This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article currently states "Criticism of the PIPA poll has been of a partisan nature." I goes on to list two critics of the poll and their comments: Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly making the statement true by defintion. Those who opposed the statement failed to meet my previous challenge to name one criticism of the PIPA poll that isn't partisan and satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. So, moving forward, since the truth of the statement is supported by the sentences that follow it does not require an additional supporting cite. Or, alternately, those who'd like to see it removed only need to come forward with a single criticism of the PIPA poll that isn't partisan. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's so inherently obvious, one might ask why the sentence is even needed. It might as well read, "Criticism of the PIPA poll has been done by white people". Equally "justified" by the facts, equally pointless. It seems obvious that the sentence is motivated by a desire to diminish criticism of the poll, but this is a very strange and non-encyclopedic way of going about it.
There's also the issue of whether Bill O'Reilly truly is a partisan. He claims to be independent. We've gone over this before, and you said he was a partisan because he works for Fox News, and thus has a vested interest against the poll; I'd argue that you're confusing the terms "partisan" and "interested party"; they're not synonymous. Korny O'Near 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's necessary because there's crticism, and then there's partisan sniping, and the difference between the two is not always going to be apparent to lay readers. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted Isarig's addition of putatively non-partisan criticism of the PIPA poll.[1] The talk page of another wiki, sourcewatch [2], is not a reliable source. I would say that Isarig needs to read WP:RS and WP:V, but since I know he already has, it's WP:POINT that he's unfamiliar with then. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You have previously insisted on the unsourced and unverifiable formulation "All criticism of the poll was of Partisan nature". We now have proof that not only was this unsourced and unverifiable, it was also wrong. There is criticism of the poll which is non-partisan. What you are now claiming is that non-partisan criticsm of the poll is found on blogs, which are not WP:RS. That's quite a different claim, and begs the question of why it is needed to editorialze in this manner. let's just list the criticisms and the critics and let the readers draw thier own conclusions about the sources and the nature of the criticism, as is the common practice throughout WP. Isarig 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How about actually answering my question, and for once, stop violating WP:CIVIL? Isarig 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me FM answered your question. As for civility, why is it that every troll tries to hide behind that concept? •Jim62sch• 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And to me it seems he didn't. You come in calling me a troll and complain about people using double n to complain about the behaviour of certain editors. What a joke. Isarig
I guess there's logic in there somewhere. I also note that I'm hardly the only editor who has noted that you are trolling. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted Isarig's addition of more putatively non-partisan criticism of the PIPA poll.[3]Reading the James Taranto article it's clear that Taranto is partisan, advocating the conservative viewpoint. Also, one of the cites Isarig provided Taranto is criticizing John Carroll's use of the poll, not the poll itself.[4] Legitimate, non-partisan criticism of the poll would be an academic source, analysis by an impartial thinktank, etc. Not op-ed from a conservative commentator. Who's criticism of the PIPA poll is going to be cited next, Rush's? FeloniousMonk 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Using your logic, anyone who will be cited as critical of the poll will be a partisan. Both my cites(do take the time to rad them next tinme) refer to the poll itself as propaganda. You asked for a single non-partisan, WP:RS that criticizes the poll, I have given you the opinion page of the WSJ. There's no WP requirement that sources be academic. It's game over. Go pick a fight over something else. Isarig 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, the WSJ: bastion of conservative editorialism (it's all about money and greed -- ggreed is good!--, you see). •Jim62sch• 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welocme to your opinion of the WSJ. The point stands - I've provided a sourced, WP:RS criticism of the poll which you've removed - that is vandalism. Isarig 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not vandalism, it was in keeping with previous reverts related to the issue.•Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing material sourced to WP:RS is vandalism. I a suggest you acquaint yourself with WP policies. The defence that others have also committed vandalism is hardly valid. Isarig 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not vandalism. Stop disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 15:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing material sourced to WP:RS is vandalism. I a suggest you acquaint yourself with WP policies. You will note that new editors are here telling you that your formulation is highly POV. Isarig 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
