Talk:Fox News

Reliability

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

Some critics and observers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Bill O'Reilly admitted FNC is far right, Tdinatale, why not find the source for that admission and use that? I think that statement alone would be far more meaningful than the amorphous "many observers," or similar language. Dcs002 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anon: The "many observers" in this sentence refers to countless polls of journalists and the public at large that point to a general belief that a large part of Fox News is promotion of conservative view points. It reflects not editor's POV but the general public's and informed observer's POV. If you can find similar sentiment toward some other network, than that other network's entry ought to have a mention of it. NickCT (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you give an example of those polls and I mean one that comes from a reputable source? I dont think Media Matters (a George Sorus Funded) or FAIR can be considered valid. Nor journalists who work for competing media to Fox. Otherwise we are taking an oppinion source. I googled proof of bias and every entry on the first three pages came from oppinion blogs.Tannim1 (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Should the FAQ remain the same except change the "Some" to "Many" and keep the same reasoning? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go with many based on the points raised in the above discussion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Good catch, Tom... I'd forgotten about it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservative positions and Republican Party

Though the introduction previously read "Many observers say that Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions," the current introduction citation from USA Today specifically says, "Listen to me, Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party." Combined with comments from the Obama administration describing Fox as "a wing of the Republican Party" or as "part of the Republican Party," it is not an accurate reflection of the sources to only use "conservative." (I am here because User:Threeafterthree reverted this clarification with the edit summary "rv trolling.") IndyObserver (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome discussion from Threeafterthree and Soxwon rather than blind reverts without edit summaries. The article's text cannot be allowed to so blatantly contradict its own citations. IndyObserver (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I try not to feed trolls, sorry. --Tom (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD- The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article...[a]ccordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole [emphasis added]. I do think discussion of the WH communications director mention of Fox could go in the article but it is the type of detail that belongs in the relevant body of the article and not the lead, since it fits under what is already written. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not simply the Manual of Style. You simply cannot have a citation to a source which says, and I quote, "Fox is not conservative" for an introduction that says "observers say Fox is conservative." It is a misrepresentation of the sources in violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies, which supersedes MOS concerns, and can be corrected by four simple words (hardly an breach of brevity). IndyObserver (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To your verification argument, this is directly from the source you highlighted:

• Fox News, its critics say, is a cheering squad for Republicans and the Bush administration.
• A documentary released this summer, Outfoxed, shows former Fox staffers accusing their old bosses of ordering them to slant the news in favor of conservatives. And Tuesday outside Fox News' studios in Manhattan, protesters held a "Shut Up!" rally to express their anger at what they see as the network's conservative bias.
• While the hosts who are paid to give their opinions make no attempts to hide their politics, the reporters and anchors on the news programs say they're traditional journalists who don't buy into attempts to spin the news

This source supports everything that's in the lead, namely, FNC is criticized for its bias and that FNC denies it. It appears you want to add more details, which to me, per MOS should go in the body. I honestly don't see where your interpretation of the article comes from. Also, at no point does the lead say or even attempt to say FNC is conservative. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the paragraph from the USA Today source currently used in the intro:

"A lion of the Democrats' liberal wing, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, was on the Hannity & Colmes show Tuesday. Afterward, he made no effort to hide his feelings. 'I go on Fox because a lot of Democrats won't,' Rangel said. 'Listen to me, Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party. Do they give me a fair shot when I'm on? Yes, because they need me. I'm red meat for their listeners.'"

An article containing such a clearly-worded observation as "Fox is not conservative" cannot be cited in support of an introduction which characterizes observers as alleging conservative bias. The most notable bias alleged is toward the Republican Party, not conservative ideology. IndyObserver (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To address your worry over details: The current summary is inadequate in doing what WP:LEAD prescribes, which is "most important points covered in an article." The former summary was not a fair portrayal of the most important points. A summary of the sources would indicate that (A) even among liberals, Fox is not so much alleged to promote conservative ideology, but Republican Party politics and (B) Fox does not simply "deny bias" as it is currently characterized as doing, rather it maintains a distinction between its news reporting and editorial programming (they have most recently compared themselves to a newspaper with an editorial section). I don't want to add a ton of extra words to the intro, but there is a distinction between what the old intro described and what its citations describe.

(And not to be a bean counter, but the Fox News article in its current revision would still have the shortest intro of the three major American cable news outlets.) IndyObserver (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting a response. Because of how blatantly the USA Today source is being misrepresented, I won't be dropping this even if ignored. Why does no one have a response to the fact that the source currently used in the intro says, and I again quote, "Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party." IndyObserver (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting, but I've been busy. Yes, USA Today says GOP, but the others says conservative. My question is why does USA Today get preeminence over the other five? If I were to remove USA Today, would that satisfy your objection? Please note that you may have to wait some time before I can respond to you again-- although I will try. I hope someone who sees it like I do, takes the opportunity to continue this further in the interim.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From where do you get the idea of preeminence, have I deleted "conservative" from the article? Of course not, because there are citations which say so. It doesn't get preeminence, it gets equal mention as allegation that is made both frequently (including from the White House) and independently (in the USA Today source used, mutually exclusive) of the other. And it's not just USA Today from 2004 that says Republican; there's the New York Times and Fox News sources from this year. The allegation from these sources is not bias toward conservative ideology, but promotion of the Republican Party specifically. IndyObserver (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand your point. I was thinking you were saying it was mis-attribution to say conservative when USA Today says GOP. Now I see you're saying that some sources say both, so the into should say both. My mistake. As there is no serious objection that FNC has been criticized for having a conservative bias, and there is only one mainstream party with conservatives in the U.S., I personally think it's redundant but I don't have any objection. It's reliably sourced that the criticism exists. When I made my deletion, there were quotes from Ms. Dunn in the lead, and I objected to that. I didn't see your narrower edit. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes? I never included any quotes, I always only added four words to the sentence ("or the Republican Party"). As for your concern over redundancy and the United States having only one conservative party, I would strongly disagree and point you to the conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are strong in numbers and influence. IndyObserver (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Ramsquire, conservatism in general is associated with the Republican party and I would suggest moving the quote to the body rather than sticking it in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire didn't say that, Soxwon -- he said he has no objection, and that it's clearly sourced. You seem to be missing the whole point -- the GOP and "conservatism" are two distinct issues and are directly treated as such in the source material. Please don't make unilateral reversions, as it seems you misunderstand the issue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep bringing up quotes here in my talk page thread? There are no quotes in the lede, nor have I ever inserted any quotes into it. Soxwon, your ideas about conservatism in American politics simply do not reflect reality. There are 52 self-identified conservatives sitting in the current Democratic congressional Congress, and a decent block of them in the Senate as well. Even were that not the case, one of our current sources says specifically, "Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party" and more current sources address cooperation with the Republican Party, not ideological bias. They're two very distinct things, and you're now simply stonewalling against talk consensus. IndyObserver (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To make matters worse, TFD is now reverting based on his confusion of this issue with a different proposal. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear things up on my end. I was reacting and objecting to this change. I thought the anon was IndyObserver. As I said before, I'm fine with IndyObserver's addition. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Gawd Soooo much typing about all this. I shouldn't even add to this, but- One concern I have about the "Outside " references in the main article - aren't all the outside links just newscorp sites? None link to anything pertaining to the issues being parsed here? In other words, Isn't that like trying to describe Rupert Murdochs head by referring to what his elbow thinks? (Shouldnt there be a link to "Media-Matters" Or some of the other studies that have been done?)God this entry is SO tortured & twisty because Newscorps & Ailes have Mastered Spin based on DENYING intent. THEY are the radical edge, so they gain new territory by just saying "No we're not- We are the Middle." Their arguments don't stand up to empirical examination so they just Say- "Our arguments are strong- so shut up" Their news people will tell a news event & then add "You know what I think..." at the top - Something I RARELY heard in serious broadcasts in the past, without it being shunted aside at the end of broadcasts with a clear C.G. under it stating "Editorial" or "Opinion Piece" or some such. But the major innovation at "Faux" (Which I do watch roughly 3 to 4 times a month)is, I REGULARLY hear anchors asking field reporters "...What do You think?" or telling the field person "Oh well you know what I think..." PUHLEEZ... I watch real news to see something that has happened. If I want to know what someone THINKS- I'll ask my aunt Fanny. With fox, their conclusions come out of the box already minted. Rangel is just hungry for Face time so he goes there... Big whoop. By doing that he just feeds their paltry evidence that they have no agenda. MEANWHILE, there IS no fairness doctrine for broadcast, (Which would mean actual verifiable standards) since the De-regulations of the 1980's fcc, and so fox actually DOESN'T have to be "fair & Balanced"! They really Don't. They actually have the Right to be as biased as they want! But its so much more fun to "Claim " they are fair- then watch the victims of distorted language wrestle in the blood & mud. Sad really... So sad. I'm just sayin' . 71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)--mbd--71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro needs major changes

Its time for this Wikipedia page to say what Fox News is really about. It is not a legitimate or credible news organization, it has been shown to lie and even make up facts and statistics consistently, it has an agenda (it is the Republican Parties mouth piece, no one can deny this any longer, Fox News doesnt even seem to care about hiding that fact anymore), and its sole dedication is to ruin the reputations of people who the conservatives do not like.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it must reflect the reality of whats going on. This article is not neutral, and its not even truthful. The intro has to reflect what Fox News really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.160.192 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion for the intro (this is a rough draft):

The Fox News Channel (FNC), commonly referred to as Fox or Fox News, is a major American conservative cable and satellite channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of News Corporation. As of April 2009, it is available to 102 million households in the U.S. and further to viewers internationally, broadcasting primarily out of its New York City studios.

