meant for discussion, but discussion is absolutely pointless if nobody actually reads it and thinks about it. And no, the point of consensus is not to change. That's absurd. The point of consensus is to represent what everyone has more-or-less agreed upon after much discussion. And when somebody says that's the consensus, look at the discussion, they mean please read what has already been discussed so that we don't have to go over the same tired old arguments once again just to debunk them with the same rebuttles we've already given. Kevin Baas^talk 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kevin - If you are implying my specific contributions and arguments have already been discussed in the talk archives (and therefore are not worthy of a response from the user who keeps changing them, relying on "consensus"), then please direct me to the specific archive where this occurred. Otherwise, what is your point? Consensus can change, and the page about consensus notes this specifically. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your points have been covered ad infinitum directly, start at Archive 15 or so. Regarding the rest, there is very little evidence that consensus has changed. We've been through something like 3 RFC's and more than twenty editors. It is a substantial burden to overcome, and I just don't see how you're breaking any new ground. Consensus can change, but I have seen no indication that this is anything more than a new editor who would rather try and change the article instead of reading what has already occurred and realizing that those points have been asked and answered already. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please quote a line from the specific place in the archive where my ideas were discussed, so I can use the "Find" function in my browser to verify your reference. I personally have not found it even though it supposedly has been covered "ad infinitum". The burden it takes to edit an article with a new contribution does not get more substantial with each RFC. When new ideas are introduced, they must be considered. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resp. to Jsn9333: I've made my point. Clearly and forcefully. If you can't understand it, it is by no fault of my own. But let me try once again: If you read the little FAQ at the top of this page you'll see that there are in fact 6 archives (including an RFC) of discussion about this. Now after I wrote what I wrote above, I was somewhat regretful, as I thought that what I was stating didn't need to be said, and that it only added conflict and insult to the situation. It appears that my concern was unfounded. I had thought for a moment that you wouldn't be so presumptuous and arrogant as to be so sure that you've come up with such a novel and profound argument that it hasn't been covered in an entire 6 archives of discussion and will undoubtedly blow away all existing arguments, that you think it wouldn't even be worth your time to look at the prior discussion, and that suggesting you were with my lecture about why there are talk page archives in the first place was unmerited and thus insulting. So you see I was about to give you the benefit of the doubt, here, and retract my comment. But now you've just demonstrated that my faith was misplaced. A knowledgeable and intelligent person does their research before entering into (or starting) a debate. Kevin Baas^talk 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, what I see is that you are assuming I have not read the archives, implying I am not intelligent, and also are refusing to provide the direct reference I requested (in other words, you are refusing to actually produce the lines in the archives where you say the changes I am proposing were already proposed). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I see. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. What I said is that I realized that in my first comment I was assuming that you had not read the archives, and furthermore that you did not intend to, and that this was a bad faith assumption and I should not have made it. Thus, I was going to retract it. But the offense you took from the suggestion that your arguments might already be covered in the 6 archives of discussion made it clear to me that you did not believe it worth your while to read them and find out (and thus have not read them), and your insistence that somebody read them for you and do the work of sifting and copying them for you in relation to your arguments (of which only few are known) made it clear to me that you do not intend to read them. Thus, as I said, you made it appear to me that I was correct in assuming that you did not read them and do not intend to. You have not denied this. I then used positive, not negative wording -- as you imply -- to try to persuade you to read them. Even if you had not read the archives, it still would not logically imply the negative, as it leaves open the possibility that one will read them. In which case, one would demonstrate themselves to be "knowledgeable and intelligent". So you see, I was trying to persuade you by way of positive reinforcement. However, you interpreted it to imply the negative, and the fact that you interpreted it this way suggests that you have not read the archives, nor do you intend to. It suggests that you'd rather be resentful instead - as you are being. This is how you are coming off to me right now. Kevin Baas^talk 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

- To Kevin_bass, while you write 20 lines musing about your inner thought processes... I'm still waiting on the reference you apparently cannot find. You can try to change the subject all you want, but the fact is, you have thus far been unable to cite any reference to back up the position (that my ideas are not new, were considered in the archive, and hence cannot be held up against the consensus version). I'm not taking "offense" to your suggestion that my idea for the treatment of the debate has been covered. I'm simply asking for proof that it has been (which you apparently think is extraordinarily easy to find, yet for some reason don't want to produce). When someone asks you for a reference to back up your claim, to respond by saying that person just wants you to "do all their work for them" is insincere by definition. You are asking me to prove a negative, that the archives have not covered my idea. To do so I would have re-post every archive in its entirety right here and say "See, told you!" I scanned through the archives before ever editing this entry in the first place. Now I'm simply asking you to show me exactly where the "consensus" considered the ideas of mine which have produced the balanced critical treatment I have suggested. It is a fair question. Your desire to keep changing the subject and to avoid answering it at all costs speaks volumes. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was not "musing about my inner thoughts". I was taking great pains to describe to you how what you are saying and doing appears to me, and why it appears to me that way. This was in the effort of improving the fidelity of communication between us - which seems to be breaking down very quickly. The fact that you diminished this effort as "musings about your inner thought process" shows that your priorities are somewhere else.

I think the problem here is that you don't understand what I'm saying. I never said that your ideas aren't new or cannot be new. I said that it is quite possible that they have already been discussed in the archives. Is this so difficult to imagine? I can think of many arguments for both sides, and I'd be very surprised if none of them have been discussed at length already. With six archives of many different people discussing it, one can be sure that a lot of ground has been covered. Now I don't know what of your arguments have been covered in the archives, and I never said that I did. The point that I'm trying to get across to you is that neither do you. Kevin Baas^talk 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kevin Bass, I'm telling you, I have read through the archives. I have not seen where my ideas have been taken up. I may have missed it, and that is why I'm asking you to point it out if you know where it is. The ideas covered previously in the archives have much to do with many of Fox News' editorial shows being biased. But my idea is not going against that. The entire point of the NYT piece I cite is that "a lot" of people are turning to Fox News because they see the hard news as being reported in a balanced way, even though they know the editorials are biased. The piece says these people see other networks incorporating their editorializing into their hard news reporting, and they don't like that. The current reason folks like Gamaliel and Blaxthos are giving for keeping these observer's view of Fox News out of the lead is that it has "undue weight". That is absurd given the reliable sources I am citing. Something other then reason and logic is keeping you people opposed to my edits... because the reasons you are giving ("consensus" and "undue weight") are pure B.S. I suggest you examine what the real reason is. I am not a fan of Fox News any more then I am of any other organization. I'm an Obama supporter and I don't like how their editorials have treated him. Yes, sometimes I get pissed off at the network. But this is not about my political leanings. This is about keeping Wikipedia a reliable source for bias free information, information that presents all sides of legitimate debates. Jsn9333 (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally letting me know that you have read the archives. I hope you can see how I got the impression that I did. You could have made this thread a lot shorter and less acerbic had you mentioned that earlier.

The "undue weight" argument is clearly not absurd, as when you put the two things in proportion to each other, perception of conservative bias in FNC is much larger. (There's so much verifiable info on it that there is now an entire sub-article devoted to FNC controversies.) (Also, Arzel brought up a study by the pew research center that shows a strong movement away from FNC among democratic viewers, I'm not aware of a similiar study about the phenomena you mention, so its significance isn't verifiable.)

It is disingenous to say that the only arguments being made are "consensus" and "undue weight". (and calling those arguments b.s. amounts to calling wikipedia policy b.s.) Much more various arguments and rebuttles have been made, such as those regarding "the sources [you are] citing".

People have been discussing and currently are discussing the NYT piece in this section (perhaps it should have it's own section so this one doesn't get overly long?). I haven't read it, myself. But, from my experience, I trust a lot of the contributors here to make intelligent, well-researched arguments. Kevin Baas^talk 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From my observation, you have eight references for two sentences in the lead. That tells me the lead is poorly constructed. Bytebear (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I only added one sentence. The first sentence is from the consensus version. While I think it should be moved down below, apparently a consensus disagreed in the past, so I left it... but added the other side's viewpoint for fairness and to make this wikipedia entry look less biased. And actually, before I got a hold of that first sentence it had 8 references itself alone. It essentially said "critics say foxnews promotes conservative positions (4 refs), or is otherwise conservateive (4 more refs)." So you'll have to excuse me for over referencing the sentence I added... but the reason I did it is because it seems like the "consensus" on this page is to write sentences that are, in your words, "poorly constructed." I think it would be a good idea to remove the redundant references that support *both* the critics' stated positions, personally. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is, if you need to add a balancing POV, and add several references, then the issue at hand is too complex for the introduction. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." WP:LEAD. Since this article is not about Fox News Bias, that information is more of a "tease" than an overview sentence. It really should be removed. Bytebear (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kevin, We do not live in a vacumn and nor does FNC or any other person or entity. Public perception and feelings change over time, and this should be reflective in their articles. FNC has been viewed to be among the least biased source for election news over the past several months. To say that the lead should not change because it has been relatively stable is disingenious if it is not reflective of the truth. I see no problem in stating that some observers feel FNC is liberally biased and that some see no bias. Arzel (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is undue weight. The views held by the likes of AIM and MRC should be noted in the appropriate sub-sections, but they are fringe viewpoints and should not be noted in the lead or given equivalence with widely-held viewpoints in a mistaken attempt to achieve "balance". And we should also not give into recentism by letting the perceptions of the last few months (assuming that we even accept the premise that you put forth in your third sentence, which I doubt most of us would) override a historical overview. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

- To Gamaliel, just because the AIM and MRC may be on the other side of the political aisle than you does not mean they are "fringe". However, to appease you I have removed them and simply left the UCLA story and a NY Times article (noting how many see Fox's hard news as more balanced then other media outlets, even while its editorial shows seem conservative). Though the NYT has a reputation for being liberal, for some reason I doubt you will see them as "fringe". Hmm... I wonder why. I also removed two of the references used to support the position that fox news is biased because they were dead links. Jsn9333 (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted again... I just don't see how consensus has changed, and I certainly see plenty of opposition to your changes, which I also believe are massively inappropriate. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, your comments are both ridiculous and out of line. The New York Times is America's paper of record and pretty much the definition of mainstream journalism in this country and in no sane way can it be described as fringe. Despite your snarky, not-so-subtle commentary, we would all agree there are plenty of mainstream conservative organizations, think tanks and policy groups and so forth. Those do not include AIM and MRC, which are fringe partisan attack cells. Since you are new here, I will bring your attention to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, which require you to refrain from the sort of snide attacks that you have made here. Policy requires you to attempt to work harmoniously with other editors and not use talk pages as forum for partisan attacks. Leave that kind of thing on a message board somewhere, please. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To Gamaliel, the New York Times itself apparently does not think my comment that they are seen as liberal is "ridiculous". In fact, not only do they acknowledge they are seen that way... they admit to actually being liberal. In an article titled "is the new york times a liberal newspaper" the first line in their editorial says, "of course it is," and then goes on to explain why they prefer the word urban, but it is the same difference. see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63 So I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to wonder about why a self-acknowledged liberal source of information is labeled "mainstream" by you, and a self-acknowledged conservative one is labeled as "fringe." And if you are going to toss accusations of "snarky" comments around, and say they are violations of wikipedia civility standards, you should be more careful before using the word "ridiculous" in your comments toward people. Anyway, the cites have been changed to appease you in your quest to eliminate what you call "fringe" sources from wikipedia and has been replaced with what you call a "mainstream" source (though the Times itself disagrees with you about that characerization). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsn9333 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try reading my comments. Nowhere did I dispute that the New York Times is seen as liberal. What I do dispute is your equating a mainstream news source with a fringe organization regardless of the perception of its political orientation. Fringe has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal and your attempt to frame my comments as fringe=conservative is just as absurd as your claim that the Times is not at the center of mainstream journalism in the US because of some article its ombudsman wrote.

Now if you don't want to be labeled snarky, don't make snarky comments and refrain from making insinuations about what kind of agendas you imagine other editors have. It's poor form to engage in that kind of incivility, and it's even worse to cry foul when you get a tiny fraction of what you give. Nothing is going to be accomplished in regards to the article if you use the talk page to lash out at imagined enemies, so please avoid the culture wars and stick to issues of article content. Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try reading my comments. As I said, I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to wonder why a self-acknowledged liberal source of information is labeled "mainstream" by you, and a well known conservative one is labeled as "fringe." MRC may not be *as* large as the NYT, but that in and of itself does not make something "fringe." To refer to another's thoughts as "ridiculous" is poor form and is not civil, and it is even worse to use such language while complaining about civility. Nothing is going to be accomplished by continuing to complain. I was allowed to wonder. You were allowed to answer. You have answered. The source you incorrectly labeled "fringe" has been changed to source of your own choosing. This debate need not continue any further, especially in the uncivil manner in which you have participated in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsn9333 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt at parroting my comments is unsuccessful as I have clearly addressed your comments, which directly spoke to the issue of your attempt to equate a mainstream newssource with a fringe partisan attack organization. They are not equivalent and should not be treated as equivalent, so there is no valid reason for you to make a nonsensical attack on me -excuse me, I mean "wonder"- for not accepting your flawed premise. You are not allowed to "wonder" if your means of "wondering" is making snide comments about other editors. And if you want to use the talk page to "wonder", don't be surprised if someone "wonders" right back at you. If you want to "wonder" about civility, then you can start by employing it and refraining from personal "wondering" and stick to article content. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The "parroting" was intended to show the hypocrisy of referring others' ideas as "ridiculous" while you accuse anyone who simply questions your reasoning of being "uncivil". I am simply saying I don't understand what seems to be your reasoning that a smaller, conservative organization is by definition "fringe" when compared to a larger, liberal one. I wonder what the basis is of such reasoning. Don't take it personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsn9333 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You were hardly "questioning my reasoning". You were clearly implying something sinister. But let's assume that you were merely "wondering" innocently. The basis for this reasoning is not political, as you have repeatedly implied. It is the same reasoning used to weigh sources all over Wikipedia. Large, established, award-winning organizations with solid reputations are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Small, clearly partisan organizations like AIM and MRC which produce work which is widely derided as partisan are not generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. We cannot treat them as equivalent because the rules of both Wikipedia and common sense require that we treat them differently. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To Gamaliel, what you should say instead, if your "reasoning" were working correctly, is "large, established, self-acknowledged liberally partisan organizations" and "small, established, self-acknowledged conservatively partisan organizations". Again, small does not mean fringe, especially if the ideas presented by the smaller organization ring true with a large segment of the population (conservatives in this case). Rush Limbaugh has accepted awards from these organizations. Is he conservative? Of course. But he is *extremely* popular, not "fringe", and his ideas are the same as those espoused by these organizations. Again, small does not equal fringe. Hence I have wondered about the basis for your reasoning. It is a perfectly fair thing to wonder about. For whatever reason instead of simply answering my question you have shown you are so super-sensitive to any questioning of your reasoning that no one can even ask you about it before you fly off the handle and start calling people ridiculous. Gee... I wonder why the sensitivity? Jsn9333 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly answered your question, I'm sorry if you don't like or don't understand the answer. I never said small=fringe; though small is more likely to be fringe, it is just one of the many factors to consider, factors I have repeatedly discussed. But you aren't really interested in that at all, as evidenced by yet another set of snide remarks. Gee, I "wonder" why you can't discuss the issue at hand without attacking people? I "wonder" if it is because you don't actually have an argument. Don't worry, I'm not insulting you, I'm allowed to "wonder", remember? Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To Gamaliel, you don't have to apologize to me because I think you gave an unreasonable answer, so don't worry about it. And I don't have to apologize for wondering what is the basis for your reasoning, nor for wondering why you are so sensitive to questions about that reasoning. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to "wonder". That is my entire point. Wonder away my friend, wonder away. I still wonder what these other "factors" are besides "small" that have lead you to the conclusion conservative organizations that express widely held conservative views are fringe, but liberal organizations that express widely held liberal views are not. No, you haven't answered my wonderings to my satisfaction. Yes, I doubt you will be able (or willing) to do so. But if you want to keep trying, be my guest. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already covered this ground, but I doubt covering it again will be of any help. It's obvious that you already have your own answer and my clearly stated reasons will always be unsatisfactory to you because they don't concur with the conclusion you have already come to. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Resp. to Arzel: Contrary to you personal opinion, if public perception of Fox News has changed, it is for the worse. For example, note that presidential candidates have gone so far as to boycott Fox News - to decline any debate on it - because of it's perception of bias. That's a pretty strong statement and it's only during the most recent campaign season that this has ever happened. Perception of FNC as biased has not waned, save perhaps in your own, personal experience. I see an obvious problem in stating that some observers feel FNC is liberally biased and that some see no bias. But I imagine that was just a typo on your part: If anyone sees FNC as liberally biased they are clearly fringe, and thus by WP:FRINGE do not merit mention in the article. Though I see no problem with stating that some observers feel FNC is conservatively biased while others do not. The latter part, however, goes without saying; when a view is held about something, it is rarely (if ever) universal. Certainly anybody with little to no knowledge of politics is incapable of seeing bias (other than their own) in any news channel. In any case, I don't see anyone disputing this. Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, Any facts to back up that it has become worse? How about this study claiming that it is more balanced. Your opinion of fringe doesn't hold much weight either. MM is about as fringe as you can get on the left and they are quoted all over the place. Arzel (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm> How non-fringe of you to say that just about everything you hear on the news is fringe. Also, how logical of you to say that mainstream is fringe. I never made that connection before. How could I have missed that? </sarcasm>Kevin Baas^talk 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, MM is not Main Stream, it is Media Matters, pretty much the opposite of MRC and AIM, and pretty much the same as MoveOn. Arzel (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that by "MM" you meant "mainstream media". But calling a media watchdog fringe is arguably even more ridiculous than calling the mainstream media that it checks for bias and inaccuracy fringe. Kevin Baas^talk 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And I read your little two-page paper. Firstly, it's only being about one issue: election coverage. Secondly, it doesn't even prove anything on that. The ratio of positive to negative statements is not a proper measure of bias. The ratio of positive statements to positive truths divided by the ratio of negative statements to negative truths is the proper measure of bias. And since in reality, the ratio of positive truths to negative truths is not going to be so nearly 1:1 across the board, but will vary considerably, a news channel that makes 1:1 positive to negative statements across the board is clearly not reflective of reality. So essentially, you gave me a short summary of a flawed and limited report, which, in fact, has nothing to do with public perception (it doesn't even try to measure it), and doesn't provide any of the data used (thus making it non-scientific to boot). Whereas I gave you a concrete, relevant, prominent, and, indeed, unprecedented example of recent changes in the public perception of Fox News. Kevin Baas^talk 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your point of view. You do realize that the first reference in the lead is a similar study, as is the fourth. The second and third (which is dead) are also related to presidential elections. If anything it is very relevant given that the primary references relating to public perception (which it really isn't, it is was the Dems buckling under from pressure by groups like MoveOn). And yet the recent research shows that if anything FNC has been more balanced than the other main stream media sources. Furthermore, I'll state again as I have in the past. Reference four does not say that FNC is conservatively biased, it does say that FNC is more conservative than other MSM, but yet if FNC is conservatively biased than by the UCLA study, all other media is liberally biased, but yet we don't see the same treatment to MSNBC, CNN, ect.. Arzel (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Arzel, but the micro-issue of the current election coverage can't be equated to the entirety of FNC, no matter how you try to shade it. Additionally, many (most?) of us take issue with "scientific" studies from organizations with funding ties to conservatives and conservative organizations. Any way you slice it, one study does not negate the entirety of the others. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said it did, but at the same time half of the references listed in the lead relate only to the upcoming election. The Pew reference (state of the media 2004) does state that FNC is most associated with conservatives (among journalists), however liberals outnumber conservatives 4 to 1 margin. The most recent Pew research (state of the media 2008) states that if there is a bias among new in general it is Liberal bias. They also does state that the audiences of CNN (45% D, 26% I, 22% R) MSNBC(48, 26, 19), and FNC (31, 22, 38) have different audiences with FNC being the most balanced in audience. And the UCLA study doesn't even say FNC is conservatively biased, that is a synthesis of material. Interestingly, the 2008 state of the news media report doesn't make any claim of conservative bias in their report. Based off public perception, there is liberal bias in the press, yet if one is to read wikipedia the view is that only FNC is biased. It is no wonder that WP in general is viewed as biased. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't past muster. The audience numbers are interesting, however. I don't know how the relative sizes of the audiences for the news channel compare, but unless FNC's is MUCH bigger than CNN and MSNBC's combined, those numbers show that Democrats watch a LOT more news than Republicans. (Not something republicans would want to draw attention to, I'd imagine.) If each channel is weighted equally, it comes out to about 1.6 democratic viewers per every republican viewer. total audience distribution comes out to about (41% D, 24% I, 26% R). That's the mean. I.e. that's the audience distribution that a channel would have if they had an unbiased audience. One can tell without even doing any real math that FNC's audience distribution is actually the furthest from the mean, by a long shot. (Making its audience the least balanced.) The numbers you cite show a lot of democrats preferring other news channels over FOX, esp. in relation to Republicans (who seem to prefer FOX, while independants seem to have no preference, or a small bias away from FOX.). This is indicative of a negative perception of FOX news among democrats, such as a perception of "bias". So you see, these numbers actually support the assertion that some people feel that fox news is biased. (While also revealing a rather "unflattering" trend of republican non-viewership.) Kevin Baas^talk 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"So you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your point of view." What?!?!? Did you comprehend anything that I wrote? I think I listed about 4 things wrong with it and none of them were "it doesn't fit my point of view". Sorry, try again. Kevin Baas^talk 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to the actual paragraph we are supposed to be discussing - the current para seems to achieve what I want, and what jsn9333 wants in that it mentions critics on both sides. If anyone still has an objection, maybe they could let us know what it is, and their proposed amendment. If not, maybe we can - at least for now - draw this debate to a close. Dean B (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate is hardly nearing to a close, as there are many issues still open. Most importantly, the current version is not supported by the articles cited, specifically the claim "Other observers see Fox News as a relatively balanced source for news." The "UCLA Newsroom" article discusses only "Special Report With Brit Hume" and for that show it states that it was only one of two of the objects of study that "scored right of the average U.S. voter". It does not support the statement and while it may be an item of interest in the Special Report article, it does not appear to be relevant here. The 2002 New York Times article does not support this statement either, discussing mostly the rise of Fox's ratings during a pro-war, particularly patriotic time, and mentions a couple of conservatives who think Fox is just swell. None of this justifies creating an equivalence between the two points of view in the lead and it doesn't even support the claim being made for that point of view. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to decide which side of the argument is correct - just acknowledge the arguments. What would be your wording? Dean B (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not about which side is correct. Both sides can be discussed at appropriate length in the relevant part of the article It's about the citations not even supporting the claims made in the article, and the desire of some editors to create a false equivalence and undue weight violation in the lead unsupported by citations. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So where does this leave us? With 4 citations claiming bias. One of which is where journalists (where liberals outnumber conservatives 4 to 1) consider FNC biased. Two of which are democratic presidential hopefulls claiming FNC bias and pulling out of FNC sponsored debates because of pressue by MoveOn. And a Fourth with DOES NOT CLAIM FNC is biased, and the study is also railed against by Media Matters for being flawed because it shows a general liberal bias. Also I ask how many have even read the UCLA study?

page 2 -- Our other measure found that Fox News’ Special Report is the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

page 13 -- Results: How Close are Media Outlets to the Center?

