Talk:Fox News/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Bias as seen internationally

I've added a paragraph on this. I've tried to be 'nice' in it. Perhaps others can offer some perspective also. It's reasonably fair to say FOX News is not well-regarded internationally. It's looked on as the McDonald's of news. (US Imperialism accusations, etc.) To be absolutely honest, it cracks me up. It's the sincere claims of neutrality that do it, combined with the hilariously biased reports. I mean, to me, it looks like a parody of US news!!!

I should point out, I'm pretty sure we get a different version of FOX News in Europe - I actually found the US version less hard to watch - of course there was a lot less international news.

Still, I think the perception deserves a mention, in a respectable fashion. It's probably not exactly possible for those in the US to suggest how FOX news is perceived internationally, but I'm sure you have comments nevertheless.

I can only comment on Europe. (Though considering sections of Asia, Mid-east and Africa are more virulently anti-American, I think it's fair to use the term 'internationally').

What do folks in Canada think of FOX News?

Zoney 15:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simpsons parody debate

"A small controversy recently erupted between Fox News and another of News Corporation's franchises, the animated comedy The Simpsons. The Simpsons had aired an episode parodying Fox News broadcasts, for example using gag "crawl" headlines such as "Oil slicks found to keep baby seals young, supple." "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening claimed Fox News threatened to sue over the parody. Fox News denies it threatened a lawsuit (which might have resulted in the network's suing itself)."

That was proven false. Matt Groening was only joking when he said that.


this channels is awfully unfair and unbalanced; it is 99% conservative; you never hear a bad word about Bush or Reagan, yet you hear lots of fun poked at Clinton or Carter; for Fox News: Al Jhazeera are "idiots", the French are "weasels", Carter should "shut up", The Pope is "misguided", trade with Cuba is "feeding the bloody murderer of the century", Syria and Iran should be "kept by the mouth", tax cuts are good because "we know better how to spend our money" (as if there was no optimum point for taxation for a given criterion), environmentalists are "oversensitive", Al Gore is "the bore of the year", etc.

Only Commander In Chief is respectable, always right, dignified, strong-willed, decisive, making America proud, etc.

Is CNN liberal? I am not sure. However, at least they do not shout!

Nobody is claiming that FOX really is "fair and balanced," except FOX themselves, since it's one of their promotional taglines. -- Wapcaplet

I removed this from the article:

Furthermore, Fox runs many conservative talk shows which play loose with the truth, with numerous documented cases of on-air false reporting without any later apologies or corrections.

I'm not sure what exactly this is referring to or what evidence there is for this statement. -- Minesweeper 03:53, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

This text is fair and balanced. If you think it's leaning to the right it's because you are a bleeding heart liberal.

Seriously, though, what really annoys me about Fox News is the way it puts style over substance. Loud jingles, flashy graphics, news tickers, logos and blaring headlines covering a third of the screen...and of course when there's a major disaster the graphics department swings into action with the latest tragedy logo and fanfare. OK, you see some of that on CNN, but Fox takes it to almost parodic proportions.

The really weird thing is, Fox currently broadcasts to the UK with NO COMMERCIALS - just weather maps. But does Fox's weather give a balanced proportion of sun and rain? Excuse me, I really need to lie down for a bit.

Lee M 01:12, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cunctator, you keep restoring the following text to the introductory section from the criticism section:

Although nearly all anchors at other US TV news organizations are career journalists with no professed political bias, several FOX News anchors have expressedly partisan conservative backgrounds. Daytime anchor David Asman previously worked at the conservative The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Manhattan Institute, a conservative thinktank. Sunday host Tony Snow is a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration.

Although you may see alleged conservatism as a compliment for a news organisation (and I would see it in the same way), many people would view such allegations as criticisms of FOX's style. Remember that criticism can come from minority groups as well as the majority. - Mark Ryan 06:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But this isn't alleged conservatism; it's well-documented, professed conservatism. Fox News doesn't claim that its anchors and hosts and staff and ownership aren't conservative; it just claims that the news coverage presented by its conservative anchors, hosts, staff, and ownership is not conservative.

The allegation is that Fox News's news coverage has a conservative bias. That is the allegation, and needs to be presented as such. But facts should not be presented as allegations, nor should they be presented within the context of "criticism".

The probity of that claim is not for me to decide. We report, our readers decide. --The Cunctator 07:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You say that FOX doesn't claim that its anchors aren't conservative. But do they actually say that its staff ARE conservative? A lack of a denial does not necessarily imply endorsement of a claim. - Mark Ryan 07:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What do we care about that in writing the article? Noone wrote "FOX News has claimed that its staff is conservative." If the article was How FOX News describes itself then we would only include claims for which there is evidence of FOX endorsement. But since the article FOX News attempts to describe what FOX News is, the standard is to include information about FOX News for which there is evidence. --The Cunctator 09:22, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The question is if their staff is more conservative than that of its competitors. To make this claim without attribution, we would need a decent source, preferably non-partisan. Otherwise we have to attribute it.—Eloquence 10:30, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

We only need to attribute it if anyone has reason to debate its veracity. I think we can wait until that point. If, however, there's evidence of the counterclaim, then I agree that there would need to be attribution.--The Cunctator 11:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With attribution I mean what I did here. Do you agree/disagree with that?—Eloquence

I have to disagree with Eloquence here. The facts are clear and undisputed -- qualifying them, calling them "alleged", and attributing them to "critics" only serves to distort things by making it seem like such claims are silly. -- AaronSw 23:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The section labelled 'bias' basically focuses on Bill O'reily and Alan colmes. And how the former is a super-conservative right-wing lackey (supposedly, of course) and Alan Colmes is a moderate (one of the only things not 'supposedly' in the article). Anyways, I think that section should be rewritted with a NPOV. Ilyanep 01:35, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the al frankin quote is entirely NPOV unless we maybe supply a supplimental FOX News or FOX News commentator quote. Ilyanep 13:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, when you are writing about bias on the fox network, what exactly qualifies as a "neutral" position? They either are biased, or they are not. And every legitimate news media source has come in favor of the former. Everything he says is provably factually accurate. (He talks about the individuals in questions in sentences that lead up to the quote that I ommitted.) And I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with fox's response to 2 sentences out of an entire book. →Raul654 14:03, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say a response, I said something supplemental. Something a fox news person said that maybe shows why they're not biased. Besides, some people don't understand the differences between Commentator programs (such as Sean Hannity [with colmes] and Bill O'reily) and news programs (such as their top of the hour news). CNN (supposedly) has a liberal bias on both types of programs. FOX only has conservative commentators, but for the most part actually objective news. This is why you never see a debate on a news program, but you will see someone like Joeseph Lieberman on Hannity & Colmes. Am I making any sense? Ilyanep 14:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Besides, the Whole Bias Section doesn't belong there. CNN has a measley 2 sentences, and I would personally contest that the whole media is a liberal propoganda group (on political issues). I think that the 'Bias' section should be removed and condensed, or the part on CNN made into a similar section. Ilyanep 16:40, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Disagree totally. Very few people seriously complains that CNN is biased. As you can tell by reading this article, everyone knows Fox is biased - numerous scientific studies bear it out. There is no grounds for either of the above. →Raul654 16:53, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
What are you tying to say? Ilyanep 16:57, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm saying that your proposal to increase the size of CNN's bias section is a terrible idea. It's totally unwarranted. CNN doesn't have any more bias than the average media outlet. Fox, on the other hand, does. Fox is blatantly biased, as many studies (cited in this article) have shown. As such, it deserves a lengthy description of how it is biased. Now, I support editing this article to maintain a NPOV (while keeping in all the bias-related facts), but I do not think the CNN article should be touched in any way. →Raul654 17:20, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
I was saying one or the other. It is useless to go into a blow-by-blow account. CNN does not have more bias than the average outlet because all the average outlets are biased...but since I obviously can't proove that... Ilyanep 18:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Fox only reports Conservative News Stories"