The channel was created by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. The channel was launched on October 7, 1996[1] to 17 million cable subscribers. The network slowly rose to prominence in the late 1990s. In terms of regular viewers (Nielsen ratings), Fox News rates as the United States' number one cable news network.[2]

Many observers say that Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions.[3][4][5][6] Consistently, Fox News has been proven to make up facts and statistics and spread "news" that is entirely untrue or manipulated, to fulfill a conservative agenda. Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's reporting, maintaining a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming.[7][8][9]

I can add sources or bring them up on the talk page (all one really has to do is look at the Fox News Controversies page on Wikipedia, which isnt even half of it) but what I wrote above is basically a rough draft. Any thoughts?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.160.192 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You have said both that Fox is American conservative and American Republican. But these are two different views. The Bush administration was opposed by American conservatives for their support of immigration reform, Arab ownership of the ports administration, education reform and the banks bailout. Which side did Fox take? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the sources used, nuances such as these are exactly why the introduction should read "Republican Party" in addition to "conservative." The only thing preventing this are obvious partisans who are reverting with insults or without edit summaries at all (none of whom, I would note, have been warned by anyone for their behavior). IndyObserver (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You really need better sources than news reports. There is a book written about The Sun, Stick it up your punter,[1] that made a detailed study of that newspaper. You really need something similar for Fox News. Obviously any 24 hour live news network will make countless errors and some coverage will be biased. Putting these examples in to support a view of FN as biased is original research. You also have to distinguish between news reporting and talk shows. Most networks have talk shows similar to those on Fox. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to the first comment, Fox News is also a nationalist cable channel. The Bush administration had many ties to Arab dictators, everyone knows this. Fox News has no problem with that, or most of anything else that Bush did, but what Fox News had a problem with was Arabs (or foreigners for that matter, my comment should not be misconstrued as implying that Fox News has a racial bias) controlling American ports. We could use Republican if you feel that the term conservative is too broad. Like I said, that was just a rough draft.

You cannot use the excuse that FN is the same as other 24 hour news networks and thus makes "mistakes". Look at the CNN page. CNN is accused of being both liberal and conservative, which shows that they at least try to portray both sides. Not so with Fox. Also, CNN for example, and other 24 hour cable news networks, have made far less "mistakes" than FN. So what does that say about the quality of FN? FN appears to make a lot of "mistakes" doesnt it, especially when Republican Senators who are in the midst of scandals are labeled as Democrats (did any other news network make such mistakes? or as frequently?) Fox News is not a news organization, and even if you contend that it is, its certainly not credible or respectable.

It has gotten to the point where Fox News no longer can credibly deny the fact that it is biased, and is not a credible news organization.

So, when all the commentators are Republican/conservative, when all the talk shows are Republican/conservative, the news anchors are Republican/conservative and all the opinion shows are Republican/conservative (when I say this I mean in the way they report, their biases, the questions they ask/dont ask, the way news is reported, etc...) without the slightest bit of an attempt at neutrality, what does it say about FN?

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, thats beside the point. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Facts come first. Biases need to be set aside. Lets not get partisan here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.160.253 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 October 2009

(←) This isn't a forum for what we think about Fox News. If you have proposals for changing the lede of the article, you should probably begin with several reliable sources agreeing (nearly verbatim) with what it is you want in the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree totally. I have removed a long rambling forum post that includes an attacks on an individual which does not help and covers an number of off topic themes. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated -- Tom, you should be blocked and topicbanned for that. I strongly suggest the admin bring your ass to ANI for edit-warring over removing comments by an editor with whom you ideologically disagree. Do it again and I'll personally make sure it happens. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your dislike and bias against fox is again showing. POV agenda pushing editors like yourself are a scurge to this project. --Tom (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears as though some Wikipedia editors have been attempting to remove my comments. This is a DISCUSSION page, so yes, it is a forum for discussion. By the way, who did I attack?130.126.160.253 (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of the article but a place to discuss improvements to the article. You included some rambling about ex presidents and arabs and what not which is not approriate regardless of what the POV agenda pushers say and revert. --Tom (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The policy WP:FORUM refers to not using talk pages like a message board to air out political views. Since you were talking about article content and potential changes, removing your comments were not proper. Political opinions will creep into all of our comments, but we should all remember that the purpose of this page is discussing article content. Gamaliel (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel, please tell user Tom to stop removing my comments and telling me that I cannot use the discussion page in order to discuss the intro, which is what all of this is about.130.126.160.253 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, writing Fox News is not a news organization, and even if you contend that it is, its certainly not credible or respectable. is not a forum comment. Geesh --Tom (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Given your comments to Blaxthos today, I don't think you should lecture others about proper talk page comments. Let it go and let's get back to the article, please. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I read "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" ages ago, and it had a fair amount of observation of these sorts of things. Why keep reinserting unsourced, poorly written blather into the lede when you actually have the opportunity to properly source and properly write something, and why not try to build consensus on that content? user:J aka justen (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More intro cleanup

Regarding this sentence:

Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's reporting, maintaining a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming.

Many reliable sources have now challenged the "porous" line between such a distinction. I recommend making the following change:

Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's reporting by asserting a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming, though critics maintain that such a distinction is often blurred, and have noted news content seems to take cues from the Republican Party.

This is clearly cited (with examples) by the NPR story, and additional sources alleging this sort of behavior are copious (though I recommend avoiding overlinking). Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources provided do not support the text. You really have to obtain reliable sources to support your comments, and not use statements like "Fox News Channel denies" to insinuate that they really do something else. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "denies" text is ancient and long agreed upon during at least 3 RFC's I can remember off the top of my head. Regarding your assertion that the source doesn't support such:

For example, last month's Fox's Glenn Beck last month described Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as "a man that believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain." ... Republicans were making related claims, and the next hour, Fox News aired a story by James Rosen in which the reporter told viewers: "Rats could attack us in the sewer and court systems if all of Cass Sunstein's writings became law."

Republican editorial show makes a claim, GOP parrots said claim, and an hour later FNC is airing a "reportstory" with the same quote. Not sure how you missed that... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that has covered that timeline? user:J aka justen (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly in the source provided, should you bother to look. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Should you guys want some additional quotes from same source directly on this topic:

(John Harwood of The New York Times and CNBC)... In newspapers, Harwood says, the hard news divisions determine the agenda — not the editorial page. "But in cable television, the editorial page drives the train... And in Fox, you've got a network that is self-consciously set out to correct what it sees as the leftward bias of the rest of the media."

Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did bother to look, and in the transcript, it doesn't indicate a direct causation (rather, the events are intertwined), but that's not really the point. There's no doubt in my mind that Fox News is much more sympathetic to concerns that align more with Republicans. But, as I and others have pointed out above, you need more than a single news piece to source this for the lede. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire point of that part of the transcript directly validates my point; I really don't see how you can argue that it could or does mean anything else. Regarding sourcing, are you alleging that it isn't sourced elsewhere? Come on, J, that's being a little absurd. The White House has made the point, and I can point to all sorts of other sources, from The New York Times to the USA Today source already in the intro -- see the discussion above. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't absurd to insist on reliable sourcing. One of the articles you linked to doesn't even mention the word "Republican." The other focusses on steps Fox had supposedly taken to counter critics of its neutrality. Both, however, are newswire pieces, and using them to further this most recent change is synthesis, plain and simple. There are reliable sources that have taken a much deeper look at Fox News than can be had in a single news article, and those sorts of sources should really be the ones used to source any proposed changes to the lede. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Both additional articles deal with criticism of Fox News' blurring of the editorial and news content, and the NPR source is directly on point. I simply disagree with your assertions, characterization, and logic; hopefully additional viewpoints can help. I'm malleable as to the exact language used, and my suggestion is merely a starting point -- feel free to make suggested improvements. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fox News website, which is a reliable source, says that they are "fair and balanced". The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, yes it does. We already explicitly note their self description throughout the intro, infobox, and article; that's not really new, germane info that speaks to the issues I've brought up. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if reliable sources indicate they are "fair and balanced", they cannot be biased. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Obama administration does not equal many critics thinking that FNC is by extension a branch of the GOP. THe vast majority of articles are focusing on the fact that the Obama administration is attacking FNC. The statement that the Obama administration is using is that FNC is an arm of the Republican party and it is being reported on as a result. This issue is completely seperate from the previous criticism of FNC and probably would best be served as a seperate issue. A possible start.

In October 2009 the Obama Administration went on the attack against FNC. (examples of attack, Dunn et al.) (FNC Response.) (Third part commentary.) Arzel (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

USA Today, The New York Times, NPR have all run stories about this association and mode of operation; there are doubtless many more. That you continually use subjective language like "attacks" and "whining" only help underscore the fact that you (Arzel) constantly try to paint FNC as the victim and the criticism as unjust, which is far beyond the scope here -- the mere existence of such copious criticism on these matters is enough to warrant mention. To be super duper clear: the justification that FNC repeatedly uses (distinction between news and editorial coverage) is frequently challenged; reliable sources have called this distinction into question, and at least one has reported an example of FNC news taking cues from the Republican Party, which ironically got the talking point from an FNC editorial show. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, if the Obama administration would stop whining about FNC and stop attacking FNC then there wouldn't be any reliable sources saying that the Obama administration is a bunch of whiners and that attacking a news organization is not good policy then I wouldn't have such subjective language to use. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you need sources. This is Wikipedia, not Fox News. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The both of you are unbelievable and have no crediblilty on which to stand at this point. Your lack of logic is airtight, as it were. The vehement rhetorical language, coupled with the willful ignoring of multiple sources is evidence that you're not operating in good faith, and I can only hope more objective editors will contribute to the discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Again you must follow reliable sources guidelines. A lot No amount of weak sources do not strengthen statements and concluding that many sources support a view is synthesis. I have a reliable source that says Fox News is "fair and balanced". The Four Deuces (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "fairness doctrine" for commercial broadcasting anymore, it was de-regulated away in the 1980's- so actually fox is perfectly within their rights to be as biased as they wanna' be. And they are. :-) But they are also "Marketing " their ideology. It is just empirical fact that Ailes was a reactionary republican operative in the past. It's not being made up by anyone. It's just the way he is, he's probably nice to most people he encounters, but he is who he is. Now he runs a Major media outlet where the content can echo his belief systems. And it does. If anything he has moderated it down a little. (He used to work with Lee Atwater, the Dark Lord of extreme right mis-information. It's just a fact.) And he is extremely clever at what he does, part of which is, to DENY that there is an agenda. That's what makes it work. Look at all those in here who actually seem to think some sort of "Rule" for fairness applies to what they are doing. In fiction there are no requirements to be "Real" 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)--mbd--71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the objections here. Is there a specific number of reliable sources that Blaxthos must come up with before the objections are dropped? If so, I'd suggest you give him the number so that he can meet it. But if the objection is undue weight, I'd point out that the topic is generally broached in the current lead, and could easily go into the body. With that being the case, I don't think his suggestion is off base. May I suggest:

• Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's reporting by asserting a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming, however critics allege that increasingly that distinction is blurred.