We now compute the difference of a media outlet’s score from 39.0 to judge how centrist it is. Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News’ Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.

Page 14 -- Using citations as the level of observation, Table 9 shows that Fox News’ Special Report is the most centrist news outlet in our sample, the Drudge Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is Third, and CBS Evening News is last.

Yet, FNC is judged to be conservatively biased based of this study, this my friends is lunacy. Furthermore, I should also mention that the PEW research is from 2002, and the UCLA study is from 2003, so to say they are dated is putting it mildly. The most recent 2008 PEW study makes no claim of bias by FNC that I have been able to find, maybe someone else can take look to see if I missed anything. So are we going to fix this? I'm not saying that some people don't think FNC isn't biased, but the UCLA study backs up the claim that FNC is not biased whether people like it or not, and it has been used as a reference for a long time. Arzel (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, I am sure we all understand how important it is to you that the world believes that FNC is actually neutral... however, I also believe that the overwhelming evidence (and the overwhelming opinion of the community, as evidenced over the last 3 yrs I've been around) shows that the majority of the research shows that conservative bias does exist. For all the cherry picking of reports and attempts to make generalized points based on narrowly focused studies that you do we could find dozens more (and, dare I say, more reputable) studies that show the opposite. Beat the horse until it's a fine leather and it's still just a dead animal... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Prove it, I still stand by the fact that the UCLA study does not back up your assertation. Find one instance in the entire study where the authors make a claim of conservative bias on the part of FNC. Or do your own personal opinion trump your obvectivity? Arzel (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The UCLA study doesn't say that the grass is green, either. Fortunately, the UCLA study isn't the only document in existence. Kevin Baas^talk 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your response only convinces me that my statement is spot on (esp. cherry picking). I'm also unaware of the definition of "assertation".  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant responses from two peas from the same pod. :) Obviously neither of you have any real evidence, if you did it would be cited instead of a study which doesn't even back up the claims you are making. Kevin your "grass is green" comment is simply without merit. The UCLA study is being used as evidence of conservative bias by FNC, however, the authors don't make that claim, and provide no statistics by which that claim could be made (same with the 2008 pew research study you have been mis-quoting). Arzel (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed both of our points entirely. And if you knew what "without merit" actually meant I highly doubt you'd say that my "grass is green" comment is without merit, unless you would have us believe that the grass is not green, that the report actually does state that the grass is green, or that the report not stating it actually does imply that the grass is not green - if any of these is true, then it is without merit. Otherwise, it has merit. Make sure you know what phrases really mean before using them, instead of just copying others. People who know how to use these terms don't just throw them around wherever they sound good - they choose the particular words/phrases they use for precise logical reasons. As regards "misquoting", I don't see how I could possibly "misquote" when I've never "quoted" in the first place. Again, words have meanings, use them properly. Kevin Baas^talk 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lunacy

This has to be the most perverted logic I've encountered. To quote: "Blaxthos has at this time refused to provide any evidence that this new wording was specifically rejected in an earlier consensus." How could earlier consensus reject wording that had not yet been proposed? In a situation like this, it is prudent to stick with the consensus version until there is ample evidence that consensus has changed. Once again, I see more editors (and more correct points) favoring the consensus version over your version, which runs far afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:LEAD, and the previously agreed-upon version. I am reverting again, and I caution you to heed the advice of numerous editors here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep this discussion civil, I won't take personally your claim that my ideas are ideas those of a lunatic. If the claim is that the proposed idea for the wording must not be allowed because there is consensus on the old wording, then whether or not the consensus ever considered the proposed wording is entirely relevant. Consensus does not make an entry eternally unchangeable. Wikipedia guidelines state this directly, and say that new ideas certainly can change an entry that has achieved "consensus". In the POV article I count equal numbers of editors who want the wording changed and want it left unchanged. How to change it is a debate, but there are equal numbers that want it changed. ... in fact, I would say equal numbers seem to want it removed and put lower as want it to remain. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on content, but logging out to continue the edit war is not acceptable. [12] Please see WP:SOCK. - auburnpilot talk 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am on one of the largest college campuses in my state, and have friends interested this very debate. If someone posts from a similar network as I you should not assume it is me. And if you are implying I have created multiple user accounts to effect the consensus of editors in this page, I haven't and I'm certain you have no proof of any such allegations. Jsn9333 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Is anyone going to bother filing WP:SSP proceedings? I gather from the contribution histories of the SPA's that they're either socks or meats of one particular owner. I don't have the time at present, but I think it's prudent. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Open Case

Case has been opened here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Results

• Jsn9333 (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours
• Unc 2002 (talk · contribs) blocked indef.

- auburnpilot talk 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor Change

Hello, I changed the minor title "Lack of Solid Information" to "Sensationalist Reporting". Not only is that more accurate, it's a better, more concise way of describing the same thing. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

You know, even though JSN was in violation of Wikipedia policy, she/he did raise a good point. Should information about independent media and other sources disagreeing about an FNC bias be added to the lead? Perhaps we should look to see if we can find any. If we can only find one or two sources, then fine, don't add it to the lead; but if a significant number of sources can be found then they should be mentioned. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am all for presenting significant points of view neutrally via reliable sources, but I wouldn't go near so far as to say that much new ground (or new valid points) were raised. If you have specific ideas/citations then by all means let's discuss them... opening an open ended pontification on the merits of the moving targets presented by JSN and his sockpuppets probably isn't going to move us forward. Usually editors who resort to such measures are more interested in pushing a particular agenda then they are in respecting the rules of Wikipedia and the consensus of its members. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that the UCLA study doesn't claim FNC is conservatively biased, or that it claims that FNC is gernerally more centrist in its reporting than the other MSM. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The UCLA study doesn't claim that the grass is green, either. But that doesn't prove it's not. You've already provided a report by the Pew research group that shows that FNC viewership is strongly biased republican, and that democrats shy away from it. And that's what we're talking about, public perception of bias. It would be very presumptuous to make a statement about exactly where a news station coverage lies in the political spectrum, as that would imply we knew (or the reports we cite knew) exactly what having absolutely no bias was, everything that was going on, and everything that the news stations reported. Fortunately, we don't have to be that presumptuous. We are talking about public perception of conservative bias. If we were talking about actual bias according to studies of the content itself, I could bring up lots of sources about that, straight from the fox news controversies sub article. But that's not what we're talking about, so let's make sure that we are comparing apples to apples. Kevin Baas^talk 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what the Pew report stated, and you shold know better than to missues statistics like you are now. The 2008 pew report shows that FNC has the most balanced audience of the group. I suggest you read the whole thing. Also this doens't change the fact that the UCLA study is still being used incorrectly. If a decesion is not made soon I will just starting making changes wholesale, because it is obvious here that the anti-FNC bias runs deep. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Making contentious changes in defiance of consensus is disruptive behavior. I see little and/or no support for your position (other than perhaps a POV pushing sockpuppeteer who has earned himself a block or two). I strongly caution you to reconsider making "wholesale changes" just because you wish things were different. Any way you slice it there is no support for such changes. Be smart and let this one go, Arzel... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, such changes would not be in defiance of consensus. The most vocal editors certainly have wanted the lead kept as is. But if you count heads, fairly equal numbers of current editors have wanted the wording moved out of the lead as have wanted it to be kept there. So you can't really say there is consensus that the lead should not be changed period. Perhaps my suggested changes do not have consensus... but neither does leaving the lead alone. And many of the editors that want it moved also wanted it treated differently as well. Secondly, the majority of the admins who handled your socket puppet accusations against me concluded that they "seriously believe this is a case of meatpuppetry over sockpuppetry." In other words, it was against the rules for me to talk to another user in person about the biased FNC entry in real life instead of generating interest via the talk page. I was not aware that was a rule violation. And regardless, they did not rule that my changes to your biased wording was disruptive. Jsn9333 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOCK. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are one and the same, and they serve no other purpose than to canvass for support and change the balance of consensus. Regardless of which it was, you were blocked for disruptive behavior. As evidenced by your behavior (and by the arguments you've made here) you speak and act before you bother learning our policies, guidelines, mores, and norms. I see no vindication of your behavior or your logic. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, meatpuppetry is very different from socketpuppetry in that it invovles no dishonesty, just a failure to know the rule that you essentially can only build consensus in the talk page, not in real life. Wikipedia specifically says meatpuppetry should be dealt with more gently then socketpuppetry. Anyways, in regards to actual substantive issues, you just reverted my change "other observers disagree" (with the stated crticism that Fox promotes conservative positions). In the edit note you said, "all these references are FNC's statements, not other observers." Actually, if you would have read the links you would see that the references are from the New York Times (reporting about a lot of people who find Fox more balanced then other networks in regards to hard news) and the latest Pew study (no longer finding views of bias in regards to Fox News, see conversation below with Kevin Bass) as well as a CMPA study. That is sourced material showing the views of "others", not FNC. Unless you have a response to this totally unsupported claim you have made, then I will just have to change it back to the version that mentions both sides. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay Blaxthos... since you have not supported to your allegation that the NYT piece that states a lot of people are turning to Fox for more balance is a "FNC statement", I have re-added it. Also, if you are going to use the UCLA study in your wording, say what the study actually says. I have changed the wording to reflect that as well. The UCLA study says Fox is more conservative then its liberal counterparts. To use that study to simply say an observer says Fox is conservative would be dishonest. And, of course, I added the pew research study which did not find evidence of conservative bias, but rather simply found Fox has more conservative coverage then channels democrats prefer. Jsn9333 (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not misusing statistics. As you see here, [13], I showed that the people who wrote that report forgot to take into account the distribution of their sample. It's a rather elementary error, and you, having "10 years of statistical background", should be able to see it. If i surveyed 10 peas and 10 carrots, and 2 peas preferred red squares while 8 blue, and vice versa for carrots, I might say "of the peas and carrots in this bowl, half of them prefer blue squares and half red squares. However, this is only statistically reasonable if there are about as many peas in the bowl as carrots. if peas outnumber carrots ten to one, the numbers say something quite different. This is the case for the Pew report in question. just as it is wrong to assume that there as as many peas in the bowl as carrots, it is wrong to assume that there are as many democrats watching news as republicans. calling a 50-50 viewership "balanced" equates to making that wrong assumption. just like calling a 50-50 blue/red square "balanced" does if you don't know the distribution of peas vs. carrots. you have to adjust for the composition of your sample. then compare it to the whole and derive the mean. from there, you use the standard deviation from the mean to determine the statistical abnormality. That's statistics 101. And the pew guys never even calculated the mean. they just assumed it was 50-50. and they were wrong. Their analysis was flawed at an elementary level. Their numbers actually say something very different (just like in the peas and carrots example). Here, I've explained to you what was incorrect in what they did, and showed you what happens if you fix that mistake, (if you don't assume a 50-50 distribution (a common intellectual fallacy)). Now if I have also made an error, then point it out and correct it. And if you can't, then don't accuse me of misusing statistics. Kevin Baas^talk 14:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case I need to give a fuller explanation here: If a news source has an unbalanced viewership among two groups, a, and b, that means that it draws one audience more than the other, i.e. that groups a and b have different preference ratios for that news source. If a news source has a balanced viewership, then groups a and b have the same preference ratios for that news source. If they have the same preference ratios, then the ratio of a who watch it to be who watch it should match the ratio of a to b. If they have different preferences in regards that station, then the ratio of a who watch it to b who watch it should be different from the ratio of a to b. Therefore, if the composition of viewership among a vs. b differs significantly from the composition of the sample (a vs. b), then the news source has an unbalanced viewership, i.e. the membership of the viewer in group a or b has a significant affect on whether they watch the channel, or, put differently, the channel draws one audience more than the other. Kevin Baas^talk 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and i read through the reference you cited: [14], and it doesn't show the numbers you attributed to it. I did find it interesting, however, that it listed "Bill O'Reilly" and "Jon Stewart" as "Journalists". Kevin Baas^talk 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the reference was larger (multiple web pages) than that one page. I had assumed you would link to the one with the numbers on it. I found the numbers you cited and the related material here and it turns out that the report does not say that FNC is more balanced. That is your own interpretation. I trusted that you were accurately representing the report. Now I find that that trust was misplaced, and that because of that misplaced trust, I falsely accused the pew guys of doing their math wrong. I see now that it was you and you alone who did their math wrong, and, on top of that, falsely attributed it to them. My apologies to Pew.

"Survey data have shown that there are some clear partisan differences among those tuning into the three cable news channels. According to data from the Pew Research Center for the People and Press, CNN and MSNBC had more Democrats tuning in, while Fox News’ audience leaned Republican. Looking at party affiliation, CNN and MSNBC had nearly identical viewer demographics. Almost half of both of their audience members were Democrats – 48% for MSNBC and 45% for CNN. Independents made up about a quarter (26%) of viewers, while Republicans took up the smallest share – 22% for CNN, and only 19% for MSNBC. On Fox News, the trend was somewhat reversed. The largest share of its audience – 38% -- were Republicans, followed by Democrats (31%) and independents (22%)." — Journalism.org, "The State of the News Media, 2008"

Now when I said that if you assume that each channel has about the same audience size... i knew i was making an unsupported assumption (and said so), but now i see from the report that it is, in fact, accurate - the "Cumulative Audience" figures are about 1:1:1. So it turns out that the rough estimates i made in the above section were really close: democratic viewership is about 1.6 times republican viewership overall, and FNC draws republicans viewers much more than it does democratic viewers, while MSNBC and CNN draw democrats and republicans more equally, CNN having the most equipotent draw. I have shown the reasoning and the math for this. It seems that you (not to be confused w/Pew) failed to take into account the prior distribution (the "common intellectual fallacy" i mentioned.) Kevin Baas^talk 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to TheNobleSith, Two of the links supporting the entry "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions" are dead. Of the two remaining links, one is an old, outdated study that found many journalists believe Fox News has conservative coverage, and the other is a news outlet reporting about a lot of people (liberal groups like moveon.org and liberal presidential candidates specifically) see Fox News as conservative. Given the UCLA study's conlcusions that "most major media outlets tilt to the left", basically the sources say that liberals tend to think Fox News is conservative. Plus a new study by the group that did the old study cited finds no such beliefs of bias. So that is the "weight" I'm competing against when trying to have the other side presented... a 2004 study that has been replaced by a 2008 study that doesn't reach the old studies conclusions, and a news source that says liberals think Fox is biased to the right.

Now, what we're simply trying to include the position that the New York times article supports. At http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D81038F932A35751C1A9649C8B63 the Times basically says that, while Fox's editorial shows may be biased, a lot of people see their actual news coverage as balanced (more balanced in fact then the other major media outlets which tend to fail to separate their editorializing from their news coverage). Not only do we have that news source that is highly respected by many people, but we also have the new Pew study. The new Pew study negates the old one. The new Pew study does not say Fox is seen as biased by anyone. It says, "There are clearly differences in Fox’s news agenda as opposed to its rivals, which to a significant degree appear to reflect the interests of Fox’s more conservative audience demographics." However, that could mean any number of things. If its rivals are liberal (as the UCLA study found), then that could mean "more conservative" is actually "more balanced". Also, the Pew 2008 study concluded that Fox's rivals' audiences were 45-48% Democratic and Fox's audience was 38% Republican. So assuming what the study said (that the network was simply followed trends of its audience) that still is not saying the network was "biased" conservatively... it just means the network reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal counterparts. The latest Pew study does not conclude Fox is biased. Period. It doesn't say anyone thinks that Fox is biased. The old study in the current lead should be replaced by this study.

Also, there is a study by the center for media and public affairs that concluded Fox's non editorial (hard news) segments were the most balanced with regards to election coverage. http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf I know, I know that liberal watchdog groups hate the CMPA. But I haven't seen any mainstream (non-partisan) group claim the study was flawed. In fact, even without the cmpa study, the Pew 2008 study alone (negating the study currently relied on) and the NYT piece (a very mainstream news source) is enough "due weight" to counter the outdated study currently cited and the news source currently cited.

The wording should include what UNC_2002 proposed before he found out he was blocked by Blaxthos accusations (the admins who blocked him were of the opinion he was my "meat puppet", not a socket puppet, by the way, since I talked to him in real life about the FNC entry instead of on the talk page). Anyway... the wording should read, "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions. Proponents and other observers say, regardless of its editorial shows, Fox News' actual news reporting is well balanced politically." If anything, it should read, "Liberal critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions," to begin with. That would be of course since the news source cited for that wording lists moveon.org and democratics in congress as the "critics" while the NYT piece supporting UNC_2002's wording simply says "a lot of people"... not necessarily those on the right (it specifically says not necessarily right-wingers). Jsn9333 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read this comment in depth yet, but i want to briefly point out a few things:

• True, the latest Pew study does not conclude Fox is biased. Nor does it conclude that it is not biased. So it's can't be used as a counter argument to reports that conclude (or suggest) one way or the other.
• It's already been pointed out multiple times that presidential election coverage is a very limited issue by which to judge the bias of a channel. The fact that they only happen once every four years should be evidence enough.
• sure. "balanced" could mean lots of things. but all we know is what the numbers tell us, and they don't say anything at all to suggest that "more conservative" is "more balanced". As regards audience numbers, "more liberal" is more "balanced", according to the numbers provided by the source. The source doesn't make this conclusion, but it directly follows from bayesian inference. I've already explained how. I could make up a bunch of other things that "more balanced" *might* mean, but unless I can demonstrate that they follow mathematically from the numbers provided, I don't see the point. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't have time to explain the statistical underlying faults you are making right now. But you cannot infer that information from the Pew study. They simply do not give enough information to make the jump that you are making. I will grant to you that after looking at the over all ratings and the cume ratings the number of liberals watching cable news does exceed the number of conservatives, but you cannot extrapolate that information into the conclusion that you made. The question of bias is also not realated to this study. The authors did not say "Of those watching cable news networks", they simply stated that if there is a bias it is liberal. Finnaly, you do not conclude what your hypothesis is, you only conclude what your alternative hypothesis is or is not. The hypothesis for these kinds of questions is that there is no bias. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kevin, I don't have time to explain the statistical underlying faults you are making right now." Good one. I have the time to point out the flaws in yours, and to explain mine. If you want, I can spell it all out for you in mathematical notation, citing all of the theorems, etc., and you can simply point out which line of the proof is wrong and show what it really should be. The authors do not state that if there is a bias, it is a liberal one. The relevant text from the source you cited is right there, in the my above comment. I copied it for you. Show me the line where it says that. The author does not have to say "of those watching cable news", that's like saying "of those that took the survey." - it's a given. I don't know what you're refering to about "Concluding your hypothesis". Show me where in my mathematics I inserted a hypothesis. In fact, that's totally ridiculous, because I didn't even make any hypothesises. I just did the math and out came the results. If I was doing a survey i might have a hypothesis, and then come up with questions I'd have to ask to conclude wether it's that or an alternative hypotheis, or if i was doing a scientific experiment i might figure out what experiment needs to be done to discriminate between competing theories. But i'm not doing either. someone has already done the survey/experiment and all that is left is to do the math to see what the results are. And the results are, to put it yet another way, FNC has the most discrimination information about the political orientation of the viewer, followed by MSNBC, then CNN. Kevin Baas^talk 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, the Pew study can no longer be used to support the statement "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions." The current Pew study just does not conclude that. I have removed the Pew link from the entry. At the most, if you want to cite the 2004 Pew study, you would have to say "A 2004 Pew study,", and then extend the entry to also mention that the 2008 study no longer supports those findings. I thought it best, given the short treatment you all seem to be aiming for in the lead, to just remove the Pew link altogether.

Of the 3 other links, two are dead and the remaining one is about how certain democrats think Fox is biased. So I have introduced that fact into the wording ("democratic" critics). Seems fair to me given that source very specifically makes that clear. Also, I have stated the opposing position (that others see fox as balanced) since the New York Times piece that determines many are turning to Fox to get equal coverage on issues. I could change the wording to "other observers disagree" or something like that, that is if you don't like the use of the word "balanced." But either way, the NYT piece has more then enough weight to counter the "the hill" piece that states democrats think Fox is biased. If you want to remove the cmpa link because it is election coverage specific, that is fine with me. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that the link to the UCLA study was fixed, so I removed the "democratic" modifier. I also changed the wording to "other observers disagree", since that includes the latest Pew study (which does not claim to find any bias on the FNC's part) and the "a lot of people" the NYT reports do not see Fox's hard news coverage as biased. I'm going to consider changing it back to "democratic" critics, though, because the UCLA study does not seem to conclude Fox is necessarily biased conservatively... it simply says it is more conservative then liberal media outlets. Also, I think a change to consider is "... say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions more then liberal media outlets." After all, that is what the UCLA study concludes. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The fact is, the Pew study can no longer be used to support the statement "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions." The current Pew study just does not conclude that." - By this logic, everything that the current pew study does not conclude should be removed from the article. This would make for a very short article. I don't think such an article would make the "featured articles" category - more like it would be labeled a "stub". Kevin Baas^talk 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Kevin Baas^talk 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying "everything the current pew study does not conclude" should be removed. Only the topics the current pew study specifically approaches that the old study also approached must be removed (or at least updated with the latest conclusions). For instance, the old study specifically approached the views of journalists, and found many viewed Fox as conservatively biased. The new study specifically approaches the views of journalists and does not find that Fox is biased. Even more directly, the new study specifically approaches "conservative bias" in regards to Fox, which is exactly the topic brought up in the lead entry we're discussing. With regards to that bias, it concludes that any greater conservative coverage in in Fox, relative to its competitors, "appears to reflect the interests of Fox’s more conservative audience demographics." As I noted, Pew concluded that Fox's audience was 38% Republican and its rivals' audiences were around 20% Republican. So the Pew study specifically approaches the same topics that the old study approaches, but it comes to different conclusions then the old one. It does not conclude that Fox is viewed as biased, and, in regards to bias, it specifically notes that any conservative coverage is simply more conservative coverage then is given by the outlets democrats prefer to watch, not necessarily conservative "bias" or "conservative support". Jsn9333 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you just made the point. Your quote, "appears to reflect the interests of Fox’s more conservative audience demographics." explicitly states that the bias is there, and moreover, that it's there because of FNC's conservative viewership (which has been nailed down above). If it weren't there, it wouldn't be reflecting anything.  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No dude. The study clarified what they meant because they cited the actual demographics... 38% Republican as opposed to 20% of other outlets. Therefore, at the most, you could say Fox's had more conservative coverage then other outlets. That does not mean Fox was biased to the right or necessarily supported conservative positions. If, for instance, someone said you are nicer to Jewish people then Hitler that wouldn't mean you necessarily are biased toward Jews or even support their positions. If Fox's competitors had 20% of their coverage conservative (which is not outlandish given the UCLA study and others have found those outlets tilt toward the left) and Fox had 38%, then you can't take the Pew statement and conclude fox is biased to the right or even necessarily promoting conservative positions. Jsn9333 (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had redacted that comment. I'll strike through it now that it's been responded to. Kevin Baas^talk 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I see you doing here, Jsn9333: You find these reports that say FNC is more conservative in such-and-such than any other news outlet surveyed, while every other news outlet surveyed is more liberal than FNC. Then you point out that they make no mention of "bias". Then your logic is that since these reports don't mention bias, we should removed any reference that supports the idea that a lot of viewers think FNC is biased. That just doesn't make any sense. Kevin Baas^talk 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't "found" any reports at all. As far as university studies are concerned, I've simply read the sources that the old wording cites. And if you read the UCLA study you are saying should be used, it just does not conclude Fox "promotes conservative political positions"

For example, concerning evening news shows, the study says, "One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News’ Special Report is the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. And even if Fox's news show is slightly to the "right", it is still said to be more centered then all the other shows studied except maybe for the Drudge Report. For example the study says, "New York Times is twice as liberal as Special Reprot is conservative."