What is a conservative news story? There is a news story. 10 killed in Georgia, Nuclear weapons found in Iraq, Soviet Union reforms in Stalin's image, etc. There are no conservative or liberal news stories. Ilyanep 01:03, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Conservative news would be overemphasizing claims made my conservatives (ala, the nonexistant WMD finds), or featuring a disproportionane number of stories that are critical of liberals "And since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson (usually with themes like "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?")." →Raul654 01:43, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Objection to removal of Franken quote

The quote I added from Al Franken re: Fox bias was removed as being "POV". The NPOV policy says that our articles are supposed to be presented in such a way as a reader does not know the writer's alliegiences (be they political, religious, etc). That does NOT mean we cannot use POV quotes to make our point. Quite the contrary, it's impossible to write about bias at Fox without including such material. I'd like to see the quote back in, although it should be qualified. It did add relavant information to the article. →Raul654 07:29, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Here's a grammar lesson for the self-proclaimed infallible arbiter of neutrality. Put commas and periods within closing quotation marks, except when a parenthetical reference follows the quotation. 172 12:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Historical: lame edit war

Look at this spectacle everyone. There's a page protection because I've decided to correct a series of grammatical errors by VV. That's pretty tendentious even for him. 172 22:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look at the actual spectacle. 172 is not "correcting" anything but simply reverting me, not behavior consistent with mere correction of any alleged "errors" (such behavior usually consists of a minor tweak). -- VV 01:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Look at the page history instead 1 You got reverted because the bulk of your changes line by line took the commas and the periods that were correctly placed within the closing quotation marks outside the closing quotation marks. Other than that, you made a few inconsequential but obsessive word choice changes. If these changes mean so much to you, then clean up your own grammatical mess. 172 01:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Your own obsessiveness is comical, but yes I will defend my edits against crypto-vandalistic reversions; your claim I'm "illiterate" is quite daft indeed. You probably haven't even read Wikipedia:Manual of style#Quotation marks, too busy as you are reverting everyone in sight. -- VV 01:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You just got lucky finding that entry. Since when do you use British English? 172 01:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's really just inconceivable to you somebody might actually care about the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia? Of course, I took note of and read that page long ago. It helps in making good edits to know the rules. -- VV 01:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Those weren't "guidelines." The use of British English isn't mandated on WP. We can use either, but should stay consistent in each article. Thus, when I find an article written in American English, I'll use the grammar, language, and spellings I'm used to. But if I find an article that's mostly using British English, I'll try to use British English. For example, that's why I was stuck using British English in New Imperialism, even though it's not what I'm used to using. Although I was the main author, the vast majority of the other editors weren't from the US (perhaps because the article's mostly focused on the British Empire). Regarding this article, aside from your chages, the article seemed to be using the US spellings, so your changes made no sense in that particular context.
Those weren't "guidelines." The use of British English isn't mandated on WP. Instead, we're supposed to keep the language consistent in each article. When I find an article written in American English, I'll use American English grammar/language/spellings (which is what I'm used to); if I find an article written in British English, I'll try to use British English. Incidentally, that's why I was stuck using British English in New Imperialism. Although I was the main author, the other editors weren't from the US (and this makes sense, given that the article's mostly focused on the British Empire). Anyway, in this article your changes made no sense in this article, since it seemed to be using the US spellings. 172 01:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of. . . either of you could have ended this extremely silly dispute at any time by making a few very small edits, edits which would have required considerably less work, and created considerably less ill-will, than this lengthy argument (I would do it myself were the article not protected because of this petty squabble). I know you two don't get along well, but could you perhaps put your energies to some slightly more constructive use? —No-One Jones 02:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've made many attempts to work constructively with 172. He is not interested. As far as he's concerned he is absolutely right and working with others in the community would be a needless distraction. I'm no longer willing to be accommodating when he reverts my edits without rhyme or reason. -- VV 02:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
At least fight over something meaningful, will you? This is an obvious candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. —No-One Jones 02:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am also fighting over various more meaningful things, but the principle is the same. 172's tactic of reverting me on sight is not acceptable, no matter how minor the edit in question. This has been going on for months now. -- VV 02:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't care whose fault it is (not that you should try to play the innocent victim here)—this is still a moronic edit war. —No-One Jones 02:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The whole section in question shouldn't even be there since it is factually incorrect. "Fair and Balanced" refers to the overall channel. -- Dialog

Re: section about 'fair and balanced' = news. I removed this section because it was factually incorrect. "fair an balanced' refers to the whole network. If someone want to add that opinion is what has lead to fox's success, that is fine, but the passage was factually incorrect as it was. -- Dialog

Even if you disagree about the intended scope of "fair and balanced", this paragraph provides a lot of information and context beyond that one assertion. Evidence that FOX News does intend the scope you claim would justify rewording, but by no means deleting the entire paragraph outright. -- VV 07:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The only correct part of that paragraph is that opinion is what has lead to fox's success. The rest is factually incorrect. "Fair and Balanced" refers to the whole channel, and it has regularly been invoked by O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest of them. Do a LexisNexis search. It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement, it is a point of fact.
The criticism of fox is that news is delivered with bias, in other words, that the whole channel is a platform for conservative opinion. That paragraph was factually incorrect in every way except for saying that opinion has lead to its success. Add that in if you want, but I will continue to remove the factual errors. Dialog 13:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hey, good work NPOV'ing that paragraph a little bit more; you make good points I had missed. It could probably be tweaked yet more to make it perfect, but it's fine with me as is. -- VV 23:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

