Talk:Fox News/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 35

adjective

The word "conservative" is only backed in the body with reference to critics. Thus it does not belong in the first sentence as TFD has pointed out. Collect (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Was no justification at all for the change he made inserting conservative there. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's right. Because Fox news is not conservative. I am officially withdrawing myself from any discussion on this article since it is absolutely impossible for me to continue to 'assume good faith' with almost all those present. The sun is clearly Blue today. Manticore55 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 17:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
or red? ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You know...

It should take more than political talk show hosts (Chris Matthews), political "watchdogs" (MMFA), and partisan websites (HP) to warrant entire sections in an article about the biggest cable news program in the United States. A quick g-news search for any of the items mentioned in the sections finds no major network news coverage for Scott Mcclellan (with a google search providing a simple Fox News response only) and really the rest came down to nitpicking. While this stuff is fine and dandy for the criticism article, shouldn't we hold the main article to higher standards? Soxwon (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Good change, that section have been violating WP:UNDUE for a long time. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) And before I get flack from Blaxthos about sources not needing to be neutral, I would like to point out that none of the items mentioned in Media Matter's for America's list of "egregious examples" of "distortion" were covered anywhere but Huffington Post and that both of these sources are ideologically driven and have partisan axes to grind. I don't think its too much to ask for another source. Same for Hardball with Chris Matthews, I would like to see some major news coverage outside of a single talk show before it gets a statment, much less its own section in the article. Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, what policy do you believe excludes Chris Matthews, Media Matters for America, and Huffington Post as reliable sources? How do you reconcile that with (1) WP:RS, and (2) repeated findings by WP:RSN that all those hosts are reliable for sourcing their own opinions? Is your position based in policy, or your own personal feelings on them? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos, I don't exclude them as reliable sources, I am simply asking for confirmation that these are indeed significant and relevant enough for inclusion for Fox New Channel's argument. MMFA, CM, and HP are indeed reliable enough for their own opinions, not sure where it is written that their opinions are entitled to be included, much less getting its own subsection of the article. Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the policy concept you're looking for is due weight. I find it's usually best to frame your position in terms of policy, instead of in terms of partisanship. With regards to your specific point about McClellan, it was quite extensively covered when he originally revealed his assertions. I can't speak to how many google hits exist, but I don't know that google is a comprehensive metric we should use as a primary example. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did g-news it as well as googled it (it being "Scott Mcllelan Fox News" w/o quotation marks). Not very much to show for it in the way of weighty sources I'm afraid. The only approaching respectable was an LA Times blog on the third page of google. At least that's what my search button has returned. (As for the number of hits, blogs were showing up as were mentions of Fort Mcclellan, and Fox News covering Scott Mcllelan's departure and Tony Snow's placement) Soxwon (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"it was quite extensively covered when he originally revealed his assertions. " Flashes of news coverage immediately after an event are not a sign that an event is very notable. If people aren't mentioning it today then I doubt this really should be here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about notability about an event, we're talking about a book (which unquestionably passes WP:BOOK), and its relevance to Fox News Channel. McClelland was a live guest on many shows and did a lot of interviews regarding his book and assertions about Fox News -- from NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, and even Fox News; I find it absurd for folks to now act like there was insignificant coverage of his book and its relevance to Fox News. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
What specific thing from the book do you think needs in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say "from the book". I'm obviously referring to that time when Soxwon took it upon himself to delete criticism before discussing it. I'll say this, you guys are doing a hell of a job "keeping the main fox news article clean". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded to you with a simple question. No sarcasm. No attack. No advocacy of a position. Nothing but a simple question. Your response is....sarcasm. No mystery why these discussions end up the way they do, is there? It wasn't "obvious" since there was no link to the diff you were talking about etc. I simply never saw the revert that happened 3 weeks ago. I know you like to peddle the notion that I'm sitting on this article 24/7, but I don't. When people address you reasonably, try responding the same way. Who knows what might happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me for assuming that you actually read the discussion and find the diffs yourself before participating in a discussion thread. I did not know the onus is on everyone else to provide convenient diffs so you have to put forth no effort before jumping in; I will try to keep this in mind in the future when dealing with you. I'll also take this opportunity to point out that Soxwon didn't ever actually discuss his change, but rather posted a rather boundless rhetorical question that doesn't really focus any attention on his unilateral deletion of sourced content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Pardon me for assuming that you actually read the discussion and find the diffs yourself before participating in a discussion thread" Actually Blax, I did read the discussion but there were no diffs to look at. "I did not know the onus is on everyone else to provide convenient diffs so you have to put forth no effort before jumping in" Again, histility and sarcasm isn't going to be that productive. First, you know that people provide diffs to darn near everything around here. Second, if you didn't provide the diff, that's cool. But to then respond that you were "obviously referring to something today that was said 3 weeks ago isn't exactly "obvious" or helpful to reaching a resolution. "I will try to keep this in mind in the future when dealing with you." And that says much about the hostility already being displayed. You are going to keep something in mind that is based on a false premise. Further, your choice of phrase indicates how you view this. You don't say "talk to you" or "debate with you", you view it as "dealing with" me. So I've tried twice now to engage you in a civil manner, without sarcasm etc and gotten sarcasm in return. I'll try again. Your complaint seems to be that it was removed without discussion. That's exactly what I'm trying to do. I asked what specific things you think should be in. Instead, of telling me, you complained about my asking "from the book". My error. I rephrased and you've still told me nothing specific. Is it your position that what was reverted should be as is, with no changes at all? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift36, the very first post by Soxwon to this thread references an "entire section" that he removed from the article, and then talks about doing a google search "for any of the items mentioned in the sections". BritishWatcher then says it is a "good change". If you actually read this section, you would also have to read the diffs to have any idea of what Soxwon was talking about. If you had done that, then my objection should be obvious, and I should not have to put on a dog & pony show when you know exactly what text I'm talking about (and by doing so, you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point). If you did not read the section, then the point you are trying to make might be valid, but it confirms my belief that you just jump in to defend your cause with no real intent to contribute objectively (in which case you should be topicbanned immediately). So, which is it? (and yes, this is exactly the bullshit I mean when I say "dealing with you") //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yet again you demonstrate an inability to be civil and now, a distortion of fact. I didn't jump in and advocate anything. I asked you a question. Nothing more. No advocacy of anything. No statement of position. I simply asked what you specifically think should be in. I've asked that more than once. I've done nothing in this discussion to warrant your uncivil behavior, your accusations or your hostility. I'm not sure why you insist on being uncivil. Perhaps you are incapable of having a civil discussion. Or perhaps you can't separate this discussion from past ones. I'm not sure what it is. But I will ask you to stop making unfounded assumptions and accusations, wikilinking to things to appear to have support for your spurious allegations and stop acting in an uncivil manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift you don't have a leg to stand on for lecturing anyone else about civility. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If your sole contribution is to come in and try to start a fight, that is the very definition of uncivil behavior. But if you're going to, at least get your facts straight. I didn't lecture Blax. It has been a while since he and I got into it. I approached it in a civil, respectful manner and was immediately met with sarcasm. I simply pointed that out and made the suggestion that civility breeds civility. But you want to jump in and start yammering about "lecturing". You, my friend, have started out in this discussion with attacks and incivility. Not too promising. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
^Yet more hypocritical lecturing. It's a tiresome tactic of yours to continue derailing any discussion you don't like. /yawn -PrBeacon (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep adding examples to your uncivil behavior. It's fine with me. Again, you've contributed nothing but attacks and it is obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So, you cry wolf about incivility, yet exhibit more hypocrisy. It's a shame that your compatriots either overlook it or don't see it. And maybe you didn't notice the two subthreads below, either, especially the part about compromise and collaboration -- you seem more interested in throwing feces and getting the last word. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Cry wolf? When the incivility is there, it can't, by definition, be crying wolf. I think I see the problem here. You appear to be unable to have more than one conversation at a time. To you, every discussion is connected. So if I said something to you 3 months ago that was sarcastic, you apparently think that determines that every exchange from there on must be uncivil. I treat each conversation separately and try (at least try) to start out anew. I'm not always completely successful, but at least I'm making the effort. I wish you would be able to say the same thing. Once again, you've contributed absolutely nothing to this exchange about the issue, only about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, you dont see the problem. You're in the middle of it. Your petty bickering is a weak attempt to sidetrack or derail any substantial discussion, as you've done before & unfortunately I go against my better judgement and engage it -- but Me calling you out on it is not being uncivil, doesnt matter how many times you shout it. Regardless, I'm not the one on a high horse here. You claim to be making an effort at civility, but you're just making it worse. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. Is there anything you'd like to say about the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, isn't this subthread about you and your transparent attempts to disrupt the talkpage? Or maybe you could enlighten us all with more of your subjective definitions and misinterpretations of policy. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. Do you have anything to say about the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, plenty. Though I know you don't really care. What have you contributed to this discussion? -PrBeacon (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
All these accusations of hypocrisy coming from the person who back in July visited my userpage with accusations that he never could back up when challenged to do so, and then deleted my entire reply on his page as "vandalism", thereby going against WP:NOTVAND (feel free to visit my page and his to see the full text). I'll give you this much, you are certainly fulfilling your stated goal "to counter the 'activism' spin I see on Wikipedia". The problem is, by doing so you are forfeiting any assumptions of good faith by others, and you run counter to three of the five pillars of Wikipedia. So you really shouldn't be surprised when people react negatively to what you are doing. Sometimes when nobody sees what you believe you are seeing, it's because you are the one not seeing clearly, not everybody else. Just a thought. Rapier (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Doctor, heal thyself. Or spare us the psycho-babble, at least. Making vague references to supposedly unfounded allegations on other pages is a cop-out. What I said then is apparently still true now: you're as guilty as Niteshift, Arzel and others at patronizing and dismissing others, meanwhile distorting arguments to fit your prejudices -- so your pretense of AGF is hollow and false. Since we're revisiting old grudges, why don't you go back to the MMfA thread in these FNC archives to see. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And therein lies part of the problem my friend. You seem to be unable to let go of anything that was said to you in the past. If someone said something to you months ago that you didn't like, you act as if it happened 5 minutes ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
^Wrong again, Rapier's the one who brought up a past grudge in his drive-by reply. You both seem to enjoy engaging in psychological projection and willful blindness. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. Is there anything you'd like to say about the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, see below -- that's been carrying on for a week now. As to this subthread, my contribution is admonishing a habitually disruptive editor. I know some feel it's not my place to do so, but no one else has stepped in. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You're interpretation of events is understood. Do you have anything to say regarding the topic of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh now you're trying to get the discussion back on track, eh. Maybe you could add something substantial to the end of the thread instead of trying to bait others into personal attacks. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