From James Taranto: "Most of Taranto's commentary is politically oriented and conservative/libertarian in perspective. He mercilessly lambastes various public figures and organizations, from John Kerry, invariably described as "the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam," to Reuters, headlines about which always involve excessive use of quotes in mockery of the service's overuse of what Taranto calls "scare quotes." He's clearly partisan no matter how you slice it. Again, legitimate, non-partisan criticism of the poll would be an academic source, analysis by an impartial thinktank, etc. calling into question its methods or conclusions. FeloniousMonk 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read it, as well. He is described as "conservative/libertarian". Mind telling me what the libertarian position on the PIPA poll is, or on Fox News? I also note the other section you conveniently left out, which is particularly relevant to this media related dispute: "Best of the Web also includes non-political items which are concerned with journalism nationwide." You do not get to disaqualify sources because you don't like them, or because you percieve them as too "conservative" for you liking. WSJ is WP:RS, Taranto is "conservative/libertarian". Game over. Go find another nit to pick. Isarig 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As a former poli-sci major I've tried to discern the difference betwen conservatism and libertarianism and the only diff I've found is that libertarianism is more anarchic, and ironically, more conservative. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welocme to your POV. Perhaps you should spend some time correcting the information WP presents at Libertarianism (which does not refer to conservatism even once) and Conservatism which seems to bear out that they are distinct philosophies. that way you'll have less time to make uncivil attacks on other posters. Isarig 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether they cross reference each other is irrelevant. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You'd think that if they were the same thing, there'd be some mention of it. But I repeat my offer - go and enlighten the WP editors of those 2 articles that they are in fact, one and the same. Perhaps you should add a merge tag on one, or even both. Isarig 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing reading comprehension poses a problem: where did I say they were "one and the same"? •Jim62sch• 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Taranto is a conservative pundit. As mentioned in his Wikipedia article in his WSJ column, Best of the Web, Taranto is known for aggressively attacking the liberal position. A quick review of his articles at WSJ's OpinionJournal shows he constantly defends the Bush administration and the conservative agenda:[5][6] Taranto also aggressively defends Fox News (which the PIPA poll among others implies is biased toward the conservative view):[7][8] Writing from a particular POV is called partisan punditry where I come from, not that I expect you to admit that... FeloniousMonk 22:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Taranto is the editor of OpinionJournal.com, the WSJ's on-line editorial page. He describes his own politics as "my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road". His WP page describes him as a "conservative/libertarian". I'm sorry if he's too conservative for your liking, but there is nothing to identify him as a partisan in this issue. You have a WP:RS criticising the PIPA poll. Time for you to move on - maybe you can find another 700-google-hits Scando-Iranian blogger who once wrote "Fox is the SUCKs". This one is done. Isarig 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice try. Taranto is no less a partisan critic of the poll (or pundit) than Coulter or O'Reilly. FeloniousMonk 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
as I wrote before, by your tautological definition, anyone who criticizes the poll is a partisan. But sadly, you do not get to poison the well that way. And there is no excuse for removing the sourced material which inidates PIPA issued a clarification. Please self-revert that removal, as it is your 4th revert on this page in the last 24 hours. Isarig 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Learn to count, and stop trolling and disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You've removed properly sourced WP:RS material - which is vandalism - and have the nerve to call my edits disruptive. You will not bully me out of editing this article per WP guidlines no matter how many of your friends you enlist. You don't like Fox, fine. But don't disrupt the editing of this encyclopdia to suit your political bias. Isarig 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a slight stab at it as what was there before seemed awfully naughty in the POV area to me. Generally on issues such as that, in my opinion, the best way is to just lay the evidence on the table and let the reader decide. Something like "the PIPA poll has been criticized" (or whatever it is) but more pithy/better english :). RN 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We can't spoonfeed readers, true, but we can't assume they recognize biased opinion either. Op-ed, presented through the WSJ is easily mistaken for neutral reporting by a hungry or unschooled eye. Many of the readers here, a good number of which will be conservative themselves or schoolchildren, are unlikely to note the absence of legitimate non-partisan criticism, taking partisan criticism, which is nothing more than characterizations based on personal opinions, to be credible criticism. "The PIPA poll has been criticized by conservative pundits" is accurate and complete and fair, since there has been no criticism of the poll form other quarters such as other pollsters, academics, etc. FeloniousMonk 