I have changed reference to Bill O'Reilly from journalist to news analyst. There's some question whether he can be considered a journalist -- but more importantly, he avoids the term himself. He calls himself a news analyst, and thus so should we. Alternatively, I would suggest "commentator" -- and in fact, I have wikified "news analyst" to reflect that use. Anyone agree/disagree? Cribcage 06:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is coming in very late, but I thought I'd add my two cents. He was a reporter and anchor from 1975 until 1989, during which he spent a considerable amount of time as a war correspondent for CBS and national reporter for ABC. He won 2 Emmys for journalism during that time, so it's very difficult in my mind to say "he's not a journalist" when he clearly has his roots in that. Even when he was on Inside Edition for 6 years, he still did a lot of actual reporting (he was the first national reporter on the scene of the L.A. riots, for example). He's only be a commentator first, journalist second since 1996 when he started at FOX News, but even since then his show has broken some major stories. So, while it might be more accurate to say he's an analyst now, stripping him of the title "journalist" isn't accurate, either. I usually compromise and say "journalist and commentator" to cover both. Does that seem reasonable? Beginning

Franken quote, Revisited

I'm not going to involve myself in an edit war, at this point. But I believe the Franken quote is inappropriate, and creates a strong bias. Raul says the quote is informative, and comes from a reputable source. I don't agree with either statement, but more to the point: A few seconds on Google will yield myriad informative quotes which are critical of CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. -- many of which, arguably, come from reputable sources. This quote is neither noteworthy nor remarkable. It isn't even famous. It's nothing more than a sarcastic quip from a partisan pundit, and its inclusion is extremely POV.

Frankly, I think the inclusion of the FAIR report in this article is inappropriate. We don't include any examination of bias in the CNN article. Shouldn't NPOV be judged based on the entire Wikipedia? Shouldn't we compare one article to another, and strive for neutrality in both? A casual reader shouldn't be able to discern whether liberals or conservatives wrote any given article. The article should not reflect a balance of POV -- it should reflect an absence of POV.

The FAIR report at least offers some scientific value. The Franken quote provides no such benefit. If you insist on analyzing the cast of Special Report, there's absolutely no reason you can't do that without quoting Al Franken. Imagine reading an encyclopedia article about Bill Clinton, and finding a quote from Rush Limbaugh! The author's bias would be obvious. The same is true, here.

For the record, I think it's generally inappropriate to include quotations in encyclopedia articles. I won't object when Churchill's article contains his famous lines, or if the Wendy's article includes "Where's the beef?" But should Al Gore's article contain quotes from President Bush's 2000 campaign? They could be informative, and they were certainly relevant to Gore's career. Still they would be inappropriate. An encyclopedia should strive to be NPOV. Including quotations, even when relevant, carries implicit endorsement of the speaker. Thus encyclopedia articles are generally narrative. Quotes simply don't belong. Cribcage 06:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Basically agree with Cribcage, although of course this has been discussed before. If indeed Franken is just a comedian (hardly a "source"), I don't see why his shrill jokes should be listed in this article. I'm sure there'd be problems if Dennis Miller quotes started showing up in Gore or Kerry articles. Franken's quote isn't even very general, referring only to one TV show on the network. And there's no information in it that couldn't just be stated outright. I added "famously mocked" because only if this quote was famous would it have any business being here. Quotes probably have some place, but this one was just thrown into the text without real context when I found it. -- VV 10:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since I posted the above comment, no one has chosen to rebut. I believe the only arguments in favor of the quote were Raul's (dated March 11), and I believe I addressed those squarely: It's quite possible to write about bias at FOX without citing quotations; and if someone insists on including the "relevant information" regarding Special Report, they can do so without citing quotations.

I respect VV's attempt at compromise, but the result is inaccurate: Franken's quote is not famous. I searched Google, and could not find a single appearance of this quote, excepting those which appeared to mirror this Wikipedia entry. I've never read or heard this quote cited, anywhere. We simply cannot refer to it as "famous." That isn't true.

For these reasons, along with those I cited above, I am removing the Franken quote. I will be glad to continue discussion with anyone who disagrees. If I do not reply in a timely manner, feel free to post a reminder on my talk page. Cribcage 22:09, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think this is the right decision, as you might guess, and that you handled it well. You appear to be right that it's not famous and so my compromise wasn't going to work. Of course, I feared removing it would start a new war; hopefully your/our explanations will satisfy fans of the quotes. -- VV 00:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm tired of fighting to keep it in. If the community decides to remove it, I'll live with that. →Raul654 00:43, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the Franken view of FOX news, because I think that the reason for its removal is wrong. I think that the NPOV policy is to present all sides of an issue. Removing Franken's quote is not presenting this side, its surpressing it. Is the quote from a partisan pundit? NPOV policy is to present it, not to surpress it. The core idea is neutrality BETWEEN sides by the article, not surpression of sides. Removal of Franken's point of view is a violation of the NPOV policy. Put it back. See ChessPlayer 00:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not a violation of NPOV to not include quotes from every critic and comedian who has commented on FOX. Where would it end? We should summarize the accusations of bias, as we do already, not include hundreds of snipes, jokes, and parodies in every article. I don't think you understand the policy you are citing. -- VV 02:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Your final sentence is not about the article and therefore doesn't belong here. Don't post personal attacks on this talk page, please. I asserted that the deletion violates NPOV. If you disagree, state why it is in accordance with NPOV without making comments about me personally. Now, about that deletion: you object "where would it end?" Well, there is no hint here of the desire to include "hundreds" of anything. There is one quote at issue. There is a point of view that FOX is not fair and balanced, Franken is a famous and prominent advocate of that view. His quote helps to make the case of the point of view it represents. It is the job of the article to present material such as this quote, as that is what is being said by adherents of the point of view being described. It should be put back. It is the NPOV policy that all points of view be presented, and the reason given for the deletion was NOT that the quote was bad at presenting the view it represents. If the quote isn't good at making its case, then one that is better at saying what critics are saying about FOX should replace it, so that the point of view is effectively given in the article. That is what NPOV calls for, that all views be presented accurately and effectively. Is that what you want, a wittier, more devastating quote from FOX critics be found? ChessPlayer 03:11, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this, Chessplayer. I have no desire for an edit war. That's why I posted my suggestion last Monday without editing the article, and waited to read counterarguments. I've found this "talk first" approach helps to prevent edit wars.

You wrote: I think that the reason for its removal is wrong. Can you be more specific? I explained several different reasons why I believe this quote is inappropriate for this article. It would help me to understand which reasons you disagree with, and why.

I don't believe that removing Franken's quote suppresses any viewpoint. As I said, it's easy to present a viewpoint without using direct quotations -- and indeed, an objective, detached style of writing (absent quotations) is more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I do believe we should present information about FOX's (alleged?) bias. That has proven a major issue, and our Wikipedia entry should reflect that. I think we can present information about bias without endorsing quotations from critics. The FAIR study is one example. And as I said above, if you believe it's absolutely necessary to include information about bias on the Special Report program, then we can do so. We needn't include a Franken quote to achieve that.

VV's point is well taken. I'm sure you would agree that we cannot litter every controversial article with quotes from its every critic. What makes Franken special, in this regard? FOX has been criticized by Larry King, Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, etc., people whose credentials are more impressive and more relevant than Franken's. Why include Franken's criticism? Furthermore, even if we granted that Franken was somehow special, what makes this quote notable? It isn't famous. It doesn't even criticize a high-profile program. Certainly, many of Franken's remarks about Bill O'Reilly have been more widely reported than this arbitrary quote from his book.

