Talk:Fox News

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:FOX News)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
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. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
Concern: The introduction uses weasel words by referencing "Many observers".
  • WP:NPOV (Undue weight clause) - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews 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, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. 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?
  • The article takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel 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.
Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.


Programming[edit]

I will post here what I've posted on Doglover159's talk page:

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, which is why I've reverted their edits. There is no need to list the personalities, either, since they are in the section below.

Corkythehornetfan 21:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016[edit]

Amanda Carpenter and Mary Katherine Ham work at CNN as Contributors not at Fox News Channel. 64.39.87.98 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Fox News Channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. After over 2 weeks, we have consensus that Fox News, which already redirects here as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, is the WP:COMMONNAME. The hat note for Fox News (disambiguation) will remain for any readers who are looking for other topics. Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)



Fox News ChannelFox News – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The previous move request failed due to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments, which are invalid as long as Fox News is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. If consensus at this discussion is that this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Fox News", the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title. SSTflyer 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Fox News is the common name, but the primary topic is the channel. I completely agree with George Ho's comments in the last request. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, common name. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FOX News Network clearly a distinction even FOX Network does.--Moxy (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any move from this title; the subject has been well vetted in previous discussion. Also oppose any realignment of Fox News (disambiguation) as well as any refactoring of Fox News's target.--John Cline (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support If you go to the website, Facebook and Twitter pages, you'll see that they have all been changed to "Fox News". And they all are about the TV channel (not radio, etc.). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrong http://www.foxnewsgo.com/--Moxy (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
What's "wrong"? It says Fox News (Go). This is the actual home pageMusdan77 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Musdan77 Yes good link ..to the website ...but if you want to see the channel that's another thing ....as seen here . Perhaps this NEW article will help Fox & Friends Celebrates Fox News Channel's 20th Anniversary. Just like TMZ on TV vs -TMZ..- Moxy (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The first link shows the schedule for the "channel". The second talks about the anniversary of the "channel". So, of course, it's going to use "channel". But that doesn't say that Fox News is not what is most often used as the name today. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
RIghT! This article is about the "channel" so why would we name it after the website? Very odd RfC I think. -- Moxy (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The website is named for what the channel is most often called now. In my opinion, the introductory sentence should say: "Fox News, also known as Fox News Channel (FNC),..." —Musdan77 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. While a majority of the content may be about the cable channel, the scope of the article clearly includes both radio and web, per Fox News Channel#Outlets. Any discussion of Fox News Radio falls under WP:OSE, and maybe the best solution to that apparent discrepancy is a merge. Fox News Radio is not a large article. ―Mandruss  02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought "Fox News" refers to the "Fox News Network" (that is the network of channels and not simply 1 channel). I guess in this case it is useful to distinguish between the two. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I closed the previous RM as not moved, so I will not close this one, but I see no compelling evidence to make this move as the current title is accurate and unambiguous. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Given that Fox News is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Fox New Channel, and it is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME (nobody would say "Channel", it's always "Fox News"), and also WP:CONCISE, this move seems a no brainer. A hatnote exists to take people to other uses such as the radio station.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. A hatnote fixes the problems outlined by the 'oppose' votes above. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the aforementioned WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The Google analytics speak for themselves. Amccann421 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I need clarification[edit]

So the 3rd paragraph in the "above the fold" section accuses Fox News of bias in favor of the Republican Party. Not disputing that, but why is there no similar accusation made on the pages of CNN; MSNBC; CNBC; CBS; etc.????

Wikileaks revelations have called into question the integrity of said organizations. Also many organizations inside and outside the USA have accused the aforementioned new services of bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondianwolf (talkcontribs) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article. Alsee (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson[edit]

Hi, I'm new here, shouldn't "On the record" be replaced with Tucker Carlson Tonight in the Outlets\ Television section? Greta van Susteren was canceled and replaced by Carlson. JanJasinski (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Shouldn't the last paragraph on the introduction on Fox News being biased, be put into the Controversy section? Also, in MSNBC's introduction, there is no such criticism of the news network. Billybob2002 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant. We have an entire article on Fox News controversies, several of which are about its bias.

