Talk:Fox News Channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

RfC - Should the lead paragraph about disputed bias refer to the accusers as "many observers" or "some observers"?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moot based on elapsed time. Feel free to try another if you think it's needed. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Introduction : Over the course of several years, there has been a significant amount of discussion about how exactly to describe alleged bias on Fox News Channel. Recent debate has centered around whether the phrase "many observers" or "some observers" should be used in the lead. Please comment on which exact wording you'd support.

Previous discussions on the subject 

When responding, please use the following format -

  • Support Many/Some/Alternative - Rationale. ISupportStuff (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (edit: removed fictional 2252 date. I believe it confused the automated RFC maintenance software)

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil. Thank you in advance for your feedback!


  • Support Many - This discussion has been rehashed many times, and consistently larger discussions have trended towards supporting "many" as the correct adjective. This is obviously a controversial subject, but support among RS is pretty strong for the "many" wording. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Some or removal of qualifier While many critics make this claim on regular basis, it is not possible to extrapolate this to general observers. Many supporters also say that FNC is not biased, but that same extrapolation to observers would not be supported either. The biggest hurdle is that their are no sources to back up the claim that "many observers" make this claim. Ultimately the inclusion of original research cannot be RfC'ed into the article. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Purely for the record, I'd be neutral on the "removal of qualifier" proposal. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Many per NickCT. The sources are plentiful and clear. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you or NickCT could provide some sources that actually say "Many observers" make this claim, becuase in over 6 years of debate I have yet to see such "plentiful" sourcing. Arzel (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Arzel: - You know darn well that the exact wording on a lot of WP articles isn't directly pulled from sources. If you'd like many individual sources which point to observers and/or criitcs that make the claim, I'd be happy to provide. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Could we have a separate section for the back-and-forth? I do it myself sometimes, so I know it can make the Comments part really long and off-topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - I'd be OK with you moving my comments to another section for clarity as you saw fit (and also deleting this comment once you'd done so). NickCT (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Some (and also fine with no qualifier) Estimating a percentage of these people relative to all the observers is virtually impossible, and without that, we can't even begin to agree on whether that slice counts as many. With "some", everybody wins. It can mean any amount between "none" and "all", without leaning toward the low or the high end. "Many" doesn't allow that freedom. It suggests a "big chunk" of the audience. Have even 10,000 observers said FOX is biased? That seems like a big number, but it's proportionately very few. Still some, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
  • Many per NickCTCasprings (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Many or No Qualifier. Some makes it sound like an almost insignificant number. Many sounds not an insignificant number with no reference to proportion. I believe the wide array of sources suggests many would be accurate, some would be entirely inaccurate and no qualifier would be less informative but accurate. My real issue is what does "Observer" mean in this context? SPACKlick (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @QuackGuru: - Please don't edit content subject to an ongoing RfC. Please offer your opinion on this page so that we can get some measure of consensus on this topic! Thanks. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist? I see this is listed at Politics, Government and Law. Might be better at (or also at) somewhere about Journalism and Entertainment. This regards the channel as much as the observers. I don't know how to do it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither. Describe bias non-quantitatively as "Fox reporting has been criticized as..." Folow up in body with exemplary sources. No sane reader of this page expects a quantitation, and certainly not in the lede. It's context like financing and campaigning that counts (pun intended) To set up a semi-quantitative choice with some or many is self-defeating and to argue about it, with all due respect unproductive, gentlemen. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question How will we know when discussion has ended? Has it even officially begun, or will it still be listed "within 24 hours"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though someone jumped the gun and put "Many observers" in the current article, with citations that in two cases don't meet WP standards for encyclopedic sources, and even if they did, only document the views of TWO observers, not MANY, that Fox News "promotes biased reporting." I'd call that non-consensual action. loupgarous (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some or No Qualifier "Many" is WP:WEASEL AND WP:OR. "Some" indicates that the viewpoint that Fox News is biased is out there without lending Wikipedia's support to the perception. And even "Some" is WP:OR unless citations are produced in support of the statement AND the sources cited aren't Fox's journalistic competition or political speakers who have a non-encyclopedic motive for labelling Fox News as exceptionally biased compared to other television networks.
After all, "many" people believe that CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Al Jazeera America (formerly CurrentTV), and CNN also promote biased reporting. For Wikipedia to single Fox News out for this sort of observation is not NPOV.
Also, reference #7 cites Rachel Maddow as referring to Fox News as biased. Rachel Maddow is a commentator on MSNBC, which
(a) is a competitor of Fox News, so that she and MSNBC have a very strong economic motive to marginalize Fox News, and
(b) Ms. Maddow is ALSO viewed as being a politically biased news commentator herself by "many observers," on a news network viewed as promoting biased reporting by "many observers."
Reference #8 cites a footnote from The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton.
Reading not only Compton's assessment of Fox News, but other news outlets, it's pretty clear that Mr. Compton has a political viewpoint which is not NPOV. The Compton book isn't any more objective or encyclopedic than The National Review or The Nation.
Finally, NPOV issues with References 7 and 8 notwithstanding, they only support the viewpoints of TWO observers, not MANY observers.
The "Many observers" remark is, thus, unsupported by acceptable, objective sources. loupgarous (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Notable criticism, as seen in new Alternate Proposals section. Alsee (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus on the original "some" vs "many" question, but recent editors appear to have a small but unanimous agreement on the current alternative sentence with supporting citations. Alsee (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