I won't try to speak for VV, but I think you misunderstood his comment. I didn't read his comment as a personal attack. I agree with him: I think that insisting that "all viewpoints" be presented constitutes a misunderstanding of what we're trying to achieve. We're not trying to achieve a balance of bias. We're trying to achieve an absence of bias. Bill O'Reilly has been very critical of Jesse Jackson, and has presented some damning evidence. We don't include quotes from O'Reilly in the Jackson article, and no one asserts this suppresses Bill O'Reilly's viewpoint. The Jackson article presents factual evidence in a neutral manner, without adopting the individual biases of his many critics. That's our goal, here. Cribcage 04:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

My primary objection to removal of the Franken material, is based on the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which I have been accused of on this page of not understanding. I think I do understand it, well enough to write about it at length. I invite everyone to judge for themselves the depth of my understanding (or misunderstanding) by going to the NPOV section on this page, reading my take on it, and then going to the official NPOV link I gave at the top, where the policy is officially explained, if I am not mistaken. I believe that some of the disagreement on this page does reflect an honest misunderstanding of a very complex policy, one that I believe is not only complex, but also unusual, an idea not found in many other places normally familiar to most people. NPOV is rather peculiar, so to speak, it is not just a matter of being unbiased or neutral. I think that agreement on the NPOV policy will go far to resolve this dispute, as long as editors are truly interested in resolving it, and not acting out of pure emotional feelings for or against Al Franken, either wanting to see him on the page, or conversely, disliking him and not wanting him on the page regardless of the NPOV policy and philosophy. ChessPlayer 08:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer writes: "Franken is a major, famous, critic of FOX news. So, his view gets space." I don't agree with your characterization of Franken, nor do I agree with your interpretation of NPOV. But for a moment, let's set aside general discussion, and address one specific point.

Special Report is not a high-profile program for FOX News. I find it odd that a quote was chosen which criticizes Special Report -- as opposed to, say, the more prominent O'Reilly Factor. (As I demonstrated above, the quote is not famous.) Having said that: As I've said, if someone honestly believes this article cannot exist without including an assessment of bias on Special Report, that can easily be achieved without citing quotations. Is that acceptable? If not, why?

Returning to your statement (italicized above): Let's say, for a moment, that we agree Franken is a major, famous critic of Fox News. Let's say, for a moment, that we agree this entitles his view to inclusion in the FOX News article on Wikipedia. I can argue persuasively, I believe, that both Janeane Garofalo and Michael Moore are more significant (i.e. "major, famous") than Al Franken. Shouldn't we include their criticisms of FOX News, too? Shouldn't we litter the FOX News article with quotes from significant critics? Shouldn't we do the same for CNN, and Andy Rooney, and Walter Cronkite, and Tom Brokaw, and New York Times?

Let's take that one step further. Franken's criticisms have hardly been limited to FOX News. Shouldn't we include his quotes in our articles about Bill O'Reilly, and George W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft, and Rick Santorum? If we are compelled to reflect one of Franken's opinions, mustn't we reflect all his others? Aren't we compelled to deconstruct his books, page by page, and copy each relevant quotation onto its corresponding Wikipedia article? Mustn't we then do the same for every book written by Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore, and David Horowitz, and Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham?

Obviously, I believe the answer to those questions is, "No." But I don't intend them as rhetorical questions -- because unless I misunderstand what you are saying, your answer to each is, "Yes." Is that accurate?

As an aside: I appreciate the care and thought you have given to this discussion. I can see that we're both trying to articulate our positions. Perhaps we each feel like we're repeating ourselves, a bit -- but we've been able to argue our respective points without name-calling or mudslinging. That's been rare on Wikipedia, lately, and I think we should take a breath to pat ourselves on the back. :-) Cribcage 22:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"Very clear"?

"Meanwhile, critics contend that it is FOX who is biased. Pointing to examples of allegedly unfair presentation, the large number of conservative staffers, and leaked memos, these critics paint a picture of an avowedly-partisan news organization that spins stories to the right while publicly claiming to be 'fair and balanced'. Others point to New Yorker article Vox Fox ( ) where Ailes makes it very clear that the network was conceived as a platform for conservative opinion."

Where in _Vox Fox_ does Ailes make it "very clear" that the network "was conceived as a platform for conservative opinion"?

Nowhere; Ailes refrains from saying that FOX is conservative. But Ken Auletta says it. ChessPlayer 07:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quotes for: Ailes stated quite clearly in VOX FOX that Fox News was conceived as an outlet for conservative opinion, a market he felt was neglected by other networks.:
"It's too liberal." Ailes explains, "I think the mainstream media thinks liberalism is the center of the road. I really think that they don't understand that there are serious people in America who don't necessarily agree with everything they hear on the Upper East Side of Manhattan."
"There is an underserved market in news. . . . What I meant was 'fair and balanced.' I think I can create a market for the news." He believed that, "up until the Fox News channel, if any conservative or even libertarian got his opinion on the air, it was viewed as right wing."
Friends later worried that Ailes would be accused of blatantly promoting right-wing viewpoints, and he responded, "Good! That'll drive my ratings up!"
Dialog 15:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This absolutely does not say it was conceived as an outlet for conservative opinion. How on Earth do you read that? He says other media outlets are liberally biased, but this one won't be. He says that accusations of being right-wing will increase ratings. He says nothing like what was accused in your edits. -- VV 01:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
When I saw the comment in talk challenging anyone to find where Ailes said what the article claimed he said, I took it up, and read the material, specifically looking for where he said it. I couldn't find it. I am not a conservative. I am not a FOX news partisan. I disagree with most of the views I hear on FOX news. But I could not find Ailes saying what the article claimed. He does not say it in the material you have posted here. The most that can be said is that Ailes wanted a network that gave the conservative side as well as the liberal.
Now, personally, I belief FOX does a lot more than that. They are NOT fair and balanced, they are right-wing. BUT...that doesn't mean its ok to misquote Ailes. He does not make anything "very clear"; on the contrary, his quoted statements are ambiguous. That is why I changed the article. The author of the article is saying that FOX was meant to be conservative; and he did his best to get Ailes to say it, but Ailes didn't. ChessPlayer 03:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
??? There's nothing ambiguous about the statements. Ailes: conservatives weren't on the air, so we put them on the air. As such, the statement "Ailes makes it very clear that the network was conceived as an outlet for conservative opinion, a market he felt was neglected by other networks" is inarguably accurate. Dialog 18:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia NPOV Policy