It is dishonest to take that study and say it is saying, "Fox News promotes conservative political positions." If you read the actual study, what it says is that most media outlets are liberal, and Fox News' news show is one of the (if not the) closest news show to the center of American politics. If you want to take the news stories about liberal democrats in congress who think Fox is biased and use those stories as sources to support the statement "some critics think Fox promotes...," then fine. But the UCLA study is just not saying that. If you want to cite the UCLA study, you have to be more honest in wording about what the UCLA study is concluding.

Blaxthos (and apparently Gamaliel and yourself) are not only saying the study should be used to say something it doesn't say (or at least be used to present only half of what it says), but then you are *disallowing* the voice of any sources who say they think Fox presents balance in its news reporting. You say they have undue weight! That is crazy. One of these sources is none other then the New York Times! This is ridiculous. Include all of what the UCLA study concludes, or don't cite it! And if you don't cite it, allow the NYT piece to counterbalance the POV that the "the Hill" piece about liberal democrats hating fox presents. Hell, you should allow the NYT piece to counterbalance the "the Hill" piece regardless. And if you do cite the UCLA study, use it honestly and also allow the latest Pew study which simply finds that Fox includes more conservative coverage then liberal media outlets to be used as well. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you found reports. Which was my point, actually (that was sarcasm). And now it looks like you're taking after Arzel and putting words into the report, this time the words of Ruport Murdoch (straight from the echo chamber, I imagine (not to be confused with the report)). Kevin Baas^talk 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333, the sources simply don't support what you keep arguing. Three of us have now pointed this out, to no avail. The only thing I can say at this point is that continued disruptive behavior on your part will probably result in more blocks, and certainly isn't wise. Best of luck. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, I see where you have claimed I and the other's who question your wording are "cherry-picking" the study(s) conclusions. Let's please get specific. After all, that is of course what discussion page is for.

I have specifically quoted, to Kevin just above, the wording from the UCLA study that shows it cannot honestly be said to simply observe "Fox promotes conservative political positions" as your wording cites it for observing. If you are to cite that study in this context, you must also note the very relevant conclusions it came to. The study states that while Fox's news show is conservative, it is more centrist then almost any other news show, and some liberal news sources were twice as liberal as Fox is conservative! I can quote the wording and cite the pages for you if you want. You accuse me of cherry picking, however you are the one who wants to include only half of what the study observes. I am the one saying, "sure, include your half... but tell the whole truth about what the study says."

No news show is completely dead on center in its political coverage; that is an impossible task. And it is not fair to say the UCLA study simply concludes that Fox is conservative when it actually concludes something much different then that simple claim. You are asking those of us editors who want a balanced lead stating both sides to only cite half of the UCLA study, and to only cite newspaper articles about Fox critics ("the Hill" piece) and not cite articles about Fox proponents (the New York Times piece). I just can't see how that would provide anything that resembles POV balance in the lead.

Given that there is no consensus in this talk page to keep your wording, and there are many editors who question either its placement or its content (or both)... I seriously doubt I will get blocked for my efforts to provide POV balance in the lead of this controversial article. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that "There is no consensus about leaving this controversial wording where it or as it is."... actually, TWO RfC's were called, in which a massive number of editors participated, to explicitly craft and approve the version to which multiple editors and administrators have reverted your edits. You've got the cart before the horse. Until you can show a demonstrable consensus to change the intro, including an agreed-upon NEW consensus version, it is prudent and proper to remain with the version previously arrived upon BY the approved process. Ironically, you plead for "discuss first" and yet you continue to make changes clearly not approved by any sort of consensus. You've been blocked already, and if you continue to be disruptive I can assure you that you will be blocked again (for longer). Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not ironic that I say "discuss first". I discuss before I change, so I ask others to do the same. Again, I have not seen in the RFC's where my specific ideas have been discussed. Please point it out to me if you have. Otherwise I have the right to attempt to change consensus, and edits (along with discussion) is one way to do that. Obviously, from reading above, this has worked because there are many users who question both your wording and its placement. I was not blocked for changing the intro you desire to continue to use. I was blocked for talking to another use and getting him involved in this debate in real life instead of via the talk pages (which is a minor infraction, especially for a newcomer who did not know that rule). Thanks. Jsn9333 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand wikipedia policy on this matter, and that in general you've underestimated how well one needs to understand and follow wikipedia guidelines and policies before they can contribute productively on controversial subjects. Kevin Baas^talk 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Jsn9333: In this sort of situation, you must demonstrate that consensus has changed (and to what it has changed) before making changes to a previously stable and approved version. "I have the right to attempt to change consensus, and edits (along with discussion) is one way to do that" is a violation of WP:POINT. You're welcome to discuss all you like, but repetitive changes to a consensus version to make a point is disruptive behavior. Using socks/meats to effect the same changes is even worse. Many of us have pointed out that your sources do not back up your claims, and clearly there is no consensus to change the wording at this time. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully Protected

Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected for a period of 4 days to prevent disruptive edits. This is not an endorsement that the current version is the correct one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Should only one side's POV regarding Fox's political bias be included?

This RfC has been amended and moved to the bottom of this talk page. Specifically, some editors opposed the wording of the title. The wording has been amended to in accordance with the advice of an admin, and the RfC is now open at the bottom of the page. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Malformed

I will only participate in a properly formed request for comment, including the complete absence of strawmen arguments and people speaking for me. It is a complete mischaracterization to call the current version mine, as it was the product of a series of Requests for Comment. Since we're dealing with such a controversial topic, it is prudent and proper to stick with the consensus version until it can be substantially demonstrated that consensus has changed, and to what it has changed.

If you have policies you'd like to submit to back up your claims, list them so that others may respond for themselves. You've completely ignored governing policies, such as WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. If you believe certain references make certain claims, please list them with your propsed changes to the text. In no way should you attempt to characterize other editors or their positions, make complete strawmen arguments, mischaracterize references, or make assumptions about conclusions. Many editors have pointed out that the references don't support your claims, and that your logic is flawed. Until this RFC is properly formatted and absent of improper characterizations, I am not going to step into a loaded question, and I don't see the current RFC as valid -- proper procedures are not being followed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper proceures are being followed. See below. Also, many other editors have pointed out that the references do not support your claims. Let us let the RfC answer these questions

I have edited the RfC so it is now properly formed. Thank you for the tip. As you know, I am new to this. And no, I did not speak for you. I posted a wording which you have edited into the lead multiple times over the last few days, and referred to it as "your" version. I think that is fair. The point is not whose version it is... the point is if editors think it should remain unchanged or not. Jsn9333 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree w/Blaxthos. This is absurd. Kevin Baas^talk 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Invalid

Per WP:RFC, I am calling this process invalid. Proper procedures have not been followed, most especially instruction numbers 2 (neutral title) and 3 (brief neutral statement). The RfC was not executed via template and does not appear on the appropriate noticeboards. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC just above these protests has been submitted with the proper template. The brief neutral statement is there in the template in full force. Of course my own comments follow the template... that is the whole point of a request for comment, to allow editors (myself included) to comment. If you would like add your own comments, feel free. My comments have simply described the links the citations point to, and have invited the readers to read them for themselves. You should have nothing to fear... just let the editors read and speak. Jsn9333 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing brief or neutral in the statement above. From the loaded title ("Should only one side's POV regarding Fox's political bias be included") to the strawman arguments you falsely attribute to me, the current presentation is confusing and improper. Your haste has trumped your willingness to read and abide by our procedures, and I will not get drawn into such an improperly formed and loaded conflict. If you think it's appropriate, by all means push forward... it is my belief that most members of the community will refuse to participate in a procedure that does not respect the proper way to present an RFC (neutrally and briefly) and one where you attempt to speak for other editors via strawmen arguments. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone should respond to the RfC above and make whatever comments about it they see fit. There is nothing wrong with the request. No reasonable person can disagree that the statement "critics think fox support conservative positions... Fox disagrees" presents only side of critic's POV. Critics who think Fox is biased toward the right are mentioned. Critics who think Fox is balanced are not mentioned. Fox's own opinion of itself does not count as a "critic". Therefore, by definition, the statement includes only one side's POV. That is no "strawman". It is just a fact, and is the main fact the RfC is called to address.Jsn9333 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos I see you primary arguement is that it is not a proper RfC to the point of being disruptive of the entire process, should one expect a relatively new user to understand all the nuances of an RfC? I find this most disturbing. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, I know better than to step into a loaded question. Also, what I expect is for new users to take the time to READ policies, guidelines, and rules before shooting off at the hip. This is not the first time that Jsn9333 has placed his foot in his mouth by reacting before taking the time to learn how things work. The first time ended up with him being blocked, and one would think that would give pause before again reacting without first reading. Doing so shows how little respect he has for the Wikiprocess, and his claim that he thought it was neutrally presented simply shows that he has no idea how to truly be objective. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Being as Blaxthos is a named, involved party in this dispute, I don't know if he has the authority to make this kind of decision. If an uninvolved admin were to concur, however, the RFC could be legitimately closed. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I could be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination, as I was involved in the previous discussion and RFCs, but the RFC is clearly written from one perspective. Even the blurb reads "Should only one side's POV regarding Fox's political bias be included in the lead?". Nobody will see that and say "of course only one side of an argument should be presented". It's a leading premise and the RFC description is excessively long. I would suggest closing this attempt at an RFC and starting over (if one is required at all). The RFC discussion should be presented as something to the effect of "To what extent should accusations of bias receive coverage in the FNC lead". Neutrality. Then, I would present the two leads (the previous version and Jsn9333's version) and allow discussion to take place below. - auburnpilot talk 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree w/Blaxthos and AuburnPilot. I will not condone a straw-man RFC. Kevin Baas^talk 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur as well. The issue is not presented neutrally. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-worded and posted below as you described. I honestly had no idea my wording would be viewed as it has been viewed. Earlier in the talk above the very people now so vehemently opposed to phrasing the question "should only one side's POV be presented?" readily admitted that only one side was being presented, but simply argued the other side did not have enough "due weight" to be presented along with the side currently presented in the lead. I'm not sure how or why they have now changed their mind, but I suppose that is besides the point. Still, I'm not sure how anyone can keep a straight face while claiming that the statement "the current lead states the POV of one side in the critical analysis of bias at FNC" is not a fact (Fox not being a critic of itself). But anyway... thanks for your advice in re-wording the statement. I have changed the wording as you recommended. The question, of course, remains the same. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments: to what extent should observations concerning bias receive coverage in the FNC lead?

Please consider the following versions (current and proposed) of a sentence currently in the lead. Please read the wording and the citations before commenting (at least the descriptions of the cites, but if you actually read the actual source that would be so much better).

The following version of the information is currently presented in the lead:

“ Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.[3][4][5][6][7][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[9] ”

Here are the citation descriptions and links:

• cite 3- an news article about Democrats who think Fox is biased to the right, some of whom will not debate on Fox [15]
• cite 4- an AP article about the same thing as cite 3
• cite 5- a UCLA study (which appeared in peer reviewed journal and written by two respected professor/scholars) that concludes that, while Fox's evening presentation of the News is conservative, no evening news is dead on center, other popular outlets tend to be liberal (some twice as liberal as Fox is conservative), and, which Blaxthos' version fails to mention, Fox's is actually either the closest to the "center" or the second closest. Read the study for yourself. [16] more info [17]
• cite 6- a NYT piece that concludes that many of Fox's 80 million viewers agree that, apart from editorials, Fox's actual news coverage presents a "fairer picture, a fuller version of the different parts of the arguments over world affairs." (Why this is cited I have no idea) [18]
• cite 7- the latest Pew Research "state of the media" study, which concludes that Fox News reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal counterparts. More conservative then a liberal source can mean many things... so read on. Specifically, the study states, "There are clearly differences in Fox's news agenda as opposed to its rivals, which to a significant degree appear to reflect the interests of Fox's more conservative audience demographics." However, if you keep reading about those "demographics", the study concluded that Fox's rivals' audiences were around 20% Republican and Fox's audience was 38% Republican. So that still is not saying the network was "biased" conservatively... it just means that Fox reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal competitors, relative to its Republican viewership (which still was not even close to 50% of its viewership) [19]
• cite 8- A study that concludes Fox's election coverage is the most centrist of many studied (again, how this supports Blaxthos' desired wording I have no idea) [20]
• cite 9 - news article where fox denies bias in its coverage [21]

Given that this version's wording has the following defects, I propose the wording below. The defects are: 1) only states half of the information in the studies it cites (if that much, see citation descriptions and links to the studies themselves), 2) only describes the criticism included in news articles about critics of Fox, without describing the positive opinions of other critics described in the New York Times and Huffington Post pieces, and 3) includes cites that directly contradict his wording. Mainly, if the negative POV of some observers is going to be presented in the lead, then it is only fair that the positive POV of other observers be presented in the lead as well. It is not enough to just report what Fox's response to criticism is, Fox is what the debate is actually about. Wikipedia should include critics on both sides, not just one side and then the response of the network who is being debated over.

I propose the following wording (note, since posting this I have changed my proposal to a shorter version that still balances the POV, see "version number 3" down the page a bit):

“ Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.[3][4] Other observers say that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting. [5][6] Studies have found Fox does have more conservative coverage then generally liberal media outlets, but have also found Fox's evening news coverage was one of the two most centrist of all studied.[7][8][9] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10] ”

Again, here are the cite descriptions:

• cite 3- the news article about democrats who think Fox is biased to the right, some of whom will not debate on Fox [22]

• cite 4- the AP article about the same thing as cite 3

• cite 5- the NYT piece that concludes that many of Fox's 80 million viewers agree that, apart from editorials, Fox's actual news coverage presents a "fairer picture, a fuller version of the different parts of the arguments over world affairs." [23]

• cite 6 - News article about Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a strong supporter and prominent surrogate of the Hillary Clinton campaign, appearing on Fox News and praising the network for its "objective" and "balanced" coverage. [24]

• cite 7- the latest Pew Research "state of the media" study, which concludes that Fox News reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal counterparts. More conservative then a liberal source can mean many things... so read on. Specifically, the study states, "There are clearly differences in Fox's news agenda as opposed to its rivals, which to a significant degree appear to reflect the interests of Fox's more conservative audience demographics." However, if you keep reading about those "demographics", the study concluded that Fox's rivals' audiences were around 20% Republican and Fox's audience was 38% Republican. So that still is not saying the network was "biased" conservatively... it just means that Fox reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal competitors, relative to its Republican viewership (which still was not even close to 50% of its viewership) [25]

• cite 8- a UCLA study (which appeared in peer reviewed journal and written by two respected professor/scholars) that concludes that, while Fox's evening presentation of the News is conservative, no evening news is dead on center, and Fox's is either the closest to the "center" or the second closest. Some of Fox's competitors are twice as liberal as Fox is conservative. [26] more info [27]

• cite 9- the study that concludes Fox's election coverage is the most centrist of many studied [28]

• cite 10 - the news article where fox denies bias in its coverage [29]

I know some still want the entire section moved from the lead. Please, lets assume for the sake of argument that the mention of criticism is going to stay in the lead. Please let us know which version you think is more balanced from a POV perspective. Try not to let whether or not you like Fox News come into play in this. This is not a vote for whether or not you like Fox. Try to think neutrally about describing the points of view that exist. If the NYT, a very respected news organization, has determined that many of Fox's 80 million viewers see the network as promoting politically balanced news coverage (along with even a Democratic Governor, much less the many republicans who watch Fox), can you really say that has "undue weight"? I think not. So shouldn't that POV be discussed in the lead to counter the critical POV that is now included? Maybe you disagree with my opinion... let us know!

Also, we can consider shortening the statement. We could remove Fox's denial, since the debate seems to be about the POV of critics, not the POV of Fox. Or we could remove the info from the research studies' conclusions, moving the research information below in the article for more treatment since they seem to support both the view that Fox's news coverage is the most centrist and that it is conservative. I suggest if we shorten the statement, we take out the line about the studies.

Which version do you support, mine or Blaxthos'? And if you would like to change either before supporting it, please state that too. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. - I have changed the wording in the template in order to encourage more editors to participate in the discussion, and I have moved this RfC back to the bottom. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I don't think such a controverial topic should be covered in the lead, but if it is, it should be comprehensive, which leads me to lean toward Jsn's version. If there are competing studies that say Fox is actually conservative, I welcome those studies as well. But we should not omit anything. Bytebear (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the Jsn version. In addition the current version makes conclusion unsupported by the some of the references. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Jsn's version is too long for the lead. It makes the lead devote too much focus on the controverial issues of fox news, compared to other aspects of fox news. i think one or two sentences should be sufficient. 4 sentences (some of which are fairly complex) is excessive. I also think that the phrase "generally liberal media outlets" is inappropriate. This article is not about other media outlets and it's certainly no appropriate to classify them all as "liberal" here, esp. without any supporting evidence by which to verify, and especially when the article doesn't address such an extraordinary claim in any detail (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), and especially when the very person who suggests that wording vociferously proclaims it inappropriate when FNC is in the same manner classified as "conservative" (sounds to me like a double standard). - even though there is less evidence to support what he wants the article to say about news stations that are not even the subject of this article. That was a lot of "especially"ies. Kevin Baas^talk 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

YOu have two choices. 1, leave it as comprehensive and complex, or 2, remove it from the lead. I vote for 2. but you seem to think giving only half of a position is sufficient. Bytebear (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fallacy to frame two separate issues as part of the same issue, and that mean old libruls are keeping half of the truth out. The fact is that there is a widely held perception that Fox is an openly, blatantly conservative news channel. This perception is widespread enough that it demands to be addressed in the lead. Since it is in the lead, however, this issue must be summarized briefly and then the full discussion - supporting material, minority dissenting views, etc - appears later in the article. The lead is not the place for views that are not widely held, rebuttals, etc. Balance is not something to strive for, especially in a summary section like the introduction. It creates a false equivalence between a widely held view and a minority opinion, which is a violation of the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To Gamaliel, please state your evidence that the other side's POV is a "minority" opinion. And actually, please show not only that it is even a minority opinion, but that it is such a minority it is considered "fringe" and has no "due weight". I, for one, have not seen even one study indicating that more people think Fox is biased then think Fox is balanced, much less that so many more think Fox is biased that those who disagree are on the "fringe" . . . so what are you basing your claim on? The old Pew study (which has been replaced by a more recent version that lends your argument even less support if any, but I'll discuss the old one arguendo) concluded that a majority of journalists thought FNC was biased some years ago. However, it also concluded that the majority of journalists were liberal! You are not seriously claiming that, because the majority of a small, mostly liberal segment of the population thinks Fox is biased, that any view that Fox is balanced must be fringe, are you? Perhaps journalists write about Fox being seen by democrats and others as biased more often then they write about it being seen as balanced by Republicans and others. But that is very flimsy evidence for your claim, even without regard to what studies have concluded about those journalists' bias. A UCLA study says Fox's evening news show is balanced... at least one of the two the most centrist ones out there. And respected news organizations have reported that many people in Fox's immense audience agree, including even a democratic governor (think of how many Republicans and Independents likely agree since, though most centrist, Fox is said to be on the conservative side). To claim that this extremely well-sourced view is "fringe" is very odd, especially without any evidence. What is your evidence that the POV that Fox is biased is popular nationally, but the view that it is balanced is fringe nationally?Jsn9333 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be summarized in the lead? The lead is to give a basic understanding of the topic. This issue goes well beyond the basics. Just the fact that we cannot agree on citations is enough to show that this issue is more complex than the lead would allow. Bytebear (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, have you even read WP:LEAD? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the perception is so widespread and central to Fox's public identity that it is part and parcel of "a basic understanding of the topic". It is impossible to deal with the role of the media in contemporary US politics without addressing that simple fact. It is not something we can just shove in the corner in some small section called "controversies". To ignore so central an issue in the lead simply because it is complex and controversial is to fail at our duty as encyclopedia editors and violates NPOV because it does not give a full and true picture of the topic. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies". The perception that FNC reports the news with a conservative bias is a notable controversy; the claim that FNC is liberal or perfectly down the center is not. It's that simple. Fringe views or views that are held by a minority are not notable enough to be discussed in depth within the lead. - auburnpilot talk 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with AuburnPilot - completely. WP:LEAD is the governing policy, and it clearly states what should (and should not) be included. There is simply no policy support for the claims made. Beyond that, I continue to point out that the assertions of Jsn9633 are not supported by the citations. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also from WP:LEAD:

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

Given that the lead should contain 4 paragraphs, does the article also give 1/4 of its emphasis on this controversy? Is this written in a "teasing" way? My opinion is that this issue is in the lead to tease the reader. I also think it does not merit enough weight to be mentioned in the lead. Please note: I am not for removing the content, and in fact, I think the content provided by Jsn is a good summary of the issue. It does not deserve more than a paragraph in the article, let alone the lead. Bytebear (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, Bytebear. Let's not omit words from WP:LEAD in order to change its meaning. WP:LEAD states it "It should contain up to four paragraphs"; it doesn't say it must. A lead will vary in length depending on the content of the article, and the controversy related to bias is only given two sentences in the entire article (but expanded upon in the sub-article). To address the issue within the lead using twice as much content than in the body of the article is absurd. There is nothing teasing about this intro. - auburnpilot talk 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not also forget that the controversy is so great that it has it's article (or a large part of it). It's intellectually dishonest to attempt to pass off what is a core identity of FNC (wanted or not) as a minor issue not deserving more than a paragraph in the entire article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AP, I would agree with you if the lead were longer, but right now the lead has only 3 paragraphs, so this issue is given even more weight than I suggested. It is a matter of undue weight, which has been my argument all along. It is not significant enough to be considered 1/3 of all that Fox News is about. It simply isn't. It is worth discussing in the body of the article fully, but not in the lead. Bytebear (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we have megabytes of talkpage archives dedicated to this very issue is more than enough evidence to show the significance of the issue (not to mention the copius number of references available). There is massive evidence of a huge number of people who associate FNC with politically biased reporting; there is little evidence of a majority of people who believe their presentation is centerist or leftist. As such, your undue weight argument works against you. As AuburnPilot explained, WP:LEAD does not make provisions for including a controversy based on the length of the introduction, nor does WP:UNDUE. The only point left standing is "well it's really not that big of a deal", which (clearly) it is. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple things. First, talk pages are not references, and constitute Original Research and self referencing to Wikipedia, both of which are not allowed. Second, a plethora of discussion simply shows there is no consensus on this topic. The references indicate that studies show no bias for Fox News. That is a fact. It must be presented in some form or another. You seem to want to omit this from the article. To do so is a POV violation. Bytebear (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop with the strawmen arguments, Bytebear?? No one said it should be excluded from the article, just not included in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Your statement "The references indicate that studies show no bias" is absurd. Stop misrepresenting facts, and stop mischaracterizing opposing arguments. It's intellectually dishonest and shows a complete disrespect for the process. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The UCLA study does back up Bytebear. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this fact? Arzel (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The "study" is a word document, not a peer reviewed reliable source.
2. I'm not talking about the document "backing up" ByteBear, Arzel. I'm talking about his continued misrepresentation of facts and strawmen arguments. In case you missed it, he stated the argument as if I "want to omit it from the article", which I never claimed.
3. The existence of so much back-and-forth on the talk page is evidence of a massive controversy. We're not attempting incorporate the talk page stuff into the article, I'm simply pointing out that it's absolutely foolish to try and argue that the controversy is minor (which is ByteBear's basis for saying it shouldn't be included in the intro). WP:OR has no relevance.