The word "propaganda" doesn't appear once on this article. There are plenty of studies, some done by the UN itself, that could be used as a source for the claim that Fox News is a propaganda outlet and not a news outlet. The criticism of Fox News should play a more important role in its Wiki, as it is entrenched in the global culture as a purveyor of propaganda. It's citizen-knowledge at this point, and I don't think it's just a few young hippies complaining about it. Fox News will go down in history as a major player in one of the most abhorrent chapters of post-war American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Please provide sources to back up the claim of "Many Observers" in this area. The inclusion of this weasel word wording is currently based on the observation (Original Research) that there have been many critical of FNC alleged bias. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, there are issues with the references currently cited in support of the claim of "Many Observers."
Reference #7 cites Rachel Maddow as referring to Fox News as biased. Rachel Maddow is a commentator on MSNBC, which
(a) is a competitor of Fox News, so that she and MSNBC have a very strong economic motive to marginalize Fox News, and
(b) Ms. Maddow is ALSO viewed as being a politically biased news commentator herself by "many observers," on a news network viewed as promoting biased reporting by "many observers."
Reference #8 cites a footnote from The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton.
Reading not only Compton's assessment of Fox News, but other news outlets, it's pretty clear that Mr. Compton has a political viewpoint which is not NPOV. The Compton book isn't any more objective or encyclopedic than The National Review or The Nation.
Neither of the references currently cited in support of the "promotes biased reporting" statement are NPOV.
If "Many observers" is to be kept in the article, then the phrase "promotes biased reporting" ought to be removed unless and until an NPOV source can be cited in support of that claim.
In addition, "Many Observers" ought to be removed entirely unless and until an NPOV source can be cited in support of that claim. The NPOV issue notwithstanding, the citations only support the viewpoints of TWO OBSERVERS. NOT MANY. loupgarous (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If the source does not say specifically state "two" then it is original research. I can't verify the claim "some", "many", or "notable". QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Reference 7 is a report on MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow's opinion that Fox News is biased, no more encyclopedic than (say) Bill O'Reilly's opinion on the lack of objectivity of MSNBC. Reference 8 points directly to the author of a book saying Fox News is biased. Two opinions. Not many. And thanks for stating the obvious - that quantifying the opinions regarding ANY news network's objectivity is beyond wikipedia's scope. loupgarous (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Wording proposals[edit]

I removed the "Many" that was currently there and boldly tried this wording:
Notable criticism has accused Fox News Channel of promoting conservative political positions[1] and biased reporting.[2]


  1. ^ Memmott, Mark (July 12, 2004). "Film accuses Fox of slanting the news". USA Today. Archived from the original on November 22, 2010. Retrieved August 15, 2009.  Barr, Andy (October 11, 2009). "Dunn stands by Fox slam". Politico. Archived from the original on November 22, 2010. Retrieved May 13, 2010. 
  2. ^ James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2. 
"Some" is gone. "Many" is gone. Perhaps we can form a consensus that there is "notable" criticism? I didn't dig through the list of source options - I simply kept the movie and the book sourcings that were there. Books and movies seem a lot more notable than a typical critical comment. I dropped the Maddow sourcing. It seemed ...unhelpful... and criticism from a contra-aligned competitor didn't seem unexceptionably notable.