no consensus for removal of Criticisms

Soxwon had no consensus to make the big changes he made, and he left no summary of the subsections which were removed. That's what it boils down to. I'm restoring the text in question. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) revised

There was no consensus to include it in the first place. The section had been streamlined to follow WP:SUMMARY guidelines, however editors continue to try and expand it more and more to include minor specific issues that promote a specific point of view, so I removed it. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
An objective way to write a neutral summary is to have the summary cover topics / issues / etc. in proportion to how they are covered in the article. Assuming the article follows weight and notability guidelines, the summary will too, and it is generally easier to follow such guidelines---at least in the aggregate---when you have a whole article to do it in rather than a just short summary. Kevin Baastalk 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Arzel misunderstands the concept of consensus by edits. The subsections remained in the article for awhile. They also appear in the daughter article FNC controversies. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Concensus is not concrete and just because something has been around for awhile doesn't make it right. I was bold and rmved sections of the article that I feel were given undue weight. Please explain why you feel they should be re-inserted. Soxwon (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that Arzel reverted before discussing [1], as usual. Then Soxwon did the same [2]. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you not notice the discussion above? Just b/c you weren't here for it does not mean discussion did not already take place (and honestly, is what I did really that different than your single line and revert? No it isn't, so either show consistency and discuss or stop accusing others of "reverting w/o discussion") Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
i think what he meant by the concept of consensus by edits, among other things, is that an edit sticking around for a while does demonstrate a kind of tacit community approval. in fact, the be bold policy recommends making an edit to the article just to see if it sticks. more generally i think what he meant is kind of like reaching a consensus by making edits to the article and watching the edit history and how people react and being respectful and discussing it if it proves contentious. Kevin Baastalk
My edit stood for three weeks w/o disproval. Other editors were free to make their comments, but bad edits are bad edits. Instead of trying to wax eloquent on policy and whether or not I was bold, how about instead debating the merits of my deletions. Soxwon (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It was discussed, no objections were raised, you simply need to read. -Soxwon's edit summary. Stop patronizing. Clearly an objection was raised earlier by Blaxthos, you simply dismissed it. Your POV does not determine weight. And yes I read the discussion above, that was related to your removal of the material 3 wks ago -- not very long, some of us don't camp this article. At least 3 of us object to your removal, so it was too bold. Yet you revert without discussing it further. I suggest you self-revert until further discussion reaches compromise. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reinforcing my point earlier about how not editing here for a couple of weeks doesn't equate "hibernating". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not arguing whether or not I was out of line, I want to know why it should be re-added. Please state why you think it should be re-inserted or stop wasting time. Soxwon (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You need consensus to add that material that was removed some time ago. He does not have to self revert. Oh and atleast 3 of us object to you reinserting that material. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No, thats not the way it works. I restored material that had been there for months if not longer. I've already given reason why. Why don't let others weigh in instead of repeating your case? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If what prbeacon says is accurate, then it sounds to me like the other party is the one who "made the edit" (whether it was a removal, addition, or modification is irrelevant), and thus should be the one acquiescing to a revert and discussing. Kevin Baastalk 19:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you not state why the material should be in the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the material was rightly removed, it should not have been readded without debate. It was gone for weeks and has been stable, its removal improved the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just an outsider frankly i don't even know the specific content under debate (maybe its' better that way, at least for now), so anything i say is totally generic right now. in any case what i would recommend is a common policy known as "status quo ante bellum" (latin for "the way things were before the war"): revert to the status quo ante bellum, then discuss. maybe reach a "new" consensus, maybe rediscover the old one. Kevin Baastalk 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
When does the status quo become the status quo? This was removed weeks ago and has been stable since. Its clear several editors oppose it being readded, and no one undid the removal at the time (from what i can remember). A case should be made for why it needs to be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the bigger question here is when did the "war" begun. the status quo ante bellum is whatever existed just before then. Kevin Baastalk 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And a clear majority of editors at the time, and a majority still now based on the new opposition, still supported its removal. Consensus can change. There was agreement that material was rightly removed. With one editor opposing at the time. If this was just 2 editors removing something then i could understand the concern, but its clear from the above debate.. several other editors accepted the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ...i suppose that doesn't mean it must have had "consensus", but i'm sure we all can acknowledge that it should at least have had a decent amount of tacit consensus (had stood for a while). for instance, if the previous version happens to be a vandalized version, there's no real practical reason to keep that. but from what i hear it's been sitting there for months so that's not really a concern. Kevin Baastalk 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
it had been sitting there for months and some of us had concern about it for months. The removal was stable for almost a month, i fail to see how adding back material a clear majority of editors supported the removal will improve the situation. At the very least the case should be made about why it must be readded. At the moment all we have heard is "there was no consensus". When infact there was consensus, with one dissenting voice at the time, that several editors challenged. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
clearly there's an argument about whether there's consensus for this or that and i don't know who's right or wrong. maybe an rfc's in order, i don't know. more people is always good. Kevin Baastalk 19:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not another silly Request for Comment, i think there has been RFCs on the introduction.. even after that it doesnt stop those who want a different wording from demanding it be changed. Why put this debate on hold for an entire month to ask if there was consensus to remove it or not. When we should debate the content that was removed and if it should be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what i meant. sorry i see how that came across wrong. i didn't mean an rfc on whether consensus was achieved, but an rfc on the diff. Kevin Baastalk 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well i am not a fan of RFCs, especially considering the last one about fox news was advertised on a certain website which led to a flood of IPs/SPAs coming to demand something be added because they were against fox news. I dont mind a rfc on if the specific text should be readded, if people really think thats necessary, but the present text which has been stable for almost a month and has majority support should remain, pending the outcome of the RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