The article on MSNBC controversies, also mentions bias. But whether it should be mentioned in the main MSNBC article, is a matter for that article. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. I would encourage you to start an RfD to settle this matter. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" misrepresentation of facts[edit]

Using the title 'Alleged misrepresentation of facts' seem to be an WP:NPOV violation. Ironically enough it probably comes from a misguided attempt to apply NPOV. There is nothing 'alleged' about Fox new's frequent misrepresentation of facts, it is a verifiable, true and perfectly factual to state that Fox News has misrepresented facts on several occasions (the recent scandal over it's fake story about Sweden being a case in point). By saying "alleged" in Wiki-voice, we make it sound as if this is just an opinion, not an actual fact. Could anyone imagine us talking about the "alleged Holocaust", the "alleged Rwandan genocide" etc. NPOV is not about being neutral between fact and opinions, it's about representing facts in a neutral manner. That being the case, the "alleged" should be dropped, as it can easily be sourced that Fox News has misrepresented facts on several occasions. Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

==================[edit]

From Ireland

Agree with above poster. This is the worst so-called news channel for factual news, thus far. Countless times we've noticed stuff they put out has had to be corrected and /or mysterious sources used that leads to never really getting to the core of something they report. Some of their guests (after the opposite being verified on other news channels, or it could be something you already know not to be true) are just as bad. One guest said that in Birmingham, UK, there were "No-go" areas...NOT true! That is just one of the many bewildering things they / some of their guests come out with. They come across to us as more opinionated in what they deliver / put their own kind of spin on it, more so than just reporting in a professional manner. Again, a couple of them (Sheppard Smith - don't know if that's spelt right) seem more centered and straight-forward in how they deliver.

We also noticed that some of their anchors (not all of them) come across as angry and calling the other party (or whatever - Democrats) things like "snow flakes" - or the "(insert some kind of insulting word here) leftists" and the likes. Just so unprofessional. We often look through them all - CNN, etc. and never see them calling Republicans names and the likes. They, along with some others, just present themselves more professionally and seem to get a certain item of news (not from some kind of mysterious "source".) but often from where it actually originated - and usually have access to actual docs they are referring to, and /or an actual guest who IS the source. Just seems more transparent / easier to verify what they deliver. Fox is generally just not like this.

There's a guy called Hannity (if memory serves us well) and he goes on like this. He is a total Gob-shite and also seems to have a negative, unhealthy obsession with Barrack Obama - even after he has left office. Took a short while for us to notice all of this about this news channel, when we started checking it out, some years back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.180.228 (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017[edit]

Change

to

References

  1. ^ Feldman, Josh (March 1, 2016). "Fox News Contributor Mary Katharine Ham Jumps to CNN, Makes Debut with Tapper". Mediaite. Retrieved March 12, 2017. 

216.249.253.191 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend copying and pasting Ham's entry from this diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=769989945
216.249.253.191 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017[edit]

Please add "citation needed" tag to mentions of "Fox News Group" in article, as there is currently no known reference to/confirming entity's existence. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:1995:CAEC:D28:5C3F (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong name in the infobox[edit]

It's Brazil, not Brasil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.74.233 (talkcontribs)

Already done by Niteshift36 (talk). regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 16:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill[edit]

This article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill.

Try to trim to max 3 cites at ends of sentences.

Observation: It appears that there are cases where more than 3 citations are effective for demonstrating the pervasiveness of behavior. Example: 5 unique instances of significant legal action against Fox News.

No need for 7.