The example discussed in the source could go in the body, or in the controversies article. My two cents. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote above "A lot of weak sources do not strengthen statements". I will rephrase it as "No amount of weak sources strengthen statements". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Ramsquire's proposed rewrite. Unless there is objection, I will put it in within 24hrs.NickCT (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The FNC statement is already a response to the previous statement, that we should add a retort to the FNC response just leads to a back and forth POV warfest. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Arzel objects to Ramsquire's language. Unless I hear more support for Ramsquire I will not change the lead to that wording. Personally, I dislike the "and points to a distinction between " language. It suggests that a distinction definitely exists, which of course is just Fox's claim. Can we change to "and claims there is a distinction between " or "and claims that conservative view points carried in its editorial programming do not carry over to its news coverage". Do I have support for these?

Whatever we change to, lets do it quickly. Somehow this lead has a tendency to return to more ambiguous and soft language regarding claims surround Fox New's political spin after every change. Strange.... NickCT (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)No. Claims is weaselly and takes a position. Whatever fox is stating is just that, thier statement in reply and should be reported as such. --Tom (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Tom. So given that the "points to" language is bad. How about "and (says|states that) there is a distinction between ".NickCT (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems ok. What do others think? --Tom (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, any of those are fine. We could even use "maintains" again, because once the words "that there is" are placed between it and "a distinction", it tells the reader the particular meaning of the word "maintains" that is being used. I know that explanation is pretty awkward but is it clear? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see things are moving forward. I have one small suggestion... in Ramsquire's suggested version ("however critics allege that increasingly that distinction is blurred.") the "that" is doubled, and in either case it's a split infinitive. A better way to handle that predicate would be something like "however critics have [stated] that the line is increasingly blurred". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blax - We are scrapping Ramsquire's suggestion due to Arzel's objection (though I suspect Arzel would object to "1+1=2" if it made Fox News look bad). Badminton - Having a little trouble interpreting your suggestion. So far I think we have the following options - "and (says|states that|maintains that|argues that) there is a distinction between " Anyone want to nominate a winner? Personally, I'm for the "argues" option. This is because Fox's claim that there is a distinction is clearly a point of contention. I think most of us would accept, with the exclusion of Arzel, that there is little or no distinction. The word "argues" or "claims" would make that contention apparent. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd caution against "scrapping" a suggestion from a respected issue based solely upon Arzel's objection (because, as you note, he objects to anything that is critical of FNC). Let's try to fix valid concerns with the suggestions (like the linguistic points raised by myself and Tom) instead of scrapping content entirely. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd would just be careful with all the "back and forth" as it were. Folks say fox is biased, fox says it isn't, but folks say it is...nah nah na nah na....I got the last word....Is the current version that far off? Anyways, stay tuned :) --Tom (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blax - I hate to say this, but I agree slightly with Arzel. It seems as though if we start doing "point / counter-point / point" we risk having to inject all the accusations against Fox and all its denials into the lead. Best just keep it simple with one sentence detailing the accusation, and one detailing the denial. As I'm not getting concrete suggestions for rewordings I'm going to put in "and argues that there is a distinction between ". Objections? If you do object, please suggest what we can replace "points to" with.NickCT (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Two minor points- One (and this is admittedly extremely nit-picky. I really don't want to re-visit the centuries old argument re: use of split infinitives) but there is none here, since the S (critics) and V (allege) have no intervening adverb (e.g. "to boldly go") and more importantly, the infinitive is not used. ;) But that said, the double "that" is awkward. Second- (and actually germane)- I think Arzel does have a point as well re: point/counterpoint/point/counterpoint. However, I do think the "new" criticism should be reflected in the article in some fashion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's news reporting, and argues that there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming. Rams - which double "that" are you talking about?NickCT (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We're getting so nitpicky with the language here that we're having trouble interpreting each others' points. As far as I'm concerned NickCT's last formulation in bold type is fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick--I was referring to my first suggestion (that increasingly that). FTR-I also support the bolded sentence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also support the emboldened sentence, however leaving it at that doesn't really address the whole impetus for this discussion. I do understand the legitimate concern for a neverending cycle of point/counterpoint; however the conversation about Fox News as "not a news organization" has grown to such proportions that we absolutely must address this additional criticism (the challenge of FNC's claim of a distinction between news an editorial coverage) in the intro. There is an entire article about this subject in AFD (though I don't see how it's going to get deleted), but the majority of the delete !votes contend that this information should be addressed in the FNC and Obama articles respectively; so in either case it's plainly a relevant and significant criticism that should be dealt with in the intro. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am unimpressed. This sounds as If we are supposed to be paying homage to Obama Administration and MSNBC talking points and pretending that there something more than a recently manufactured rhetorical campaign at work here. Fox News is a news organization, a substantially biased news organization, but, nonetheless, a news organization.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just go with... Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's news reporting, and says there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming.?...again, we aren't taking sides, we are just reporting what fox has said and not stating it as fact, ect....anyways, this seems so ridiculous/nick picky/manufactured/muckracky/ect ect, imho...--Tom (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to have it. However, the point is that the "news organization" label is not the opinion of many very significant figures, and the challenge to that opinion is widely sourced. This isn't just about Obama's challenge of that assertion, as many others have been critical of this for some time -- I remind you of the USA Today article discussed above from several years ago. However, once it's reached this level of disputed status WP:NPOV mandates that we properly balance the presentation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion? Where did I give an opinion above?? You mean about this being nit picky, ect?? --Tom (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So in the lead we should include alot of people don't think fox is a news organization but fox says they are? --Tom (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, again, I think NickCT's formulation is fine. If you look at it, it implies that critics complain about its news reporting, not just its commentators. Also, Fox's own rebuttal all but admits that its commentators sway to the right. I don't see any real cause for complaint about the way Nick wants to word it. Let's go with it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"argues that there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming"

Rereading this I'm still a little concerned about the wording. The term "a distinction" is a little vague. A distinction in what? The quality of the programming? The material they cover? I call for a further rewrite to the following -

"argues that there is a distinction between the right leaning viewpoints expressed in its editorial programming and the stance taken in its news coverage"

I'm just going to pour this onto the table to see if the cat laps it up. I know Arzel is going to say "Wikipedia can't take a stance on whether the editorial programming is right-leaning" I refute that by saying 1) Those of us not drinking the kool-aid know it is 2) As the intro is written, it ALREADY takes a stance, it's just a little vague. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on the fact that we're not even addressing that the "distinction" (or whatever) is significantly challenged by lots of critics and observers (like, say, NYT, NPR, and the President of the United States)... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead is not the place for a full exposition of the arguments between Fox and its critics. At most, we could have a sourced statement to the effect that some assert a bias in Fox's news reporting as well as in its news commentary and then include Fox's basic rebuttal. Anything more than that should go in a separate section or in a separate article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad: Isn't that sorta what we already have? I just want to clarify what's there. Do you have anything against my proposal specificly?NickCT (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that what we have in there now is perfectly okay. However, to to make it crystal clear we could, instead of saying Many observers say that Fox News Channel programming promotes conservative political positions, say something like Many observers say that Fox's news reporting as well as its news commentary promote conservative political positions (assuming we have sources which basically say this). In framing Fox's rebuttal, however, we should not say that Fox argues that there is a distinction between its news coverage and its right-leaning (or conservative) editorial programming unless Fox itself acknowledges that its news commentary is right leaning. Just leave the rebuttal as it is. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Logically speaking, isn't Fox arguing, "Our news coverage isn't biased, it's different from our editorial programming" implicity saying that thier editorial programming is biased? And if that is implicity, can't it be spelled out explicity. Additional see (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=2) . " Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox, said the White House was conflating the network’s commentary with its news coverage. " Is Michael Clemente admitting the editorial programming is right leaning?NickCT (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick, when Wikipedia gives Fox's rebuttal it has to accurately reflect what Fox has actually said in that rebuttal. Fox has asserted that there is a distinction between its news coverage and its commentary in claiming that the Obama administration has conflated the two. It has not, however, explicitly said that the commentary is right-leaning (though most of us realize that it is). It is our job in this particular sentence to accurately restate what Fox has said in response to the charges of bias. It isn't our job in this sentence to "connect the dots" for the reader. That would be WP:Synthesis. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox has asserted that there is a distinction between its news coverage and its commentary

What do scholars who study journalism think? Is there a distinction, or has Fox made a name for itself intentionally and willfully blurring this demarcation? Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad - I grudgingly accept your point, though I really think this is another example of "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck". I do like Many observers say that Fox's news reporting as well as its editorial programming promote conservative political positions. Does anyone object? NickCT (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can accept such as a compromise... if a good compromise should make nobody happy, you may have found a winner.  :) I think Veriditas has it right though -- "What do scholars who study journalism think? Is there a distinction, or has Fox made a name for itself intentionally and willfully blurring this demarcation?" //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can use the term "Many" to apply to news reporting as well as commentary. Even yesterday, when pressed, Valarie Jarret would not blanket the Obama Bias opinion towards FNC as a whole. Furthermore, this is taking a weasel word and expanding it to cover specifics when there are no real reliable sources that even validate the compromised "Many" to begin with. I don't see the benefit of blurring an already poorly sourced opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I would make "many" "some" and make sure that those "some" are solid reliable sources that don't raise questions of WP:UNDUE. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly against "some". We spent a long time eliminating that wording. "Some" is extremely weaselly (moreso than "many") because it implies that the allegations might not be mainstream or majority opinion. Re Arzel's specific complaint; I think "Everyone" accepts that the editorial programming is right leaning (don't you Arzel?), and I think "many" say that bias bleeds into the news coverage.