Hope this helps you understand. If you need more clarity, let me know. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The UCLA study is a peer-reviewed source. See my my posting to you just below. The fact that you downloaded it as a word document says nothing about where its content came from. Again, see below where I provide authorship and journal information. Thanks Jsn9333 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To AuburnPilot, I have seen no evidence that the view the New York Times reports is held by many of Fox's many millions of viewers is "fringe" or is "held by a minority". What is your evidence? Given the UCLA study that found Fox closest to the balanced center of all but perhaps one of the popular evening news shows, and given that even a prominent, liberal Democratic governor thinks Fox is balanced, (source above in RfC), and given the reliable New York Times piece about the view of a lot of those who make up Fox's immense audience, I would think you would need some pretty hard evidence to support your claim that the view that "Fox is balanced" is a "fringe" view. I, for one, have not seen even one study indicating that more people think Fox is biased then think Fox is balanced, much less that so many more think Fox is biased that those who disagree are on the "fringe" . . . so what are you basing your claim on? The old Pew study (which has been replaced by a more recent version that lends your argument even less support if any, but I'll discuss the old one arguendo) concluded that a majority of journalists thought FNC was biased some years ago. However, it also concluded that the majority of journalists were liberal! You are not seriously claiming that, because the majority of a small, mostly liberal segment of the population thinks Fox is biased, that any view that Fox is balanced must be fringe, are you? Perhaps journalists write about Fox being seen by democrats and others as biased more often then they write about it being seen as balanced by Republicans and others. But that is very flimsy evidence for your claim, even without regard to what studies have concluded about those journalists' bias. A UCLA study says Fox's evening news show is balanced... at least one of the two the most centrist ones out there. And respected news organizations have reported that many people agree, including even a democratic governor (think of how many Republicans and Independents likely agree since, though most centrist, Fox is said to be on the conservative side). To claim that this extremely well-sourced view is "fringe" is very odd, especially without any evidence. What is your evidence that the POV that Fox is biased is popular nationally, but the view that it is balanced is fringe nationally? Jsn9333 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kevin Bass, I agree my version is too long and that the reference to "generally liberal media outlets" is inappropriate. However, my point is that it is equally inappropriate to cherry-pick only a small fraction of a study's conclusions to support a POV in a lead. The study is not just about how "Fox is conservative." The study is actually about how no one news org is dead on center, much of the media is liberal, Fox is somewhat conservative... but Fox is one of the closest orgs to the center. It is inappropriate to cherry pick the study and just say the study concluded Fox was conservative. That was not the point of the study. The point was to find the organizations closest to the center. To solve the "too long" problem, the "inappropriate cherry-picking" problem, and the "inappropriate reference to liberal media" problem... the studies can just be treated at length below in the entry, not cited in the lead. I'm not saying the controversy should not be mentioned in the lead. I'm suggesting the studies should either be discussed at length in the lead, or saved for lower in the entry. The lead should simply mention that some see Fox as promoting conservative positions (citing the news articles of the democratic candiates and such that think Fox is biased), and that other's see it as providing politically balanced coverage (citing the news article about prominent figures and and the many who hold that view). If anything the UCLA study could be cited after the "politically balanced" POV since it found Fox's evening news show to be the most or 2nd most centrist. Or just don't cite it at all. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you've said before that the reports do not show who is closer or farther from the center, but rather how the news channel stand in relation to each other. But then again, that's when FNC was being accused of having a conservative bias. I see how it's different when you're arguing that they are the most centrist.

I've already shown mathematically how the number in the study arzel brought up show that FNC is the farthest from the center when it comes to public perception. You haven't provided any information to the contrary. Thus, I don't understand why you continue to repeat that assertion. I'm ruled by facts and logic, not repetition.

As regards "cherry picking", I disagree: I do not think we should do any cherry picking. If one side has to cherry-pick, then it doesn't belong in the lead. As per WP:LEAD as has already been pointed out multiple times.

As per your proposed solution, it creates a problem: WP:LEAD " ...briefly describe its notable controversies". As has already been pointed out multiple times. Kevin Baas^talk 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that those editors fighting against any chage has refused to acknowledge or even discuss the fact that the UCLA study does not back up the statements made in the lead is the crux of the issue. Until they are willing to accept this fact there will be little progress made on this issue. I have been making this statement for well over a year with no avail, perhaps now the important fact can be acknowledged. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I don't really care whether or not one particular study backs up the statements made in the lead. It's plain as day that those statements are true and respresent a significant controversy. That's why they're in the lead. That's been pointed out multiple times already. Kevin Baas^talk 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG, i just read the UCLA study. It's a totally POV MS-Word .doc written by a bunch of college students. I'm sorry, but that doesn't exactly pass the reliable sources test. Kevin Baas^talk 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To Kevin, after all this time debating about what the study says and means, you just now read it? Yikes. Anyway, it was not authored by "college students." Tim Groseclose is a highly regarded UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author, and Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar, is the co-author. UCLA is an extremely respected learning and research institution and at its website, [30], it says this study was "UCLA-led" and names the authors above. The study also appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a very respected peer-reviewed journal. On what grounds, other then the fact that you say so, should I agree with you that this study is not a "reliable source"? Also, as far as being more brief, see my "version 3" below. Finally, please don't take offense to my tone as I say this, but I do remember you arguing that "the numbers" show FNC is perceived as farthest from the center. But you are not the reliable source. The sources we're discussing are the UCLA study and the news articles. The UCLA study does not conclude that Fox is perceived as farthest from the center, it simply says Fox is one of the two most centrist with regards to actual news coverage. The study should be cited for what it concludes, not for what you think it should have concluded if you had been one of the the respected professor's that authored it. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The bias of the authors is obvious from just a casual reading of the introduction. It's clear their intention wasn't to discover the truth, but to push their own POV. And the scope of the report is very small, as is their sample size. And in addition to being based on faulty reasoning, their method of analysis is very subjective.

when i said that the numbers show FNC is perceived as farthest from the center, I was referring to a pew report that was referenced by arzel. I am not the source for those numbers. Pew is. It is from the "2008 state of the media" report, which is a source that we have been discussing, and it is a very good source. And I did not say that the numbers show it is perceived as farthest from the center. I said that they showed that the political composition of their audience is furthest from the overall political composition of cable news watchers. Kevin Baas^talk 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is your opinion about the UCLA study, then okay. But again, no offense, but your opinion is not a reliable source. The UCLA study is. And as far as Pew 2008, I do recall Fox had more Republican's in its audience then it's cable competitors (38% Republican to 20% Republican). If you view that or other numbers to mean Fox had an audience furthest from the composition of other cable outlets then fine, but the Pew study is the source, not you. As far as how Pew viewed their numbers, I recall they simply state that Fox's audience was more conservative then the other cable news outlets. That could mean many things. I have seen no stated conclusions in the Pew study that contradict any of those of the UCLA study. And even if they did contradict, they still are both reliable sources. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I would emphasise is remember that this is an article on Fox News, not an article on 'the media in the US' or an article on the study or whatever. As such, the things most relevant especially in the lead are those that related to Fox News, not the media in the US. Therefore, the details from any study that included Fox News that are most relevant to this article are, you guessed it, those that relevant to Fox News. This isn't cherry picking, this is simply reflecting the article's focus. If the lead mentioned the study, then I would agree it we should definitely mention the fact that it found that Fox News is closer to centre then many of the other networks. But it doesn't so there is no need to mention this fact. If the study is discussed in the article then it's definitely necessary to mention both facts, and maybe even something on what they found on other networks. (However do remember what I said above) Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FOX bias should not be in the lead at all, that is what sections are for. To warrant the lead the bias would need to be unambiguously extreme. I also object to mention that studies show FOX is closer to centre than other networks as a reply to claims of bias as it implies "centre" is balanced. To the rest of the world, American media is notoriously far right and it is debatable if any US mainstream media is liberal at all. The only valid study would be to compare FOX to world news services. Thus a sentence in the lead cannot do justice to either view but the section detailing specific bias lets the reader work out for himself to what degree FOX is conservative. Wayne (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To both NilEinne and WLRoss: Neither of your arguments meets with requirements set forth in WP:LEAD, which specifically states that notable controversies are to be mentioned in the introduction. Passion does not trump policy. To JSN: The UCLA "study" upon which you hang your hat is pretty far from a reliable source, and by a mere preponderance of the evidence there is clearly more evidence that FNC is considered more biased (by far) than any other news outlet. Regarding your argument that because there are X many FNC viewers there must not be biased is patently false. The study you continue to tout even addresses this directly, stating that conservative viewers prefer FNC because it is conservative. Again, the only arguments I see against the current version are not based in policy, but rather on passion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both of their arguments are spot on. This goes toward undue weight. As was said, this article is not about media, or FOX News' place in the spectrum of media. You are taking 1/3 of the lead and focusing it on this one issue, and the lead paragraph is barely smaller than the content in the article of the topic. It cannot be fully expressed in the lead without becoming too weighty for the lead. It needs to be removed from the lead. Bytebear (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To Blaxthos, You say the UCLA study is not a reliable source, but you don't give any evidence. Please provide any evidence you have, otherwise, as far as I can see, that study fits perfectly within the reliable source standards of wikipedia. UCLA is an extremely respected learning and research institution and at its website, [31], it says this study was "UCLA-led". The study also appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a very respected peer-reviewed journal. Tim Groseclose is a highly regarded UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author, and Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar, is the co-author. On what grounds, other then the fact that you say so, should I agree with you that this study is not a "reliable source"? Also, I did not argue "because there are X many FNC viewers there must not be biased," so please don't put words in my mouth. If you will read just above, you will see this is what I said: A UCLA study says Fox's evening news show is balanced... at least one of the two the most centrist ones out there. And respected news organizations have reported that many among Fox's vast audience agree, including even a democratic governor (think of how many Republicans and Independents likely agree since, though most centrist, Fox is said to be on the conservative side). Given all these facts, to claim that this view is "fringe" is very odd, especially without any evidence. What is your evidence that the POV that Fox is biased is popular nationally, but the view that it is balanced is fringe nationally?Jsn9333 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this: just add to the last paragraph of the lead something to the extent of "...although there are studies that suggest otherwise." It does not have to be worded that way but would that help resolve the issue? MrMurph101 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To MrMurph, for me the point is that if the POV of some observers are mentioned the POV of the observers on the "other side" of the issue should be mentioned. The study doesn't necessarily have to be mentioned, but it should be cited along with the news articles about the many observers who see fox as a balanced source for news coverage.Jsn9333 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To Nil, the lead may not mention the study, but it does mention the POV that fox is biased towards conservative positions. So therefore it should mention the other POV. The UCLA study concludes that Fox's news presentation is one of the most "centered" out there. That is extremely relevent to the other POV. Again though, I actually agree the study doesn't have to be mentioned. But the other POV should be. Between the UCLA study and the two news articles from very well respected news organizations about how many people agree the Fox is a balanced source, that POV has plenty of due weight and should be included since its counter POV is included. I'll change my proposed wording to this (calling it version number 3):

“ Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.[3][4] Other observers say that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting. [5][6][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10]" ”

How does that sound?Jsn9333 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To all, it sounds like we have numbers building of people who do not want this information in the lead at all. If that is your position, do make that clear because it may become important as this discussion continues, however also state which version you want if the info is kept in the lead). We'll call the version I proposed at the beginning of this Rfc version number 2 and the one I proposed to Nil just above version number 3 (the current wording being version number 1). Jsn9333 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to go ahead and cast my own vote, I am against having the information in the lead at all, however, if it is to stay I am going with version number 3 (just above). My reasoning for not wanting it in the lead is that the fact that many liberals and democrats have accused Fox of bias is not a "notable controversy" so as to have it in the entry lead. Very many republicans and conservatives have accused other individual news organizations (From NPR, to CBS, to CNN) of liberal bias, but none of those entry's leads note that information. This just goes to show that wikipedia editors in general (except for some of those on this page) don't think accusations of bias towards particular media outlets by politicians and political activists are such "notable controversies" as to require treatment in the lead instead of just below in the entry. However, if the information has to be kept in the lead, I definitely see no good reason to only mention one POV on the issue. My reasoning for that is clear above, but I'm now supporting version 3 simply because it is shorter and more on point. Jsn9333 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Fox News at least has a reputation of being conservative whether in reality it's true or not. The alleged bias is worth mentioning with the lead so I don't see why it shouldn't be there. However, for balance, I don't see why briefly mentioning some studies suggesting otherwise shouldn't be in there either. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Although I loath Fox News, and do believe they have a horribly conservative bias, I can't in good faith support a policy of only telling one side of the story. But, it depends on how many sources can be found arguing that FNC has no bias. If what can be found is insignificant compared to sources on the other side of the argument, then it would be undue weight to mention them in the lead. However, it is clearly established that there are significant numbers of sources that say FNC has a bias, and they should be included in the lead regardless of what coverage is given to the other side of the argument. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, NobleSith. Your position is exactly what wikipedia should be about, presenting information for what it is, regardless of personal opinion. I don't share a loathing for Fox News, but I do respect your balanced approach to this dispute. (Just FYI, I don't loath any media outlet, even "liberal" ones... I tend to appreciate diverse opinions). Anyway, the sources that evidence that the POV "Fox is balanced" is not a fringe POV or one of undue weight are listed above (see especially my comment to auburnpilot not too far above this). If you could comment on whether or not you think, in light of that information, the other side's POV should be included in the lead that would be very helpful in resolving this dispute. Thanks!Jsn9333 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, after looking through the various sources for both "version 1" and "Version 3", I have to say version 3 is more in compliance with Wikipedia policy, including NPOV and for that matter, broadness in coverage. However, I do have some problems with version 3. The NYT piece is more of an editorial than an actual study. That doesn't really mean much, except that it presents both sides of the argument and pretty much leaves it up to the reader to take from it what they will. So, it doesn't really support the idea that FNC is centrist. Also, the wording on version 3 needs fixed, it just comes across as awkward. Here's what I'd recommend:

Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.[3][4] Other observers say that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting.[6] Studies have found Fox does have more conservative coverage then other media outlets, but also put forth that those other outlets were liberally biased, and declared Fox's evening news coverage was one of the two most centrist of all studied.[7][8][9] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10]

And here are the descriptions of those sources:

cite 3- the news article about democrats who think Fox is biased to the right, some of whom will not debate on Fox cite 4- the AP article about the same thing as cite 3 cite 6 - News article about Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a strong supporter and prominent surrogate of the Hillary Clinton campaign, appearing on Fox News and praising the network for its "objective" and "balanced" coverage. cite 7- the latest Pew Research "state of the media" study, which concludes that Fox News reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal counterparts. More conservative then a liberal source can mean many things... so read on. Specifically, the study states, "There are clearly differences in Fox's news agenda as opposed to its rivals, which to a significant degree appear to reflect the interests of Fox's more conservative audience demographics." However, if you keep reading about those "demographics", the study concluded that Fox's rivals' audiences were around 20% Republican and Fox's audience was 38% Republican. So that still is not saying the network was "biased" conservatively... it just means that Fox reported more on conservative positions then its more liberal competitors, relative to its Republican viewership (which still was not even close to 50% of its viewership) cite 8- a UCLA study (which appeared in peer reviewed journal and written by two respected professor/scholars) that concludes that, while Fox's evening presentation of the News is conservative, no evening news is dead on center, and Fox's is either the closest to the "center" or the second closest. Some of Fox's competitors are twice as liberal as Fox is conservative. more info cite 9- the study that concludes Fox's election coverage is the most centrist of many studied cite 10 - the news article where fox denies bias in its coverage

Or something close to that, perhaps with slightly less weight given to the "centrist" sources. Merge sentences or something like that. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that paragraph is pretty good (although could use some tweaking for readability). But my issue is, you have basically said all that should be said about this topic. But putting it in the lead leaves nothing more for the article to cover. That being the case, I seen it as undue weight to put this information in the lead, when there is no further information in the body of the article. In other words, you are not summarizing a larger issue, but presenting the issue in its fullness in the lead, which is inappropriate to the rules of WP:LEAD. Bytebear (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still opposed to having this info in the lead, but if it must be there, I suggest something simple and leave the details to the body. How about "Fox News Channel has a reputation for being conservative. Whether this label is warranted is continually under dispute." Bytebear (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is actually a pretty good idea. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why be so intentionally vague about what their POV is? To say the accusation that Fox is conservatively biased is "under dispute" could mean anything from 'others believe Fox News coverage is balanced' to 'others believe Fox News coverage is liberal'. Yet the POV described in the sources is that they see Fox as balanced/centered in its coverage. The sources report specifically on Fox News being seen as balanced or centrist by independent statistical observers, average news watchers, and politicians (even liberal democrats). I don't understand why we should beat around the bush instead of just being clear about the other what exactly the other POV is. Do you? Jsn9333 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's expressly obvious from the fact the word "some" is used that "not all" share this perspective. I don't think we need to emphasize the obvious. Instead, we could give the reader new information by stating a specific example. I believe that's what the "FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting." attempts to do. I'm open to suggestions for a replacement to that sentence. But it should be of suffcient generality, relevance, and significance to justify being in the lead. Kevin Baas^talk 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin has a point about not over-doing the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of what is to come in the article. Perhaps something along the lines of

"Some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions,[3][4] while others profess that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting. [5][6][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10]"

I mean, the section listing criticisms of FNC is still fairly large compared to that anyway, so my recommendation could be considered a small summary. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can support this version, and at this point it looks like the the majority of contributing editors so far agree that this is better then the current version in that both POV's of Fox observers are presented. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the best alternative so far. Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a good concise summary - let's do it! Dean B (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to think about it, the same can be said about any news station (using "conservative" or "liberal" where appropriate), but those viewpoint aren't all that significant, esp. when compared to Fox. I think that after reading the intro, the reader should understand that w/FNC the criticisms/controversy is beyond the ordinary. Kevin Baas^talk 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that comes back to the fundamental question of what we're trying to cover here: its perceived bias, or its actual bias. Personally, I think it should be the latter, but if it's the former, then we should make it very clear that the overwhelming perception is that FNC is conservative. TheNobleSith (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, the fact that the controversy is highlighted in the lead at all tells the reader that it is "beyond the ordinary", if that is what you are trying to tell the reader. It seems the consensus are willing to allow the controversy to be kept in the lead as long as both POV's are equally treated. I personally don't agree that the criticism of Fox is beyond the ordinary, given that for years and years Republicans and conservatives have railed against NPR, CBS, CNN and other networks for being liberal (and independent studies have shown they were). The lack of coverage in the media about those railings could easily be seen as a result of the fact that the media was, in fact, liberally biased (as the UCLA concluded). One of the reasons Fox is so controversial is that it bucks the trend in media, and there are very many editorials in the liberal media that don't appreciate the diversity Fox brings into the marketplace of ideas. As I have pointed out, I have seen no poll or study concluding that that more people think Fox is biased then think Fox is balanced, much less that so many more think Fox is biased that those who disagree are on the "fringe". This is just my opinion, but I strongly suspect that such a poll would split along party lines, and even then, many conservative and independent people who think Fox is conservative would probably be in agreement with the UCLA study (that Fox is nonetheless closer to the center then the perceived liberal media outlets). I personally am unaffiliated with either political party and get my news from a variety of outlets, so I don't have a dog in this fight other then that I just think the current version is extremely one-sided. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to speak for other editors, or to singlehandedly decide what consensus is. The fact of the matter is that you're basing your entire assumption on one study (along with FNC Press Releases), and that study only studies one' show, and even then only one hour of that show. We're not talking about a point of view, we're talking about a controversy about perceived bias, of which there is little evidence that FNC is not biased (see the second sentence in this paragraph). The amount of controversy surrounding FNC's perceived conservative bias is great, which is why it is in the lead. The amount of controversy surrounding FNC's perceived centrist or leftist bias is a fringe issue, which should not be covered in the lead (per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE). If you could please point us to what policies you believe support your position, that would probably be helpful. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Blaxthos, I am not trying to speak for anyone, my friend. Of the 12 editors who have commented in this RfC so far, I count 3 who have defended the current version or at least have not said they want it changed (you, Gamaliel, and auburnpilot). I count 7 who support changing it to include both side's POV (myself, Arzel, Bytebear, MrMurph, Kevin Bass, Dean B, TheNobleSith... some of those want it moved out of the lead entirely, but in the alternative want it changed to the balanced version). The other two have not been clear on whether or not they want it changed (NilEinne and Wayne, though one might assume Wayne wants it changed since he wants it moved out of the lead for better treatment below). It seems you are outnumbered by a very large margin. We are not basing our "assumption" on one study and "FNC press releases". See the sources I and the NobleSith and MrMurph have cited. They are all either articles by respected news organizations or are peer-reviewed studies from widely-respected organizations concering the view that Fox News' news programing is balanced. And the controversy is about both perceived and actual bias, not one or the other. The current version does not specify one or the other in any clear fashion.