That is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Sagecandor (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Wiretapping Claim[edit]

This section needs to be deleted or completely re-written. Firstly the claim that Napolitano was suspended for it is false, he was never suspended despite what the LA times editorial page may have claimed. And second the story about the British wiretapping for Obama is not a claim it was a confirmed fact by the wikileaks as a result of the Snowden whistelblowing regarding the project code named "Tempura" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Pre-Launch Question[edit]

Did another network occupy FNC's satellite transponder prior to their official launch and if so what channel was it so I can added a Replaced to the InfoBox or was it simply an unused transponder?. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Accreditation[edit]

Should we start listing news media accreditation information on Wikipedia pages? With all the hoopla over fake news these days, I think people should know which are actually accredited and which are not. It's a fairly straight forward process. Here's a link: http://ask.metafilter.com/65063/What-counts-as-an-accredited-news-publicationSnackattack68 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake news in the lead[edit]

diff. Shall we add that CNN is fake news too? They also have fake retracted stories that spawned lawsuits and mainstream coverage, including the NYT. As I have already mentioned in edit summaries, please see how retracted stories are treated in other articles. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The disputed text is that "Fox News Channel has been accused of [...] publishing fake news." The three sources attached to that text show that a former Fox News contributor is accusing Fox News of publishing fake news, so this is a cut-and-dried corroboration of the text in question. This is not just a retracted story; it is a lawsuit from an insider at Fox News who is explicitly accusing Fox News of publishing fake news, supported by multiple sources. Your random bringing up of CNN reeks of whataboutism. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The CNN story I am referring (see the link) was a case of people accusing CNN of publishing a fake story, just as with Fox News, which was retracted, just as with Fox News, which generated a law suit, just as with Fox News, which got just as mainstream coverage saying it was false as the one by Fox News. Yet, you don't see that in the lead of the CNN article, not even on the controversies section, only in a "CNN controversies" article. Why? Because the story was retracted and life went on (except for the lawsuit, these things take time). Just as with Fox News. I'm not asking "what about CNN?" as a way to avoid discussing the subject, but rather to show you an example of how this is usually dealt with in other articles. Do you have any reason for the treatment to be different here? Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that Fox News is being accused of publishing fake news by its own insider. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
And how is that more relevant than the NYT and others, in the CNN case (which, by the way, also involved a dispute with one of their editors)? Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It is more relevant because it is an insider directly implicating the organization. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how, and there was also, by the way, criticism (and a law suit) from an insider in the CNN case.Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As always, check the sources. I'm seeing two sources here, both from the Hollywood Reporter. By itself, that's probably not enough for the lede, though it can be put in the article text. Are there more sources to corroborate this claim? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There are indeed three sources there; the USA Today article is in between the two Hollywood Reporter articles, so it's probably difficult to see in the large amount of text. There are three additional sources to corroborate the disputed text as well: one from NPR, one from NBC News, and another from the Daily Beast. The disputed text is overwhelmingly corroborated by sources. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing is not the issue, the point is that the story was retracted and there is not much about it afterwards, apart from the lawsuit, exactly the same with the CNN case. This is definitively worthy of inclusion in a controversies section or article, but not on the lead, specially in the way it was worded. See also WP:RECENTISM. The tear gas stuff from CNN also made a lot of headlines, specially after the retraction, but... life went on. It's not making headlines 10 years after the fact, it's not worthy of lead inclusion. Will this be making? Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not the story was retracted is not the issue. It is the fact that a formal accusation against Fox News was made by a Fox News insider; this is highly notable material. Just because the sources are recent does not automatically mean the disputed text is recentism. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was made, and yes it's relevant for the criticism section. Something that happened a few days ago is relevant for the lead of a 20 year old company? Maybe, and although it may seem so given the amount of recent news, it's probably not, given the retraction and the nature of the controversy. If we were in 1998, the exact same case could be made for the Operation Tailwind scandal. Just because the sources are recent does not automatically mean the disputed text is recentism. that is not what I said.Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
What differentiates Fox News from others is that its anchors and personalities regularly accuse other outlets of being fake news. The fact that Fox News itself has been accused of the same thing is what makes it more notable than others in this context. Thank you for your input. I will supply sources from farther back in time so that it is not just recent events. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just horrible sourcing for this....should try to look for real publications not news headliners.--Moxy (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We should handle the Fox controversies the same way we handle the Bush-service-record story in Dan Rather (which we refer to in the lede as "a disputed news report") and the staged gas tank explosions, indisputably "fake news", in Dateline NBC (which we don't even mention in the lede.) This rush to include every potentially damaging claim, five just from 2017 despite the organization's 20-year history, smacks of WP:RECENTISM and undue weight. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottsville coverage[edit]