At to reasons whether content should be added or removed, the obvious answer is weight and notability. and i imagine those things (hopefully) would be the things debated in such a discussion. now the available evidence / notable material might seem to strongly favor one or the other side. be that as it may, re-apportioning things in contrast to this to fit any preconcieved model, even one of "equality", amounts to assuming the conclusion and is thus a form of bias that should be avoided. which is why i suggest that the distribution of the weight in the summary should reflect that of its corresponding sub-article. in any case, no debate on weight and notability should start from the aforementioned error of assuming the conclusion. Kevin Baastalk 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This section should summarise the subarticle, i agree there. But that is an argument against re inserting the material they are demanding. One of the two sections being readded is the complete copy of the section on the Fox News controversy page. So how is that a summary when it contains exactly the same text? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There are no arguments against reinserting any material here. There's only obstruction. I would like to see you address the edits you say have no consensus. Coming to this talk page to chant "no consensus, unbalanced, undue" isn't a discussion. You need to support your claims with evidence. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more true. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not me that has started a section here saying "no consensus", when there clearly was consenus with 1 dissenting voice almost a month ago when it was removed. 1 of the 2 sections that they are trying to reinsert is clearly not notable enough for this article in the detail it is. If this is meant to be a summary of the controversy page, why is it simply the exact same text? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) exactly the same text is certainly not a summary. i don't know the specifics and i'm not going to get into it right now. i don't have the time. i suppose i'm kind of ducking out and in right now. i hope for better rather than worse. i can say that last time i read the summary to the controversy page it didn't really suggest that there was much of a controversy (which i know to be patently false), so it seemed to me that something was lacking. Kevin Baastalk 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok I've had enough of Brit's repeated distortion of facts to support his POV. Especially how he argues against an RFC. The restored material had long-standing consensus. Removal of it requires more discussion than was allowed. And WP:summary doesn't say what some of you think it says. By the way, where is a summary of the daughter article FNC controversies? -PrBeacon (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It amazes me, there has been all this debate and yet the editors demanding text be readded have still yet to say why it needs to be back in the article. Ive stated one problem with it. 1 section is a complete copy of the section in the controversy article. There is no way that requires to be in this article word for word. Now i am happy for us to debate how to sort out the controversy section to ensure it reflects the subarticle, but the material you seem to want back in does not do that. Which facts am i distorting by the way? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
i have noticed that this whole ordeal was once characterized as only one person objected to the removal and at that not really given a reason. just a cursory overview of recent discussion shows that to be, to put it lightly, a "distortion". there are clearly a number of editors objecting to the removal and they have not been vague about it. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
One editor did object at the time, almost a month ago. It is only now that certain other editors are crying foul. So no that is not a distortion, it is also the case that before no reason was given against the removal and that remains the case after tonights debate. They have said absolutely nothing about why the text in question is so important and needs to be readded to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
well what i read certainly characterized things that way. and characterizations are what matter. the reasons are of course weight and notability. Kevin Baastalk 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And it fails on both counts. You yourself said this should be a summary of Fox News controversies. It is not, because one of the 2 sections they are trying to readd was not a summary, it was the same thing, word for word of what appears at Fox News Controversies, a single section, in a very large article. There is no need for it to be here.. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I also said that as worded it doesn't seem to give a fair impression of what the controversies are; that it seems to be lacking something. in any case i think it would be more productive if you guys started to talk more about the content, esp. with regard to weight and notability, rather than each other. i'm out for the day so I (conveniently) won't be partaking. ;) Kevin Baastalk 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What should be included in the controversy section

Would it not be best if we try to debate what exactly we think should be in the section on this article and cover the major points presented over at fox news controversies? The debate over if the previous text should be readded or not will resolve nothing because there is clearly no consensus for it to be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "no consensus" is not a substitute for rational discussion demonstrating no consensus. Merely repeating the same thing over and over again won't make it true. You keep claiming "undue" and "unbalanced", but you have not shown this to be true. The lead section needs to be expanded to include all important points, as well as criticisms and controversies. You can't avoid this fact. Viriditas (talk)
Brit has the misconception that I/we need to justify restoring the criticisms. That is simply not true. The burden is upon those who want to keep the material out. Brit and others make reference to having problems with the material before Soxwon made his changes, where is this discussion? And there is nothing in WP:summary that says we cannot include material from the daughter article. In fact, it says that the main article's section should have a summary of the daughter article, which it does not have. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The basic aspects are summarized, there is no need to go into specifics. As for what should stay or go. The MMfA junk about things like a graphic not adding up to %100 certainly do not belong. That kind of crap is just stupid. Arzel (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The 'basic aspects' were not there, I recently added the summary lead from the FNC controversies article -- which should be revised and expanded per MoS: "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the daughter article." We know you & others think any criticism of FNC is partisan 'crap' so you really should recuse yourselves from this article or at least from passing judgement on any relevant criticisms. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The burden is upon those who want to keep the material out.
Nonsense, and that sets WP:V on its ear. The "burden of proof" is WP:V and it is the responsibility of the content-inserting editor to meet that standard. I, for one, am unsatisfied that "Allegations of Misrepresentation of Fact" meets that standard due to the openly partisan nature of MMfA and HP. If those "allegations" are notable, surely WP:UNDUE mandates much more significant coverage than 2 openly partisan sources. The section does not, IMHO, satisfy WP:V and, without provision of significant sourcing in considerably more mainstream sources, should be deleted from the daughter article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope, the content was there before. I restored it. Therefore, the editor(s) fighting for its removal have to gain a new consensus, which was not done. WP:V is not in question here, and we already know you don't like watchdog groups like MMfA, but its been upheld as a reliable source at repeated RS/N discussions. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just a quick recap of what was removed and the reasons for it being removed:

Accusations of misrepresentation of facts The media watchdog group Media Matters for America has cataloged what they claim are the ten most "egregious examples" of "distortion" by both Fox News and its TV personalities.[1] The criticisms include several examples of cropping quotes from President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Vice President Gore so they appear out of context, using image manipulation software to edit the appearance of reporters from The New York Times, and using footage from other events during a report on the November 5 "Tea Party" rally in Washington DC. They claim the intention is to make it appear as if a larger number of protesters attended the event.[2] Media Matters also called attention to the December 4 edition of Fox and Friends and accused the show of misleading their viewers with a "questionable graphic" that showed the results of a Rasmussen Reports climate change poll adding up to 120%.[3]

Again MMFA comes up and again I maintain that criticism made by them alone is not really substantial enough for inclusion in the main article. The breakout article covers the subject in more detail and would thus be a better place for these types of criticisms that weren't covered outside of a few select (and arguably partisan) sources.