The fact is, the lead version that the large majority of editors (seven to three) now approves seems to be the one put forward by theNobleSith, "Some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions,[3][4] while others profess that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting. [5][6][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10]" I and the other editors have already made clear what policies we believe support adding the wording I italicized in the quote above. That is what this entire RfC has concerned! If you want a summary, basically the other POV, opposite the view of those who say Fox supports conservative positions, has due weight, is not finge, and should be included briefly in any lead entry about observations of bias in regards to Fox News. An encyclopedia should not favor one POV over the other, especially in a lead to an entry. The version you seem to support does just that, and you have provided no good evidence that the view "Fox News' news programing is biased conservatively" is poplular nationally while the view "Fox News' news programing is balanced" is fringe nationally.

Given that the consensus is clearly no longer in favor of the version you are defending, I ask that you will no longer accuse me of disruptive edits that go against consensus nor block the page from edits when I or other editors attempt to conform the lead to the version the large majority of editors support. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that Fox News is not generally felt to be biased in favor of conservative positions, I see nothing wrong with changing the wording of the lead to briefly note that there are others out there who believe the channel is more ¨balanced¨in its reporting than its competitors. Of the suggested changes, the one from Bytebear seems to be the most reality-based: "Fox News Channel has a reputation for being conservative. Whether this label is warranted is continually under dispute." As MrMurph101 above notes, Fox News does have a reputation for being conservative; that is simply undeniable (I mean the perception of bias is undeniable, not the actual bias). To claim otherwise, as some of the other proposed alternatives seem to do, would be giving undue weight to a minority position.-Hal Raglan (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raglan, Why be so intentionally vague about what their POV is? To say the accusation that Fox is conservatively biased is "under dispute" could mean anything from 'others believe Fox News coverage is balanced' to 'others believe Fox News coverage is liberal'. I see no reason to be so vague. People from all over the world will be reading this encyclopedia, and we can't assume the person reading this article will have the same general knowledge of Fox that you have. Besides, the sources indicate clearly what the other POV is, why obscure it? And again, I have seen no evidence that the POV does not have due weight. The reliable sources that the editors in support of the proposed version have cited explicitly report on Fox News being seen as balanced or centrist by independent statistical observers, average news watchers, and politicians (even liberal democrats). If the critic's POV is stated clearly, why not be clear about the other POV? Jsn9333 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

JSN: We are not friends -- I do not have much respect for editors who continually cause disruption and then claim ignorance of the rules as justification. Read them first, learn our rules, mores, values, norms, and expectations before acting. Regarding "I and the other editors have already made clear what policies we believe support...": I must be dense, for I see no policies you've linked at all. Please concisely re-explain upon what policy basis you believe you're correct, especially as it pertains to WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD (as they are the governing policies). Also, since you aren't really fond of actually reading the rules and how things work, please keep in mind that this is not a vote. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blaxthos. I normally try to stay civil, but may I direct your attention to WP:DICK? Once your done reading that, try to realize that if there's one thing that can be clearly established at this point, it's that there is no consensus on this matter. There may have been once, there is none now.TheNobleSith (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what productive value you attribute to your comments, but I don't have endless amounts of patience for the antics we've all seen recently. Perhaps you misunderstand my position: I have never claimed that any sort of consensus exists now exists, however I believe that until we have a consensus on a new version of the introduction, we should remain with the status quo that was earned by a wide ranging effort that is founded in explicit policies until we have a clear consensus for a new version. I don't think most people have actually read the references, and so I remind everyone that the summary of sources JSN has presented as fact at the top of this entire discussion is presented from a very subjective viewpoint and that the claims and conclusions aren't supported by the sources. A nebulous idea based on the twisted logic that I can't prove that there is a consensus to keep the current version only leads to edit wars and trolling. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, there is no need to shout my name (2 or 3 posts above). I have been trying to assume you are acting in good faith and am trying to be as civil as possible. If civility is not your thing, then just know I meant no disrespect by referring to you as "my friend". I'm just trying to foster a little cooperation as we work through this RfC. I suggest you do the same. Wikipedia rules are explicit about assuming good faith, being civil, and being "gentle to the newbie" (and I clearly am one). So perhaps you are the one ignoring the rules, and being as experienced as you are at this, perhaps you have less excuse then I for that ignorance. Your accusatory tone toward me does not help foster civility. See also TheNobleSith's comment to you just above. . . . Anyway, one need not link to policies to refer to them, especially if the links are already throughout the page in abundance. I and the other editors who disagree with the version you support have made it clear what policies our majority reasoning rests on, and this entire RfC has stated our reasoning many times over. But if you want to re-hash it again for whatever reason, I'll assume good faith and try to work though this with you again. As the links throughout this discussion (and repeated in your comment above to me) note, the lead should summarize the contents of the article concisely. Also, all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The reliable sources that we editors currently in the majority have cited include a peer-reviewed, published, UCLA study, and news articles from two widely respected and highly regarded news outlets, all which explicitly report about Fox News being seen as balanced or centrist by independent statistical observers, a large number of average news watchers, and politicians (even liberal democrats). Therefore the version that you have been insisting on keeping in the lead is not neutral. It presents only one point of view about Fox's bias (that observers see Fox as conservatively biased) even though there exists another point of view that has due weight. Fox's opinion of itself, as stated in the version you have defended in the past, cannot balance out the POV of independent observers who think Fox is biased conservatively. The debate is about how independent observers view Fox, not about how Fox views itself. The POV established by the reliable sources I and the other editors have presented to you over and over again needs to be included in the lead. You have repeatedly attacked the sources, saying the UCLA study is not reliable, and referring to other sources as "FNC Press releases". Your attacks are just not in line with the facts. I have tried to discuss the specifics of the why the UCLA study is reliable, but you haven't responded to the information I presented to you about authorship and the peer-reviewed journal it was published in. See above and respond please. This RfC is meant for discussion, and if you fail to respond to questions about your reasoning this RfC will never work as it is supposed to work. So, again, please respond to the information I have provided above regarding your claims that the UCLA-led study is not a reliable source. . . . Also, I never said this is a vote. Please keep in mind that you should not put words into other editor's mouths. I said that the large majority of editors have made it clear they want the lead changed, and in fact have thrown support behind the version that presents both POV's instead of just the POV you have been keeping in the lead. My point in referring to the majority is this: you have been blocking edits to this page and accusing people of disruptive edits when they added this version to the lead. You have claimed that such edits went against "consensus." In this very talk page you say above, this "version was the product of multiple RFC's and a fairly stable consensus." The point of mentioning that a strong majority opposes the version of the lead you have been so vigorously protecting is that it shows the edits of the lead are not violative of "consensus". In fact, if anyone is closer to violating consensus it is you. A strong majority of editors now support a version of the lead that presents both sides of the debate about Fox, as good encyclopedia editors should in seeking a lead that has a NPOV. . . . Finally, it is sad that you note above to TheNobleSith that you don't think most of us have read the citations. Believe it or not it is possible for an informed editor to disagree with you. We have read the sources, and we believe they are reliable and clearly establish a POV with due weight that contradicts the POV you seem to want kept by itself in the lead. It is time to lay off and chill out with the edit warring. You are in the minority, consensus is not on your side as you have claimed it is, so just let this article develop and mature if you don't mind. And it would help if you would, again, respond to my questions above concerning your allegations that UCLA-led, peer-reviewed, published studies are not reliable sources. Jsn9333 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

however I believe that until we have a consensus on a new version of the introduction, we should remain with the status quo that was earned by a wide ranging effort that is founded in explicit policies until we have a clear consensus for a new version. I agree. If that is your opinion, then I'm sorry for assuming otherwise. What I meant by my reference to WP:DICK was that you seemed to be heading off in to some less than civil waters. But to answer your question, yes, I agree we should leave it as is until a new consensus is established. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sith. I'd also like to point out to you, Jsn, that policies are not nebulous, and it's generally expected that you quote the actual words of the policy you're referencing to show your point. Let's get to your references... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Debunking jsn's claims

UCLA Study

You're hanging your hat on this "UCLA study". Let's dig into that piece. First of all, it is from 2005. It's a study by one adjunct professor, one professor, and a few graduate students who computed a score based on how many times the network cited the same think tanks as members of congress. That methodology is so unreliable and subjective that I can't begin to explain all of the problems in it. There's no random sample, no measure of quantifiable variables, and think about how many republicans were in office in 2001 to 2005. The study used the composition of congress to determine what is "center", and the congress was a large majority of republicans, then by definition the network that is most biased towards whomever controls congress (republicans) will appear the most centrist. The study was never republished and has been completely ignored by the academic community, and there are several criticisms of the piece; The one that most completely debunks the study is found here. I don't consider an article that was printed one time in one MIT journal three years ago, and mentioned in one UCLA press release, as a reliable source, especially if you're trying to use it to prove that this has due weight with the other references that are out there.

NYT article

While the author is a respected journalist, this is a perspective piece written once in 2002. It is not, as you insinuate, some sort of endorsement by NYT and it certainly doesn't wrap things up. It's outdated and completely based upon viewership levels in 2002. It, like the other, does not meet with the burdens set forth by WP:UNDUE.

Pew Study

This is a primary source which you are attempting to interpret, a clear violation of WP:OR. What's most ironic is that the study actually validates the premise that FNC is conservatively biased (which is explicitly stated in the study).

Conclusion

The studies you reference have serious problems, and certainly don't qualify for inclusion in the lead. Furthermore, they certainly don't establish due weight with regards to the preponderance of the evidence of FNC's subjectivity. WP:NPOV does not make provisions to provide equal timeshare hfor minority and fringe viewpoints. WP:LEAD specifically says that only notable controversies need be mentioned. I would say that the qualifier some in the original consensus version gives ample indication that it is not a unanimously held view.

Here's what the policy says (emphasis in original):

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to te prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.

— WP:NPOV

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see now that you have come to realize that the UCLA study does not back up your interpretation that FNC is biased (as I have been saying for the past year) you now claim that it is invalid. Most interesting, since when did you become the arbiter of what is and what is not a RS when they have been published? And then you go on and apply your own OR to the PEW 2008 study to conclude that FNC is biased? Seriously Blaxthos your logic here fails me. Additionally, when you make comments like this insane comment and this insulting one, then I don't see why your view should beed taken seriously in good faith. Arzel (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha, Arzel I almost forgot you were still around. As classy as you think the move may be, trying to drag details of some other communique into this is neither productive nor germane. It does give me a fair number of chuckles to know that you have to resort to pointing to either casual conversation or content disputes elsewhere (ad hominem, anyone?). Regarding "your logic here fails me", allow me to quote the pew study, so we're clear: "There are clearly differences in Fox's news agenda as opposed to its rivals, which to a significant degree appear to reflect the interests of Fox's more conservative audience demographics." -- oh snap!! Explicit statement! Where's this charge of original research now? The Pew study explicitly supports one side of this argument, but not the other.

I've taken the time to debunk the weighty part of Jsn's RFC, and I've clearly linked to policies that support my position. Now that I've actually gone into a detailed explained the fallacy of the logic you've supported the best you seem to be able to come up with is whining about communications auxiliary to this one, and arguing that your interpretation of my character should encourage everyone to disregard my opinion. To use your own words, your logic here fails me. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to illustrate your pattern. How about you debate why you felt that the UCLA study was valid for over a year when you used it to promote your point of view, and now that you have realized it is the exact opposite you reject it. Or would you rather continue down the normal path of attack and ignore. Arzel (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You just wanna keep digging, eh? Please provide support to your claim that I have "felt that the UCLA study was valid for over a year when you used it to promote your point of view", including diffs. If you take issue with discussions outside the purview of this talk page you should avoid trying to sling mud here and instead address them in the appropriate places, but need I remind you of what happened last time (every time) you've made those sorts of accusations against me?  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Debunking Blaxthos' Descriptions of References

UCLA Study

You have repeated that "the study was never republished and has been completely ignored by the academic community." I have already provided the proof that the study was in fact published in a peer-reviewed, respected, academic journal and authored by respected professors at respected institutions. You personally may not like the journal, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a published, peer-reviewed piece. You cite a Ph.D candidate blogger as proof that the study was "not taken seriously". That is ridiculous. Was your bloggers blog published in a peer-reviewed journal? No. You attack the study's methodology personally as well. Were your attacks of the study published in a peer-reviewed journal? No. If your point is that a some people don't like how a study was done... then welcome to the real world. Every study that has ever been done has been attacked at some point. But where reliable attacks occur is in other peer-reviewed journals. You and your blogger's opinion are not reliable sources for attacking this peer-reviewed, published study. The UCLA study is a reliable source, even though you have personal disdain against its conclusions. This encyclopedia is about reliable sources, not about Blaxthos' personal disdain.

NYT article

This is an article meets the burdens of WP:UNDUE as much as the articles you cite in the current version (about democratic candidates who think Fox is biased conservatively). This article is by a respected journalist, in a respected newspaper, reporting that a respected figure (the president of the Council on Foreign Relations) thinks Fox has the most objective, balanced news coverage. The piece also states that many of Fox's viewers agree with that assessment. This is a relevant article from a respected source. It may be a little old, but there is no evidence that it is "out of date"... especially when coupled with the next article (which you chose to ignore in your alleged "debunking" of the version the majority of editors have thrown their support behind).

Huffington Post article

Again, like the two articles cited in the current version of the lead (about democratic candidates who think Fox is biased conservatively) this article is about yet another respected and well known figure's opinion of Fox. This meets the burdens of WP:UNDUE as much as the cites in your current version. This piece is about the prominent Penn. govenor, one of Hillary Clinton's staunchest supporters, who has been outspoken of his criticisms of bias in the media at large. On March 31st, 2008 he congratulated Fox News on doing "a very balanced job of reporting the news," and for being the most objective outlet. This shows that the POV reported on in the NYT piece is still alive and kicking and very relevant. There is no rule in wikipedia that news articles must be ignorned after a few years.

Pew Study

I did not attempt to interpret this study. I directly quoted it! You have not quoted a single line of it, but instead have interpreted it saying, "the study validates... that FNC is conservatively biased." Again, I'll quote the study for you. The study states, "There are clearly differences in Fox's news agenda as opposed to its rivals, which to a significant degree appear to reflect the interests of Fox's more conservative audience demographics." However, continuing about those demographics, the study concluded that Fox's rivals' audiences were around 20% Republican and Fox's audience was 38% Republican. So to interpret the study as saying Fox is "biased" conservatively, as you have, is an error. The study has only said Fox reported more on conservative positions then other networks. That can mean mean things, especially in light of the fact that those networks have an extremely small Republican viewership and have been described as liberal by other independent studies. I have simply quoted the study for what it says. This study just does not conclude that Fox is biased conservatively. It simply doesn't. It says Fox covers more conservative positions then other networks. Without further description, that can even mean Fox is balanced! I'm not saying that is what is concluded, but the point is the study just does not support your interpretation of it.

Conclusion

The reliable sources that the editors in support of the proposed version have cited explicitly report on Fox News being seen as balanced or centrist by independent statistical observers, average news watchers, and prominent figures and politicians (one even being a liberal democrat). These are the same sort of references that support the current POV-biased version of the lead you support. In light of this fact, you need some pretty hard evidence to support your claim that the view that "Fox is balanced" is a "fringe" view. I, for one, have not seen even one study indicating that more people think Fox is biased then think Fox is balanced, much less that so many more think Fox is biased that those who disagree are on the "fringe" . . . so what are you basing your claim on? As far as I can tell you are basing it your own unreliable disagreements with a peer-reviewed and published study and your personal preference to news articles that support your conclusion as opposed to news articles that don't. That doesn't cut it. If you are going to claim that the POV that Fox is balanced is a fringe POV, you have to put forth some evidence and not just attack the reliable sources we have put forth as if your opinion is a reliable source. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to jsn's rebuttle

I moved the following edits of Blaxthos out of my original post, which he broke up with the edits. Blaxthos, please see discussion guidelines at the top of this page, specifically "Do not break into the middle of another editors' posts to reply to points singularly (see #4 below) -- doing so makes it very difficult to decipher who said what, and in what order." I have not broken that guideline in regards to your posts, and I would appreciate it if you would pay me the same respect. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed them so that they were actually more readable than before, rather than obfuscated, by giving them the same treatment you gave your responses, and putting them back in order. Kevin Baas^talk 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I really prefer the threaded point-for-point format. It makes debates much easier to follow. Kevin Baas^talk 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

UCLA study

Sorry, but you did not address the fact that the "center" of the study is defined by the composition of congress, which was decidedly republican/conservative at the time. I am not attempting to incorporate the blog into the article (where WP:OR would govern), but rather pointing out the obvious fallacies in logic in the study. Regardless of that, the fact is still that no additional follow up was done (it was ignored by everyone), and it was published in an obscure journal once. The methodology is completely flawed (which you conveniently ignore) and it falls under WP:FRINGE. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NYT article

Again, this is one opinion piece published long ago. See WP:UNDUE quoted above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post article

Generally speaking, HuffingtonPost has been criticised as not passing WP:RS (usually by people arguing on the PRO-FNC side). Ironically, HP is an organization often criticized by the right as being liberal... it seems to me you're missing the point of the piece. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Still JSN seems to have missed the point, so allow me to clarify: This is an article criticizing Ed Rendell for going on FNC and telling them they're Fair & Balanced. It does not lend any credibility to his opinion, and actually derides him for it. This piece does not support the view, but rather opposes it. JSN is attempting to sell this as a reliable source that says FNC is balanced, which it clearly does not. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pew Study

You must not have paid much attention to the words I actually wrote. Please re-read them, especially the part where I quoted the study. Also notice the absence of things like "if you read down further" and "if you think of it this way", which require synthesis of thought (which you included in your original RFC post to understand your interpretation of the study). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

response to Blaxthos' Rebuttal

News Articles - The HP is an oft cited reliable news source in wikipedia. I am not missing the point of the piece, I am quoting it directly. The point is, HP is a good source for accurate quotes.

UCLA study - As far as the UCLA study, again, your opinion about its logical fallacies is fine for you to discuss... however, your opinion about the statistical analytic methods used is not a reliable source. Neither is the opinion of that blogger you cite, even though he has a Masters degree. My opinion about the statistical analytic methods used is not a reliable source either, so it is irrelevant. I don't pretend whatever I say is the equivalent of journal published, peer-reviewed material. The UCLA standard fits will within Wikipedias definitions of a reliable source (respected institution, respected authors, publication in a peer reviewed journal, etc.)