Wikipedia's policy is to create articles that present conflicting views without asserting the editor's opinions as to which are true. NPOV means presenting all sides of an issue, in a factual way, by describing what the sides say, while the editors, us, do not add our own voices by deciding who is right or wrong, or even by giving any view at all. It is like we are the famous TV cop Joe Friday on Dragnet: Wikipedia editors write "Just the facts." In matters of opinion, we write "just the facts" by telling what the sides of the issue are, quoting them, even, when appropriate. We just report what other people say. We do it in a neutral way, because we write the article so that the article itself does not advocate anything at all. So, presenting all sides is NOT a misunderstanding of what we are trying to achieve, it IS what we are trying to achieve. The purpose of the article is to tell what the sides are on anything that is not an agreed upon fact. Is FOX News fair and balanced? It is the job of the article to report that it is a question that has been raised (a fact), and what the sides are on this question. What the sides say is a fact, they said it. Whether its true what they argue, is not addressed at all in Wikipedia articles. That would be taking sides by the Wikipedia editors, which is absolutely forbidden. So, fact: one point of view in the FOX News debate is Al Franken's, so he and his quote belong in the article. All significant points of view are presented in good Wikipedia articles. To delete Franken, is to say he doesn't count, his opinion is not very important in this matter. I don't think that is valid, Franken is a major, famous, critic of FOX news. So, his view gets space. How much space is a factor of how relevant to the issue we editors feel he is; NPOV doesn't mean every view gets the same space. That leads to honest disputes about how much space to give to views, and who is so insignificant we won't mention them at all. Deleting someone entirely is saying their view is completely unimportant to the issue discussed. With Al Franken, my opinion is he deserves the space he was given, as his quote is very to the point, and he is a famous person in regards to this debate. Finally, the NPOV policy creates articles unlike any found in most places, including encyclopedias. Wikipedia, properly written according to the NPOV policy, never asserts anything not universally agreed upon as fact. Everything else is stated by giving what somebody else says or writes or believes about it. Other encyclopedias don't do this, they usually assert the views of whoever writes the article. They are "authoritative"; an expert writes the article where he simply says something is true, not identifying himself except by signing the article at the bottom, and you can either believe him or not. But Wikipedia, properly written, never asserts anything that is not universally held as a fact. We can't even say the Earth is round. We can only report that most scientists and geographers say it is, and that there are a few people who disagree, and belong to the Flat Earth Society. See the NPOV article link above for a fuller discussion of the NPOV policy, please. What you have just read is only my personal opinion of the policy, but I do believe it is in accord with the "official" policy at the link. Please go read it and go ahead and roast me if I have materially misstated it :-) ChessPlayer 08:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you read Cribcage's response? He gave very detailed and thoughtful answers to your arguments, so well that for me to comment even in my own defense I deemed superfluous. -- VV 08:37, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I read them, and feel that no progress will be made in resolving the dispute until agreement is first reached on what the NPOV policy says. I was accused of not knowing the policy when I stated my view that NPOV policy is why the deletion was wrong, and so that means there is a disagreement about what it is and probably has been for sometime underlying the debate. I want to state too, I am neither a Franken fan nor a Franken hater, and my support for his material being in the article is based on that it did a good job of presenting his side's views. I have previously voiced my opinion on one other controversy regarding this page, and I was on the side of the pro-Fox News advocates, where in this dispute I am probably seen as being anti-Fox News by advocating space being given to one of the biggest FOX News bashers. But, its the NPOV policy that is the crux of the matter; because Franken is a big basher of Fox, is precisely why his views should be on the page in the form of a quote, if a good one exists. ChessPlayer 09:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
My point (made also by Cribcage) is that the NPOV policy does not mean including direct quotes from the views of every critic. Rather, the article should summarize the opposing views in neutral language. It already does that, in the substantial "Bias" section, which is half the friggin' article already. -- VV 21:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the humor, the "colorful" language made me smile, and its much nicer than being told I don't know the NPOV policy. I agree that including the quote is a debatable issue...which is why it is being debated, hopefully. I keep saying that the quote is informative; it helps the article, and says its message better than we could paraphrase it. So it should be in there. The leaning view of wikipedians, if I am not mistaken, is to leave stuff in if its good; modify it or add to it if it is not so good, and deleting stuff entirely is frowned on, reserved for outright errors. I could provide a link to where this is stated, if need be. If its just a matter of space devoted to views, the philosophy is to add to the article to balance it, not delete material. Someone please put it back, its good for the article. ChessPlayer 21:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I feel I'm repeating myself here, but the problems are (a) as noted by Cribcage, it is better in an encylopedia to write in a detached style rather than directly quoting one person, (b) there are far more prominent and respectable critics than Franken out there, (c) there are even more high-profile Franken quotes than this one, (d) this quote only refers to one TV show on the network, thus having too narrow a scope, and (e) the quote adds nothing of substance that is not already said. In general, we do not simply copy source material, but write articles about it. Otherwise, we might as well put all of Lying Liars in this article, for "NPOV" purposes, to cover "all sides". -- VV 22:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
(A) The manual of style has a section on using quotation marks because they expect us to be using quotations. An article made up mostly/entirely of quotes is bad, but this article has exactly 0 quotes now - that's just as bad. (B) No, there really aren't (C) Suggest an alternative quote, or quit complaining about the one we have (D) See C (E) Incorrect - it adds specific information as opposed to general the general statement "Fox has some conservative commentators". Short articles should give an overview. Longer articles can give specific details (like quotations). →Raul654 22:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
(a) I've never before heard someone suggest that an encyclopedia article which lacks quotations is "bad." I disagree. (b) You're entitled to your opinion that Franken is FOX News' most prominent, respectable critic -- but I think it's unreasonable to assert that as fact. As an aside: Can you support that opinion? I would suggest, for starters, that Janeane Garofalo's career has made her far more prominent than Al Franken, and that Dan Rather is far more respectable (with regard to the issue of journalistic bias) than Al Franken. (c) Confrontational language aside, your "either/or" ultimatum ignores the fact that both VV and myself have offered reasons why a complete absence of quotation is appropriate in this instance. (e) As I have repeatedly suggested, if people truly feel that the FOX News article will be fatally flawed without examining Special Report's bias, that information can be presented without using a quotation. Cribcage 22:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Addressing each of VV's points. (a) I am not an expert on "normal" encyclopedias, so I won't assert what is the best way to write their articles. However, Wikipidia is not like other encyclopedias in one very major way. Normal encyclopedias are authoritative; they simply state what the author of the article asserts as true. Therefore, they have much less need to quote sides. Wikipedia prohibits its authors from stating what is true, for the most part. Except for hard facts, everything has to be attributed to someone. Therefore, it is much more likely that a quote is both needed, and effective, and its often better to give a short quote than to paraphrase, and this is one of those times. (b) If there are better critics than Franken, let them be added to the page. There is plenty of space to add stuff, the article is by no means in danger of becoming too long. However, it is my impression, perhaps mistaken, that Franken is one of the big-name FOX critics (c) If there are better Franken quotes, then instead of deleting this one, add the better one. Again, there is no shortage of space. (d) The one show this quote refers to is given a block of air time each day. It is not a trivial show, and no grounds to delete the quote. (E) The Franken quote definately adds to what is said, stating specifically in concrete terms how FOX biases its coverage of issues. My knowlege of FOX news was specifically increased by reading the Franken quote, and without that quote, the article has less to say. I will address Cribcage's comments next. ChessPlayer 22:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)~

