Talk:Fox News

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40: 28 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information.

WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. It is appropriate to overview the controversies and allegations of bias, as these are substantial.

Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say Fox News is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well?

Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.

Concern: Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias?

Wikipedia takes no position on whether Fox News is biased. The introduction highlights the existence of a notable controversy concerning the perception that the network promotes conservative political positions. Neither the introduction nor the article takes a position on whether such a perception is accurate, we merely reflect the consensus of reliable independent sources.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism C‑class

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Radio C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Media C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television C‑class

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York City Unassessed

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fox News. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fox News at the Reference desk.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Reliability

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

Lead Rewording

Hey guys and gals. But anyways.... down to business. I have two things in the lead I want to reword.

1) the United States' number one cable should be reworded to the United States' most watched cable The term "number one" is ambiguous.

2) says there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming This really has to be reworded because it is vague/ambiguous/meaningless. Any suggestions?

NickCT (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first recommended change is a good one and and why you shouldn't change it in the article right now. I also think you second point is good. As for a new wording here, one has to hew closely to what Fox spokesmen have actually said according to the sources that we're using (or new ones that we could use). Perhaps something like Fox spokesmen have said that its critics are conflating Fox's political commentators with its news coverage. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating Bad's idea I move for a change from says there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming to says its critics are conflating Fox's political commentators with its news coverage. I'm still a little worried b/c 1) "conflating" is tough vocab & 2) this statement still implicity suggests that Fox's political commentators are conservative. I guess I don't like the "implicit" nature of it. Can we just say says its critics are conflating Fox's conservative political commentators with its news coverage NickCT (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Nick, when you say that that the Fox spokesman's statement only implies that Fox commentators are conservative. It might have been nicer if he had just come out and clearly stated that they are conservative, but he didn't. I've made this point before. When we represent what someone says we should do it accurately. We can't fill-in what we wish they had said or what we would have said in their place. Public relations people are masters at saying things in a slightly murky way. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we should also note that the critics say that there is no distinction between their editorial and news programming (or that the line is often blurred or ignored) -- basically, that FNC's justification/explanation is not unchallenged (forgive the double negative). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's getting a little out there Blax. Soxwon (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that others have challenged the supposed "bright line" between FNC's "journalists" vs. "commentators" is out there? Please explain. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a crack if you don't mind, Blax. Sox probably doesn't want the lead to devolve into an extended tit for tat between Fox and its critics. If we add that critics say that there is little or no distinction between Fox's news coverage and its news commentary then we are obliged to give another rejoinder from Fox. Then, perhaps, an editor such as you will suggest that critics' evidence of Fox's biased news coverage be included in the lead. Then perhaps I will suggest that Fox's statements disputing those assertions be included. Do you get the drift? However, perhaps this kind of tit for tat can be avoided with something like this assuming that reliable sources support it:

Critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its news commentary promote conservative political positions. Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its news reporting and political commentary operate separately from each other. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I misread his comment and missed the critics part and read it we should also note that there is no distinction between their editorial and news programming..." I'd agree to Badmintonhist's suggestion however. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert, because of previous consensus and the citation stating not to change the wording. I will state the same objection to the change as I did previously, with a caveat. It's not only 'critics' that have stated that Fox News is as conservative outlet. Many of FNC's own viewers view the channel as 'conservative'. This has also been stated by conservative commentators as well as politicians. The caveat is this. Adding the words 'reporting and its news commentary' lends more credence to the change in wording(many observers to critics). DD2K (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. In fact, I had made that observation earlier and didn't adhere to it when I made the edit in question. How about making it Some observers have asserted . . .? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound better than 'many', imo, and covers the fact that it's not only critics that view the station as a conservative outlet. DD2K (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been hashed and rehashed several times over the last several years, and it has been made clear that the consensus was the wording found in the article today. Without new information that is sourced thoroughly this should not be changed. Rapier1 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, I think that some is better. Soxwon (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... how did we arrive at this "critics" language again. We need to revert to the "many observers" language. This point has been mulled over more times than I care to recall.

Additionally, I want to remove this despite both being aired on the same channel. It's a gratuatus and wordy. NickCT (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ladies. I just wanted to make the point that we debated for weeks about the "many observer" language. Let's not back slide now. This lead edit shouldn't have been made so quickly. Perhaps we should revert to what we had before and try to build consensus again..... NickCT (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that last bit of sentence. It is redundant, gratuatus and wordy. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Was Arzel quoting me...? Is he trying to butter me up for something? Thanks Arz NickCT (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that they are supported by the sources, I am happy with the last two sentences of the lead as they now stand. I think they state the situation accurately and without bias. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

Doesn't consensus feel nice?

NickCT (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many allegations of conservativism need there be before something is deemed "conservative"? The number of allegations are by no means few. Similarly with MSNBC, how many allegations of liberalism need there be before it's deemed liberal? Conservative and Liberal are perceptions of society so I argue that since such perceptions are by no means in short supply, we should just make that apparent right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guantranamo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guantranamo, thanks for the comment and suggestion. This point has been made before in many different ways. I think most would agree that political orientation is somewhat subjective. I think we've demonstrated through references that in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the public & press FNC is firmly in the conservative camp. The problem is, if an entity or person is unwilling to accept a subjective label, it is not encylcopedic to unequivocally apply that label to them, even if the an overwhelming majority think it appropriate.

I think we've arrived at acceptable wording here. It explains that there is a significant sentiment out there which believes FNC is conservative, and that FNC asserts that they are unbiased.

If you want to suggest some rewording, we'd be more than happy to consider. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with this "many observers" wording. Surely 4 citations alone does not count as "many observers", which is why I changed it to passive voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.19.66 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon. There was a very long debate about this. To summarize it briefly we came to the conclusion that a "considerable majority" believes Fox News promotes conservative values (as supported by polling). Saying "some observers" or "it has been asserted" seemed to a number of editors like WP:WEASEL . We decided that "many observers" is most NPOV. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a more detailed explanation, as well as links to the years' worth of previous discussion, visit the Fox News FAQ. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.[3][4][5][6] Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other.[7][8][9]" What's the point of even discussing /liberal news? If they're (news outlets) credible, they should be objective / neutral. Also, do the Wikipedia definitions of all other other news outlets describe any political opinions of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.196.220 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been discussed ad infinitum. Public sentiment that FNC is biased is so widely held, that the bias is notable, and ought to be mentioned in the lead. Other news outlets which are notable for thier percieved bias/political opinions are so noted in thier articles (e.g. MSNBC)NickCT (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current FOXNEWS wiki is a perfect example of why one should not spend much time reading anything on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.212.15 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68.55.212.15 - Suggest an improvement! NickCT (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New poll on "trusted" news sources

[1] <--- Should probably be mentioned in this article, seeing as their main competitor (CNN) used to claim this in their tagline for 10+ years...