UCLA study - And again, the Pew study does not report the Fox is biased. It simply reports that Fox has more conservative coverage then some other networks. That can mean many things, and my point in saying "if you read further" is that the study then brings some clarification to those remarks. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

TheNobleSith, please see the WP policy page on Consensus, which notes that "consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki." It is not disruptive to edit the current lead since there is no longer consensus support for it, and in fact there is only minority support for it. The way wikipedia policy dictates that consensus be formed involves edits. Editing the current lead in favor of the majority version is not only allowed, but it is in fact the prescribed way consensus should be built. Blaxthos has no basis in wikipedia policy to edit war against the majority version nor to block editing of the page when editors attempt to build consensus on the new lead version. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at both editor's statements about the sources JSN is proposing be added, I'm retracting my support for a different version than what Blaxthos has proposed. I now agree that there are no worthwhile sources that argue against the idea of FNC having a conservative bias. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

TheNobleSith, please note that the UCLA study has been used in the lead for over a year as evidence that FNC is biased. Now that editors have finally realized that it doesn't back up that statement, and in fact shows no evidence that FNC is biased within the large scheme of MSM Blaxthos now wishes to dismiss it because of his own personal opinion of the study. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, 6 editors in the RfC have said they want the lead changed, and you and 3 others have said you do not. I'm not saying this is a democracy, but the majority of editors want change and you cannot claim edits of the lead are prohibited due to consensus. WP's consensus policy clearly says, "consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki." My editing in the new version of the lead is not in violation of wikipedia polices. It is part of consensus building. So please don't tell me to, "leave the article alone until a new consensus can be reached." You have no business creating "no edit" policies and rules on the fly. Edits are part of consensus building. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how many of those commented after I presented the full evidence against your statements and conclusions, JSN? How many of your "supporters" have now retracted their positions?  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting you numbers from, Jsn. And besides your numbers not seeming right to me (or i imagine other editors on this page), your logic is flawed: wanting change is not the same as agreeing on what something should be changes to. And again you made another strawman argument: nobody is claiming that "edits of the lead are prohibited due to consensus". And again you misunderstand wikipedia policies. (for instance, your apparent interpretation of the phrase "is commonly" as meaning "should be")

And finally, I have to agree w/Blaxthos' arguments. As he clearly explained, your "counter-arguments" just aren't valid. Kevin Baas^talk 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, JSN still has not addressed the glaring problems I've already pointed out, and I don't feel it's necessary to continue to point them out ad infinitum. Where my arguments are based in logic and policy, I fail to see either in his responses. I'm glad to see that other editors also realize that JSN's idea that somehow we should edit war until a consensus is clear (or, more likey, until everyone else gives up on this article in frustration) is based neither in logic nor in policy either. In the past two weeks I've seen this guy break more rules and act more hostile than anyone else in such a short period of time -- being blocked for violating WP:SOCK, gross incivility, complete disregard for WP:RFC and objective presentation, making false accusations based on bad faith (which he later has had to retract), edit warring, making complete strawman arguments, counting "votes", possible canvassing, misrepresenting policies, and admittedly violating WP:POINT. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can just as easily say that you continue to point out the same counter-arguments ad infinitum. And I can just as easily accuse you of having no base in logic or policy. The fact is, the majority of editors in the RfC have stated direct disapproval of the current version of the lead for the very reasons I have stated in the RfC. Editing and discussing the lead is clearly allowed, for there is no consensus on it. As far as WP:SOCK, the majority of the admins stated they believed I talked to editors about FNC and got them involved outside of FNC, meatpuppetry, a mistake a newcomer can easily make. I can accuse you of being uncivil as easily as you can accuse me of it, and in fact as easily as I could accuse you of any of the accusations you throw at me (except for meatpupptry, which was a mistake I have admitted as a very new editor, and one I have not repeated). You have broken the guidlines of the discussion listed at the top of the page by editing into and throughout my posts, and other users here have reprimanded you for your civility towards me. So stop accusing me, and lets just keep this discussion on the merits instead of bringing up old animosity or making accusations. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My position is based on a previously stable consensus. I have never been blocked or warned nor had any valid administrative proceedings against me. The only people that I've ever seen who question my reputation or attempt to sling mud against me are POV warriors who's tactics and behavior, including false ANI reports and bogus warnings, have always backfired and gotten them rebuked, warned, or blocked. I am not here to win a popularity contest, and I don't roll over so easily when rogue editors attempt to run roughshod over the rules. The fact of the matter is that you've now broken every major rule we've got, and all you've done is hurt your own position by continuing to state the same fallacies as fact. Claim ignorance of the rules all you want, but your continued insistance that you've done nothing wrong makes it pretty clear that you're more interested in having your POV included than you are interested in respecting any content OR conduct policies. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your position may be based on a previously stable consensus in your mind, but as far as I can see it has been question repeatedly for a very long time, and the latest RfC shows there a majority of editors want it changed. You can call me a mud slinger all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Editors have shown that they feel the lead has WP:NPOV problems. Oh, and I am not saying I haven't done anything wrong. I've said the meatpuppetry incident was a beginners mistake, and that I didn't know it was a violation at the time. Obviously I am admitting it was a violation, since I have ceased and desisted. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the discussions above (and below), I think those arguing for rejecting discussion of the UCLA paper (on WP:OR or WP:SYN grounds) are confusing content policies with conduct policies. WP:OR and WP:NPOV are content policies, which govern what we can say and include in articles on Wikipedia. We can't synthesize thought or publish new information. It does not govern discussion on talk pages, and it certainly doesn't prohibit a community discussion and analysis of the references we provide. The community is expected to read the references and analyze the content to ensure it is suitable and appropriate for the project. There is no policy that states that anything published in a peer reviewed journal (especially an obscure one) or in a newspaper (no matter how large) is automagically reliable or must be included. Once we grant that we should actually perform due diligence (as opposed to automatic inclusion) then the UCLA paper has flaws that are apparent. Pair that with the extraordinary claims made by the paper and the weight given to the lead and it just doesn't hold up. Likewise, the NYT article is an ancient opinion piece based upon the micro issue of economic numbers of FNC in 2002, and certainly is not some holy grail that proclaims anything about FNC's perceived bias eight years later. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this doesn't help. The fact is, many editors disagree with your editorial judgment, and after doing "due diligence" have concluded that the UCLA study is in fact a reliable source. It meets the standars set forth in WP:RS, so that doesn't your case one bit. And as far as the news articles, you have already made these claims. I have responded to them above. Why keep re-inventing the wheel? One of the articles is very recent, the other is older but still quite relevant, and they both support essentially the same POV. There is no rule that after X number of years all news articles become unreliable or irrelevant. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What due diligence? The only respondants since I've posted the rebuttal have retracted their support for you! No one has expressed disagreement with the concerns I have brought up... No one (other than me) has addressed the methodology errors in the UCLA paper; namely how the paper defines "center". Need I lay it out for you again, or can you address that concern? You also fail to explain how an opinion piece about the economics of Fox News and its viewership in 2002 is "still quite relevant" to a discussion about the perceived bias of the network in 2008. Please, explain, because if those are the two best pieces of evidence you can offer then I think you have a lot of ground to cover. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

section title editing

I've edited the title of this section as being unnecessarily uncivil and bordering on a personal attack. There is no need to single out any one editor's allegations, especially when they are supported by other editors and are part of a long reaching discussion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You say it is civil for Blaxthos to title a section "Debunking jsn's References" but it is uncivil to title my response Debunking Blaxthos' Allegations" because I use his name. Hello?! He used my name too. But you left his title alone. You say Blaxthos' allegations have been repeated by others, and therefore I can't call him out by name... but the references I have cited have been cited in versions of the lead put forth by other's as well, yet you allow him to call me out by name. I am renaming the section I responded to include Blaxthos name, since he has named a section with my name. If you feel you must take out personal references to other editors in a conversation between those editors, please do it to both editors whose POV you agree with and editors with whom you disagree. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't see Blaxthos section title. If I had I would have edited it as well. Enough with the strawman arguments, I never took a side and said one title was civil and the other wasn't. You left a message on my talk page, asking for my "vote" on the RfC, but I decided to skim the discussion to see if any new points have been raised, and noticed the last section title, but not the one before. However, based on your response I get a good idea that you don't understand an honest mistake and will not accord me good faith. If you notice I didn't chide you or anyone individually just stated a general principle. So for you to bring up POV and other garbage is really out of line. If you are already this HOT, maybe you should a take a break from the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hot at all, and I believe your explanation. However, the mistake was of the nature that it gave the appearance that you favored one editor over the other, and those editors have starkly contrasting points of view. So it was what it was. I think anyone in my shoes would have spoken up. That being said, I believe you now that you have said you made an honest mistake. No worries. And no hard feelings on my end. Given your explanation it is obvious now that you aren't playing favorites and discriminating against editors based on POV. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you speaking up, and pointing out Blaxthos did the same thing. I do have a problem with accusing me of favoritism when you simply could have asked me what the deal was with the the apparent selective enforcement. It's called assuming good faith. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, I am assuming your good faith and I recognize your honest mistake. I am more then happy to assume good faith as WP policy asks me to. However, policy does not ask that I assume every editor's edit is a mistake. What I mean is that there was no reason for me to assume you had made a mistake. Rather, the going assumption is that editors intend to make the edits they make. All evidence pointed to selective enforcement between the two major proponents of this debate... something that I think a reasonable person would say seems like nothing other then favoritism. All I can say is that I apologize for, and completely abandon, the offensive accusation of favoritism. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, come to think of it, I can also say you were "out of line" did "not assume good faith" because you did not ask me about my title or investigate it fully before accusing me of being uncivil. The fact is, what you did showed favoritism publicly, resulted in you accusing me publicly of being uncivil, and I called you on it publicly. End of story. You pleaded mistake, and in good faith I believed you. It's over. Neither of is is out of line as far as I can see. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If I was incorrect in naming the section after JSN, I retract and will change it (though I note the strong difference between referring to his "claims" versus my "untruths"). HOWEVER, the reason I did so is because JSN has repeatedly referred to the consensus version as "Blaxthos' version" and has constantly pursued it as if I am personally involved (after being asked not to several times). I think that his responses to every other editor not supporting his position make it clear that every discussion with him becomes personal, which is very dangerous for all of us (and Wikipedia). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have referred to me personally as well, which you have admitted, and have referred to references included in proposals from multiple editors as "jsn's references". So don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. There is no consensus on the current lead version. The RfC established that, and wp:consensus prescribes that editing and discussing are the methods used to build consensus. There certainly is no policy that says because a lead once allegedly had consensus (or even once did have consensus) that it is "edit proof" unless Blaxthos, Gamaliel, or TheNobleSith approve. Ah... and now I'm "dangerous" to "all of us". That is actually funny. Your responses to the editors who disagree with you make it clear that you are geting very personal... so again, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house or you just might find yourself on your own "dangerous" list. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested Page Protection

JSN, blatantly making edits without forming consensus first is not magically going to make people agree with you, and is against WP:CONSENSUS. Look at the flow chart there. Seeing as how you will likely not stop reverting my edits of the page back to the version it was before, I have requested it be temporarily protected. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the lead sentences in question. If the RfC has shown anything, it has at the very least shown that. he majority of the editors in the RfC have shown that they are in favor of changing the lead so that it presents more of a NPOV by mentioning the opinions of both the independent observers who see fox as one of the most balanced networks and the independent observers who see Fox as conservatively biased. You are in the minority. I could just as easily accuse you of reverting my edits. So, no offense, but this block request of yours seems a bit hypocritical. The way you build consensus is editing and discussing, edit and discuss, edit and discuss. I am doing both here. You are too. So stop this hypocritical talk of "disruptive" editing while you engage in the exact behavior you are accusing me of (reverting edits). Jsn9333 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing from your reply that you didn't do the one thing that TheNobleSith just asked you too do: "Look at the flow chart". Kevin Baas^talk 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the flow chart. It says edit, discuss... what do you read it as saying? Here is what I read it as saying, starting at "previous consensus"--> make an edit--> was the edit reverted?--> (if so) Do you accept the result?--> (if no) discuss ideas --> make an edit Jsn9333 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And what arrows lead in to "new consensus"? And if they don't lead there, where do they go? Kevin Baas^talk

That's my point, the arrows that lead to consensus is when there are no more edits to the version you posted. The version Sith is posting does not have consensus by virtue of the fact it is being edited (and also by virtue of the fact that a majority of editors in this RfC have expressed a desire to change it for NPOV reasons). The arrows that lead back to making another edit say this: "previous consensus"--> make an edit--> was the edit reverted?--> (if so) Do you accept the result?--> (if no) discuss ideas --> make an edit. Does not that mean edit/discuss, edit/discuss, edit/discuss? Jsn9333 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there is not a new consensus. Therefore, the previous consensus stands, and the thing to do is discuss. We are in the discussion stage, not the make an edit stage. We have always been in the discussion stage, since your first edit was reverted. You making edits to the article that nobody agrees with does not make a new consensus, nor does it obviate the previous one. As you can see from the chart, there is always a consensus. No single person can change it. Everyone has to agree to change it. (roughly speaking, WP:CONSENSUS is more clear on this.) It has not changed. And it does not mean edit->get reverted->discuss->edit->get reverted->discuss->edit. The aim is to edit and not get reverted. If you don't think your edits going to stick, then don't make it. It was obvious to most contributors here that your edit wasn't going to stick. Why? Because it wasn't agreed upon. You of all people should know that - you're more involved in the debate than anyone else. Kevin Baas^talk 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying is the lead cannot change until Sith or Blaxthos or whoever stop changing it back... which is ridiculous! It was agreed upon that the lead needs to be changed. There is no consensus on the lead... consensus means no one wants to edit the page, everyone is satisfied with it. I know the aim is to get it not reverted, that is why I started an RfC and have been spending so much time discussing the merits here. The chart does not start with "discuss" in order to come to a new consensus. It starts from the old consensus with "edit". Then you discuss. Then the arrow does not go back to "old consensus", as you seem to be saying... the arrow goes back to "edit". When I changed the lead I did not violate consensus. When you changed the lead back you did not violate consensus either. By definition, when the lead is edited there is no longer consensus. For anyone to edit it back without discussing is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. However, for anyone to edit again after discussing is simply what the flow chart says happens.Jsn9333 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? What we're saying is that you've got the cart before the horse -- on a contentious article we will remain with the previously stable consensus-built version until we have a new consensus to change it. There is no benefit to an edit war, and there are clearly policies against it. I don't know how we can make that any more clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(resolving edit conflict) "Basically what you are saying is the lead cannot change until Sith or Blaxthos or whoever stop changing it back." Yes. ".. which is ridiculous." How is this ridiculous? How do you expect the lead to stay changed when it doesn't stay changed? That's ridiculous. It was not agreed upon that the lead needs to be changed. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who's ever proposed that. And there is a consensus on the lead. If you look in the flow chart it's labeled "previous consensus". It is policy to discuss controversial edits before making them. If it's not on the consensus page, it's elsewhere. It's well known among experienced editors. (besides, it's just common sense.) Kevin Baas^talk 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To kevin, again, I could just as easily ask you "How do you expect the lead to stay changed when it doesn't stay changed?" You are reverting my edits to a version that you agree with, but that version does not have the consensus of the editors. Most of the editors of the RfC have stated they want it changed. Therefore it is editable. The flow chart at WP:CONSENSUS says to edit, and then to discuss, and then the arrow goes back to edit. Editing and discussing is how consensus is reached. You are claiming it has to be reached through discussing only, and that simply is not what the policy states. I have discussed every edit I have made, both before and after. What you are saying is that the lead cannot change until the minority editors who want to keep it unchanged change their minds. That is not in line with WP:CONSENSUS. And Blaxthos, if you truly believe there is no benefit to an edit war, then you should tell Sith to not engage in one. Jsn9333 (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To Blaxthos, do I sound like I'm kidding? Follow the flow chart at WP:CONSENSUS and see that it says, "previous consensus--> make an edit--> was the edit reverted?--> (if so) Do you accept the result?--> (if no) discuss ideas --> make an edit. The flow chart you are suggesting would read, "previous consensus--> talk about an edit--> was the edit agreed upon by everyone?--> (if no) leave article alone --> talk about an edit. So it seems I am stuck between having to believe your policy or wikipedia's. I, and it seems WP policy, disagree with what seems to be your claim that something that once was consensus version must not be edited until Blaxthos, Gamaliel, and TheNobleSith agree with the change. Again, if you look at the flow chart it shows that editing is the beginning of going from "previous consensus" to "new consensus". It also says, "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it." What you are claiming is that I do not have the right to make a change or addition. And that is not true. Nonetheless you edit war against any change that attempts to fix the NPOV issues the majority of editors have acknowledged, and then you reprimand users for making the edits! Jsn9333 (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay well, I don't seem to be getting anywhere with jsn here. Looks like the page got protected again for what the administrator called "edit warring". Hmmm... I see no point in commenting further. Kevin Baas^talk 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged conservative bias mentioned in opening paragraph

This does not belong in the opening information for the network. We can use multiple sources to mention the alleged liberal bias of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, or CBS - yet none of the articles for those networks contains this claim in the opening paragraphs. I think I will move it somewhere else in the article 24.27.151.226 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Kevin Baas^talk 20:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and it looks like that process is playing out. By continually pointing out the FAQ is bordering on WP:OWN. I would be careful of not allowing new editors to voice their opinion. Bytebear (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, right... I'm assuming the ip is new to this page, and so i'm helping him out by pointing him to the relevant headers on this page, because, well, that's what they're there for. I suppose that makes me an idiot. Oh, and a selfish little brute that tries to quench free speech. Right. Kevin Baas^talk 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Condescension does not become you. Bytebear (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. Kevin Baas^talk 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say at the outset that I have read the FAQ at the top of the page.

One thing that makes discussion of the lead of this article confusing is that the factuality of the lead and the appropriateness of the lead are two different things.

I don't believe that the factuality of the lead is what people are questioning. After all, you could put "Critics and some observers critize the entity to which this article refers" at the beginning of nearly every article on Wikipedia.

I believe that what people find objectionable about the lead of this article is that the lead of this article is written from the context of "Accusations toward Fox News of bias" being "Primary characteristics of Fox News." I'd have to agree with these objections. The primary characteristics of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and so on would have to be that

1. They are cable news channels

2. They are funded and owned by certain entities

3. They have certain viewerships

4. They came into existence at certain times

And perhaps, that would be it. Those would be the primary characteristics of these news channels. As secondary characteristics, perhaps they are criticized by some individuals in a certain way. Also, of course, as secondary characteristics, they employ certain newspersons, opinionmakers and so on. And then I suppose there would be certain tertiary characteristics.

This, for lack of a better word, "initiative" to "ensure that anyone visiting the Wikipedia Fox News page is made aware that a primary characteristic of Fox News is allegations of conservative bias" is, I'd have to say, rather transparantly unencyclopedic. It comes across only as a calculated effort to have the reader form certain opinions about Fox News even before reading, for the most part, what Fox News is.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the constant referrals to "the FAQ" and to "the previous consensus" are acting as a move to own the page. I'd suggest that people take a look at WP:OWN. The 17 editors, 22 editors or 47 editors should have realized that whatever they wrote may be, later, edited heavily.

In summary, I would have to say that I would strongly support, at the very least, making this article more resemble other cable news channel articles, for which the criticisms about the channels do not somehow come before the descriptions of the channels themselves. Urzatron (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Voice of reason regarding the lead

It is clear that there are many people that feel FNC is biased, there is no denying this fact. I personally believe this is because of what many people view as FNC pro-stance on the war in Iraq and linked to what is viewed as a pro-Bush view.

At the same time there have been NO scientific studies provided here that show a content bias by FNC. The 2002 PEW study did show an opinion by journalists that FNC is the most likely to promote a conservative bias, however journalists are self-identified by a 3 to 1 margin as being liberal. The most recent PEW study made no statement of bias at all, however did state that if bias exists the public opinion is that it is liberal bias. The UCLA study (whether you like it or not) is a peer reviewed study and a reliable source. This study also states that FNC is the most centrist of all cable news networks. This said I see no reason why it cannot be stated that studies of cable news networks have not shown a bias by FNC.

It would appear to me, that the longstanding views by some editors that FNC is biased have completely clouded there ability to view this in an objective fashion. Their belief that FNC is biased is so strong that to conclude anthing else must be the result of flawed studies or agenda by those editors wishing to add this information.

I feel this sets a very bad precident within WP, because instead of an article written on facts, you have an article based on opinion, and only references which back up that opinion are viewed as acceptable. Arzel (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is based on ad hominem attacks and misinformation. I am not going to respond to any of Arzel's points here as they are all addressed above, and this seems like a (shameless) attempt to further splinter the discussion into unmanageable bits. I hope other editors will realize this and do the same. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Arzel has a very valid point. I have seen behavior on these talk pages that are disheartening to say the least. Discuss the issue. You appear to be attempting to shut down discussion, when quite a few editors (three with some regularity) disagree with your conclusions. You are not a consensus by any means. Bytebear (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. What I actually said was that this is an attempt to splinter the discussion, and that germane comments should remain with the existing debate in the appropriate RFC above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are attempting to end the discussion begun bt Arzel, and you continue to do so by insulting me by accusing me of some sort of plot. I am not "trying" anything, nicely or otherwise. The only facts we have are these: 1) Fox News Channel has a reputation for being right wing. 2) There is disupute over that reputation. Beyond that, we have one study that says Fox is centerist. Everything else is opinion. Now, my argument is not over this issue. I am perfectly fine with a full description of the issue in the article, but I think in the lead it promotes undue weight, and it asserts things that are not fact. If anything the lead should only state fact. Got it? Bytebear (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The only new points Arzel has brought up is an attack on my character, which is neither productive nor germane to improving the FNC article. If you have comments relevant to that discussion, I suggest you place them appropriately. I'm pretty sure no one wants to try and have this discussion concurrently in multiple headings.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I made no specific mention of any name, so I am not sure how I attacked your character specifically. I am simply noting that there seems to be an unwillingness to discuss changes to the lead. You can take it for what you want, but several editors have made statements that it is common knowledge that FNC is biased. All I ask is where is this evidence? It is all opinion, which is fine, I am just asking that this opinion not override the evidence. I have respect for the opinion, my girlfriend also thinks FNC is biased, her only evidence is "it is obvious". I see the same take here, and if any concensus is going to be reached those that disagree with me and some of the other editors here will have to reevaluate their perception of what is actual bias and what is simply opinion because FNC does not present information in the way they think it should. Arzel (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a distinction made. If you are talking about the lead to the article (and I really hope you are) it is not saying there is a bias at FNC. "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions." Is only the expression of an opinion, not a statement that the opinion is fact. It is only pointing out that many have a perception that it is biased. I believe that is the obvious part--the perception is out there. If the lead was "Fox is right wing news organization...." (as it was once before) then that would clearly violate POV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only do the editors who edit war against changes to the lead set a bad precedent, but they are actually acting against WP policy. wp:consensus says that consensus is built by editing a page and then discussing the edits if they get reverted... and then editing again (see the flow chart). However, the editors who want to keep the current version of the lead as is (a minority in the Request for Comments above) insist that the lead can only be changed if they personally approve of the change, and they immediately revert any edits that conform to the type of changes discussed in the RfC. They claim to be defending "consensus", however, there is no consensus on this lead as it stands. I think there is going to have to be some sort of mediation preceding to straighten this mess out. In the mean time, I think we should feel free to continue to edit the lead and discuss the changes. As long as we don't edit war, but diligently discuss and edit as wp:consensus prescribes, I don't see that being a violation of any policies. There certainly is no policy that says because a lead once allegedly had consensus (or even once did have consensus) that it is "edit proof" unless Blaxthos, Gamaliel, or TheNobleSith approve. What do you think?Jsn9333 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

TheNobleSith, Gamaliel, and Blaxthos: You three have been the main actors in continually reverting the edits to the lead that seek to remedy the NPOV problem quite a few editors on this pasge have noted. Most of the editors in the RfC agreed there are POV problems in the current version. Would you be willing, with me and perhaps some other editors, to request mediation so we can get some outside, neutral help in finding a consensus version that satisfies everyone? The RfC is showing a lot of dissatisfaction with the lead, yet and any edits to the lead are being reverted by one of you. What do you suggest we do? Jsn9333 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you not edit the damn lead until we reach a consensus. More specifically, I believe the RfC is sufficient for our purposes, as far as outside mediation goes. We don't need someone to mediate, we need to work together to find a ground that is factually accurate and satisfies all of us. And really, it doesn't matter that more editors agree with you. 7-3, as I believe the count is, is not a significant majority when it comes to WP, and that's beside the point; which is that this isn't a vote. Consensus is not reached until all of us agree on a version that is factually accurate. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

wp:Consensus says that consensus is built by editing a page and then discussing the edits if they get reverted... and then editing again (see the flow chart). The disagreement seems to be over that process. The current version does not have consensus. I agree consensus is not reached until we all agree. But that doesn't mean you have the right to revert my edits, and yet curse at me if I discuss and then revert back to a changed version. The current version is not a consensus version. Consensus, as you say, is when all agree on the version.Jsn9333 (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But it was once the consensus version, and so therefore has precedence over your proposed version. And I didn't swear at you in the sense of being angry at you. I was just emphasizing my point. A bad habit of mine. You can do it back at me ;). TheNobleSith (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I, and it seems WP policy, disagree with what seems to be your claim that something that once was consensus version must not be edited until every editor agrees on the new version. Again, if you look at the flow chart in wp:Consensus it shows that editing is the beginning of going from "previous consensus" to "new consensus". It also says, "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it." What you are claiming is that I do not have the right to make a change or addition. Follow the flow chart, and see that it says, "previous consensus--> make an edit--> was the edit reverted?--> (if so) Do you accept the result?--> (if no) discuss ideas --> make an edit. The flow chart you are suggesting would read, "previous consensus--> talk about an edit--> was the edit agreed upon by everyone?--> (if no) leave article alone --> talk about an edit. So it seems I am stuck between having to believe your policy or wikipedia's. In violation of a very clearly stated policy, you edit war against any change that attempts to fix the NPOV issues the majority of editors have acknowledged, and then you reprimand users for making the edits, and even seek page protection (which I highly doubt you will get at this point). . . Oh, and gotcha, I don't mind swearing, but I try to avoid it in the 'written only' format it is damn near impossible to tell emphasis from anger. But thanks for the offer. :)Jsn9333 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you still don't grasp the concept that you are not entitled to continue reverting simply because you made a comment on a talk page. If you make an edit, and that edit is reverted, then you discuss. You do not then make another edit, simply because discussion is occurring. You make another edit after discussion has determined which direction to procede and what edit should be made. You are edit warring. - auburnpilot talk 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a cable news channel has critics seems incredibly tertiary to facts about the cable news channel itself. Every cable news channel has critics.Urzatron (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can't reach a consensus if you have three people who say that "consensus" only means "agreeing with them."Urzatron (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