I won't object if my edit is reverted, I'm just hoping a new angle will sidestep the conflict. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, how are the authors of those three references notable? I've not heard of any of them, and I'm pretty up to date on political criticism in the United States of America. We're back to WP:WEASEL with "notable" replacing "many" or "eminent". loupgarous (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't verify the claim. I requested verification. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's clear from available sources that some people criticize Fox News for their lack of objectivity. I think it's important to provide a context for those statements. MSNBC, the three major broadcast network news organizations and CNN have also been accused of bias, and if you're going to put accusations of Fox News' bias in this article, you also have to report those accusations in context, or have this article be irretretrievably biased itself.
I'd support "some observers," with the Maddow and other quotes cited. That's fair. But I'd also include other quotes of the same sort which support the context in which those statements are made - a situation in which multiple political agendas are promoted by multiple broadcast and satellite news organizations. Even Reuters' US editor has been guilty of some really naked political comments, which raises real questions about how objective that once very respected organization is. I tend to rely on Agence France-Presse for political analysis of the US scene specifically because they DON'T have "skin in the game." loupgarous (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I changed "notable" to "some critics" because "some critics" is what the sources we have in the article will support. No evidence that any of the people whose opinions are presented in those sources are especially "notable" exists.
Further, "notable" is another WP:WEASEL weasel word. It lends undue weight to the sources cited. loupgarous (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "some" is still original research. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. "Some" is a neutral assessment of number - more than one, less than all. It falls under the "common arithmetic" exception in WP:OR. loupgarous (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a quote from the source to verify the claim. No original research interpretation is allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
From The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton:
"Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."
We have Dr.Compton's statement that the founder of Fox News Channel admitted he launched Fox News Channel as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal stance of CNN. He cites two other researchers in support of the statement. loupgarous (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The source says "Fox News, which says it is the "fair and balanced" network, has long been accused by Democrats and liberals of having a conservative bias. Outfoxed adds to that debate through interviews with former Fox correspondents and producers, as well as memos written by Fox executives."[1] The other source says "Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."[2] The original research was restored. The edit summary was "Unless you can demonstrate that all the cited critics and scholars are democrats, this is original research." That is a WP:SYN violation to put together all the cited critics and scholars are democrats to come to the conclusion "many". I also asked for verification for "some". So far no verification was presented. The source must verify the claim or it is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The USA Today article is not the only source for that section, so unless you can demonstrate all the critics and scholars cited in all the sources are "Democrats and liberals", then it is original research. The scholarly source I added states that "with a bevy of scholars showing its "fair and balanced" coverage is actually conservatively slanted". "Bevy" certainly qualifies as "many". Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence is sourced. Fox News Channel has long been accused of promoting conservative political positions[6]
You would have to delete the USA today source and replace it with the other source to say something like. Many scholars demonstrated that Fox News Channel "fair and balanced" coverage is promoting conservative political positions.
Putting together different sources to come to a different conclusion is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The word long is sourced. The word allegedly is unsourced while widely criticized is sourced. See WP:ALLEGED. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Per sources is an obvious SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely criticized as merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party. Is that that a preferable Alternate Wording proposal? Inside Rupert's Brain, page 5, ISBN 1101016590. Alsee (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the source for the text. See: James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2. . QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Inside Rupert's Brain, page 5, ISBN 1101016590 was my source. Fox News is widely criticized for biased reporting, and it's hardly surprising that there's multiple sources saying "Widely criticized". Alsee (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Widely criticized as merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party." Does not verify the current sentence. The source failed verification. The other source passed V. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you seem to be misapplying Wikipedia policies. We are forbidden to WP:COPYVIO, this means we are expected and REQUIRED to paraphrase things and generate our own wording. wp:verifiability and wp:no synthesis means that we must summarize and report the ideas that exist in sources. The sources on that sentence explicitly confirm the use of "Widely criticized", and there can be no reasonable dispute that the idea conveyed is wide accusations of bias. There is no synthesis between sources here - we have multiple sources independently expressing the idea that Fox is widely criticized for bias. (Some sources can be dropped once we can stabilize the sentence.) "Widely criticized for conservative slant" is an accusation of bias. Widely criticized as "mouthpiece for the Republican party" is an accusation of bias. We are accurately describing the contents of Reliable Sources, not cutting-and-pasting fragments of CopyVio. And the mass of sources we have clearly supports this as particularly notable point when we summarize and report what Reliable Sources say. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"binging a mouthpiece for the Republican party" definitely does not verify the current text. There is no need to have a pile of sources that fail V when there is one or two that pass V. QuackGuru (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You would have to delete all the other sources and write something like "Fox News Channel has been widely criticized as an extension for the Republican party.[6]" QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree it should be trimmed to probably one or two sources once we get stable text. I'm hoping some of the other editors will weigh in here. We seem to have split into parallel discussions on different parts of the page. Alsee (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You did not disagree with this previous comment. Most sources failed V. I don't think there could be any reason for keeping sources that failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
*OPPOSE. The current wording has OR and WP:WEASEL in it that aren't supported by the sources cited, namely the modifiers "widely" and "many." Compton's book James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2.  cites THREE sources. Three sources aren't "many." I can't see where "widely" is supported by the cited sources, either. "Widely" is WP:WEASEL. loupgarous (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This was previously explained the wording "widely criticized" is supported by the source. The word "many" was removed a little while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
*SUPPORT. I SUPPORT the current lede. It IMHO is accurate and verifiable via the ref's provided. talk→ WPPilot  14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Current wording without original research[edit]