Addressing Cribcage's points. (a) So you don't mind if a passage is inserted that says exactly the same thing as the Franken quote, paraphrasing Franken and mentioning him, only not in the form of a quote? If that's your objection, then the Franken quote belongs in the article until you or someone else "improves" it by saying the same thing in a better way, and editors agree its said better. (b) It need not be proven that Al Franken is the most prominent critic, to justify his quote being in the article. The purpose of the article is to present all sides, and he is definately a "side". (c) The quote gives material from Al Franken's side, and NPOV policy states that is what wiki articles are supposed to do, present the sides. (d) you skipped (d). (e) Just cause it isn't liked how good something is, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Deletion is for errors. Deleting things like the Franken quote instead of improving them violates NPOV, by deleting information by one of the sides and replacing it with nothing. ChessPlayer 00:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

It was my impression that it is now clear what editors of the wiki article are seeking in regards to the specific issue at hand, which is whether this Al Franken quote belongs in the article. It is clear, I hope, that the purpose of articles is to present all sides without favoring any or presenting them as the truth. The Franken quote thus belongs, because the purpose of a Wikipidia article is to present the sides of an issue, that is what NPOV defines the mission of Wikipidia. The quote helps to present the Al Franken side, so it belongs. If it doesn't do a good job, then make it better. Deleting it does not make it better. ChessPlayer 22:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer: I'd like to address some of your points from both your recent comments. For clarity's sake, I'll quote your comments in italics, so you know what I'm responding to in each section.

Regarding Wikipedia policy: "Except for hard facts, everything has to be attributed to someone." I think if you look around, you'll discover that isn't true. In Wikipedia, as with encyclopedias in general, quotations are rare. (This is why I was surprised by Raul's comment that writing an entry without using quotations is "bad.")

"It need not be proven that Al Franken is the most prominent critic, to justify his quote being in the article. The purpose of the article is to present all sides, and he is definately a 'side'." You've made this argument several times, yet I don't feel you've addressed any of my questions about it. Please see my comments, above -- specifically, the last entry in Franken, Revisited, dated 22:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC).

"So you don't mind if a passage is inserted that says exactly the same thing as the Franken quote, paraphrasing Franken and mentioning him, only not in the form of a quote?" I would see little distinction, and my objection would remain the same. If my suggestion wasn't clear, then I apologize. Let me try to clarify by offering a specific suggestion: If you feel it is absolutely necessary to criticize Special Report, then perhaps we could add the following:

Special Report with Brit Hume purports to maintain a balanced perspective, but critics charge the show features two conservatives (Brit Hume and Fred Barnes) pitted against two centrists (Mort Kondrake and Mara Liasson). Liberal perspective is conspicuously absent.

"Deletion is for errors." Deletion is not reserved for errors. I think you'll find, as a writer, that deletion is often an invaluable tool for improvment. Revision without deletion is like building a birdhouse without a hammer.

"Deleting it does not make it better." I've explained at length why, in this case, I believe deleting this quote does indeed make this article better. Specifically, I've explained why deleting this quote makes this article more NPOV.

VV has stated, quite correctly, that the FOX News article is already laden with criticism of alleged bias. Even without the Franken quote, I believe the FOX News article is far from NPOV. I believe the article clearly reflects a liberal-media POV which is critical of FOX News. I explained in my original comment: Although I do not think this material is proper, I will grant that some of it (e.g., the FAIR report) is defensible. I believe the Franken quote is completely indefensible, and I have explained why.

However, let me offer a suggestion. Go over to the Bill Clinton article, and insert the following:

News analyst and author Bill O'Reilly, in his 2000 book The O'Reilly Factor, criticized: "Clinton vetoed a tax cut, claiming it would endanger 'saving Social Security,' the so-called cornerstone of his historical legacy. Then he signed a budget that spent federal money on projects like the following:
  • $230,000 for a study of the sex habits of houseflies
  • $27,000 for a study of why prisoners want to escape
  • $4,000,000 (that's right, six zeros) to distribute info on the correct way to cut toenails. To quote Dave Barry, 'I am not making this up.'
  • $100,000 to find out why Americans don't really like beets."

I suspect you'll be met with loud objections. Fellow Wikipedians will explain to you that inserting this quotation violates NPOV policy. For that matter, I doubt you'll receive any polite overtures to compromise, such as, "Maybe you can include that information, without quoting O'Reilly..." The quote will be summarily deleted, notwithstanding its informative nature.

Likewise, the Franken quote is totally inappropriate here.

Cribcage 04:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer: Can you please reformat your last entry? I would prefer you leave my comments intact, to facilitate reading by other community members. (This may become important, if we have to proceed with an RfC regarding this article.) Feel free to quote from my comments, as I have done when replying to yours. Thanks. Cribcage 05:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't change anything you said, just answered below each comment for clarity. I'll be happy to edit them out though, if you like. I don't see anybody new commenting, so if you read them, that's all they were for. You have not to my knowledge responded in any way to my repeated assertions of what NPOV is and its application to this issue. If all you want to do is keep the Franken quote out of the article, you need do nothing...I have never made an edit to the page, and don't ever plan to, on this issue. I'll leave that to others, and let you battle them, if its that important to you. All I have tried to do is convince you and others why deleteing it is against NPOV. You haven't addressed this issue, and if you have read the policy page, and all my comments, and still don't agree, there's not much more I want to say. Nothing you have said addresses the core issue, you haven't addressed the statements I have made about NPOV, so I basically have no more to say either. I'll let the community continue this matter if it wants, I have expended more effort in stating my viewpoint than the matter warrants. I have no emotional attachment to the cut material, either for or against. I am no Franken fan, I didn't like him on Saturday Night Live, and don't own any of his books. I can't figure out why he is popular...but recognize that he is, and I scratch my head and wonder why. I didn't create the quoted material, and I didn't revert any cuts. I have just talked on this page. If you hate this Franken quote this much, you don't have to worry about my ever putting it in, and since you haven't addressed what I have said about NPOV, I don't have much more to say. ChessPlayer 06:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Cribcage, per your request I removed my replies to your replies to my assertions. I see no need to go to the work to put them elsewhere on the page, now that you have read them. If anybody really wants to see them, let them go to the talk page history and look them up. ChessPlayer 06:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer writes: "You have not to my knowledge responded in any way to my repeated assertions of what NPOV is and its application to this issue." I'm sorry you feel that way. I disagree: I believe that I have responded directly to your interpretation of NPOV -- not just once, but several times, in several different ways. To date, I have written more than 2,200 words (the equivalent of seven or eight printed pages) explaining why I believe the quotes violates NPOV. That you believe I haven't even responded to your objections...well, I'm left a bit speechless.
I'm sorry that, despite our best efforts, we seem to have crossed our signals so egregiously. Since we both seem to have exhausted ourselves, there may be little left to say, except this: I hope that, if we disagree in the future, we have better luck connecting to find some common ground. Cribcage 16:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, my comment was specifically aimed at a lack of response to the subject of NPOV itself. I think a fundamental lack of agreement on what NPOV means is at the heart of the discussion so far, and I felt you hadn't addressed my statements on what it means. I will review our comments to see if my impression was perhaps mistaken. If I may have permission to make the discussion personal here, because the issue is, in my mind, about two different understandings of NPOV, and it concerns me, because I think disagreement on this subject makes editing impossible, as we arn't in agreement over the rules of what is supposed to be on any page and why. So I think it is an important subject; the specific issue, whether the Al Franken quote belongs or not, by comparison is trivial. May I have permission to get a bit personal here? Have you studied carefully the link I gave to the NPOV page? Have you also read the section where it is stated that the preference is against deletion of material, and preference is given to making it better? Have you absorbed the section where it explains that the goal is not to create "neutrality" by balancing what the editors think, but that "neutrality" refers to not arguing any case at all, but simply reporting facts with no point of view at all taken by the page? That it is not important if a point of view argued by someone like Al Franken is true or not, that the goal is not for the article itself to assert the "truth," but simply to report things?, that the goal is to build an article where points of view are reported? I mean no offense here, and hope this does not sound in any way accusatory; rather, I am trying to sort out this disagreement over NPOV, and I can't think of any other way than by asserting my understanding of the policy, and seeing if you agree with it. ChessPlayer 00:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer: I appreciate your tone, and I do not take offense at your personal comments. I will try again to address your thoughts about NPOV.