In November, 2009, Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett told viewers that a Sarah Palin book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout while showing footage of Palin with a large crowd. Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book", adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us.... The lines earlier had formed this morning."[4] The video was actually taken from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video."[4] Fox offered an on-air apology the following day during the same "Happening Now" segment citing regrets for what they described as a "video error" with no intent to mislead.[5]

Again, we're leveling criticisms of inherent bias within a news organization. Surely we need more than a single yahoo news blog and apology. Where is the coverage of such a (supposedly) notable event? This is again criticism that should be covered in the breakout article where the subject is discussed in more detail.

White House Talking Points While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for former President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content. McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news; instead, they were to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.[62] McClellan later apologized to Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly for not responding to Matthews' suggestion that "Bill" or "Sean" received the talking points; McClellan said he had no personal knowledge that O'Reilly ever received the talking points. Furthermore he pointed out "the way a couple of questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen".

So we basically have a guy who is promoting his new book and trying to drum up publicity. So of course he's not going to say inflammatory things or even remotely suggest things that might generate attention-garnering controversy. Even setting aside the idea that he's trying to pitch his book, there is still almost no coverage for this outside of a few sources that, arguably, engage in partisan bickering. As with the other sections, weight comes into play and I would generally like to see other coverage of the White House talking points outside of book interviews for Mr. McClellan and HP. A g-news search shows that this is far harder to come by than has been purported.

Again, most of these "controversies" and whether or not they belong comes down to whether or not you believe that MMFA, HP, and Yahoo News are in the same league as the NYT, WP, and LATimes. I for one believe they do not. Soxwon (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of others disagree with you -- including outside editors at multiple RS/N discussions. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
And plenty of others agree with Soxwon. However, the issue is the two paragraphs and it is very clear that there is still no support for it to be reinserted. So Why do we not start by creating a list of the issues we think should be covered in the section on controversies etc. We can then debate them and try to come up with something that will improve the section in the eyes of all sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Again you're characterizing our objections to the removal as "no support for it to be reinserted." That is either disingenuous or blatantly dishonest. Not exactly in the spirit of compromise, is it. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the surprise expressed that most of criticism-side of controversy comes from FNC critics... --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
biased organisations that clearly hate fox news channel and have an agenda should not be given the same weight as neutral sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Britishwatcher, what policy do you believe supports your assertion that "biased organizations that clearly hate [the subject] should not be given weight"? What guideline covers detecting hate, or measuring bias? What policy defines what you are calling "weight"? I want to know the exact language you think justifies your comments, so please be specific. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well i said should not be given the same weight as neutral sources, surely this is obvious? A group that dedicates itself to attacking Fox News compared to neutral 3rd party sources are clealry more notable and worthy for inclusion. The section in question is obviously covered in the undue weight section. Like this bit.. "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." And that is after being sure its neutral which in some organisations cases is far from clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Just think: if Soxwon had edited down and/or summarized the content he was removing, thus improving the section instead of simply diminishing it, then we'd probably be having a more collaborative discussion by now. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly an option, I would agree that they could all be housed under one roof under one section with, say, a line or two for each without any being given undue weight. Soxwon (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

There is a disagreement regarding which material and how much should be included in this article as opposed to contained to Fox News Channel controversies. See the above section for details. Placed by request. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"There was no consensus at talkpage to remove the long-standing material." - Well thats misleading for a start. There was one editor at the time that opposed the change, others all challenged him in support of the removal. Another pointless request for comment, can this one please not be advertised on external websites so this does not get flooded with anti fox news contributors who try to stack the RFC, as happened last time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not an accurate assessment, either. If you're truly interested in a collaborative effort to improve the article, you'll stop making these mischaracterizations. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how my assessment of the situation (prior to all the latest debate kicked off in the past couple of days) is incorrect? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the 2 sections removed was a complete copy word for word of something that appears on Fox News Channel controversies. Surely an incident that has a single section on the controversy page should not all be included on here? The section of controversy here should summarise the main issues at the controversy article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon is attempting to WP:GAME WP:SUMMARY. This is not the proper way to deal with disputes. He made a disputed edit on the sub-page, added a citation flag to the unsourced edit and then used WP:SUMMARY as an excuse to add the same edit to this article. I am sorry, but if this is the kind of collaboration that is going to be used then this RfC should be closed immidately as bad faith. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Arzel is misrepresenting valid criticism and summary, as usual. I did not add the statement to the daughter article. I added the cite tag as a gesture of compromise with Jake there, but Arzel doesn't understand this because he doesn't really participate in talkpage discussions. His drive-bys on these articles are irresponsible, to say the least. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I refuse to participate in this RFC on several grounds:

  1. There is no succinct, neutral statement of the issue. The onus appears to be on respondents to read a thread that is already full of half-truths, POV warriorism, and dealings with bad-faith editors.
  2. As the original editor who objected to the removal, I can absolutely state that BritishWatcher's statement above is a flat out lie. Additionally, he is the very editor who refused to accept the result of the last RFC in which he participated. Given his repeated history of bending the truth, misrepresenting policy, obstructionism, previous attempts to derail another RFC, and then stating he will ignore an RFC consensus when it disagrees with his position, I have a real problem with starting this RFC with no summary and mistruths from an obviously bad-faith editor.
  3. It has become painfully clear that this article (and the daughter article) are now controlled by advocates who are dedicated to "keeping the main fox news article clean". Given their tendentious and lawyerly past, I have no belief that they will participate in good faith and respect the outcome of the RFC this time.