The current sourced text without SYN violations or sources that failed V: "Fox News Channel has long been accused of promoting conservative political positions[6] and it has been widely criticized for biased reporting.[7]" I noticed the sources were not in the body. That was a lede violation. I added the text and sources to the body so that the lede suimmarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - Good lede sentence and fulfills my intent when I suggested elsewhere to have one sentence for Criticism-of-Fox and another for Fox's position. Making those into a pair of "and" clauses works really well. Side note - WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations definitely permits lede sources that aren't in the body. This is merely a side note, not an objection to the current version. Alsee (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
On that side not apologies for the speedy undo for the removal I saw it in isolation not as part of a whole I support the now current format. SPACKlick (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. The current wording has OR and WP:WEASEL in it that isn't supported by the sources cited, namely the modifier "widely." I can't see where "widely" is supported by the cited sources. "Widely" is also WP:WEASEL. loupgarous (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
See: "Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."[3]
We are not using three sources. The current wording is supported by the sources. The modifier "widely" is supported the source. The modifier "many" was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
loupgarous, you do not seem to have looked closely at the source. The citation link goes directly to page 204 of the book where it says "widely criticized". In fact we have multiple sources using the exact phrase "widely criticized", but we have guidelines against piling on multiple source-links. We went with "widely criticized" exactly to avoid OR or WEASEL. "Widely criticized" is a well documented and representative example of how Reliable Sources summarize the criticism that exists of Fox News. Fox News is famous for the level of controversy surrounding it. We don't decide if the critics are right or wrong, we don't decide whether Fox is widely criticized, we merely reflect the common reliable source description that Fox is widely criticized. Alsee (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC close & Stable lead[edit]