On another note, kudos to Arzel for continuing to try to confuse and obfuscate. Obviously you have learned something from FNC. NickCT (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Some" rather than "many" is not a point I'm going to fight over. However, keep in mind that if you use the term "many" you have to have either many reliable sources reflecting the particular criticism that Fox's reporting as well as its commentary "promote conservative viewpoints" (if that's how you want to put it), or, at the very least, one or two unimpeachable sources which basically say that many observers say (or believe) this about Fox's reporting as well as its commentary. An editor can't simply say it on his own because he believes it to be true. "Some" is easier to source than "many". Badmintonhist (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad - We discussed this quite thuroughly. I think when we refer to "many" we are looking at a wealth of polling data that suggests that both among journalists and the public the consensus opinion seems to be that Fox leads the news industry in terms of bias.NickCT (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be precise here. We already have a statement in the lead that "many observers" say that Fox News promotes "conservative political positions". I'm fine with it because it is true and adequately sourced. However, if you want to raise the ante by making it something like "many observers say that Fox's news reporting as well as its news commentary promote conservative political positions" then, to do this properly, you have to have reliable sources which basically say this. Sources which don't merely say that the channel is biased, but which say that both its "hard news" presentations and its commentary lean to the right. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama Administration criticism of FOX

We seem to have a section devoted to the Scot McClelland accusations of the Bush Whitehouse, but nothing about the Obama adminsitrations attempt to discredit Fox as a news organization. This has been widely covered by many major outlets but there is no reference to it here? The artical seems quite biased agauinst Fox in its current form 206.108.31.36 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Anon. You seem to contradict yourself here. You point out that the article doesn't talk about the Obama administration discrediting Fox, then say that the article is biased against Fox? It's seems to me that including information about how Fox News had been discreditted would create a negative impression of the channel.NickCT (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it, but I had to correct the date, move it to controversies, then it was rewritten. We may still need to do more to this recent addition.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote most of it to follow known timeline and more match the existing article. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all good encyclopedic information, we just have to make sure it's presented in an informative manner that doesn't favor one side or the other.--ChubsterII (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I at first removed part of this as the link did not have any support to what was said, i think it was updated as there was info that was false in the news link. I looked into it and found the information has been updated and posted an update with supporting links. The language I used was pretty much copy and paste with direct quotes as to make sure there was no Bias. The story seems to have grown since it was posted as well so i thought a update was better then just removing it without looking into. --Marlin1975 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Administration criticism of Fox News - UPDATE

Can we hold off on this "material". Has this been widely covered? MAYBE add to the sub artilce if this pans out, otherwise this article will quickley turn into the daily fox vs them blotter. TIA --Tom (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The material being added by Marlin is the WH spin on the event. The vast majority of discussion states quite succinctly that the attempt was to not allow FNC to participate in the Pool interview. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what "discussions" you think are most important, but I'd assert that WP:NPOV mandates a neutral and balanced presentation (ie all views, not just the most chatty blog's take)... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The major quote was from a major bureau chief, there was nothing from the WH. The only spin was from fox. Funny how when this first went up with Fox saying it was being kept out you had no problem. But now that facts have come out and that was not the case you do not want it there? All I did was update the information that has been there a while. --Marlin1975 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo is hardly an unbiased source. I added a non-editorial point of view that doesn't claim either side of the story. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, I believe I (along with others) have recently (and historically) explained that there is no requirement that a source must be "unbiased" -- please stop using that as an argument against sources with which you ideologically disagree. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the edit also seemed to throw out a NYT piece on the subject to make it fit the White House talking point. That is POV. The story that the White House memos presented should be mentioned (and the second sentence of the third paragraph re-written,it's so awful it hurts), but I don't think the NYT piece should be discarded out of hand. Soxwon (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, I'm sorry, I should have been more clear in that my objection is limited to the continued willful false policy assertion that sources must be "unbiased". My objection wasn't intended to endorse one particular wording or the other with regard to content. I'm interested in seeing some proposals for inclusion here, where we can all make comments and refine as needed before inclusion into the main article. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving question

It has come to my attention that some threads are not being archived correctly. For example, on 28 September 2009, MiszaBot I said it was archiving a 61 kilobyte thread entitled "Lead is entirely unsatisfactory".[2] However, a quick check of the archives shows that the thread was never archived.[3] Any ideas? I'm going to manual archive right now, but I would like to know why the bot isn't working. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead redux

It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning mind that the "promoting conservative positions" criticism in the lead is there because it is a red herring. Conservative bias is only one small part of the overall criticism found on the controversies page, the other part concerning the lack of journalistic ethics. Why is this not represented in the lead section? Most critics of Fox News dont't give a damn that they have conservative bias. What they care about is that they are incapable of reporting news according to basic standards of journalism. This is why they are criticized. If they are going to call themselves a news channel, then they need to follow the rules of journalism. Since they don't, and they have been taken to task for this in RS, this criticism must be represented in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary. I think that an awful lot of folks very much give a damn about Fox's conservative bias. However, if you have a number of reliable sources (not ones with obvious ideological axes to grind) that complain about Fox's journalistic ethics then by all means present it in the lead section. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, the reliable source policy doesn't require that a source be non-partisan -- it only requires that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I've pointed this out to you on multiple occasions, and I would appreciate it if you would be more careful to ensure you're not misstating policy. There are copious amounts of sourcing regarding FNC's lax interpretation and enforcement of "journalistic ethics" (especially more so over the last few weeks), so let's not pretend that sourcing is the issue. I've tried to enunciate the problems with the intro in the section above, so let's start working on a proper formulation and sourcing so we can fix the glaring omissions.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

glaring omissions? According to whom? --Tom (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To address Blaxthos's concerns, there are problems that he may not taking into consideration. Using heavily biased, anti-Fox sources, especially in the lead, even if they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", brings in concern about WP:UNDUE. This is particularly true when the question is about "journalistic ethics", which by its very nature tends to be quite subjective. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources must be used properly. News media are a reliable source for current events but not for analytic judgements. They are a reliable source for persons' opinions but those opinions themselves are primary sources. In order to evaluate Fox in terms of its credibility or bias acceptable secondary sources are academic journals or books. If there is no evidence in the academic world to support any of this then there is no reason to include it. Text must be verifiable. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided such secondary sources in these threads (see archive link below), for example, Stuart Allan's Journalism: Critical Issues (2005:ISBN 0335214754) does exactly what you describe. In one of dozens of examples of how private interests influence the content of news, Allan quotes the Financial Times which describes Murdoch's commitment to "openly biased media" as a business decision based on market demand.(9) The book also quotes The New York Times which describes Fox as "opinionated news with an America-first flair". Fox, the article says, "takes a new approach to television journalism" that "casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent, and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core." (11) I can go on like this for days. The essays in this book are written by academics. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol. We've sorta drifted from Viriditas's original point. Viriditas I disagree you were main contention. It seems to me that when you look at most pages critical of FNC they usually center around allegations of bias, rather than allegations of reporting ethics (though I'm not saying allot of people haven't critized FNC for lack of ethics, usually in relation to biasing) Re: Reliable soures I think I'd tend towards Bad/Deuces's arguement here. In the more "subjective" statements on Wikipedia, we should try to stick as closely as possible to "mainstream" opinion, and not be a mouthpiece for those who are most critical of FNC.NickCT (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_23#Lead_is_entirely_unsatisfactory. The evidence in that discussion concerns and focuses on multiple examples of alleged breaches of journalistic ethics. All allegations of bias come out of these so-called violations. Please try to look at the problem, rather than the symptoms. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that there are significant criticisms of FNC's lack of journalistic ethics. I also assert that it is a logical fallacy to simply equate "Republican bias" with ethics criticism. We certainly aren't being intellectually honest by disregarding the academic criticisms of questionable ethics because there happen to be more media sources that only deal with the micro-issue of Republican/conservative bias. The two may be related, but as several editors have pointed out they are two distinct issues, and a solid encyclopedic treatment of the subject should treat the ethical criticism with at least as much gravity as the secondary issue of outward bias. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but most of the criticisms we have here (i.e. the sources used), are violations of ethics to promote a bias, which makes Viriditas point (while well taken) redundant. I've seen/read criticisms of ethic in regards to objectifying women, not disclosing conflicts of interests with their pundits and using FNC to seek donations to private concerns. These clearly are not related to the bias controversy, but I've been hesitant to try to add this kind of stuff because simply I think it will receive tremendous blowback, and I don't have the time or desire to get into that kind of brouhaha. That being said, I think they are encyclopedic topics that could be broached in the body of the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 White House criticism of Fox News

Enough, this conversation isn't going anywhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I love the fact that the section is titled "THE" 2009 Criticism of Fox News. As if there is anticipation of there being a section titles "THE" 2010 Critism of Fox News. That is so classic wikipedia. I have to hand to you guys, you really outdid yourselves this time. Bravo Bravo Bravo. As if thats not enough, lets create a whole article with the same title, 2009 White House criticism of Fox News and while we're at it, lets go ahead and create one for 2010 White House Criticism of Fox News right now, since we all know there will be one soon enough. Gosh, we only have two months left, lets not miss that boat. Heck, if we are really good, we can get it to WP:GA by Christmas. Whoopie, This is great, I love bashing Fox News. I can't wait until 2012, so we can bash whatever candidate attempts to run against the democrats. For those of you with no funny bone, this was meant as sarcasm, but did I really have to say it, Um..........YA I guess I did.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The section title was changed to represent the main article, not that I agree with the name choice. Whatever the title is, should probably remain mostly consistant with the main article which was created. Arzel (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC) FYI the original title was Some White house representatives feel Fox News is “not a news organization.” Which kinda felt like Some people think that Bud Light is less filling.  :) Arzel (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Come on, lets say what we really think. The title should be Criticism of the evil republican backed not really a news network, by the lovely bunny slipper wearing white house whose poop don't stink. That would be more in line with how things have gone so far for this adminstration on wikipedia. :)--Jojhutton (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Please use this page to make constructive comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the reminder. What would we ever do without the level headed users who remind us of our faults.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Pew released a new study which pointed out the FNC is viewed as the most ideological news source between FNC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC. They also report that the others are viewed as more liberal than conservative and that MSNBC is viewed also as more liberal than conservative or neither. I don't have a problem stating the facts, but it is a little disengenious to simply point out the conservative feelings towards FNC without also stating liberal feelings towards the others. Comments on how to present the information in the most neutral form? Arzel (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the analysis is detailed enough to be helpful. What does "viewed by Americans in more ideological terms" mean? It is probably better to wait for a source that analyzes the various polls. And it would be incorrect to discuss the other networks individually because that would belong in their own articles. Here is a link to the Pew article: [4] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, I have no problem changing the second link to a more neutral source, there are dozens analyzing the same data. I do have a problem with the way you were personally twisting the data to conform to what seems like your own WP:POV. Specifically these two added lines:

• "CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all were viewed "more liberal" compared to "more conservative"

This seems to try to twist the data into making it seem as if all of those networks are viewed as 'liberal networks', when the poll[5] seems to indicate otherwise. ABC has a 36% 'Neither' rating and a 32% 'liberal' rating, to go along with a 14% 'conservative' rating. So a plurality view ABC as neutral, while you can take the numbers from either side and say 'most of America believes ABC is either liberal/conservative to neutral. The same goes with all of the other networks. Fox News is the only network listed that has one ideology a higher number than the other two combined. CNN and MSNBC are the only networks that has a higher 'liberal' rating than it has a 'neither' rating. Still, in both cases the combined numbers of 'neither' and 'conservative' outweigh the 'liberal' number. Now to the other claim that is inappropriate according to the data:

• "MSNBC being an opposite of Fox with 36% saying "mostly liberal", 27% saying "neither in particular, and 11% saying "mostly conservative"

While MSNBC does have a high liberal rating(36%, most likely due to it's prime time lineup of liberal talk show hosts)it's not the highest. CNN has 37% and NBC also has 36%. It's not the 'opposite of Fox' according to the data. MSNBC's liberal rating is at 36%, Fox News has a 47% conservative rating, that's a 11% difference. It's not as if the numbers are even close and one could err on the side of rounding the numbers, the difference is 11%. Not to mention that a plurality of respondents(38%) do not believe MSNBC is a 'liberal' network.