I am sure I will catch some heat from (a) the advocates (for challenging them -- I always do), and (b) uninvolved editors who think this statement is just a run-of-the-mill personal attack. I would like to remind everyone that WP:AGF does not require one to continue to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to indicate that it is not warranted -- if you're going to disregard my statement based on that reasoning, I ask that you please contact me first and I'll be glad to provide evidence to support my position. I wouldn't make such a statement if I didn't believe a reasonable objective editor will reach the same conclusion after a preponderance of the evidence. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1) I did not start this RFC nor do i support it. So blame PrBeacon for that.
2) Please explain how my statement above is a flat out lie. Between the 2nd of September when the removal took place and 27th of September, how many people agreed with you? When you responded on the 28th, another editor replied asking you to explain the problem, you didnt manage to explain the problem. Then Prbacon stepped in.
2a) I have said i accept the fact we must include the information on the other article, although i still consider that RFC deeply flawed and rigged. Since then ive said if the issue must be included it should be balanced with the fact NewsCorp gave donations to the democrats too. Ive not removed the ohhh so important sentence that attracted many SPAs and IPs after it got advertised on an external website. The RFC wording itself was very one sided, which makes your objections in point 1 rather amusing.
3) Well after your shocking little rant in this latest post its hard to see how people can assume good faith on your part. Ive not been deleting material and moving it to the other article. Part of the problem with the removal you are concerned about is it was word for word paragraph of what is said on the controversy page. There for the idea it has to be said entirely here is obviously a problem. As for my comment you link, i believe that to be the case. Certain editors want to list the slightest little controversy, even if it is not notable enough. Well its a good thing such crap goes on that page and does not get put here. The Controversy section of this article should summarise that controversy page. The removed paragraphs did not accurately summarise that article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"There is a disagreement regarding which material and how much should be included in this article as opposed to contained to Fox News Channel controversies. See the above section for details." Seems neutral to me. Yes there could be more summary detail, but I know if I wrote it there would be immediate objections from the pro-FNC crowd. Some aren't happy with any discussion of criticism.
@Brit- above you objected to phrasing in my request at the RFC board and dismissed this effort at dispute resolution as 'pointless'. You're free to restate your position, but why rehash every argument from above, and in such a patronizing manner? Blaxthos raises valid concerns about how you (and others) seem to be non-cooperative, and your tone above reinforces this perception. Why not let others weigh in before attempting to counter every post here? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording here is fine, i said your comment on the board was misleading about the situation. And my other comments on RFC related to one on the fox news controversy page that had clearly biased wording and was also rigged thanks to external forces. A section on criticism on this page is fine and a mention of it in the intro is fine, but at present it clearly gives undue weight to critics. The word for word copy of one section that is on the controversy page certainly is not notable enough to be here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As the person who deleted the text originally, I am also going to say that i am not interested. I probably went to far, but I still feel that too much weight was given in the form that was in the article. I shall restore the material and then wash my hands of the matter. Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to restore one of the paragraphs that simply is identical to the section on the controversy page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider one paragraph in the lede and thirteen more paragraphs on the topic to be substantially overweight. Obese, even. Since a sub-article exists, one or two paragraphs is normal WP usage for a precis. Collect (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FPP Requested

Given the current dispute and edit-warring over the lead, I have requested FPP for this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My two simple edits lead to that? :) Your probably right to request it mind mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You're here too? ;) JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If Viriditas would be prepared not to continue to add material to the introduction without agreement then page protection would not be needed. But seen as he added some material, it got reverted, he then added even worse material which has again been undone, it might be easier for FPP. I doubt it will be granted though, its no where near edit warring levels that are probably required. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Jake, this must be the first such instance of edit warring by one side that I've ever seen. Care to show me where I made a single revert? Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no...that would be counter-productive to the purpose of the now-imposed FPP. Perhaps introduction of your suggested edits in talk would better foster consensus resolution. You are welcome, of course, to a final word, but I, for one, am done here (and thanks to the reviewing admin for consideration). JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've discussed every edit I've ever made in the above sections and I have received not a single reply addressing my edits at any time. All I hear, and all I've heard for months now, is "no consensus", "unbalanced", and "undue weight", regardless of whatever I add to the article. This was even reverted with the same nonsensical explanation:

Popular shows include top-rated The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and Hannity with Sean Hannity, featuring opinion, commentary, and interviews.

Anyone care to tell me how that is unbalanced and undue weight? It was added because the lead needs to cover the major aspects of this article. It was blanket reverted by Collect because he doesn't care what the source or the content says, as long as he can prevent editors from editing. That kind of behavior should not be allowed here, and based on the record of disruption that I've documented, there should be strict sanctions imposed on these editors. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Undue weight was you adding "conservative" to the first sentence of the introduction and also changing critics say they support conservative views to suggesting its a generally held view. Both clearly change the balance of the introduction in a negative way. That wording about the talk shows i dont have a problem with, although its questionable if it belongs in the intro. But when that was undone instead of just debating it you inserted a sentence describing them as "firebrands" which was clearly problematic for the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the preponderance of the use of the term "conservative" as a description of Fox News by the top sources on the subject demonstrates that it isn't undue. And, these sources I refer to are not critics. That this view is generally held is supported by the EB source and the rest of the sources in that paragraph. The talk shows belong in the lead as a summary of the topic. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck were described as "conservative firebrands" by Broadcasting & Cable an industry trade magazine; That article was about the VP of Fox News and was purely positive and laudatory in tone, nothing critical or accusatory. All of the problems you describe exist on this talk page, and do not exist in the sources or with the material. There is no rational justification for their deletion, removal, or reversion. Viriditas (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If you believe it is acceptable to state as fact fox news is a conservative news channel in the first sentence of this article then i can understand why you can not see the problem with some of the other material you have been inserting into this introduction today. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
My beliefs have nothing to do with this. Reliable sources call FNC conservative, and RS say it is generally viewed as conservative. If you disagree with these RS, then you will need to show other RS supporting your position. We go with what the preponderance of sources say, not with what editors think or feel. This has been explained to you many times now, so please stop ignoring my request. Respond with sources that make the case why we can't say FNC is or is viewed as conservative. You assert this is somehow a problem, but the RS are at odds with your personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For the last time - the "EB source" is an encyclopedia which solicits and useds "user suggested edits" as has been shown. Comments by individuals properly belong in the body of the article, not in the lede - which is supposed to be a summary of the article. And such comments, as they are opinions, must be ascribed as opinions of the individuals. This is not I, it is WP policies and procedures which govern here. Collect (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, please stop repeating misinformation after you've been corrected several times. The content in question was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, not by a user suggested edit. If it was, a name would appear in the left pane, as a name appears in the article about Drudge. It's also important that you understand that Jeannette Nolen's opinion is supported by many sources, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005), Turner (2007), and DellaVigna & Kaplan (2007). This is really not in question by anyone, except a few unknown editors on a Wikipedia talk page. That's not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Your main problem is that when I was the one suggesting an edit, my name never appeared on the page - the name that appeared was the EB person. Making your assertions nicely inaccurate. Collect (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-EB employee edits have a contributor history visible in the left pane, so I'm afraid you are mistaken. Furthermore, your point is another red herring intended to distract us from the preponderance of reliable sources supporting Nolen's article. Instead of addressing this evidence, you're desperately grasping at straws trying to attack a source supported by a dozen more. It's transparent and amounts to wasting our time. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Mine was not so noted. I suggest that either you are wrong (as you were about there being no suggestion button) or that you are getting a totally different EB site than I get. Collect (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Brass tacks, Collect, brass tacks. I can prove that non-EB contributors are attributed. For some reason, you cannot. Again, you distort my comments, as I never claimed there was no suggestion button. I claimed that I was viewing the library edition of EB (a paid version) directly from their website, and that version does not have a suggestion button, only the free one does. For some reason, these simple facts cause you a great deal of confusion. Let me know if I can help out in any way. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Try again - you asserted that there was no "suggest edit button" - Remember? A sock puppetteer accuded me of having a name - which was that of the EB editor! And the paid version absolutely had the same buttons, as I used a free trial once. Enough. Basta! Why would a free version offer a feature a paid version lacks? Collect (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked again, and you are correct, the button is on the paid site. However the layout is completely different, so I missed it the first time. Here is what the submission box says:

Your comments and suggestions will be read by our staff of professional editors and, in some cases, by members of our worldwide community of authors and advisers. All suggested text changes will be fact-checked, and all approved changes will be published. No new or entirely rewritten articles will be accepted through this community-response system, though suggestions for new entries are welcome in the comments section at left. Thank you for helping Britannica remain the most trusted encyclopaedia in the world.