  1. This RFC has been open 9 1/2 months, I believe due to RFC maintenance software being confused by a fictional 2252 comment date someone created. I have removed the fictional date, and I will post this on Administrator's Noticeboard for a close.
  2. Late in the process several editors came up with an alternate well sourced wording. That alternate has been stable for 7 months. I suggest a close that leaves the stable alternate in place. Perhaps "No consensus on 'some' vs 'many'", and a non-binding comment that the current alternate appears to be stable. Alsee (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to close this one. But I am going to offer my opinion: using the word "widely", as is currently used in the lede, is what I consider to be WP:UNDUE, especially as it's relying on just a single reference (whose NPOV is challenged upthread). Changing that sentence in the lede to simply, "Fox News Channel has been widely accused of biased reporting," without the word "widely" is unquestionably an accurate assessment, and should be satisfactory to both the pro- and anti-FNC factions. --IJBall (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello. I uploaded the file (File:Fox News Channel logo.png) because it is the network's logo. Obviously, someone disagrees. uses this logo, but with ".com" at the bottom instead of "channel". Their Facebook page uses this logo (yes I know it is red), and they use this logo on their Twitter page with ".com" at the bottom. The logo the other user uploaded (File:Fox News.svg) which is outdated. When you right click on the logo on the website and either save it to your computer or open the image in a new tab, it says "logo-foxnews-update". Which clearly means that is the newest logo. The website also has "Fair and Balanced" under it, but I don't think the logo needs it. My question is what are you thoughts? Should Wikipedia use the newer logo that is used by the Network whether it be in red or have ".com" instead of "channel", or the other logo that the other user uploaded? I would be fine and even putting the ".com" at the bottom if that is what it comes down to, but I think the logo I uploaded is the correct one. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again we need to use what is coming from the "Television channel", not the website, twitter, etc. This article is about the FNC channel. You can put that logo on their tweeter article. We've had this discussion with other editors in the past, and have concluded to use the current one. - Curioushavedape (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Curioushavedape: Please look at this video. It is dated Dec. 19, 2014 -- in the Fox News Channel YouTube channel. Here is another one dated Dec. 20, 2014 -- except it used ".com". (Which I said I would be glad to change it if that would make y'all happy.) So if they use it on their own set, why shouldn't the logo I've placed be used and yours should? As for the Twitter logo, how can other twitter users change Fox News Channel's picture? It isn't like just anyone can change the picture. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Both logos are reasonable. Fox has used both a simpler flat 2-D style logo (File:Fox_News_Channel_logo.png), and a more complicated logo with more of a 3-D effect (File:Fox_News.svg). I'm inclined to support the simpler 2-D version, because it's more difficult to accurately recreate the look-and-feel of the more complicated 3-D version. Alsee (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Leave the current version up for a few days to see if anyone else weighs in. We don't want to instantly flip it on one tie-breaker comment, and then flip it back if (theoretically) two people are about to disagree with me :) Alsee (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the point in using the logo that says "Channel," not "Fox News.Com." The YouTube product of Fox News is Internet-based, so it has the "" logo, but this article's primarily about the broadcast product of Fox News, which is Fox News Channel. I have no strong preference between the "2-D" and "3-D" logos for Fox News Channel. loupgarous (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
So what is the decision, here? The 2D logo or the 3D logo? Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the 2D. The 3D logo gets that effect from being portrayed as bigger than Earth. It's subtle and implicit, but still a lie, and one with deeper implications for public perception of Wikipedia's own twist on the globe (see top left). If FOX is bigger than the puzzle, how can it also be a piece? Not the sort of question people came here to ponder. Many won't, of course, but why risk it for the few? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Followup, I just tried a Google Image Search for fox news channel logo. It rather heavily favors the 2D version. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The only source that can be used is the only for from fox news, essentially a screen shot. again this is about the fox news channel, not fox news dot com. Curioushavedape (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Curioushavedape: That video is three years old and outdated. If we use the only source from Fox News like you say, then it is clearly the 2D logo. Fox News no longer uses the Earth in the background. If you saw my videos I linked above, then you would realize that. Whether you Google it or Yahoo! search, it favors the 2D logo. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you take a screen shot (Jan. 4, 2015 video) from the stations website, it uses the 2D logo as well. So if you want to take a screen shot, then make sure you use a most recent video instead of using one from two to three years ago. Obviously, a most recent video is going to be more accurate. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's this from the 2015 New Years Eve [4] and special report [5] bottom rotates through "LIVE "Time" and "Channel" (these are two current 2015 images) ; Your avoiding the point here, this is about what is or is not used on the channel. This not a popularity contest, we have to use what is from them. Curioushavedape (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely saw what you posted. Based on the outcome that has been said by the users who have commented here, the 2D logo wins. It doesn't matter about the ".com" or "LIVE", it matters that it has Fox News and Channel happens to be on that logo. If you google search it, if you look at the social media sites and their website, no where do they put the logo you have. What should be used is the logo that is most common throughout the Fox News network. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan' a google search, is not a source to be used, Curious has it spot on. The only source that can be used in this case is from Fox News. There only two choices are either screen shot which is to white against a transparent background or [6] one that is visually correct Austinrex (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Austinrex: My point was that it doesn't matter where you look for the logo, the 2D logo shows up in many places. The only time I find the logo with the "Earth" in the background the Curious uses is on Wikipedia and old videos dating back a year or two ago. I just used google search in general, not really saying that it was a source. You'll find the logo many other places that are reliable sources. I'm very well aware about Google not being a source. If Fox News wanted the globe in the background for their main logo, then they would have put it on all of their websites they use, not just some videos. Most other times, they use the 2D logo. Therefore, we should use what is most common. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 04:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I must also add that if Austinrex and Curioushavedape want to continue this discussion, they should at least check back everyday to get this thing resolved. If they don't want to do that, then we'll just leave it as is and leave the 2D logo which is more favored. Reverting/answering and then checking back a week or so later is not going to cut it. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 01:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • regrettably my job keeps me from spending to much time here Austinrex (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Now your generalizing the point here, the logo from Facebook to Twitter to their website site all vary in color with some having dot com. And the place you have retrieved your logo is from a self published site. That is NOT allowed see WP:SELFPUBLISH Please note that the most recent videos referenced by Curious are from Jan. 2015 and O'Reilly Factor 1/7/2015. Also the show Outnumbered shows a logo that is not some flat generic logo. (Please stop removing the proper logo) Austinrex (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)at
Like I've said before, It doesn't really matter that they vary in color and use ".com", what matters is that it is the same logo used. Here is a video from Feb. 21 that uses the 2D logo (although it uses ".com".) Here is another one. -- The "Earth" in the background is outdated, like I've said before... This video at the 2:32 mark uses the "channel" logo on the microphone for the reporter. This video of Bill O'Reilly from Feb. 20 uses the 2D logo. Maybe we shouldn't have a logo on the page until one can be decided on. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 22:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Like I said before "the white logo against a transparent background" will not show. The videos are not out dated Jan. 2015 and O'Reilly Factor 1/7/2015. If you want to use that logo, than write article about there Fox's multi-media. removing something that was there in the first place is not the answer. Austinrex (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
First off, you haven't said anything about the white transparent logo until now. All of the most recent episodes I've seen show the 2D with ".com". The blue is the most common color for Fox News and therefore should be used. I honestly do not think a logo should be put in this article until we can come to a consensus about it. That is why it was commented out. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No I mentioned it on Feb 15, 2015 you need read whats being said. At this point, you need to find a "current" source, from the Fox News Channel that presents your logo. Austinrex (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What about this page? It is from the Media Relations page. Oh wait, it probably isn't good enough for you. I guess I'll keep looking. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And, you are telling me that the video I posted up there earlier today (This video) isn't a source? Shit, I even said at the 2:32 mark they are using it on their microphones the reporter uses. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully my input isn't too late on this but this one is much better. However, it is WAY too big to satisfy the non-free image rationale. Try to shrink it as much as you can without loosing any quality. Strafidlo (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Strafidlo: It was decided here that it failed the threshold of originality and in the PD, which is why it is as large as it is. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The FOX effect[edit]