You wrote: "Have you absorbed the section where it explains that the goal is not to create 'neutrality' by balancing what the editors think, but that 'neutrality' refers to not arguing any case at all, but simply reporting facts with no point of view at all taken by the page? That it is not important if a point of view argued by someone like Al Franken is true or not, that the goal is not for the article itself to assert the "truth," but simply to report things?"

You have repeatedly asked whether I have read the NPOV policy, and it occurs to me that I have not yet answered your question directly. Yes, I have read the policy. I believe I understand it clearly.

Neutrality is obviously affected by choosing which facts to report. Neutrality must exist both within a single article, and across Wikipedia as a whole. I have talked at length, above, about the implications of including Franken's quote. To briefly recap: If we include this quote, we must include countless similar quotes from Franken and others, pro and con, concerning FOX News and scores of other topics. You're proposing a chain reaction, which would litter Wikipedia with biased, trivial, inane quotations, solely qualified by having been uttered by "major, famous" people. That standard cannot be tolerated, and absolutely is not essential to NPOV.

NPOV is perfectly maintained across thousands of Wikipedia articles, absent quotations from famous critics. In this case specifically, adding Franken's POV to this article acutely damages NPOV. I suggested above that you try proposing a similar edit to Bill Clinton. I wasn't being flippant. I believe you would receive some thoughtful replies from various Wikipedians, and I daresay many of them would express sentiments similar to those I have written here. I think that might serve as a helpful analogy, which might shed more light on the issue at hand.

Neutrality is important, but we must not miss the forest for the trees. Our goal is not to build an article where all points of view, irrespective of consequence, are reported. Our goal is to build an accurate, informative, unbiased encyclopedia. We should attempt to represent different perspectives, but we cannot let a blind dedication to inclusionism cause irreparable damage to any article.

There is a world of difference between representing a major societal POV (e.g., aliens landed at Roswell) and representing an individual person's POV. I think most Wikipedians will agree with you: We should try to reflect all major POV in our articles. The idea that FOX News reflects conservative bias, for example, is a major POV held by many people. We should reflect that in our article (and we have, extensively). Individuals' POV are another matter entirely -- and generally speaking, those have no place in an encyclopedia. Cribcage 02:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage writes, Individuals' POV are another matter entirely -- and generally speaking, those have no place in an encyclopedia.
I have addressed this objection before, explaining how Wikipidia is not like other encyclopedias, and why, so that even if what you say is true for other encyclopedias, it is not true for this one. This one has unique rules due to its nature as a community effort. Further, what you state is not found on the Wikipidia policy and style guide pages, it is just your opinion about non-Wiki encyclopedias, and no grounds for deleting anything here. See my previous reply to this objection, given earlier on this page, for more detail. I explained why I believe it is completely the opposite here from what you advocate, good use of quotes is encouraged here; see the style page.
You wrote, Neutrality must exist both within a single article, and across Wikipedia as a whole. That's something I have never seen on the Wikipedia policy pages. Where did you come up with this rule? You seem to be saying that bias on one article justifies bias elsewhere, for "balance". Is this what you are saying?
You wrote, If we include this quote, we must include countless similar quotes from Franken and others, pro and con, concerning FOX News and scores of other topics. Why do you say we "must" do that?
You wrote, In this case specifically, adding Franken's POV to this article acutely damages NPOV How does adding Franken's POV "acutely damage NPOV"?
In summary, it seems to me your objections are all private ones; you insist on deletion of the Franken quote because of your own, private, rules for Wikipedia. If I am wrong, I welcome the education, it will make me a better editor. Please link to, or quote, I trust you, sections of the policy pages that are the reasons the Franken quote should be kept off the page. ChessPlayer 04:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
If I may try commenting again here, I think this is less a disagreement over NPOV policy than over article scope. We don't, can't, literally cover all points of view. The articles need to be of digestible length, which means they should say things such as FOX News is accused of conservative bias by many critics and discuss this a bit, but not have a list of hundreds of these critics and quotes from them. At any rate, if we were to do that, it would have to be a separate article in order to make this one coherent. Otherwise, every controversial politician, from Idi Amin to Kofi Annan, would have an article consisting 90% of "source material" of quotes and commentary from everyone from Dennis Miller to Andy Rooney to Jerry Seinfeld. The entire point of having an article is to summarize the vast amount of information out there, not to give it all. (That's why we have a No source material rule.) -- VV 21:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
To VV: I think Cribcage and I have some real differences over what the NPOV policy means. Particularly when he starts speaking of balancing articles against each other, and that quotes have no place in articles. You and I have much less or no disagreement, at least now, I believe, on what NPOV means, but I could be wrong. Now, as to covering all points of view, lets be clear here: no attempt was made to get ridiculous about swamping the page with quotes. One quote in an entire article was all that existed, and the quote was very specific about its point, and completely on topic. The article is in no danger, as I have said before, of becoming "too" long by the insertion of this quote. If every FOX critic was quoted, and the page was filled with anti-Fox quotes, then I would be on your side and argue that they all don't need to be there. But saying "what if" that happened, as reason to remove this quote, is not right. It is like saying one should never eat, because there would always be a next bite, and it will never stop. That is not how things work. ChessPlayer 23:44, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
The point, I think made well by both Cribcage and me, is that the Franken quote is much less relevant than hundreds of other quotes which we don't include. For instance, this quote was about only one show on the network, whereas we could easily find quotes about the whole network. Furthermore, it's about an apparently not very significant show (since I don't know FOX, I can't vouch for this point), whereas we could find material about the bigger shows. Franken is a comedian; we could find much more serious commentators who have criticized FOX. And so on. If we had to have a quote (and I don't think any are needed to state what the criticisms of FOX are), this one would be a very poor choice. -- VV 00:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Agreed that the quote is only about one show. That's a point in its favor, and no reason to delete it. It is a concrete example for giving the view how FOX is biased. The point of view of the FOX critics needs concrete examples, to better communicate what is being alleged. Simply stating in general terms that FOX is biased doesn't present the critic's case as strongly as also giving concrete examples. Secondly, no show on FOX is insignificant. FOX is a major cable news network, and every minute of it is important. If you don't think so, try buying a minute of their time, and see how much they want for it. Again, you are arguing as if we have to be very concise in the article, and don't have the space to go into details or specifics, and that is not the Wikipidia policy. Wikipidia wants long articles, and if people delete according to your philosophy, articles will stay short. Next, Franken is much more than a comedian. He is a political comentator of such stature he gets air time on FOX news, even though he is one of their biggest critics. Next, quotes arn't required, but they are helpful at times, and definately not discouraged on Wikipedia. They just state, don't go overboard, and nobody is doing that here. Lastly, I keep mentioning what is a Wikipedia policy: don't delete, improve. The deletion violates that philosophy. ChessPlayer 01:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
??? By this reasoning, we should have quotes from every prominent guest on FOX about every show on FOX. Wikipedia wants focused articles, not necessarily short or long. Drowning it in source material will make it completely unfocused. -- VV 07:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, educate me. Link me to the policy page that says "Wikipedia wants focused articles," whatever that means. As for the reasoning you assert will lead to quotes from "every prominent guest on FOX about every show on FOX." I don't see any such thing happening. All I see is an objection that is akin to saying "don't ever eat a bite of food as otherwise you will die because you will never stop." One quote is not drowning an article in source material, and does not lead to it anymore than one bite leads to death by overeating. There is a time to stop things. That hardly is when there was only one quote on the page. I'll start listening to that argument when I see people putting redundant material on the page. ChessPlayer 07:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have stats on how many FOX news hosts/contributors/etc are conservative and how many are liberal? I'm not a regular viewer, but I'm sitting here trying to name them in my head and I can come up with more librals than conservatives. I'm not saying that the network is more libral than conservative.. I just thought it might be an interesting addition. - Anon.