A link to a message about their "Editorial Message" says the following:

Encyclopædia Britannica is the oldest continuously published and revised work in the English language. Our reputation for quality and reliability is built on a tradition of more than two centuries of publishing. Keys to Britannica's success have been the quality of our contributors--a community of experts that now includes more than 110 Nobel Prize winners--and the thoroughness of our editorial process. Britannica's new community-response system both reflects and enhances this commitment to excellence. This system provides general readers, subject-area specialists, and Britannica's nearly 5,000 contributors worldwide with a fast and easy way to communicate with our editorial staff. All comments are welcome; all suggestions will be read and taken seriously; all suggested text changes submitted through this system will be thoroughly evaluated and fact-checked; all approved changes will be published; and all readers using this system will receive a reply from our editorial department. We have always had vigorous interaction with our readers and contributors, and this system simply enhances this communication, leading to an even better encyclopædia. Whether you are a current contributor to the encyclopædia or a member of Britannica's worldwide community of readers, we welcome your participation in this new and exciting feature.

So, Collect you are in the end, mistaken. This "suggestion" feature does not make the Encyclopædia Britannica unreliable, especially when the information in question is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources on the same subject. No one source exists in isolation. You know this, it has been explained to you on a constant basis, and yet, you still persist in your war of attrition. As User:Phoenix of9 accurately observed during your previous arbcom reqest:

I also do think Collect may be using the attrition technique. Discussing something at great lengths and eventually trying to wear down the opponents patience.[3]

He was right then, and it still holds true today. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Aha - when in doubt look up edits from othere well over a year old? Nope. The fact is that you erred, and seem reluctant to say so in a short statement. And complain on others talk pages to boot! Try a simple apology the next time you have to admit you are wrong <g>. Collect (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you're still engaging in a rhetorical war of attrition, still distracting away from the main point, still trying to waste the time of good faith editors, and still trying to avoid the preponderance of evidence in favor of the statement cited by the Encyclopædia Britannica. Let me bring you back on track. Regarding FNC, EB writes:

Despite its slogan "fair and balanced," however, the network's coverage was widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints.

This statement, sourced to the EB, is also supported by a wide variety of sources. It is not in dispute that FNC is widely perceived as favoring politically conservative viewpoints. If you maintain that it is, Collect, then you will have to provide sources showing otherwise. You can't, because this statement is not in dispute by anyone. Feel free to keep trying to distract from this fact by raising the fact that I failed to notice a graphical button on the EB website, as if that has anything to do with this discussion. Meanwhile, this will be added back into the article with multiple attributions, as it is easily sourced in the academic literature. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you misread User Talk:Gwen Gale's comments on this? After all, you sought her input, I trust you will follow it. Collect (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't misread anything, Collect, and for your information, tertiary sources like encyclopedias are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask questions at WP:RS/N if this isn't making sense to you. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, the consensus seems to be not to use EB since better sources are available. Continuing this discussion is just disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD, there is no such consensus, and whether we use EB or not has no bearing on the outcome of the argument. Collect chose to attack EB to distract away from the topic under discussion, namely, that Fox News is "widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints." This is not in dispute by any source. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No you are creating the distraction. The purpose of this discussion page is not to determine whether FNC is "widely perceived as favouring politically conservative viewpoints." Arguing that there are lots of good sources and then presenting only a weak source is disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are many sources which indicate FNC has a conservative slant. Here's a few from the past few years, but they are numerous. For JakeInJoisey, who does not consider a citation complete unless it has an annotation, I have included brief annotations.

  • Aday, Sean. 2010. Chasing the Bad News: An Analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan War Coverage on NBC and Fox News Channel. Journal of Communication 60:144-164. Argues FNC covered the war postively and was friendlier to the Administration in 2005.
  • Starr, Paul. 2010. Governing in the Age of Fox News. The Atlantic Monthly Jan/Feb. pp95-98. Argues that Fox is "ideologically driven," more than other news outlets, having taken a leadership role in the Republican Party.
  • Pollak, Richard. 2010. A Confederacy of Foxes. The Nation Jun 14. pp7-8. Describes FNC as "hyperconservative" and a "pernicious right-wing influence."
  • Harmon, Mark and Robert Muechen. "Semantic Framing in the Buildup to the Iraq War." A Review of General Semantics. 66: 12-26. "Compared to CNN, Fox News programs were more likely to use the pro-war terms and less likely to use the anti-war terms. "
  • McDermott, Terry. 2010. Dumb Like a Fox. Columbia Journalism Review 48: 26-32. "No reasonable person would sincerely deny that Fox has a distinct bias favoring Republicans, and conservative Republicans especially." "[GOP Chairman Michael] Steele, in some broader cultural sense, works for [Roger] Ailes, who is without close contest the most powerful Republican in the country today."
  • Poniewozik, James. 2008. Fox on the Run. Time Magazine 171. Notes strong conservative slant in FNC, calling it the "cultural artifact of the Bush era." Covers the challenge of being a conservative network potentially under a Democratic president.
  • Poniewozik, James. 2010. Can the CNN-ter hold? Time 175. Notes FNC is right wing, MSNBC is left.
  • Greenbaum, Mark. Sarah Palin and Fox News. Christian Science Monitor 11 Jan. 2010. Op/ed noting "Mr. Ailes, a brilliant former Republican operative, has infused a Republican viewpoint into the channel's programming, as evidenced by its lineup of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and even Palin's potential presidential rival Mike Huckabee, who hosts a low-profile weekend show."
  • Junod, Tom. 2009. Because they hate him and want him to fail. Esquire 151. Details FNC as a conservative network, and Shep Smith, who in 2008 "distinguished himself by treating Republicans as aggressively as Fox News normally treats Democrats."

I got tired of reading similar content, but they are really not at all hard to locate. In short, there are many reliable sources indicating FNC caters to conservatives. Jake is likely to object to my inclusion of an article by the Nation; it is relevant, but there's plenty of others to look at too. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For JakeInJoisey, who does not consider a citation complete unless it has an annotation, I have included brief annotations.
Look Teadrinker, belaboring this point is getting old fast. I don't care what you call it but if I suggest a source as supporting an edit, I'll provide a QUOTE from the purported source for consideration of its substance and relevance. While paraphrasing purported sourcing is perhaps easier, there is considerably less room for both misunderstanding, misinterpretation and/or (God forbid) misrepresentation when quoting a source. I believe that approach is more productive in producing, at least, a consensus understanding of exactly what the source says in support of the proposed edit.
That being said and FWIW, I don't have a particular problem (and didn't, as I recall, the last time this came up) with acknowledging that Fox News reflects a generally conservative approach to its news presentation (and my compliments for at least gathering some sourcing. It sux having to do it but it has to be done). JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant no offense; I just wanted to explain why I was following the unusual practice of annotating citations. There's no real replacement for looking them up and reading them yourself, of course. That's how research is done. However for your benefit, I have done my best to cater to your requests. If you prefer I not do this it would make it easier for me. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
However for your benefit, I have done my best to cater to your requests. If you prefer I not do this it would make it easier for me.
How you want to present your purported sources in support of suggested edits is your business. As for me, I'll provide a source, a quote and a link. Let's put that to rest forevermore, shall we? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I would avoid news sources because it is difficult to determine the weight that should be given to the opinions expressed. The journals you mention that discuss war coverage might be useful as would the Groseclose & Milyo study that has been discussed here before. If we have a source that says other news media view them as biased then that could be included, but I would not want to come to that conclusion on our own. When we use these sources we must be clear what they mean by bias and whether they are referring to the news or the commentary. We also must be sure to represent the terminology correctly. The Groseclose & Milyo report for example did not look at accuracy and assumed that all media could be ascribed left/right bias. TFD (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
While the scholarly sources certainly deserve more weight, let's not rule out all news pieces -- some sources in popular media would pass academic muster, for instance. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FCC control and reliability

There is an never ending discussion on this page about the reliability of Fox News. As I understand it, the liberties Fox has taken in not following basic journalism ethics and standards, in their right to be biased, and in their right to lie under the First Amendment stem from the fact that they are a satellite and cable TV news channel. As Fox does not broadcast on radio waves like broadcast TV, they are not subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. Despite the Bush-era deregulation of communication, I understand there are still regulations and at least traditions that would prevent their programming on broadcast TV. As a cable channel they are about as free from regulation as the Internet and they have no obligation to be any more reliably or neutral than web "news" sites like Kavkaz Center.