Snooganssnoogans the text seems well sourced, but it doesn't really read as a controversy (apart from the last paragraph), moreso as a description of the coverage itself. I haven't checked the sources to see what they are saying, but if they do treat it like a controversy perhaps the text should better reflect that? Currently it reads like a description of the coverage and just one critical remark by a guy from CNN, on the last paragraph, which doesn't seem like a controversy from the reader standpoint IMO. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We can't treat every article that disagrees with something someone said on Fox News as a controversy. Especially detailed descriptions that are not encyclopedia like "Fox News host Tucker Carlson also covered historical figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, Mohammed, Simon Bolivar and Plato, who owned slaves on his show, and said that individuals who wanted to remove confederate monuments would want to remove statues of Abraham Lincoln next.[144][145][147] A guest on Tucker Carlson's show equated individuals who want to remove confederate monuments to "Weimar thugs" and the Taliban.[145] A guest on Fox & Friends equated the confederate flag with the rainbow flag, saying they "represent the exact same thing," and the hosts of Fox & Friends did not provide a response to the guest's remarks." Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The content is well-sourced, and the controversy is the whataboutist coverage and defense of Trump's rhetoric and the white supremacists. 10:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
But the text doesn't read like a controversy. It reads like "Fox News did this". Ok, so what? Where's the controversy? I'll see if I can get some time to read the refs in details this weekend and improve the text if it's not done by then. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point; it's criticism not controversy. Regardless I don't think the criticism lasted more than a day or two which doesn't meet the standard of "lasting significance." James J. Lambden (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
How exactly could any Wikipedia text read like a controversy??? On Wikipedia, all text should read like "X did this", not "X disgraced itself by defending white supremacists and attacking the people who stood up against the neo-nazis". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
con·tro·ver·sy noun
disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
As I said when I removed this section initially, it got hardly more than a day's coverage. If that were the standard this article would be hundreds of pages (screens?) long. The standard is enduring notability, which hasn't been demonstrated. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate on that definition, a disagreement becomes "prolonged" when the criticized party rebuts the criticism, when it's no longer just A disagreeing with B, but a disagreement between A and B. Needs some "back and forth", "tit for tat" or "ebb and flow" to be a proper controversy anywhere and needs independent coverage to be a noteworthy controversy on Wikipedia. If we parroted every tit that merely flowed forth without repercussion, most famous article subject would be swamped by one-sided steamblowing. Even the various Seven Wonders of the World, generally agreed as wonderful, have (and had) their haters. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" in lede[edit]

I removed conspiracy theories from the lede. Of the sources that supposedly support it [1] (in regard to Hillary Clinton's health) two don't call it a conspiracy theory [2] [3] and the third is a Vox opinion piece, not usable for statements of fact [4]. And if "Hillary's Health" isn't significant enough to be included in the body of the article (it isn't) it does not belong in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree just horrible fact conclusion based on news headlines....would be nice if our editors could use academic sources...but some really think news bashed articles are ok.--Moxy (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously several other editors believe this is note worthy of inclusion. And despite what some claim it wasn't just a "one time thing".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Lambden in not seeing the claim in any of the four sources. At most, there's an implication among them, and even that only touches upon one theory. It'd be fair to say the network perpetuated the weakening of the Democrat candidate's image rather than perpetuated theories in general, and that's already part and parcel of "promoting the Republican party." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, August 25, 2017 (UTC)
It's in this source, this source, this source and a whole bunch more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There seems to an implication by Volunteer Marek that there are " several other editors" that have talked about this (I dont see that here). Perhaps best to get some others involved here....hard to promote a talk when the dispute tag is removed a few times. Thus far 3 have voiced a concern with the sourcing used for a blanket statement for the lead. --Moxy (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, there are User:RetiredVet1946 and User:Snooganssnoogans just after a quick lookee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And to be clear, there's at least three conspiracy theories they've promoted and that's just off the top of my head. Clinton's health BS. Seth Rich murder BS. Protesters at Charlottesville paid by Soros BS. I'm pretty sure there have been more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