If you would like to clean up the wording a bit, that's fine. But let's not twist the data to fit a certain WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the most neutral reporting on the study I have seen. It offers no opinion on the matter, but simply reports the main points of the study in a comparrison form. As a side note, this doesn't really belong in the bias section. The study makes no interpretation of bias. It should go into the ratings and perceptions.

Also, you are incorrect about the definition of plurality. A plurality is simply the majority of respondants. MSNBC and CNN both show a plurality of respondents that view those networds as "mostly liberal".

On a statistical note you need to be more careful about statistical interpretation. The difference between MSNBC, CNN, and Fox are much smaller than you would think. The study has a +/-3.5 points margin of error, thus the difference between FNC and MSNBC is not 11% (A difference of X% is also not the correct way to describe the difference), there is a 95% probability it could be anywhere between 4 and 17 points, but it is statistical significant. Similarily, the difference between CNN and FNC has a 95% probability of being anywhere between 3 and 16 points. Addtionally, both FNC and MSNBC are viewed as either conservative or liberal from a statistical point of view. FNC's plurality difference is 23 points (outside the 7 points margin of error), MSNBC is 9 points (also outside the 7 points). CNN is 4 points, which is inside the margin of error. All the others are also inside the margin of error. Thus the only statistical measures that could be drawn are that both FNC and MSNBC are viewed as either idologicaly conservative or liberal by a statistical plurality of respondents. No other deduction about plurality can be made.

Additionally, it can be said that FNC is statistically viewed as more conservative than all other news organizations in the study. As a final note, the study is somewhat questionable as it only included landline phones which account for only about 80% of all households as of May 2009. Arzel (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You can only use the text that is relevant to Fox, 'viz.': "Fox News Channel is considered to be more ideological than other TV news networks, according to the latest Pew Research Center weekly News Interest Index. According to its survey of 1,000 adults 18-plus, 47% think of Fox News as "mostly conservative," compared to 14% who say it is mostly liberal, and 24% who say it is not particularly one or the other nets...." And you cannot provide any analysis not provided in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting such, only giving a bit of statistical interpretation knowledge (force of habit given I have been doing statistical analysis for 10+ years). The source I linked was a good summary of the survey without a political bent. Additional, I do think it belongs in Ratings and Perspectives. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, you need to stop reverting my edit about the Pew poll. You have shown no viable reason to do so and your posts on this talk page, along with your previous edits are slanted and do not make any sense. This page isn't about MSNBC or CNN, it's about Fox News. Also, you are purposely slanting the statistics to fit your own agenda. The statistical error ratio could just as easily make Fox News seen more of a conservative network than less of one. The stats are OUTSIDE of the margins, so you have no valid point. If you insist on reverting my edits, I will contact an Administrator and report you. DD2K (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Report me then, I made minor changes and added additional information from the source. You are not even discussing the issue, simply reverting to your point of view. Not to mention this is NOT about bias, it is about perception. Arzel (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the second sentence in YOUR edit is not supported by the source. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to bring down the level of the conversation a little by saying; Arzel is a doody head. I heard he and Bill O'Rielly go out for falafel's every other Saturday.

No, but seriously folk, as Arzel is clearly on the salary roll of FNC, I regard any suggestion of his with the most extreme skeptisism. That said, the poll data does seem relevant. I think the only to avoid bias is simply to present the raw number and not try to translate those numbers into statements like "FNC is viewed as the most ideological news source ".NickCT (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I go out fo falafel on Saturdays, BOR uses his falafel on Saturdays, get it straight.  ;-) Couple of points. I still feel this should be in the reception section right below the other PEW research poll on basically the same thing. This poll doesn't try to make any implications about Bias. Arzel (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The entry definitely belongs in the Fox_News_Channel#Conservative_bias category. The poll has absolutely nothing to do with ratings, and I've pointed that out to you already. You try to keep claiming the sub category is 'Ratings and Perception', when it is 'Ratings and Reception'. There is no way the results of this poll belong there. Also, to claim that the poll makes no implications of bias is disingenuous, it goes straight to the perception of bias. When viewers view a NEWS channel as either 'liberal' or 'conservative', bias is automatically perceived. When viewers answer 'neither' is when there is no implication of bias. And the tag line of 'Fox is viewed as America's most ideological network comes straight from numerous news sources reporting on this poll. Also, claiming that my edit's "second sentence in YOUR edit is not supported by the source" is completely false. The second sentence is 100% backed up by the source and you claiming it isn't shows that you seem to have an obvious bias and are WP:POV pushing. DD2K (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So I read your complaint and looked at that link and all I can say is I have no idea what you're trying to promote here. Forty-seven (47%) of Americans say FNC is "mostly conservative;" a HUGE jump from the 14% who say that CBS and ABC (tied) are "mostly conservative." COMPARED to those who say what is "mostly liberal" CNN barely edges out MSNBC with 37 and 36% respectively. To point that out and make some weird conclusion about liberalism is beyond me. Don't push a conservative bias please as you have a history of doing. A8UDI 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom, leave in the NPOV link while this is under discussion. Also, leave out the ad-hominen attacks. You don't see me removing the one you put in regarding the WH attacking FNC and you have yet to even make a single comment about it. Have you even read the study? FNC, CNN, and MSNBC all have pluralities of responses showing the idological view of those stations. While FNC is viewed as the most idological of the three by the respondents, both MSNBC anc CNN are viewed by respondents to be idologically liberal. Additionally, all stations (other than FNC) are viewed as more liberally ideologicaly driven than conservatively driven.

DD2K, That sections is part of the controversies and accusations of conservative bias. This study is not an accusation of conservative bias, and from what I can tell it is not even a controversy. It does fall into the general ratings and reception of FNC though. Finally, the current edit is not supported by the source. The addition of the sub-categories is an attempt to minimize the difference between the conservative/liberal split of the other news organizations. You and Tom are bitching about POV, I am simply saying state the statistics and let the reader make up their own mind. You don't get to just pick and choose what results to present to try and frame the issue towards your singular point of view (ie FNC is biased) when it is clear from the study that MSNBC is viewed just as statistically significant liberally ideological. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What attacks? A8UDI 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, he says that stuff all the time. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are an admin, try acting like it. Arzel (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my capacity as admin, I was merely warning a fellow editor about the patters of another editor whose behavior has been problematic in the past. In that capacity I will also use this opportunity to urge you to abandon those problematic behaviors and, as you implore below, "Discuss the ISSUE". Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't need to read anything. I saw the chart and you're making weird claims. There's no bias, and I have an incredibly hard time to not do anything but suggest you are pushing for a conservative bias... and it's getting old. I'm not attacking what I know to be true, so don't play that card either. A8UDI 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You accuse me of pushing a POV multiple times, in fact that is all you seem to be able to do. Discuss the ISSUE, not the EDITOR. WP:AGF Arzel (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, you are making claims that are false and not backed up by the data or the sources. The Pew poll specifically states(on their OWN website) Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network. And you can keep claiming that MSNBC is "viewed just as statistically significant liberally ideological" all you want, but it's just not true using this poll as a source. As a matter of fact, this poll specifically cites Fox News as the only network that had more people identify it as one particular ideology than both other answers combined. And here is what they state about the other networks and MSNBC-

• Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%

So please, quit making false statements and trying to twist the data in this particular poll to fit your own WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, Arzel, reword it if you don't like the wording but there is no POV. rolls eyes. A8UDI 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To all of the above. I started this section. I clearly stated I had no problem with the information being added. My primary concerns were that not only the view against FNC be presented to balance the section. I also didn't feel like this belonged within the Bias section but within the ratings and reception section since it is mostly about public perception NOT specific instances of Bias. Yet I am being attacked from all sides for supposed pushing a POV, and frankly I am getting a little sick of it. Discuss the issues leave the ad-hominens out of it. Arzel (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, there is no requirement to continue assuming good faith when there is compelling evidence to the contrary. I think my thoughts on your agenda are clear, and are quite well supported by a reading of your past statements and actions. It is quite probable that others are also coming to the same conclusion based on your recent attempts to (mis)characterize this study to fit your stated POV. I've remained silent in this discussion, but at this point I'd recommend the rest of us move away from arguing with POV warriors and towards finding a proper consensus of the best way to incorporate the study into the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you lost all good faith after you recent malicious attempt to get me blocked. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, you got spanked because you repeatedly misstate policy, ignore consensus, and bend over backwards to service your conservative ideology. This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of probably at least a dozen editors over the last few years. Indeed, you can't even honestly present a history of what happened -- I made no request to get you "blocked", I simply pointed out your inappropriate activities on ANI and asked someone else to look into it. Just because I call you out for your inane bullshit doesn't mean I'm operating in bad faith, it means that I'm not afraid to push back on you when you act inappropriately. I've given you several years to re-align yourself with policy and fact to no avail; make no mistake about it, when I request a formal action against you it will be in the form of a topic ban based on the points raised above. Until then, it is my sincerest hope that you have a "come to jesus" moment and realize that when this many editors raise objections to your blatantly biased approach to editing that perhaps the problem isn't with the other editors. I don't believe you're here in good faith, and I don't see productive value in continuing to debate bad faith points with you in the path towards consensus. WP:RBI in effect. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I second Blaxthos's recommendation. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, can any of you work with anyone that does not share your personal ideological point of view? Arzel (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I third Blaxthos's recommendation --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel - Stop POV pushing, and you may find people more willing to work with you. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, other than DD2K's recent edit (which I can live with really), I'm happy with the recent version. Soxwon (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I really wanted to put back all of the text you changed, but I thought my edit could be seen as a compromise. Really, the results of the poll should be noted about Fox News, but if some insist on adding the results of the other networks on the Fox News page there should be some kind of context involved. I can live with the new entry too. I really rather have a reasonable compromise than keep going back and forth about it. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following all the ins and outs of this conversation but I came here to note that the wording in the bias section seems a little goofy. If the objective is to demonstrate an honest conmparison of how Fox is viewed in light of how other networks are viewed then demonstrating the other stats is a good idea, but adding together the % of liberal and neutral doesn't seem to add to the objective and isn't as neutrally presented as the actual article which does not present the information that way. Peace & happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempted Censorship by the Obama Administration