There was a related discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard here: Is DemocracyNow a reliable source?. As Democracy Now! is broadcast by radio and they claim to carry news, I understand that they would be subject to regulation. An argument was made that even Rush Limbaugh is allowed to broadcast, but he is not news – maybe the FCC would allow Fox News if it was named Rupert Murdoch propaganda hour or something.

In discussing the unreliability and criticism it might be useful to frame the criticism in the context of a lack of regulation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points, i dont know the details of what regulations apply or not there but its certainly notable and would provide some background to the situation in the Criticism and controversies section. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an absurd presumption. The FCC does not regulate whether something said over the airways is true or not. By this logic CNN and MSNBC fall into the same group. About the only thing that the FCC seems to actually keep track of is profane language and nudity. Furthermore this meme that FNC does not follow journalistic standards is simply untrue in the context of all other cable news stations. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I laugh. Which is why I am no longer interested in editing this article. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Akre-Wilson-Fox-TV2apr98.htm Manticore55 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering when this might come up. But since this has nothing to do with FNC I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion. Arzel (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
MSNBC and CNN don't lie and make stuff up like fox news does. (And I challenge anyone who disagrees to present evidence to the contrary.) Also, I don't have cable, i watch some of the shows on it some time. it's on channel 6 in milwaukee. Kevin Baastalk 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess you never heard of the 1998 reports on Operation Tailwind where CNN claimed the US used sarin gas in Vietnam. No proof and after a 2 week investigation, they had to retract the story and fired the producers. Or criticism of them misrepresenting images of civil unrest in Tibet. Or CNN's chief news exec admitting that they witheld news stories about atrocities by Iraq so they could keep reporters there. Or the Project for Excellence in Journalism (from a liberal school no less) that showed a definate bias in the coverage of Obama vs. McCain during the 2008 campaign. And don't forget (then) MSNBC's Chris Matthews and the thrill for Obama running up his leg. No....MSNBC and CNN are lilly white and unbiased, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────scientific/psychological studies have shown, unfortunately, that presenting facts that contradict a persons beliefs may actually make their beliefs stronger as a sort of aggressive counter-reaction. there are also other interesting studies that have been done about bias and perception, with similiar unfortunate results. studies more specific to issues of bias and new stations are listed on the fox news channel controversies page. you might take an interest in those. thou, if the psychological studies are at all accurate, it probably won't do you much good, anyways. Kevin Baastalk 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, you "challenged" anyone to present evidence to the contrary. I just did. You shose to ignore it and go off on a tangent about "psychologicial studies" that have no bearing on what you challenged. You pretty much ignore the answer given. The fact is, I haven't said FNC is really any better than CNN or MSNBC. My contention is that they really aren't much different than them, just a different angle. In other words, they all have some sort of bias, so why is Fox's so special? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually the thing is no you did not. I asked for lies. you did list some things i was unaware of, and thank you for that. but none of it was lies. some of it was unproved, that doesn't mean it was made up. maybe not sufficiently validated, but that's altogether different than just pulling something out of your a$$. another thing you listed was an ommission. not a lie and not something you wouldn't expect from just standard operating procedure of a news organization. the rest where more or less your own or someone else's coloring of events. not lies. not stuff that was made up. so no you really didn't answer my challenge. and that was why i responded as i did. because thing that you seem to have felt were answers, from an objective stand point, weren't, so that's why i said what i did about bias and perception and how it clouds a person's judgement on, for instance, what is an answer to a challenge; what is equivocable; and what is not. Kevin Baastalk 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please check again. The Operation Tailwind thing was a lie. No evidence. Just a wild story. Misrepresenting pics etc is exactly part of what people criticize Fox over. Now, if you want to expand beyond CNN and MSNBC, there are many more examples, some of faked footage, some of misrepresentations and some of just flat lies. BTW, I like how you dismiss lies of omission as mere omissions. When you negotiate with a government and agree to not show the really bad stuff about them is far beyond "just an omission". that strikes at the core of their integrity. I have absolutely no doubt that if it was discovered that Fox had negotiated with the Republican party to not report something in exchange for favor, you would not dismiss it as just being a simple omission. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I may not dismiss it but i certainly would not call it a lie. It would, of course, be an omission. And they have been pretty good with that but i don't think they do it for favor. they do it because they support the republican party. because they think it's the right thing to do in their very-screwed up sense of morality. (paiget's phase 3/4) As for operation tailwind, Operation_Tailwind#Controversy. It was something that the reporters and the news station honestly thought to be true but after further investigation turned out to be false. that is not a lie. a lie is when you know what you are saying to be false or unfounded. that is a completely different thing. like i said, it's telling that some people will equate the two when it serves to supports their beliefs. Kevin Baastalk 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You say they honestly believed it was true. I don't buy into that, especially when it was determined to be false so quickly afterwards. Feel free to continue justifying why everyone but Fox is ok, but dishonesty, in it's many forms, are routinely present in those other networks too. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Well you certainly have a lot of distrust for some reason. You are making some very strong/bold claims (e.g. "dishonesty...[is] routinely present in [CNN and MSNBC]") and you certainly haven't provided the evidence to support them. and we have clarified the definition of "dishonesty" so there can be no confusion there. suffice it to say i am left entirely unconvinced of the rather unlikely scenario you propose. Kevin Baastalk 15:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do distrust them. It started for me when I stood 10 feet from a CNN reporter and listened to him totally misrepresent the event he was reporting on. What he said was a flat out lie. And I totally stand by my use of the word dishonesty. If you want to get into the broadcast networks, that's easy to prove. Plus all the misrepresentations and "omissions". You might have "clarified" what dishonesty means for you personally, but I'm not seeing a "we" in there. You and I won't agree on this because I reject your personal definition and you reject mine. So let's just agree to disagree on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As a professional computer programmer my M.O. is to exchange facts and logic until the nature and relationships of the parts are sufficiently articulated to deduce an answer/solution. But it doesn't seem like that's going to happen here, so i'll make an exception and "agree to disagree". Kevin Baastalk 14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry WHAT? Fox News is on the radio, or else someone is committing the grossest case of copyright vio in history when they claim to be Fox News fair and balanced: http://radio.foxnews.com/#axzz10nPDUmrU Soxwon (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You're correct. But don't expect the facts to deter the diatribe. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
lol the thrill up the leg was classic! Also who can forget the white people with guns controversy at a anti healthcare rally when a certain media organisation tried to make out it was a racial issue because there was a black president, then it turns out the images they showed were actually of a black man. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What other news networks get up to is another matter but I do think regulation is very relevant to the controversy surrounding claims of bias. The fact they are not in any way acting outside of rules and regulations is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is unproductive. If there are reliable sources that say that Fox News is less reliable than other networks then please present them. Anecdotal evidence is original research and cannot be put into the article. TFD (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Old news, TFD, old news: See: Kull, Steven (2003). "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War". Political Science Quarterly. New York: Academy of Political Science. 118: 569–598. ISSN 0032-3195.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. We only need sufficient sources that cover a claim of unreliability to show ample weight for inclusion. Let's be real clear here, it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or not, but only need to show that the view has enough weight to warrant inclusion. However, refocusing on the original post to this thread, I don't think that there are any sources regarding "FCC control and reliability" that are germane to this article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider [4] which provides actual statistics from surveys, and appears to argue that those on the left are most apt to ascribe right-bias, and conversely, for any outlet. It furnishes breakdowns of opinions, and likely is an NPOV source for all of this, if used for straight facts. Collect (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What a strange source. Whether the audience is conservative or liberal is not a good indicator of media bias. We don't really care about perceptions of media bias, as that is outside this topic. We want a neutral, objective measure of media bias, and we have those sources, and they measure media bias in the mainstream media in various ways. The source you offer is hopelessly out of date and relies on data from before 2000, but page 3 says it all: "The Fox News Channel offers a similar example of conscious product positioning...A conservative cable channel program might not attract ten million, but it might draw two million viewers. This logic of niche programming gave rise to the Fox news Channel, which chapter 3 shows has the most conservative audience among major media outlets." Fox News has the most conservative audience...because they are liberal? Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
FNC has the most conservative audience because they are the only outlet that is not a mouthpiece for the left. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The source offered is objective in its presentation of facts. "Bias" is inherently not something which can be measured and weighed - it is heavily based on the perception of the person asserting bias. This book, in fact, makes that clear. Collect (talk) 13
51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, your source, "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War" says, "Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely".[5] To conclude from this that "Fox has taken in not following basic journalism ethics and standards" is synthesis, and you need a reliable source that makes this connection.
Arzel, could you please not soapbox. The other news media are not "mouthpiece[s] for the left".
TFD (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Whatever are you on about, TFD? This is the second time you have mixed and matched two different discussions (the first was on Talk:John Birch Society). In this instance, I was replying directly to your statement, "If there are reliable sources that say that Fox News is less reliable than other networks then please present them," and I gave you Kull et al. (2003) in response. This source was not given a support for my statement about FNC not following basic journalism ethics and standards. Again, TFD, please stop mixing and matching different discussions and try to focus only on what is being said in each discussion. Do not do this again. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That is the theme of this discussion thread, please read above, "There is an never ending discussion on this page about the reliability of Fox News. As I understand it, the liberties Fox has taken in not following basic journalism ethics and standards...."[6] Regardless, your source does not support your opinion that "Fox News is less reliable than other networks", that is your original interpretation. Also please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I call it a WP:DUCK response to the true soap-boxing by Viriditas. Arzel (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Bias can be objectively measured. It's just so many people choose not to. And when people actually do, people with such biases that have been objectively measured reject those conclusions for reasons that are specious, at best. And, of course, they will never recognize or acknowledge this, so in their minds bias has inevitably failed to be objectively measured. While those that do objectively measure it realize form that fact the futility. Kevin Baastalk 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that bias can be measured, we need reliable sources that do this if we want to include it in the article. So far this whole page is nothing more than original research presented by some editors who are unwilling or unable to provide any reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, pretty much every sentence in the article is reliably sourced in accordance with WP:RS. Kevin Baastalk 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think we are on the same page. I was referring to this page, Talk:Fox News Channel, not the article, Fox News Channel. TFD (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my bad then. Kevin Baastalk 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