As the edit war just started anew when the protection I placed expired, and arising from a 3RR report, I have protected the page indefinitely. When you have come to a consensus on what to include, drop by WP:RFPP to request unprotection. Minor, non-contentious edits can be made by placing {{editprotected}} here along with details of the edits that need to be made. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I made two minor punctuation edits yesterday, and only two substantial edits, discussing them throughout the day in the talk page. I made one edit this morning. How has the 3RR rule been violated? As is pointed out above, you can't reach a consensus if you have one or two people who say that 'consensus' only means 'agreeing with them'. I have asked the continually reverting editors to mediate with me, and they have refused. How is this block doing anything to remedy this situation? There is an RfC in progress, and consensus building is occurring. In reading the flow chart at WP:CONSENSUS, I see it shows that editing is the beginning of going from "previous consensus" to "new consensus". It also says, "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it." The flow chart says, "previous consensus--> make an edit--> was the edit reverted?--> (if so) Do you accept the result?--> (if no) discuss ideas --> make an edit." The flow chart you seem to be suggesting would read, "previous consensus--> talk about an edit--> was the edit agreed upon by everyone including the one or two editors in the minority who don't want the article changed?--> (if no) leave article alone --> talk about an edit." Jsn9333 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not said the 3RR has been violated, merely that there was a report about this article on the 3RR noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of what a consensus is or isn't, the page is subject to disruptive edit warring. Protection is the primary solution. Please discuss the matter here or use dispute resolution, come to a consensus, and call to WP:RFPP to request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but the highest form of dispute resolution I see for content disputes is mediation. I have asked the warring parties to mediate with me, and they have refused. Those parties, one or two editors whom are in the minority of the RfC, continually revert the edits the majority in the RfC have approved. The discussion has hit a standstill as they have made it clear they do not respect the reliable sources the majority approves. Again, I don't see how blocking this page is going to solve this problem. Do you have any other suggestions? As it stands, an extreme minority of editors has ensured that the version the majority of editors has agreed needs to be changed will not be changed... "indefinitely". Jsn9333 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page stops you from edit warring, Jsn9333. You clearly did violate the 3RR. From WP:3RR "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content...". You removed the same version of the intro 4 times in 24 hours. The problem is that you don't understand the meaning of consensus. When there is no consensus for something, the status quo remains. You have not demonstrated consensus support for your version, even if there is a consensus for something to be changed (which I am not saying there is). Until you do that, you cannot force your version into the article. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying has the following consequence: as long as TheNobleSith and Blaxthos remain interested in this page, the lead will remain unchanged even though the majority of editors have commented that it has NPOV problems and most have agreed to the changes I have suggested (the sources if not the exact wording). I made two edits to the lead yesterday, and one edit to the content lower in the article. That is one day. The next day (today) I made one edit to the lead and one edit to the article. The 3 revert rule was never broken, and all throughout and in between those edits I was discussing and followed the procedures exactly as described in in the flow chart at WP:CONSENSUS. This is a matter of an administrator making sure that two editors are able to ensure that this page remains unchanged despite majority disapproval of the page. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333, you claim to be new here so I'll allow myself more patience when dealing with you than when dealing with others, but the 3RR does not apply to calendar days; it applies to a 24 hours period. Your edits were as follows:

• 1st revert: 13:16:53, 14 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:37:41, 14 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:14:31, 15 April 2008
• 4th revert: 11:52:13, 15 April 2008

That's four reverts in 22 hours, 35 minutes and 20 seconds (if my math is correct). You are not following the "consensus flow" because you don't grasp the concept that you shouldn't make an edit simply because any amount of dicussion has occurred. You wait until discussion has concluded. This is not a matter of "an administrator making sure that two editors are able to ensure that this page remains unchanged" but an admin ensuring your edit warring stops. - auburnpilot talk 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The last one yesterday was not a 'revert', but rather was an entirely new edit in a lower section of the article I had never edited before. Anyway, I suppose I misinterpreted the 3RR rule to be in regards to days, not administrator's staring at the second hand on their watch waiting to pounce. And if you are waiting for discussion to conclude, then it already has. The edit warring Blaxthos has announced that reliable sources are unreliable if he says so, and the consequences of that are all sources supporting changing the article to have NPOV are now immediately reverted by he or theNobleSith. As far as Blaxthos is concerned, discussion ended a long time ago. He has made absolutely no concessions in this discussion with regards to balancing. And the actions of the administrator results that he gets his way... the version remains unchanged despite the majority of editors expressing a desire to see it changed.Jsn9333 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is that you shouldn't make a revert until discussion has concluded. Surely you don't mean that you shouldn't make an edit until discussion has concluded. Urzatron (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't get Consensus by Counting Heads

There is a claim being made that there is a consensus to change the lead in the introduction. Apparently, it is based on an RfC where Arzel, Jsn, and Bytebears stated their approval of a specific version. User Wayne stated his opinion that there should be no mention of bias in the lead at all, and Nil stated that he would prefer a version he finds more balanced, and Mr.Murph and Hal Raglan gave their opinions for a more balanced lead. Opposing change to the lead are Blaxthos, Gamaliel, TheNobleSith, AuburnPilot, Kevin Bass, and myself. If counting heads were the barometer of consensus, it would be clear that none currently exists. However, in a situation like this I think the best policy is to remain with the version that had the consensus of 17 editors previously, until a new one is clearly established. I'm support the protection of the page to prevent editor's from unilaterally changing the lead, while discussion is ongoing. While I am open to trying to find a compromise, I have yet to see a proposed version that is superior to the one that currently exists. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I very much agree. - auburnpilot talk 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree on all fronts. To restate the high points:

1. I have yet to see a proposed version that is superior to the one that currently exists.
2. The best policy is to remain with the version that had the consensus of 17 editors previously, until a new one is clearly established.
3. I support the protection of the page to prevent editors from unilaterally changing the lead, while discussion is ongoing.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the "17 editors" comment made to agree with "You don't get consensus by counting heads," or to disagree? Urzatron (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He meant 17 unanimous editors. TheNobleSith (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Kevin Bass changed his mind and expressed approval for changing the lead. So you cannot count him with you. And this is the first time you have expressed what your opinion is, so that is why I did not count you earlier. You may be open to finding a compromise, however, the two editors who have been edit warring against me have made it fairly clear they are not. Despite sources being used that WP:RS dictates are most certainly reliable, they refuse to allow them into the article because they personally disapprove of them. What you are saying has the following consequence: as long as TheNobleSith and Blaxthos remain interested in this page, the lead will remain unchanged even though the majority of editors have commented that it has NPOV problems and most have agreed to the changes I have suggested (the sources if not the exact wording). This is a matter of an administrator making sure that two editors are able to ensure that this page remains unchanged despite majority disapproval of the page. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I am still among the so-called "extreme minority". Kevin Baas^talk 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Until now the last I had read from you on the subject of version approval was when you said, "Looks to me like the best alternative so far," regarding the version, "Some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions,[3][4] while others profess that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting. [5][6][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10]"

yeah, i didn't mean that i felt it was better than the current wording, but that i felt that of the alternatives to the original that have been proposed so far, it seems the best. the original is not an alternative to itself, so it was not part of that comparison. Kevin Baas^talk 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And even if i had said that i felt it was better than the current wording, that would not be the same as expressing approval for changing the lead. For exapmle, my assessment of the consensus could be that it is against my opinion, or in any case that there is not substantial support for the change, in which case i would be opposed to changing the lead. Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so, is the comment about 17 unanimous editors meant to agree that you don't get consensus by counting heads, or to disagree? You didn't really answer my question. Urzatron (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that wasn't the guy who wrote the post, either. (Nor am I.) You don't have to accept my response here as an answer, as I'm not the source of the post. But just to give my interpretation, which i imagine is pretty close to Ramsquire's because we seem to be on the same page here: it is meant neither to confirm or to repudiate the statement that you don't get consensus by counting heads. WP:NOT is clear that wikipedia is not a democracy, and WP:CONSENSUS is clear on how you get consensus. By discussion, not voting. Also note that counting heads and saying "4 to 5", looks like the 5 win. is quite different than saying "17-0", it looks like nobody disagrees. If nobody disagrees and you still don't have consensus, i don't see how you'll ever get it. I think that's what TheNobleSith was saying. I'm adding to that that the statement neither supports nor invalidates the proposition that consensus is determined by discussion, not voting. Kevin Baas^talk 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha. Thanks for the amplification. Urzatron (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

An open ended NYT editorial is a reliable source? It doesn't say whether FNC is biased or not, the editorial presents both sides and leaves it up to the reader to decide. TheNobleSith (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. No one has claimed the NYT is saying Fox is not biased. The NYT piece, rather, is reporting about a specific prominent figure who thinks Fox is objective, and about the existence of many who agree with him. The Huffington post reports about a prominent liberal governor who agrees with that assessment, and the UCLA-led, peer-reviewed, published study also comes to that conclusion. Those are all reliable sources for information, and there is no evidence they present a "fringe" POV. They should be included in the entry to balance out the lone POV of observers currently presented, namely that Fox is biased. This is a matter of an administrator making sure that two editors are able to ensure that this page remains unchanged despite majority disapproval of the page. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In 2006 we had a multi-month RFC where a large segment of the wikipedia community participated to hammer out how the introduction should be represented and be compliant with our content policies. The end result was agreed upon with a consensus of 17 editors, if memory serves correctly, which remained relatively stable in WORDING for about two and a half years now, though there has been some reference creep. Also, please note that the majority of editors Ramsquire listed as supporters of JSN's position commented before I pointed out the serious flaws of his cited references (which the RFC presents has correct). The references do not support JSN's claims. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You pointed out your "serious flaws" at the very beginning, and repeated them over and over throughout the RfC, never once giving even a little ground to find a common ground. The references do support the claims, and anyone is free to examine the RfC above to see for themselves where you claim that even a UCLA-led, peer-reviewed, published study is not a reliable source as long as you don't approve, personally, of the statistics they used and can find a blogger with a master's degree who agrees with you.Jsn9333 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be remembered that other news outlets, such as the NYT, are competitors of Fox News, just as newspapers compete with television, and so their reliability should be viewed in that context. Urzatron (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

17 editors

The 17 editors I am referring to are the ones who participated in the RfC contained in the archives and who achieved the past consensus. I am going from memory, so my number may be off, but I do believe that it is very close to all the people who participated in the discussion that gave birth to the current lead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...it seems reasonably clear that my reference to 17 is to designate the version of the lead that should stay until a new version is accepted. If I say the "consensus version" others will say there is no current consensus for the version, so I am trying to use neutral language to describe the lead as it was before this discussion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to research what you are claiming, and it is unclear if you are saying 17 editors agreed with the current version or that 17 editors commented. Regardless, consensus is achieved when no one is editing or disagreeing with the current version. It has nothing to do with a head count of all who have ever commented or approved of the page. The reason I have cited the "majority" above so many times is to make the point that a large number of current editors have expressed disapproval with the current version, and yet any changes to it results in the page being blocked because there are one or two editors who will change it back, claiming the "consensus" is on their side (when it by definition is not).

This is a matter of an administrator making sure that one or two editors are able to ensure that this page remains unchanged indefinitely despite majority disapproval of the page. Meanwhile, wp:consensus dictates that consensus is achieved by editing. Therefore, it is literally impossible to achieve consensus on this page, because it is impossible to edit the page due to the actions of the administrator favoring those who seek to keep the lead POV-biased. At least one of the editors has given absolutely no ground in trying to find a common ground, and as denied mediation. The "consensus" that is allegedly the goal of this blocking is a literal impossibility. This page is the equivalent of one of those ridiculous "locked for editing" pages over at conservapedia.com that the site owners worry might actually have some balance introduced if they let people edit. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, I think that WP:PRACTICAL is perhaps the most relevant as regards consensus, here. Additionally, I think your assessment of the distributions of opinions here is heavily skewed in your favor. Perhaps that's why you've been making edits to the lead prematurely. I think a more realistic assessment of the opinions and arguments would be beneficial. Kevin Baas^talk 19:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It says therein, "Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble."

I don't see how an edit is "premature." This sounds like "ownership of the page." An edit can be disagreed with and reverted, but how can it be "premature"? Urzatron (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

premature: "happening, arriving, existing, or performed before the proper, usual, or intended time". if i understand jsn correctly, he did not expect his changes to be reverted. this would constitute the "intended time". Kevin Baas^talk 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That reads like you're saying that an edit is "premature" if you're going to revert it. Again, this sounds like "ownership." Urzatron (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because you're assuming the conclusion. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No ... I'm thinking logically. If he did not expect his changes to be reverted, to which you would have to stipulate, then logically, he was editing in good faith. On the other hand, speaking hypothetically, if you expected his changes to be reverted even before you saw them, then this would mean you were trying to own the page. Now, I'm not going to say that you're trying to do that. But I will say that that is what some critics and observers would say it looks like. By the way, there doesn't seem to be an assuming the conclusion page. Sounds like a good one. Urzatron (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No that's not thinking logically. the part "if you expected his changes to be reverted even before you saw them, then this would mean you were trying to own the page. " is way off. Firstly, neither I, nor anyone else, has suggested that i expected his changes to be reverted before i saw them. That is something that you just made up. Secondly, it would not imply that i was trying to own the page - that does not logically follow from the premise. In fact, there's only one premise - so nothing at all can follow logically - to form a logical conclusion you must combine multiple premises together in accordance with the rules of logic, and you can't do that when there's only one premise. Kevin Baas^talk 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Firstly, neither I, nor anyone else, has suggested that i expected his changes to be reverted before i saw them." You, perhaps inadvertantly, implied this when you called someone's mere editing of the page "premature." An edit can only be "premature" to you if it isn't "endorsed in advance." Logic. In reality, mere edits cannot actually be "premature," because your prior permission to make them isn't needed. Edits can be "objectionable." Perhaps that's what you meant to say. Urzatron (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant "premature". By "premature", I meant that his assessment of things did not match up with the reality of things, and that lead him to act too early. I meant that either he thought that a new consensus was reached before one actually had been reached, or that he thought that he should edit the page before a new consensus is reached by discussion. The first one would be before the "intended" time, the second one would be before the "proper or usual" time. Notice that in neither case am I, directly or indirectly, an explicit or implicit subject in the matter. I.e. it has nothing to do with me. So stop trying to turn it around. It shouldn't have to take me this long to describe to you what i meant by using a word exactly how it's meant to be used. Kevin Baas^talk 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And regarding your convenient - and very odd - re-definition of the word "premature": Perhaps it would help if you stopped making up your own definitions for words and used the ones that everyone else uses. Next time, if you're confused about the actual definition of a word, look it up. Kevin Baas^talk

"I meant that either he thought that a new consensus was reached before one actually had been reached, or that he thought that he should edit the page before a new consensus is reached by discussion." That's exactly my point. Nobody needs consensus to edit a page, because you don't own the page. If you're saying that someone's edit was premature, you're dead wrong. Urzatron (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now if you want to say that someone needs a consensus instead of getting in an edit war, then you've got something. Urzatron (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. No one can be that thick. I'm getting the feeling that you don't actually care what i'm saying; that you're not even making an effort to understand. I'm getting the feeling that you're just trying to make me out to be an a$$, and I don't appreciate it. As you seem to be the only person that you're fooling, it doesn't really affect me. And since you don't actually care what I'm saying, there's no point in trying to tell you. So this discussion is over. Kevin Baas^talk 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely care what you're saying. That's why I quoted it and noted that it makes my point. Urzatron (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen WP:PRACTICAL. The point is, it is practically impossible to reach consensus when the page is for all intents and purposes locked for editing because one or two editors absolutely refuse to find any common ground. This site is apparently the equivalent of conservapedia when it comes to locking controversial pages. I have not skewed opinions in my favor. In your case, I misunderstood you when you referred to a version as the best alternative. Otherwise, when I refer to those who have expressed disapproval with the current page, it is because they have expressly said they want POV-biased information out of the lead so it can be extensively treated below, or balanced in the lead as an alternative. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been already pointed out to you, the page was protected in accordance with wikipedia policy as a consequence of the editing behavior of editors on the page. Wikipedia policy does not allow for any distinctions to be made on the basis of POV, political or otherwise. Such comparisions as you have made are wholly without merit. And finally, your use of the term "extreme minority" to refer to what, by an objective count, is actually the majority, is further evidence that your personal biases may be unduly influencing your assessment of the distribution of opinions among other contributors. Kevin Baas^talk 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really do not want to know about 17 past editors. That was then, this is now. Clearly a new consensus is brewing. Where it will lead, I don't know, but I think trying to shut down discussion is not acceptable. I am sure I could get 17 "Reagan Republicans" to all join the frey, but really Wikipedia is not about an "us vs. them" mentality. It is about making the article the best it can be. I think editors on both sides have forgotten that. Bytebear (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I getting really tired of this bullshit. Please read a post before sounding off. The sentence in its entirety is "However, in a situation like this I think the best policy is to remain with the version that had the consensus of 17 editors previously, until a new one is clearly established". It is quite apparent that I am NOT using that previous discussion to stifle this one or pointing to that number as proof that the current one is superior solely because of the number of editors involved. I am trying to describe the damned thing. When this came up last time, we were using the phrase "consensus version" and yourself and Arzel and others had a problem with that phrasing as loaded. I am trying to be more neutral and it's still getting bitched about even though I explicitly say a) I'm willing to discuss further and b) that there seems to be movement towards a new version. I could have used previous version, but jsn apparently went through several versions last week, so that could be innaccurate. So for the last time THE REFERENCE IN MY FIRST POST TO 17 EDITORS IS SOLELY TO DESCRIBE THE VERSION OF THE LEAD THAT EXISTED AFTER THE INITIAL RFC IN THE ARCHIVES. With that said, if we are to get to a discussion we should address each others points honestly and stop resorting to distortions and straw man arguments. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. Shouting and cursing doesn't help anyone. He doesn't want to hear about the 17 editors... no big deal. The point is that both editing and discussion have been shut down because one or two editors have refused to come to a common ground by give and take, and have decided to continually and entirely revert edits to an entry that the majority of editors have expressed disapproval with. Consensus and any change at all is therefore made impossible by the locking administrator, and there is no basis in reason for that other then the same basis conservapedia uses to lock its own pages... fear of balance and actual community participation. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I name you specifically? Have I made one change to the article in the last month? two? three? The fact is, several editors are stifling conversation, and pointing new editors to the FAQ as if the debate is over. It isn't. You really need to chill. I have made compromises and had very little discussion on them. I have made recommendations and told that the consensus has already been met, and now you are dragging out an argument of 17 editors agree. That is not discussing. Please stop your attacks. Bytebear (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, if you believe there's been administrative abuse, go file a report/informal complaint at the admin incidents board. If not, drop the line about conservapedia and an admin favoring the other two editors; it's tiring. Bytebear, you still don't seem to be grasping what ramsquire is saying. He isn't saying you must agree because 17 editors agree. He is simply referring to the previous version as the 17 editor version. Nothing more. It's a description. Move along. - auburnpilot talk 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To Bytebear-- No attack was intended. I'm calling BS on not grasping on what was written and taking the dialogue elsewhere as shown by your last post. I was not aware of the language police, so I'll apologize if BS was too strong. When you guys are serious about attempting a compromise and having honest discussion, give me a holler. Until then, there are at least 2 million other articles that need attention. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept your appology, but I really don't think you have read through my comments, because all I have tired to do was compromise. Bytebear (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No I have not read all of your posts. I'm late to the game, and have spent some time trying to get up to speed. That is why my only comments about previous discussion was that I haven't seen any improvement on the lead yet. I don't doubt you are trying to compromise, however, the last few days have seen no movement toward compromise, only entrenchment, analysis of editor's motives, baseless accusations, and distortions of policies and posts. When actual discussion of the lead begins again, I'll be happy to contribute.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot... I didn't mean to "tire" you with my observations, but no, I will not "drop the line." What is the punishment for "tiring" an administrator? If I tire you 3 times in 23.5 hours do I get my account canceled? The Fox News entry has been blocked to editing because one or two editors continually revert entirely any changes to the lead entry and have refused to give and take to find common ground. The majority of editors in an RfC have expressed disapproval with the POV status of the lead. Yet because of "edit wars" that occur when these two editors continually and wholly revert changes, an administrator has blocked the page indefinitely. The effect is that an extreme minority of editors and one administrator has ensured that the version the majority of editors has agreed needs to be changed will not be changed... indefinitely. The admin says to pursue dispute resolution and form a consensus before editing. Now I may be mistaken, but the highest form of dispute resolution I see for content disputes is mediation. I have asked the warring parties to mediate with me, and they have refused. The discussion has hit a standstill as they have made it clear they simply do not accept the reliable sources the majority approves. The primary reverter has never once compromised to to find a common ground, yet the editors in the RfC majority who disapprove of the lead have offered up multiple versions. I don't see how blocking this page is going to solve this problem. Editing is a critical part of consensus building according to wp:CONSENSUS. The "consensus" that is allegedly the goal of this indefinite blocking is a literal impossibility. At least one of the editors in favor of keeping the current version has refused to give any ground and has made it virtually certain he will oppose any changes to the that attempt to create NPOV. Since the admin who blocked the page has said he will not unblock it until there is consensus, this page is the exactly like of one of those ridiculous "locked for editing" pages over at conservapedia.com that the site owners worry might actually have some balance introduced into it if they let people edit. It cannot be right that one stubborn editor and one accomplice admin can, in theory, prevent the development of a page indefinitely.Jsn9333 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To ByteBear: re: "The fact is, several editors are stifling conversation, and pointing new editors to the FAQ as if the debate is over." That's not what I see. I see Blaxthos and Jsn discussing sources, and then jsn making changes to the lead while others are trying to develop a consensus for the very part he is changing. Then I see a huge discussion about how consensus is determined, involving pretty much everyone. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have counted five times where Blaxthos has told people to see the FAQ, and when the editor is new to the page, he doesn't even address their concerns at all. That, to me, is stifling conversation. It is also a violation of WP:BITE. Bytebear (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ByteBear, you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing! I have not referred anyone to the FAQ in this discussion. I have done so in the distant past, but I don't believe any of those are anywhere on this (or the most recent archive) page. I take serious offense to your continued charges that discussion is being stifled. If you wonder why no one seems to respect your opinion, I submit to your that your pattern of mischaracterization and misrepresentation of facts has become quite evident in the last few days. The most ironic is the fact that I have discussed more than almost everyone here... :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a liar now? Nice. Do a search for "faq" on this page and you will see five references made by you to other editors. Have you offered even one compromise? Actually, several people have agreed with me. Do I need to go to the effort to document them, or would I just be lying again? Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"ByteBear, you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing"? I'd like to know what this means. I'd like to know what this means in the context of NPOV, especially. Urzatron (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with NPOV, as there is no requirement for posts on a talk page to be neutral. Less than civil, sure. But NPOV is irrelevant. - auburnpilot talk 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? "When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." WP:NPOV. Also, your amplification of his statement doesn't really address my question: I'd like to know what that means. Urzatron (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Auburn is right. This is not an article, so POV is not relevant. Something needs to be "fixed" but it isn't the talk page. It is telling on people's individual POVs, though. Bytebear (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)\