Okay, let's discuss this. My edit of the title "2009 White House critisism of FOXNews" to "2009 White House critisism and attempted censorship of FOXNews" was reverted because "I was taking one side over the other. What do you call it when a single member of the White House press pool is singled out and told they will ot have access to a press conference? When said Administration had said for more than a week beforehand that it didn't consider the credentialed reporters part of a "news network" because they didn't like the words of the commentators on the network and even issued veiled threts about how other networks shouldn't follow the network's stories? When ALL OTHER NETWORKS stood up (to their credit) in a classic "all for one and one for all" moment? I'm not taking a side, I'm stating a fact. This was an attempt at censorship and every other network saw it, freaked out because they knew they could be next, and they all pulled together.Rapier1 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The White House has denied that this is the sequence of events, therefore it is not proper to favor one account over the other. Soxwon (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if true the White House actions do not amount to censorship as it is normally defined. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, both the White House and the other four news agencies stated that the FNC description of circumstances and events is wholly inaccurate. If your edit was intended to equivocate one view or the other (as it certainly appears to do, as does your commentary here), I direct you towards the neutral point of view policy. If your POV is based on a singular understanding and presentation of events (presumably the "facts" from FNC), I direct you towards some other sources that may present you with a more balanced viewpoint. Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I like what was put in there and will add sourced detail when I have timeRapier1 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

LA Times Article Reference

Hmmm, just a question, but how was this "unsourced" when I gave the source for the LA Times article? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-fox8-2009nov08,0,507227.story?test=latestnews Please don't remove it again.Rapier1 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is unsourced when your story has things like... "unnamed Democratic consultant..." and "spoken with other Democratic consultants...". It is hersay at best and is not sourced. Also the LA times is part of news corp, same as Fox news. So to say they could be biased would be a understatement. --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the source material. The individual spoke on condition of annonymity because he feared reprisal from the White House - annonymous sources from the Administration and from political parties are status quo in the media when dealing in politics (remember Robert Novack and Woodward & Bernstein?). The fact that this was reported is not debatable. The facts were presented fairly and the Administration's denial was given clearly. The fact that you don't like them is not germain to the issue. The edit presented facts. You are removing them based on perceived bias on the part of the LA Times which is not proven. I've posted this to NPOV Noticeboard WP:NPOV for further review Rapier1 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again! "unnamed" is not sourced and the only NPOV is from you as posted above and your page. If WIKI allowed "unnamed" sources then it be a major cluster f__k of hersay. --Marlin1975 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post gets its weather reports from unnamed sources yet we still consider it reliable. The LA times is fine. Soxwon (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am more hesitant on issues such as this when it comes to biographies of living people, but outside that subset of articles, this really is not an issue. The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source; who they choose to rely on for their sourcing is up to them, not us. But the source, I believe, meets our requirements, without commenting on the content or whether it is or is not encyclopedic. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the entry could use a bit of trimming however. Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the requirement written that UserPages have to be NPOV? Hey, if I'm wrong, please let me know! Rapier1 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. Diff? Soxwon (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Marlin1975 (talk) states "the only NPOV is from you as posted above and your page". I'm only wondering where the rule is that states UserPages have to be NPOV? Rapier1 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wash. Post gets its weather from http://accuweather.com/, its even on their site. Not sure where you picked that from. --Marlin1975 (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a Dave Barry quote intended for humor purposes. Soxwon (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Although the article says "White House" I think that White House official better represents the information in the article. Sure the story is doubtful, but lots of stories develop this way. As further events develop, the story should be updated, which may very well mean deleting this item. Someone should shorten the text. Could everyone please try to observe 3RR. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The reduction by Blax seems to make it a decent length. I say we just wait for now. Soxwon (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

news v entertainment

There are credentialed members of the press from FOX News. They report on the news virtually all day until commentary shows take over in prime time. They are a news network. Rapier1 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they have a press corps doesn't automatically mean the assertion is exempt from challenge. Either we must mention the fact that there are substantial challenges to that moniker, or we must avoid using language that asserts one view over another. I'm fine with either using the neutral and correct "television channel", or with noting that significant critics have challenged the assertion that they are primarily a news channel. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They may highly editorialize the way they present the news (and, indeed, what news they present), but it is a news channel. Any study of television news in the United States would undoubtedly cover CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, in addition to the news operations of the broadcast networks. Significant criticisms can continue to be addressed elsewhere in the lede and in the body of the article, including any reliably sourced criticisms of the objectivity of the news gathering and reporting at Fox News. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of such, or mine, or that of anyone else is pretty much irrelevant. There are plenty of reliable sources through which we can verify that there are challenges of that primary designator by notable critics. As I said, I'm perfectly okay with using the "news" designator in the intro given that we also acknowledge that the point is contested; it sounds like you (J) are equally amenable to addressing that criticism elsewhere in the intro. However, if we are intentionally avoiding mentioning that contention in the introduction, than we should choose neutral language that avoids making a categorical statement of fact on that subject. I'll leave it up to the group to hash out which is more appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this is even debatable. They are a news network. Not only are they a news network, they are part of the White House Press Pool, therefore are as much of a news network as CNN, NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News. Arzel (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:Fringe to me. Bytebear (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, my statement clearly addresses why their press status doesn't equate to a blanket statement that "they are a news channel". This is clearly challenged by notable critics -- repeating "they are a news channel" ad infinitum doesn't speak to the issue, and isn't a rationale for shunting the criticism. Bytebear, how many reliable sources do you think it takes before you can no longer assert WP:FRINGE? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Blax, while I certainly think you're correct in asserting that there is major sentiment out there regarding FNC blurring the lines between journalism and entertainment, I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on this one. Granting the overt spin and bias, I don't think many would argue that FNC doesn't report on current events. FNC also obviously has reporters, anchors, commentators etc. Given this is the case, I think we can make the "looks like a duck, quacks like a..." arguement. What definition of a "news network" do you not think FNC meets? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a big difference between (1) noting a corporate entity ("television station") that has a news bureau; and (2) making the blanket statement that they are a "news network". Many, many notable critics (like, for example, the President of the United States) have taken issue with the assertion that they are primarily a "news organization", and many reliable sources (such as NPR, USA Today, etc.) have made note of that critical distinction. If we're going with the "looks like a duck" test,that blade cuts both ways -- there is ample evidence of both (1) unethical behavior, and (2) flagrant bias... both of which are incompatible with a "news organization" (which necessarily means an impartial presentation of news). In the end, I don't think we should make the call either way -- I tried to assert the neutral "television channel" which carries no connotation at all. However, if editors insist that we make a blanket statement that they are a "news organization", then we absolutely must also note that the assertion of that blanket categorization is significantly challenged by many notable critics. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) noting a corporate entity ("television station") that has a news bureau; and (2) making the blanket statement that they are a "news network". Agreed. (1) unethical behavior, and (2) flagrant bias... both of which are incompatible with a "news organization" Disagree. I've never read a defination of "news network" that states it must be free from unethical behavior and bias. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick, there is a very well codified and understood standard of Journalism ethics and standards that defines what constitutes a "news organization", and how that differs from an editorial or opinion organization. Journalistic ethics is of heavy emphasis in journalism college coursework and at serious news organizations, and encompass truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. If we're going to throw out "news organization" as the primary descriptor of FNC, we absolutely must note that there is much contention regarding FNC's embodiment of those journalistic standards. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's comforting to know that we can always depend on ol' Blax to discover whose ox is being considered for goring. This is the same user who has argued tirelessly, passionately, and thus far successfully, that Keith Olbermann's primary job description shoud be ... get ready for this ... news anchorman! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

( Nick, there is a very well codified and understood standard of Journalism ethics and standards that defines what constitutes a "news organization" )

This argument seems similar to saying that a Hipocratic oath defines what a doctor is, and further that any physician blatantly in breach of his/her Hipocratic oath is not really a doctor.