All news outlets have had this said about them at one time or another ......adding 3 or 4 incidents to concluded a pattern that is not stated in the sources and in a wiki voice is a problem WP:SYNTHESIS Wikipedia:No original research/Examples There is also a MOS:INTRO and WP:BALASP problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Have they? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about "Conspiracy theories" in lede[edit]

Do the following news sources support the blanket lead statement "Fox News Channel has been accused of .....perpetuating conspiracy theories". Does this merit inclusion in the lead?

--Moxy (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose looks like WP:SYNTHESIS...not one mentions long term problem....cant add up news stories to state a fact WP:PROPORTION. --Moxy (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose sure, they have been, but it's undue emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, the sources are weak, and no, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose maintaining a sense of consistency in MOS and lede summaries is important. All of MSM is guilty of propagandizing, editorializing, and creating conspiracy theories, many of whom use "anonymous sources" that can't be verified - pundits are paid to push political agendas - MSM uses bait-click headlines as revenue generators. Have we consistently included such information in all the ledes of MSM articles? The lede is a summary of RS facts not a soapbox for criticism and the opinions of biased competitors. The latter belongs in the body of the article under "Reception", keeping UNDUE under consideration, and if the statement is likely to be challenged, use inline text attribution. Atsme📞📧 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose while Fox to me, as a foreigner, is a ridiculous channel and it's hard to imagine anyone taking them serious, the sources do not justify such a statement, especially in the lead. I hope you find some better sources. In the mean time, i watch an occasional item from Fox when I'm bored with comedy channel and i want a good laugh. But that's irrelevant here. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose Undue emphasis for lead material with questionable sources. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any three things can suggest a pattern, if you look at them consecutively. Might as well mention their fear of Halloween. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - fails WP:WEIGHT. Seems an too rarely mentioned. An occasional complaint is said about any media, and occasionally 'conspiracy theory' is said about CNN, Washington Post, etcetera. I think all of them simply provide for their market niche, so instead I take it as POVs and any POV has some conspiracy theories. Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Author shows bias - bad move to accept this, Wiki.[edit]

The third paragraph of the Fox News article reads, "Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting, perpetuating conspiracy theories,[6] and promoting the Republican Party.[7][8][9] Research shows that Fox News increases Republican vote shares among viewers.[10][11] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[12][13] Fox News employees have responded that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting.[14] The network has also been accused of permitting sexual harassment and racial discrimination by on-air hosts, executives, and employees, paying out millions of dollars in legal settlements.[15] The company is currently under federal investigation for its harassment settlements and other alleged misconduct.[16]"

The author has clear bias, as every major news channel has been similarly accused and has dealt with their own investigations. CNN and MSNBC have been equally accused of bias, but this is not stated in the opening of their articles. The above-noted section should be removed from the Fox News article; or this subject should be equally discussed for other networks in Wikipedia.

-Nicole Clune, September 10, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.146 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nicole Clune. If you look at the discussion above this one, we were already discussing removal of 'conspiracy theories' when you posted. That portion has now been removed. However just because all networks have been criticized, does not make them equal. At Wikipedia we try, as best we can, to summarize information published by reliable sources. We try, as best we can, to stay out of debates about which side is right or wrong in various debates. One of the most noteworthy things about Fox News is how extensively reliable sources have described their reporting as biased and promoting the Republican party. Alsee (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)