I have tried to introduce a story about something that I have witnessed first hand, and it was rejected by other editors. Wikipedia is a non biased site that hold no political direction. The author writes that he is concerned about the effects of the network on his father, and that has nothing to do with "left wing" or politics. It is genuine and authentic. This is the link: and I feel and feel strongly that it provides a perspective from people like myself whom are loosing a generation of elderly to the ranting's of this networks staff and reporting style. Wikipedia should not concern itself with political posturing, as the user claims that the report and its author are "Left Wing", so what, does that mean that the authors concerns regarding the elderly and his own father should not be reported upon?????? talk→ WPPilot  18:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces (WP:RSOPINION) and biased sources (WP:BIASED). Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I am well familiar with (WP:RSOPINION) and biased sources (WP:BIASED) hence my comment regarding the prior users removal of the citation that reflected his own political bias. I hold NO political bias whatsoever and normally no not even bother myself with anything to do with Politics. If Wikipedia is truly unbiased it would be only proper that this be used, in the controversy section of the story. This story is one that many people I am close to are also experiencing, are you suggesting that it be swept under the rug and that the elderly and this new channels effects upon them do not deserve inclusion here? talk→ WPPilot  19:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting that this is not a widespread issue with recognition in scholarly, reliable sources or fact-based research articles. Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not wide spread??