I think perhaps there is some point to be made there, but it seems as though your argument relies on a great number of dubious definitions and technicalities. I remain unconvinced. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While that indeed is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument Badminthonist, I also find the irony quite astounding. Soxwon (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see how some people might want to buy into the partisan attempt to censor a network that is successfully presenting a point of view that differs from many other media outlets during it's *commentary* shows (i.e. Beck and Hannity) - especially when the White House itself put the idea forth (I still wonder what people would have said had Bush tried that one), but how on Earth can a person assert that FOX News is *not* a news network, and still believe that MSNBC *is*? Sorry, epic fail on that argument right there. Rapier1 (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just ignore all the ad hominem bullshit espoused from Badmintonhist, the false dichotomy from SeanNovack/Rapier1, and the off-the-wall "otherstuff" assertion from Soxwon, and address only the numerous strawmen. I personally tried to go with the neutral language that avoided this discussion entirely, but let's be super clear here in that I am not asserting anything one way or the other -- be they a "news organization" or otherwise, you guys are missing the point entirely. If we make the blanket statement that FNC is a news organization, then the significant verifiable challenges to that designator must also be mentioned. If we go with a more neutral presentation (ie, a "television channel") then there is less of a reason to cover that challenge in the introduction. The two come part and parcel -- you can't present a contentious "fact" without also acknowledging that there are challenges to that assertion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "contentious 'fact'". Fox News Channel is a news organization. You may not like that fact, I may not like that fact, but it's still a fact. Rhetoric is one thing. Show me something from Pew or some other reliable source in the field of journalism that says "Fox News Channel is not a news channel" and we'll talk. Not political rhetoric, an actual reliable source in this field. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing what constitutes truth -- this isn't a self-evident "fact" as in "the sky is blue", this is a designation that has been challenged by notable critics. This challenge is plainly verifiable, and is not original research. The final remaining governing policy, WP:NPOV, mandates inclusion. Given that the criticism of the "news" designator is challenged by a Presidential administration and has been widely covered in plenty of reliable sources, I've yet to see anyone offer a content policy that justifies silencing that challenge. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my exact words for you: Show me something from Pew or some other reliable source in the field of journalism that says "Fox News Channel is not a news channel" and we'll talk. Last time I checked, that's asking for verifiability, not truth. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that "It's not a contentious 'fact'" implies that you believe it must be the truth. There are plenty of reliable sources that note many critics' challenges to FNC as a "news organization"; this talk page has previously linked articles ranging from NPR to USA Today; additionally the recent AFD surrounding the controversy listed somewhere around 40 sources covering Obama's criticsm alone. This isn't a singular event, as the criticism published by the USA Today article is from 2005. J, if you're honestly asking for sources to verify my assertions I will gladly take the time to link some, though it seems to me like you're trying to cherry pick sourcing to try and limit criticism; if you're going to go policy shopping once I take the time to re-link the sources that are easily obtainable by reading the archives or checking the Google, forgive me if I forgo expending the effort. Are you willing to accept said sources if they do indeed exist? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources from within the field of journalism? The sources I believe you're referring to are along the lines of "White House spokesman says..." That doesn't rise to the level of the lede (and certainly not the lede sentence), or else we'd be altering the lede here and at several other "news organization" articles every four or eight years. You need not allege "policy shopping," as the policies in question are pretty clear: wp:v, wp:rs, wp:npov, and wp:undue. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't know that any sources meeting your criterion have been presented that qualify Fox News as a "journalistic news organization", though Pew and others have certainly published academic studies that illustrate that FNC is far and away the most ideologically biased media organization (which only further illustrates my point that the "news" moniker is challenged). Fortunately for both of us, there is no requirement that criticism and challenges must only come from "within the field of journalism" (though those exist too!). It's getting hard to breathe in here with all the burning straw. I've actually addressed those policies each already, and showed how they actually require us to include both viewpoints. Again, I'm all for leaving it out entirely -- "television channel" or "media organization" are correct either way -- but if we insist on presenting them as an organization beholden to journalistic ethics, then we must also mention the critical challenges to that presentation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You should review wp:rs, in that case, since it clearly outlines the reasons why reliable sources with authority in a particular field are necessary, and also delineates sourcing a "statement of opinion" from a "statement of fact." The White House criticisms, however valid, are statements of opinion (political opinion, at that). They do not change the facts, however. If you have some proposal for including additional material in the article, you can make them here. Otherwise, I see no consensus for removing "news channel" from the lede sentence (or from further covering statements of opinion in the lede). user:J aka justen (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It says right on their website "FoxNews.com Fair & Balanced" which is prima facie evidence that it is a "journalistic news organization". If you disagree you must provide a reliable source that contradicts this. This same standards of course apply to all news organizations. Like eveyone else you are able to watch the Channel and form your own conclusions, but cannot put them into the article because it would be original research. If you want to include statements in the article that are critical of Fox News, you must use reliable sources. Comments by White House staff or items from other news organizations criticizing Fox's coverage of individual stories are inadequate. By the way the same applies to all news organizations. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To J, the opinion that FNC is news organization that adheres to journalistic ethics is challenged by plenty of notable organizations and individuals. WP:RS makes no requirement that opinions and controversy is only valid if it comes from certain sources. Nay, WP:NPOV clearly states that Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly and proportionately.

To TFD, I find it laughable that you've now twice made the assertion that "It says right on their website "FoxNews.com Fair & Balanced" which is prima facie evidence that it is a "journalistic news organization"". I will return later to point out all the logical fallacies involved in your statement, but suffice to say that I think you misunderstand the concepts contained in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) WP:RS says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed...."[6]. Also, "Self-published sources... may be used... [as] sources of information about their author"[7] and even "Organizations... that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe... may... be used as sources of information about those organisations...."[8] Ergo prima facie we can accept Fox's self-description in the absense of reliable sources stating otherwise. Incidentally I have got into arguments with people wanting to edit articles to state that the American president was born outside the US or his book was ghost-written, using the same arguments as yours. (PS - look up prima facie.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One, you're falling victim to petitio principii -- the essence of what you're saying is "it's true because they say it's true". It is the epitome of the bare assertion fallacy. Two, there are plenty of reliable sources that challenge that assertion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you do some digging into my contribution history you'll likely note why I find your assertion that I'm not familiar with legalese laughable.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If as you imply you are familiar with legal procedure you will be aware the courts generally do accept evidence that the other side does not challenge regardless of whether it is true, because they can only consider the evidence brought before them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to User:The Four Deuces, but I agree with User:Blaxthos that the petitio principii argument doesn't hold water. That being said, can we get back to the last concrete argument made here, by User:Blaxthos: that because some (any number) of critics challenge the "ethics" of Fox News Channel, that it somehow is not a news channel? Those are statements of opinion; unless and until the Associated Press or some other entity with authority in the journalism world says "we no longer consider Fox to be a reliable source of news," then this is nothing more than a section in the article. Source the fact that Fox News is not a "news channel" or you don't have a case, quite frankly. I'm going to let you all get back to your circular arguments from here, though, with the disclaimer that I don't see any consensus to change anything in the lede and no actual proposal to add anything to the article at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The main issues of contention regarding the supposed bias is already included within the controversies section, so I am not sure what additional statements are to be made. Clearly we are NOT in a position to state that FNC is NOT News. Furthermore the basic argument made by Blaxthos does not hold water. Historically, most press has been biased one way or the other, it has only been in the past few decades that this belief that the press should be objective has become the standard (not that there is anything wrong with that). However, even if the case made by Blaxthos was valid, this absurd argument that FNC is "...far and away the most ideologically biased..." is simply not backed up by any statistical facts. FNC was viewed as the MOST objective during the 2008 presidential election. FNC was viewed as the most (only) conservatively ideological network in an opinion poll, but that was not a scientific assertation that is actually true. Additionally, MSNBC and to a slightly lesser degree CNN were both viewed to have a liberal ideological position. Perhaps if Blaxthos had the same verocity towards removing the "News" tags from MSNBC I might have a more sympathetic view. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Justen, I am not using the petitio principii argument at all. I am merely saying that when no third-party reliable sources are available we would normally report what an organization says about itself. In this case it says it is a news source. So far Blaxthos has provided no reliable sources that contradict this. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TDF, no offense is intended persionally, but you obviously don't understand the concept of petitio principii -- even you should be able to recognize that the language you used is a verbatim example used in the bare assertion fallacy article. Which brings me full circle -- as I've previously explained, plenty of sources have been linked before, and I'm not going to go to the effort of digging them up and linking them for your amusement. I honestly don't believe that you'd be willing to concede the point under any circumstance; if WP:V were the only concern you'd have already done the google or bothered to read the archives and previously referenced locations. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you are missing the point of the syllogism. If I edited the Pig article to say that they could fly and sourced it to Fox News and you challenged it, I would have to provide evidence that Fox was a reliable source and could not use their website to prove it. If however I did prove they were RS you could provide better sources to show they do not fly. I am not stating that Fox News is a news organization, merely stating that you must provide sources that indicate it is not. PS - no offense taken! The Four Deuces (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No sir. What you said was "It says right on their website "FoxNews.com Fair & Balanced" which is prima facie evidence...". That is quite simply the most obvious argument based on the petitio principii bare assertion fallacy I've ever seen attempted. However, I don't think I'm going to convince of you of that truth any more than you're going to convince me that it is sound logic.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) I am not assuming that it is proven that Fox is a fair and balanced news station. There in fact is a difference between evidence and proof. I am merely saying that what they say about themselves is evidence and the onus is on you is to provide evidence that they are not. For some reason you are unwilling to provide any reliable sources whatsoever to support your claim, only original research to form a conclusion. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I need not provide evidence that they are or are not a news organization, because that point is a red herring -- what I need to do is provide reliable sources through which we can verify that there are notable critics who challenge that assertion. That I haven't done so already is clearly explained above; if I thought for a moment that by re-linking those sources would end the objections I would have done so immediately.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Media Bias and Fox News

We have discussed perceived media bias at Fox and here is an academic study from 2005 that evalutates bias for major US media, and is a reliable source for the article. The precis can be found here and the actual paper here. You can search for mention of this paper and other studies at Google Scholar. Later events and further discussion of the findings in academic literature and later studies may of course modify the weight to be given to the study but I think it would be helpful to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD. That paper has been discussed in the past, and unfortunately is basically rejected at hand by almost everyone on the left because it doesn't show the results they think it should. While it does show FNC to be to the right, it also shows most other media to be even more to the left. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the article Deuces; however, I think a quick analysis reveals the reasoning in this article is fallacious. The study suggests that if I start up a media outlet called "The ACLU and ACORN Suck", and simply talked about how stupid ACLU and ACORN opinion papers were all day, my media outlet would be liberal by virtue of the fact that it was heavily referencing orginisations presumed to be liberal. If you don't understand why that arguement doesn't hold water, I don't really feel the need to explain it.

Finding a paper that states that by some dubious yardstick, some lone researcher concluded X, doesn't really seem like a reference worth noting (particular. How much time do you and Arzel spend each day dredging up the scant papers that seem to support your warped views of reality? NickCT (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked through some of the archived discussion. It seems that a lot of the opposition to the report probably related to the terminology used and it would probably be difficult to phrase the information in a neutral tone. All major news media were found to be more conservative than Democratic politicians and more liberal than Republican politicians. Compare scoring: John Breaux 59.5 and Aaron Brown 56.0, Susan Collins 39.3 and Brit Hume 39.7. The average Republican was 16.1 and the average Democrat 84.3. Since 2005 the study has been reported in the literature. If we do not use this report then we need a later peer-reviewed report that comes to a different conclusion. but there do not appear to be any.

Incidentally the methodology does not seem to have been challenged in serious academic studies, NickCT's hypothetical fictitious example notwithstanding. And while you may think that examining academic research is a waste of time it is far better than searching for anecdotal evidence.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD- You've offered an "academic" study from one UCLA and one U. Missouri academic that basicly uses thier own arbitrary measure of bias to rate news outlets. The problem with this type of study is that one can dredge up any number of "academic" studies saying that by some measuring stick Fox News is infact the most biased outlets out there.