That's the POV I was referring to. Urzatron (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To Jsn: Articles on wikipedia, esp. fully developed ones, change a lot slower than many people expect. It takes time and patience, and a lot of discussion to build a new consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the edits, aside from myself, azrel, and jsm (whom you have told each of us to see the faq, you have also told Weatherman90, Rocdahut and 24.27.151.226 to see the FAQ when they questioned the lead. Three new users, none of whom has contributed to the talk page again. I would say that constitutes WP:BITE. Bytebear (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're still a liar. You still misrepresent what policies state (as noted by AuburnPilot above), you still mischaracterize things (as KevinBaas noted above), you still misquote people (as I and Ramsquire continue to note). It's not like this is a one time mistake, either... it's multiple editors and multiple instances of premeditated deception. It's not ignorance; it's willful conduct that is plainly noted. Please observe that the FAQ (which I authored) states very clearly: ...please read the following and see if your concern has already been addressed. If you are unsure, please feel free to ask for clarification! After reviewing the following if you feel your concern has not been addressed by prior discussion, or that an important factor may have been overlooked, feel free to make additional comment on the talk page. Now, please stop accusing me of trying to stifle discussion; the only thing I have asked (primarily new) editors to do is to read the FAQ first, instead of ignoring policies and acting like no one has ever thought of these concerns before. Stop trying to imply that this somehow means we shouldn't have continued discussion (which I have continued to engage in for several years now!) -- it's another misstatement you parrot ad infinitum. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

YOu say "Please read the FAQ at the top of this page." as if that is the final word on the issue. I will remind you that the FAQ is not law. It is not a pillar of Wilipedia, and I personally think it promotes POV. I would be more lenient on you if you were more polite, by saying something like, "Please read through the FAQ, and if you have concerns, please let us know," but instead you "bite the newbee". You basically say, the FAQ says you are wrong, so stop talking. Most do. That is my complaint. If you think I am being unfair to you, I am sorry, but I think you are being unfair to me and them. I don't recall ever quoting you. I am simply pointing out a pattern of behavior. Bytebear (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To Jsn: Articles on wikipedia, esp. fully developed ones, change a lot slower than many people expect. It takes time and patience, and a lot of discussion to build a new consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ simply explains the process by which the introduction was crafted. I believe you just want to support your agenda of "FNC is balanced" and are eaten up by the fact that policy does not support your viewpoints. You misrepresent things quite frequently, as I explained in the previous paragraph, and misstatements, mischaracterizations, and misrepresentations that always benefit a particular point of view are willful conduct. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See, here is the problem. You think I have an agenda. You are noe assuming good faith. I don't particularly care if Fox is balanced or not. My objective isn't to make Fox look better. My objective is to present the facts. The facts are 1) Fox has a reputation for being right wing and 2) people dispute whether that reputation is warranted. No reputable study has shown bias one way or another. So that's all we have to work with. You want to present as fact that Fox is right wing, but we have no facts on that, just overwhelming opinion. I am not the one with an agenda, and I am not the one violating WP:AGF. Bytebear (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To allow me to interrupt, you made an interesting point Bytebear, I see the current lead as stating those facts you mention explicitly. It says "some critics and observers" not "all". Clearly it leaves open the possibility that there are various others who have may have several points of views on Fox. It's just that in the lead we should mention the most notable one, i.e. the conservative bias-- the other's have not reached the same notability and shouldn't be given equal weight in the introduction. The other points of view can be discussed in the bias section. Also we have a sentence detailing Fox's denial. Now I understand there are some issues about sourcing, but can we at least agree that the current lead is an attempt to do exactly what you say the facts is. I want to know from you how does it fail in that attempt. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To answer Ramsquire's question, my debate has never been about the content, but that putting it in the lead gives undue weight to the subject, particularly when the intro is only three short paragraphs as it is. Then editors attempted to "balance" things by putting in every side of the issue, creating a lead paragraph that was more detailed than the body. So I recommended it be paired down to two simple statements (f I have to live with it at all). The only issue I see now is that it reads as if Fox News is on the defensive, but in fact, others agree. I would change it from "Fox disputes the charges" to "The issue of bias is in dispute". This is a much more neutral sentence. (and I am glad someone is finally reading what I write) Bytebear (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was once in the camp of no mentions of bias for style reasons, but for all intents and purposes, that ship has sailed. WP:LEAD is pretty clear that this controversy has to be mentioned in the introduction. So if I were to agree to change the second sentence from "FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting" to "FNC disputes the charges" with the same citation would that be something you can live with.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

and as I said, I can live with it in the lead, but I would dispute whether WP:LEAD trumps undue weight. As to the second sentence, it needs to be made more generic. It is not only FOX, and not to bring up other issues, but... There are references by others outside of Fix that dispute the bias. Pull out Fox News, and replace it with a generic equivalent. Do not make Fox News out to be the sole dissenter. Bytebear (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So the current lead read "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.[3][4][5][6][7][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[9]" Changing the final sentence from FNC (which should be expanded if it remains) to "Others deny allegations of bias in the channel's reporting" would gain your support? - auburnpilot talk 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could live with "FNC and others..." I think the subject's position should be represented in the intro. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost there. "Others deny allegations" feels too defensive, particularly when the first sentence uses "says" in stead of "accuses." I see a POV bias in the choice of words. Just as I would not prefer "Critics and some observers of the channel accuse Fox News of promoting conservative political positions." I think ti should read "Critics and some observers of the channel claim that Fox News promotes conservative political positions. These claims have been and continue to be in dispute." I also prefer to avoid the whole "claim," "feel," "say" thing altogether, but don't really know how to make that go away without losing the "Critics and observers." Maybe "Fox News Channel is reputed by critics and some observers to promote conservative political positions. Whether such a reputation is deserved has been disputed by Fox news and others." But that is getting a bit wordy, but it does seem the least POV. Bytebear (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I read it, the more I like that last sentence. I do want to bring up another issue though. I think the number of references in the lead is excessive. Find the best one for each sentence, and make it simple. Second, the body of the article should flesh out the issue fully, including all references, even those that seem questionable because it can only bring light to the issue, and Lord knows, we need more light on this subject. I just don't want to see the Lead referenced more than the body. That seems counterintuitive. Bytebear (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objects to the way you've worded the first sentence, but "These claims have been and continue to be in dispute" seems too far in the opposite direction to me (kid gloves almost). How's "Fox News and others have disputed and continue to dispute claims of bias"? - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. Bytebear (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How about continuity of tense (makes it a little less wordy)? What about about... "Critics and some observers claim the channel promotes conservative political positions; Fox News and others dispute claims of bias in their reporting." /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That would work for me as well. - auburnpilot talk 11:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To make the sentence read better, you could use ", while" instead of a semicolon, making the conjunction less abrupt, and since the claim has just been described in the first half of the sentence, you could use the pronoun "this" to eliminate redundancy: "Critics and some observers claim the channel promotes conservative political positions, while Fox News and others dispute this claim." I'd be happy with this. Kevin Baas^talk 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't really address the larger issue. I believe that what people find objectionable about the lead of this article is that the lead of this article is written from the context of "Accusations toward Fox News of bias" being "Primary characteristics of Fox News." Urzatron (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that issue has already been address ad nasuem. (see WP:LEAD and a lot of archived discussion from this talk page.) It is written in the context of "perceptions of bias" being a "notable controversy". Which it is, as evidenced by all the material in the article and the corresponding sub-article. Kevin Baas^talk 15:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If Blaxthos, AuburnPilot, and Kevin Bass would approve the above-proposed lead change above, I strongly suspect Sith would jump on board and consensus would form around it. I know I would approve of that lead. However, if the point of this proposed change in the lead is to give the concept further treatment below, then how to treat below needs to be discussed as well. The last edit I made before this page was blocked was similar enough to this proposed version of the lead. However, in that edit, further down, I had also changed, "Fox News has been accused of promoting a conservative, right-wing, and Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality," so it was followed by, "Fox News has also been praised for its objectivity and balance(ref NYT), even by such figures as a prominent liberal, left-wing, Democrat.(ref Huff post). A UCLA-led study concluded Fox was one of the most centrist or politically balanced networks with regards to its actual news coverage.(ref UCLA study)." That was immediately reverted.

I am not married to that edit of mine, just like I have never been married to my specific edits of the lead. My only point in making that edit is to express that the editors must decide how to treat not only the current lead, but especially the lower section of this article. It is currently extremely POV-one sided, and very biased against Fox News in its POV balancing.

To one who thinks Fox is biased and misrepresents the facts (as some editors here have admitted they feel about the channel), my edit may look like something the devil would come up with. But please keep in mind that I have never once claimed I think fox is balanced. I know that for a fact because I would never say something I don't believe. I can guarantee that my personal feelings about the channel are not playing a big part in my participation here. In fact, I personally don't think any US Media outlet is balanced, especially with regard to global issues. But as been said well above, "My objective isn't to make Fox look better. My objective is to present the facts." The encyclopedia needs to treat one reliably sourced, non-fringe POV as specifically as it treats the other reliably sourced, non-fringe POV. I don't care how it is treated, as long as some sort of balance is pursued. The sources show there exists the POV out there that Fox is quite neutral in its presentation of the news. Jsn9333 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't meant to throw cold water on the seeming progress that has been made, but at one time the lead did have the word "claim" instead of "say". The reason for the change was objection to "Claim" as a word to avoid. I also think claim or believe works better than say. However, we should add an explanation to the FAQ to explain the process of our use of the term. Also to respond to the over citation in the first sentence, I think the UCLA study should be deleted from the lead as there is dispute about what it actually said. I have no problem with it being used and discussed in the bias section however. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Before the UCLA paper is used anywhere, I would like to see some discussion of the points I've brought up. Regardless, we're not going to turn this RFC into an overly broad exercise -- it was specifically called to discuss the introduction. I don't think the introduction needs any citations, as the claims made are clearly verifiable in the body via reliable sources. I'm not going to continue to feed JSN, but I believe once you remove his antics from the equation we seem to have made good progress. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I had suggested the word "reputed", meaning contributing to the reputation, which I think is most accurate, or simply saying "Fox News has a reputation for being right leaning" or some similar language. You do not identify those who promote that reputation (other than footnotes) and avoid using "claim" and it still can be read as an NPOV fact. Bytebear (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hows this: "Fox News Channel has a reputation for promoting conservative political positions; a charge which it and others deny." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That almost makes it sound like the "others" are somehow associated with Fox News. I know that is not what you intend, but it implies Fox and the "others" are both denying the charge. However, the others aren't being charged with anything. Only Fox News is denying the charge, the others simply have independently stated they think Fox is objective in its news coverage. Now that I think of it, blaxthos version above has the same defect. "Fox News and others dispute claims of bias in their reporting" makes it sound like the "others" are disputing claims about "their" reporting. It implies association between Fox News and the "others", but in reality the sources show the "others" are quite independent of Fox News. For me, the entire point of changing the lead is to make clear that not only Fox news thinks it is balanced, but also other independent critics and observers. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Bytebear (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

blaxthos' version isn't saying that other are disputing claims about "their" reporting. Lanugage contains a lot of ambiguities, but our minds are capable of resolving the ambiguities without any conscious effort (in most cases). You hadn't realized the ambiguity before because the mind will naturally resolve it to the correct interpretation. In fact, the article contains numerous instances of much more complicated - and ambigiuous - syntax than that - but you haven't noticed because your mind has effortlessly resolved them. In the sentence, Fox News is the subject of the sentence. when the pronoun "their" is encountered, it is interpreted to refer to the subject of the sentence. This is the way everyone will interpret the sentence. It might even be one of the more esoteric rules of grammar. So in conclusion I think that concern is way overblown. If a person can read at the reading level required to read this article in the first place, I'm sure they won't have any trouble parsing that sentence correctly. Kevin Baas^talk 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the suggested versions are not saying it is the "other's" reporting. And I agree that most would probably not make the mistake in interpretation I brought up. So you make good points. Nonetheless, regardless of how clear or unclear the sentence is, my main concern is that the "other's" POV should not be mentioned in passing, but rather their POV should be as directly stated as the critic's POV... that is if the point of this effort is truly to balance POV's. If anything should be mentioned in passing it is Fox's denial, because the sentence is about the opinion of independent observers (as currently worded). So, for instance, perhaps "Other observers dispute the claims of bias," or "Other observers (and Fox itself) dispute the claims of bias," etc. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. Esp. when a stronger word such as "reputation" is used. that addresses my concern that readers understand that it's not just your usual passing accusation of bias, but it does seem to demand a little more on the side that some people see fox as balanced. Kevin Baas^talk 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The other POV, that some people see fox as balanced should be addressed in the body of the article. In the lede all we need to do is introduce the controversy and state the position of the article subject. The intro shouldn't go that in depth because then you get the some say x, some say y, and other say z stuff which is too in depth and wordy. I think as long as we make it clear that the perception is not necessarily fact, and that no one view is monolothic, then the lead does it's job. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead, if any part of the entry, should be were POV balancing is most important. It doesn't require any sort of depth to simply mention the fact that there is an opposing, independent POV. It could even be as little as three words ("other observers disagree"). Whatever way it is said, both POV's need to be included in the lead for it to have a neutral point of view. You have to remember that a good number of editors here don't even think this controversy should be mentioned in the lead in the first place! (We don't see it more notable then any of the liberal-bias criticisms of various other media outlets.) Those of us taking that position are compromising by even allowing the controversy to be noted in the lead. I hope you will be willing to meet us halfway and at least allow the lead to bring up the controversy in a POV-balanced fashion, especially since it doesn't require lengthy wording. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

continue of above disussion

Jsn, there are no punishments for tiring an admin, but there are blocks for incivility and personal attacks. I suggest you step down from your high horse before you fall flat on your face. Nothing within the recent comments on this page has been productive or even about the content of the lead. We can continue talking around the issue, or we can move forward. - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I fall on my face? LOL. In case you missed it, I have essentially been told that edits to this page are impossible as long as Blaxthos and perhaps one other editor, who has refused to offer even one inch of compromise and has refused mediation, disapproves of and reverts my edits. This despite the fact that the majority of the current editors have stated disapproval of the POV treatment in the lead. Apparently blaxthos is correct when he says even a peer-reviewed, published, major university led study is not a reliable source as long as he does not approve of its statistics. His edits are final on this page, despite the fact that he has blatantly admitted his bias about Fox news (see above where he says "you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing"). Deleting my account or blocking me indefinitely would have essentially no effect! There is no further to fall when you are made subservient to an admitted POV-biased editor. Essentially, this page is locked for editing period. This entry is ridiculous, and now I see why wikipedia founder Larry Sanger created Citizendium to be a true online encycopedia. Welcome to conservapedia. Well, in this case, it is Blaxthopedia. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When you wish to return to productive discussion, please let me know on my talk page. Until then, I will not be viewing your posts. - auburnpilot talk 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be offended if you don't hear from me on your talk page. I have not left productive discussion, so I don't quite see how I can return to it. Feel free to ignore py posts as you see fit.Jsn9333 (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't refused mediation, I offered my opnion that it is unnecessary at this point. Anyone who looks at my initial posts on this page will see that I was on JSN's "side" until I examined the sources she was citing, which are, in my opinion, inadequate. If she could find some more substantial sources disputing the idea that FNC has a bias, then I'd be more than happy to work with her to change the lead. And the page is not "locked for editing, period". It is locked to prevent editing until a consensus is reached, as all that would occur if it were unlocked would be an end-less edit war.TheNobleSith (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable time has passed since I asked your side to mediate that you have effectively refused the mediation by ignoring it completely. Though let me know if that is not the case.

Oh, and if a peer reviewed, published UCLA study and reputable news articles about the same thing as the current citations (prominent figure's opinion of Fox's coverage) are not "substantial sources", then nothing is. You are refusing compromise, period. And by the way... the current version you and Baxthos are defending so vigorously with your edits cites the exact UCLA study blaxthos claims (and you agree) is too unreliable to be used. What kind of hypocrisy is that! You are reverting my edit because my source is not reliable, but you are citing my source in the version you are posting. Not even the assumption of good faith can provide any comfort in light of that hypocrisy and absence of reason.

Blaxthos, at least, has blatantly admitted his bias about Fox news (see above where he says "you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing"). The complete hypocrisy and unreasonableness of his edits strongly suggest his bias is playing a part in this stalemate in a major way. Who knows what is motivating you, but you are siding with the admittedly biased editor (completely hypocritical and illogical edits and all).

The point is that as long as there is one editor who refuses to reach a compromise on the issue at hand (Blaxthos for sure, and seemingly you at this point), consensus will never occur. Essentially, the bias of an editor is keeping the version the majority disapproves of from being changed, and this could go on "indefinitely." So "locked to prevent editing until consensus is reached" effectively translates into "this page is locked to editing as to that issue, period, unless Blaxthos changes his mind". That one editor could be you. It could be Blaxthos. It could be two; the both of you. In practice, a POV-biased editor is able, singlehandedly via edit warring any changes, to keep this issue from being edited at all "indefinitely." Jsn9333 (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the FAQ encourage Wikilawyering?

I have seen a pattern of behavior where the FAQ is being used to "brandish wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution." I would like the FAQ either removed, or not be used in discussions. Bytebear (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. FAQs are used throughout Wikipedia, and I see no reason to remove this one. If you disagree with its content, please propose some changes. - auburnpilot talk 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQ's are common to summarize discussions that have taken place in the past. And you're objection is not to the existence of the FAQ or the text of it, but rather Blaxthos's use of it. The proper remedy is to file an RfC on user conduct if you don't like Blaxthos's conduct, but there's nothing wrong with having a FAQ or pointing it out to newer arrivals on the page. Finally, maybe the reason the editors you mentioned didn't post anymore on the page is that after reading the FAQ they agreed with the lead as is and moved on, or saw that their points were previously addressed, or maybe they died, or whatever, there could be a million reasons. There really is no evidence that pointing it out stifles discussion, especially since there has been nothing but discussion for the past few days. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was wiilawyering, but it certainly is being used as a tool for it. And I find it interesting that the one who is wikilawyering is also the author of the FAQ. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame the tool when you have a problem with the user. If it gets your goat...RfC on user conduct is the avenue. And Blaxthos had a lot of help in creating the FAQ, he provided the format and finishing touches. I added the disclaimer in response to an RfC where people thought it "too official" looking, and the text was provided through discussion with Blaxthos and others. It's really a team effort. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think more articles need faqs because, as wikipedia grows older, more discussions get archived and arguments get recycled as time goes on. A FAQ can address these recurring arguments and it is always good to read the archives of previous discussions to avoid possibly looking like a horse's ass to those who have debated a topic ad nauseum. With that being said, of course the FAQ is not the final say on an issue but should be looked at before you address any problems you have. Once you've looked at it and still have problems, make your case and see what others say. Consensus may be a against you but editors will work with you and it's good to be patient because remember, there is no WP:DEADLINE. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly said, MrMurph101. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Ok, there sure has been a lot of talk here but it seems that an acceptable edit could be reached. So how is this: Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.{sources} FNC and others deny allegations of bias in its reporting.{sources} Would this settle it? MrMurph101 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, but exactly what sources are going to be used would need to be ironed out. Some of them simply aren't good. Also, as others have noted, FNC has an unusual reputation among many for being biased; i.e., those who believe it is biased believe so more strongly than those who believe MSNBC and CNN are biased. As such, emphasis would have to be plased on FNC's unusual reputation. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could probably include that sentence, but MUST be moved to the end of the article under a new section entitled "Controversies". Otherwise I am just going to start adding in the same paragraph citing the liberal bias under CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC in the goddamn first paragraph!24.27.151.226 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You must be new around here. Just so you know, incivility and edit warring are quick ways to get blocked. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Besides, those stations don't have enough perception of liberal bias for it to be mentioned in the lead. And who pays enough attention to NBC, CBS, and ABC to determine what bias they have? Just kidding on that one. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is required for verification, however I believe that elevating any one (or few) sources affords it undue weight. The exceptions to WP:WEASEL (critics are "sufficiently numerous") are intended to avoid the same. Since we can verify all claims made in the lead later, I fail to see how there is any value to sourcing the introduction when the content is verifiable in the article, especially when coupled with the WP:UNDUE concerns. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take out the sources and go with this: Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions. FNC and others deny allegations of bias in its reporting. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are the controversies in the lead paragraph? They need their own subsection further down the article24.27.151.226 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)