This is more then enough to provide foundation for a section on this matter..... It is interesting the UC Berkeley is the first link. Is that scholarly enough for you yet?? talk→ WPPilot  19:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The first article is a very brief examination of the impact Fox News had from 1996 to 2000 - immediately after it launched. It found that towns with Fox News were between 0.3-0.7% more Republican in the 2000 presidential election than those without it, and that between 3-28% of viewers were convinced to lean more Republican. The study says that "The Fox News effect could be a temporary learning effect for rational voters, or a permanent effect for nonrational voters subject to persuasion" and that "These results suggest that the media can have a sizeable political impact". I would have no issue with such a well-researched and comprehensive article being used in the proper context (early 1996-2000 voting), but only for that reason - in no area does it suggest that Fox News is biased to favor views, however, but merely that it is to the right of other cable news networks. That is something this article mentions and that very few people would disagree with. As you explained above - being right or left does not mean you are biased.
All the other articles are opinion pieces, ranging from moderately reputable (The Nation) to laughable (Daily Kos is hardly a reputed journal). Nowhere does this back up your central claim. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The first one clearly lays out the game plan of the network and confers its objectives. The rest of them that you did not bother to read show that across the world elderly people are turning into angry enraged people that are mad about something each can do nothing about. Those were just a sample of the returns obtained in Google. You are clearly defending your political agenda here and oblivious to what these stories mention. It is sad to see that manipulation of elderly is the right way to obtain support of a political cause. Good luck. talk→ WPPilot  20:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you honestly think I am pushing a political agenda here, please take it to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Otherwise, I demand an immediate retraction and/or apology. Toa Nidhiki05 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you take this argument to Twitter, there's a fair chance an online news site will pick it up on a slow day. Then we can cite both your opinions in the article, and let disinterested editors paraphrase them. Only a half-serious thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
I made an offhand edit summary about "Where's the beef?", but looked into it. Turns out, FOX really likes that question. I mean really likes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

New changers about O'Reilly age view[edit]

EnglishEfternamn, please read WP:EDITWAR. If you introduce a change into an article, and another Wikipedia editor objects to it with an explanation as to why, you don't revert that person's changes without addressing any of his concerns (like you did to me); rather, you discuss it with the person on the talk page. First of all, your change about the "white male age" group is unsourced. Second, that would represent only the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor – not the viewers of Fox News as a whole, as the O'Reilly Factor is merely one opinion show among many on that network. You spelled O'Reilly's name wrong, I pointed it out to you, and when you reveretd me, it's still spelled wrong. Googling your wording, I couldn't even find a source for the claim that you made that O'Reilly's viewers are white old males. Trere is one saying most of his viewers are over 70, but that is from 2014, not 2012, and it mentions nothing about race. As you've seen fit to revert my edit without addressing the numerous points I made, I'm going to undo your edit, and if you want to add it back in, please provide a source. On second thought, your edit might not have been synthesis, but it's still problematic nonetheless. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove discussion of bias in lead[edit]

While we're debating some vs many in the lead, why don't we remove this from the lead entirely? MSNBC which is more biased than Fox has no such mention of it's bias in the lead. Perhaps this is an example of bias at wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, May 28, 2015‎ (UTC)

Do you have reliable mainstream or academic sources that support the claim that MSNBC is more biased than Fox? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If you are unhappy with the MSNBC article, you should discuss that at Talk:MSNBC. Gamaliel (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
MSNBC (and the rest) all have their own biases, but theirs aren't as largely perceived by the general media as a defining feature of the channels. When you Google FNC's own slogan, "Fair and Balanced", the results are overwhelmingly something to do with FNC not being that. This article is by far the least biased result on the first page. But we are meant to reflect the real world, so need to reflect some of its bias against FNC, too. That doesn't make it Wikipedia's idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
News reporting aside, even FNC agrees that it leans conservative in commentary, which makes up a lot (maybe most) of its programming. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Read The Fox Effect. It is an objectively established fact that Fox News exhibits gross political bias, frequently to the point of stretching the truth. More to the point, it was founded precisely because Ailes wanted to present a hard conservative standpoint. That was its market niche. It is Rush Limbaugh for television. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
And not just metaphorically, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, June 1, 2015 (UTC)