editor tracking others

Alright, that's enough, this is simply degenerating into personal attacks and wild accusations. Take it to user talk pages, off wiki, or (preferably) find something else to do
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

PrBeacon has made a list of those who oppose him ("campers, FNC defenders")in this article and on Fox News Channel controversies, and expressed a desire to have those people subject to CheckUser. Drrll (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK allows tagging of "attack pages" for deletion. Collect (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok this is getting ridiculous. Wikiscanner exists for a reason people. Instead of trying to peg people who disagree with you as Fox News channel employees PrBeacon, you might wish to consider that they simply keep Fox News Channel on their watchlist. Soxwon (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm thinking of a BLP violation. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, an "enemies list"!! How COOL is that!! Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, the usual suspects think they're circling the wagons. For the record the list has been removed, but only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely. I don't think the above accusations would stand up to peer review, especially the notion of characterizing it as an 'attack page.' -PrBeacon (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC) revised

  • only because an uninvolved editor asked me nicely...The admin first said "You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace" then when it was moved to a similar page it became "I've deleted it as an attack page". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
^Wrong again- Are you intentionally mixing things up or just confused? This is the request to remove it: [7]. And that was one admin's opinion, I disagreed and said I'm simply commenting on the users' behavior as editors, not on the editors' personal issues. The 'warning' you refer to was for calling you a troll in a previous thread, since you bring it up. By the way, your earlier remark about a 'BLP violation' might be amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Re-write history however you like. Even go back and strike through another editors comments like you've done. It's in the history my friend. anyone who wants can see I quoted accurately. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, you only quoted the second part accurately but that still doesn't make you right, especially since you're mixing things up. You're welcome to argue that you think it was an attack, but above you're simply misrepresenting what actually happened. The only deleted a blank page, not an attack page -- as i said there, only the potential.. If you're going to argue semantics and picky details, make sure the history backs you up, because it doesn't here.
Anyone can go see it in the history. I selected the appropriate quotes. I quoted accurately and in the correct order. Done here my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming anyone else still cares by this point, which i doubt, you repeating youself doesn't make you any more right. Now it appears that you're intentionally lying about the facts: there was no official warning about the so-called 'attack page' and your attempts to refactor it are borderline pathological. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No official warning? Ok, whatever. There doesn't have to be a template or something to be "an official warning". You might want to consider re-wording your last response. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Guess you weren't really 'done here,' eh? Ok: the warning was not for the user list, as you orginally stated above and seem to be sticking to. Not sure I understand your last point, are you [8] threatening something? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You're correct, I thought I was done and probably shouldn't have responded. There is no threat. I just thought it would be sporting to give you an opportunity to reconsider something you may have said in haste without thinking just how far over the line you were stepping. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont know why you needed that hitlist when someone else is already gathering data on editors actions.. User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Loosely tossing around terms like 'hit list,' 'enemies list' and 'stalking' shouldn't go unchecked, you guys are being overly dramatic. And I've changed this section's title because it's inappropriate, as the whole section may be. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
As I am not "pro FNC" , I find the new title offensive. Collect (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've changed it again. I've asked the earlier admin to weigh in on the section's appropriateness to this talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-04. 
  2. ^ D.C.P. (November 11, 2009). "Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg". Media Matters for America. Retrieved May 12, 2010. 
  3. ^ Simon Maloy (December 8, 2009). "Fox News fiddles with climate change polling". Media Matters for America. Retrieved May 12, 2010. 
  4. ^ a b http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091119/ts_ynews/ynews_ts988
  5. ^ FoxNews (19 November 2009). "For That We Apologize". Fox News. Retrieved 21 November 2009.