Not NPOV in question

The issue with the Franken quote is not NPOV policy (I apologize for my very very inital miswording) but (A) the scope of the article, as it has been mentioned, we can't cover all issues concerning FOX News. Additionally, (B) we do not need to have half the article about the Bias...all the stuff about the external studies belongs in external links and in my opinion stays there. (C) Al Franken is not a very good source for quoting criticism (for heaven's sake, (C.1) you don't quote extremists in criticisms of people and (C.2) many people will agree that many accusations by Franken are baseless...but that's beside the point). (D) Why are we even including quotes in articles? I think that is the main question. Ilyanep 22:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How is Franken an extremist? Unlike Bill O'Reilly he has never threatened to kill anyone.StoptheBus18 15:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
When has he done that? Ilyanep (Talk) 14:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can't find any proof so I rescind the statement. But O'Reilly has and continues to call people Nazis like Al Franken (who he called Goebbels). This is a complete triviliazation of the holocaust. Al Franken, a Jew, is nothing like a group of people who killed 13 million innocents. To call someone a Nazi like O'Reilly does is inexcuseable and insulting to the victims of the Holocaust. He should be ashamed. Also he is a big fat dickhead and so is anyone that likes him. StoptheBus18 14:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First, I am a jew also, so don't be telling me what's insulting or not. And second of all...I don't appreciate being called a dickhead nor do Millions thousands of people around the world. Ilyanep (Talk) 23:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guess what I'm a Jew too. Besides, even non Jews can find someone mocking the Holocaust insulting. In fact I would hope that they do. So even if I was a goy, I could still be pissed at O'Reilly for triviliazing the Holocaust. But yay! I always like meeting righty lundsmen. Nothing like talking to a nice Court Jew who sells out his own people. Right wingers don't like Jews, although they pretend to. Remember these are people who until 20-30 years ago were against civil rights (which meant liberation for everyone who was not a WASP). Shit even Nixon couldn't help but let his right wing anti-Semitism shine. Do you think Pat Robertson or Falwell really cares about the well being of the Jewish people???? Congrats, you are an amazing person. (also Bill O'Reilly poops his pants and kicks puppies, and so do you) StoptheBus18 14:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second, one more thing. Millions of people around the world???????? Yeah I'm sure Dijibouti has a huge O'Reilly following. StoptheBus18 17:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A slight Gaff...corrected. And also, liberals and left-wingers are the ones on the side of the arabs. Left-wingers are the people who made ISrael tear down the wall on the gaza strip. Left-wingers would stop supporting Israel if they had their way. I don't understand how you can be Jewish and left-winged in politics. It's just an oxymoron! Ilyanep (Talk) 17:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding the, majority of Jews in America lean to the left. The majority of Jews vote democrat, are pro-Choice, are pro-Affirmative-Action and anti-Bush. Jews have historically been left of center. We marched against the right wing in the 1960s when conservatives were unwilling to let Black people be people. We fought fascists in Spain as part of the Popular Front during the Spanish Civil War. The organizations that led the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was founded by Jewish socialist youth groups like Hashomer Hatzair, see also the ZOB. And as your claims about left wing being pro-Arab, there are some factions of the left wing that are radical, but most progressives are neither pro-Israeli or pro-Arab, they are pro-Peace. You're sweeping and unintellectual accusations level towards the left wing is childish and frankly stupid. But then again I don't expect much from a sellout Court Jew. You are the Uncle Tom of the Jewish people. StoptheBus18 18:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's childish is your insults. "You are the Uncle Tom of the Jewish people." "A Sellout court Jew". "Poops his pants and kicks puppies, and so do you", "he is a big dickhead and so is anyone who likes him". Ilyanep (Talk) 23:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well you're not a fan of sarcasm are you? (I'm referring to the kicking puppies insult, although I still think O'Reilly poops his pants... and you do too...) Way to side step the issues. Congrats, sellout. StoptheBus18 00:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can Someone please explain to me?

although CNN still has more overall unique viewers ... so how does FOX have better ratings. And how do they know this anyways? Ilyanep (Talk) 17:42, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Such a thing could happen if 10 people watch Fox for an hour each, while 100 people watch CNN for 2 minutes each. →Raul654 17:45, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

That's not how ratings are determined. "Background noise" is removed, otherwise channel-flipping through CNN would count. Which it doesn't. Ratings are weighted, which still doesn't explain why FoxNews is so popular.