The problem is that bias isn't tangable or measurable. It's subjective. While you may be able to get some idea of whether bias exists using arbitrary measures, I think the only way to definitively infer it's existence is by polling (i.e. if everyone says it's biased, it's biased).

As to no one challenging the methodology; I think you'll find a number of minor studies out there that few bother to challenge. Note that you haven't addressed the basis of my criticism. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You do not appear to have read the paper or to understand how the academic process works. Papers are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, in this case the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Other scholars then use the papers as sources, write papers supporting or opposing them, and determine whether or not the results can be duplicated. Over time papers may become accepted or rejected by the academic community or be considered minority opinions. In this case the paper has been accepted by scholars and I can find no papers that question the methodology or the findings.

Parallel to this process are numerous think-tanks (like the Heritage Foundation) and popular media (like the Huffington Post) that are not subject to peer-review. Their papers often have flawed methodology and are not subject to academic scrutiny which is why there is resistance to including them in science articles, and why many of the articles on social sciences are not neutral. Many people defend using these sources instead of academic work because they believe that the academic world is biased.

It is original research to question the methodology used in sources, which again is why articles should be sourced to reliable sources. Let me reply to your argument:

• NickCT: The study suggests that if I start up a media outlet called "The ACLU and ACORN Suck", and simply talked about how stupid ACLU and ACORN opinion papers were all day, my media outlet would be liberal by virtue of the fact that it was heavily referencing orginisations presumed to be liberal.
• Groseclose & Milyo: Also, we omitted the instances where the member of Congress or journalist only cited the think tank so he or she could criticize it or explain why it was wrong. (p.1198)

• Polling: you argue that the only way to determine if Fox is biased is by polling the [American] public. WP should rely on what reliable sources state, not whatever the American public happens to believe.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Another policy misunderstanding by TFD... WP:OR is germane only to content published in the Article Namespace. It does not preclude editors from analyzing and discussing a source's relative merits and validity for inclusion... in fact, it is absolutely absurd to state that editors shouldn't examine sources for their appropriateness, as well as the best way to present it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies.[9] (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR is intended to keep editors from publishing their own thoughts, not to bar editors from discussing or analyzing the merits of a proposed source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

When we discuss the merits of a source what matters is how it has been received especially in the academic press. If we start analyzing the sources ourselves then we will never get anywhere. In articles about evolution and global warming, which cause extreme reaction among many editors, editors are constantly challenging the validity of the science rather than presenting academic literature that contradicts what is generally accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't agree with your premise, but to carry your point to its conclusion... you've repeatedly asserted that you could find no challenges to this study in other journals. Do you have other papers that use this paper as a source and supporting it? What evidence have you that it has been "accepted by scholars"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) See: WP:RS:[10]

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

Incidentally I began this discussion thread with a reference to a citation index, Google Scholar. There are 162 entries. Interesting that you would challenge this because none of the sources you have provided have met any of these standards. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This publication is currently discussed in the controversies article, in which you can see it has been mostly rejected. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I went to the "GoogleScholar" link kindly provided by TFD (By the way is that name inspired by the movie with Jack Palance? I liked that film) & I looked at the first article on the list. 1st, it is a study of "Journalistic Bias" printed in 'Quarterly Journal of Economics'. Not that they wouldn't be capable of doing such a study, but considering the viewpoints of a business institution, I would wonder about the "Angle " of approach. 2nd. They said they; "measure media bias by estimating'' (My italics) ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups.Our results show a strong liberal bias:" So first off they were using the 2005 Congress whose majority population ranged from conservative (Dems & Gop) to 'nutjob-radical right' (Same congress that mandated 'French fries' be renamed 'freedomfries' because the French wouldn't drink the Cool-aid on Iraq) So the numeric difference of this remarkably off kilter assembly,( which was noted for taking many talking points FROM those same 'Biased' think tanks & Organizations & declaring other think tanks as "Radical Left" -including the RAND corporation!) THis difference was used as the yardstick for this study's "proof" that there was a "Strong Liberal Bias" to their selected media outlets. So just because ABC doesn't want to quote a statistic fabricated by a media Hit-organization like "Accuracy in Media" but someone like Tom DeLay (& fox)was perfectly happy to... Well then it shoves ABC THAT much further to the left. Do I REAAALLLY have to say how preposterous that is? If this is one of the "Scholarly sources" used to "Prove" that fox is "Moderate & Unbiased" well... I just give up the game because it isnt being played in a REAL world of empirically verifiable evidence. The Radical Right plays games with the semantics BECAUSE it confuses the issues. Fox hires a few willing 'real ' journalists- (Hey we all gotta eat!) give them a minimum of research support (y'know- to look good) & present "TaDa- Theater-As-News" & they have the RIGHT to do that! Because currently there is NO LONGER a fairness Doctrine. (If you really want to raise a fox Journalist - or any ultra conservatives blood pressure, just mention reinstating the Fairness Doctrine... that is one issue the Radical Right is monolithic on! ) It's all very clever really. And very sad. Hey, I'm just sayin' ---mbd---71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and accusations of misrepresentation

From an encyclopedic view of this issue, anybody who is reading it may not have any idea who Media Matters for America is, or that its stated purpose is to "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". The only reason this group exists is to act against what IT PERCIEVES as bias and disinformation. In my opinion, this alone disqualifies this source as reliable in this argument and it should not be allowed...however, since we are using it, (and I've limited all sourcing in this section to MMFA material) is is extremely fair to state in the article that the source of this material has a self-stated bias. Rapier1 (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. They have an agenda, there is no reason not to state it. As a side note, how many places do we need to include the admitted mistake by Hannity regarding the use of footage from the 9/12 protests during the 11/5 protest? It is currently in the Hannity article, this article, and the FNC Controversy (now protected) article. Arzel (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. There is absolutely no valid reason for you to spoon feed readers an opinion regarding critics' "agenda". The only reason you guys are trying to do so is to shade the criticism before it's presented. Since (a) that same description is already given previously, and (b) Media Matters is wikilinked, where so inclined editors may click to read, the description is of no value here.
2. Why are you "limiting all sourcing to MMFA"? Since the criticism is much more widespread than MMFA (I've seen it covered on the local news, and on MSNBC at the least), there's no reason to actively attempt to try and characterize it as a MMFA vs. FNC circumstance.
3. Arzel, the fact that other articles also contain criticism of Fox for yet another video "mixup" doesn't mean it shouldn't be included here as well. As part of a long and repetitive pattern of misrepresentation, it's quite germane to the ongoing criticism here. Even if it was the first time FNC had done something like this (and it's not), the argument to exclude here based on the fact that it's covered in other articles is invalid.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Blax: I am a conservative, yes. I flatter myself to think that I can be intellectually honest about the world around me. FOX Commentators are by and large conservative (with the exceptions of Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, and Alan Colmes), and they have large viewerships that are very critical of the Obama administration and the Left in general. MSNBC commentators are by and large liberals - come to think of it, I don't know of any conservatives that have their own shows on MSNBC - let me know if you know of any, and they have large viewerships that were very critical of the Bush administration and the Right in general. All FOX commentators are very open with their conservative or liberal bias. None of these facts seem to me to be very controversial. That said, if Sean Hannity were to state that "the liberal XYZ is constantly distorting the truth and faking reports", I think most people on the Left or supporters of "XYZ" would want it made clear that while there may exist accusations of critisism of "XYZ", the person making the accusation has a definite bias against the thing he is talking about. This is not trying to "poison the well", it is an attempt to put into context the source. Also, nowhere "previously" is any mention made of MMFA, much less it's mission statement. Finally, yes...we've all taken Logic 101 and received our degrees. While I appreciate your attempt to clarify your point by citing what you perceive to be logical fallacies in other peoples arguments, what you are doing (I believe unintentionally) is diverting the argument away from the point being discussed to whether or not the argument itself is a fallacy. If I didn't know better, I would say that your attempt at proof by assertion and affirming the consequent are an effort to obscure the issues, but I know that you wouldn't do that because I am willing to assume good faith. WP:AGF Rapier1 (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All FOX commentators are very open with their conservative or liberal bias Out of curiousity, when O'Rielly calls his segment the "No spin zone" would you say that's being "very open"? NickCT (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. O'Rielly consistently identifies himself as an "Independent", and has been attacked by both the Right and the Left at different times. He often uses terms such as "Left-wing Loons" and "Pinheads on the radical Right". Whether or not he statistically calls out the Left or the Right and sides with one side over the other more often is a matter for discussion and debate, but his bias is stated. Rapier1 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How interesting! I took Latin as my foreign language when I started college back in 1989, and here I thought it was dead. I'm a little rusty, and because you didn't add any further statements, but I presume your point to be that I have demonstrated that FOX News Channel is not a news network by stating that the various commentators (including the liberals) are open about their bias (since bias has nothing at all to do with proof of misrepresentation of facts, which is what this particular section is about - let me know if I'm wrong there). This may prove that there are more conservative commentators on FOX than on the other networks, as it's easy to count them and see that they are outnumbered, but I daresay that is not an issue here. You have argued that Fox News Channel is not a news network, and that their News division (which is as seperate from their editorial department as any other media outlet, like the New York Times for example) does not qualify as news. You have used as your evidence the fact that various sources (from the left, you must admit) state that because the commentators on the channel are biased - and entertaining (i.e. they get good ratings) then FOX News is not a news channel. To quote your logic, that is a classical strawman.

Premise. Fox News Channel is a news channel

Given: FNC News Channel follows that standard media model of having seperate News staff and an Editorial staff

Given: Fox News commentators (editorial staff) have a clearly stated bias

Given: Fox News Channel has Conservative commentators that are open about their bias

Given: Fox News Channel has Liberal commentators that are open about their bias

Given: Biased Fox news commentators are entertaining (as proven by high ratings)

Conclusion: FNC is not a news network because it's biased editorial staff (liberal and conservative) is entertaining.

See, that's where I lose you. I think the problem we have here is that there exists in all media a seperation of News and Editorial sections. To claim that FNC is not "news" because its editorial staff are majority conservative, you must claim the same of the NY Times, Mpls StarTribune, St. Petersberg Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and scores of other papers along with MSNBC and CNN because their editorial staffs are mostly liberal. Rapier1 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say any of that? You've now twice gone to elaborate lengths to construct strawmen arguments to attribute to me, all-the-while ignoring the points I actually raised. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)