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with what you say, but I still have reservations about the pundit part, as it seems a little too specific and quite dismissive (yes, it is fairly obvious to those who follow american politics...). Even that is 1000% better then what was there before though. Also, maybe consider "Conservative pundits criticized the PIPA poll" or something to avoid the passive voice. RN 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed "In response to the criticism and to the misuse of the poll's findings, PIPA issued a clarification on Oct. 17,, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks"[1]." to read "Conservative columnist James Taranto claims that in response to the criticism and to the misuse of the poll's findings, PIPA issued a clarification on Oct. 17,, 2003..." Without a supporting cite to PIPA's actual clarification, all we have is Taranto's cited claim they did, and it's not like he doesn't have a dog in the race. I've searched the PIPA site, www.pipa.org, several different ways [9][10] and cannot find this clarification that Taranto refers to. Until we do the best we can say is that Taranto claims PIPA has issued the clarification. FeloniousMonk 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Although, thinking of RN's comment, I'm wondering what the pedominantly American fear of the passive voice is all about. Does the passive voice require a higher level of reading comprehension? Yes, but certainly not above the standard reading level of an encyclopedia. Besides, the passive has been chugging along in English for over one thousand years...mainly because it has a value. Good thing we dropped the middle voice though -- just imagine the havoc that might wreak! ;) •Jim62sch• 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the dislike of the passive voice is because it fails to name the actor and can be used to conceal information unfavorable to the the writers point of view: "It is said that..." instead of "The National Enquirer said..." Ucanlookitup 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That's one way of using it, but what I was referring to, and you example is can work the same way with the active voice. For example, let's say the IRS send you a notice stating that an error was found on your return and you'll be getting a refund. If it is phrased (active voice) as "We will be sending you a refund" that is actually a lie, as it is the Financial Management Service who will be sending you the check, whereas "A refund check will be sent to you", while passive, is far more accurate. Depends on the context. •Jim62sch• 01:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
but "Financial Management will be sending you a refund" would be both accurate and more informative. Geesh, how did we get on this tangent?
Again, without a cite to PIPA's actual clarification, all we have is a conservative columnist and now The Seattle Times' television critic's quoting it, which may not be complete and lack context. Until the full clarification from PIPA is found, the 'clarification' refered to needs to be attributed to those quoting it. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
you're applying a standard that is not used elswhere in WP. We have 2 WP:RS that say this (and needless to say, countless blogs that relate the detals of the PIPA clarification). PIPA never contested the information as it appeared in the Seattle times and the WSJ. Now, 3 years after the event, we have no on-line record of it on their site - so what? If you'd like, add a footnote that says the clarification is not on the PIPA site, but stop your POV-pushing edits along the lines that it's McFadden who says this. Isarig 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:RS, specifically the definitions part, and explain how the statement "In response to the criticism and to the misuse of the poll's findings, PIPA issued a clarification..." does not assert a fact. A fact which is supported only by secondary sources, one of which, Taranto, has a verified conservative bias and the other we know nothing about. The fact that none of us searching here has been able to find a cite for the actual PIPA clarification from the primary source calls into question its existence. Particularly since it seems to be only touted by a conservative pundit and the, ahem, Seattle Times television critic and some bloggers [11]. So again, find a cite for the accutual PIPA clarification or accept that reference to it needs to be attributed per WP:RS and not be presented as a fact. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I can't see why Fox News is openly allowed to fabricate (or falsify) entirely whole new pieces of information like quotes or reports, without stating that the news programs do not share an opinion-based affiliation with the Fox network. This is the only way they can remain legal without having to state that they are simply following their "Constitutional" rights to free speech. I think that Jon Stewart said it best when he was on Crossfire, "Stop it...you're hurting America!".
How true. Dark Observer 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, Crossfire was on CNN. Dubc0724 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy Glick Photo
I removed a photo and caption about Jeremy Glick. There was nothing in the article body about this incident, so the photo doesn't really belong (unless someone adds an item about it to the article body). Cbuhl79 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, why isn't there any mention of Glick in the article? Surely it's one of the most notable controversies surrounding the channel. - 81.178.65.251 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Watchdog group mentioning removal
Per WP:RS, we should be removing material from this page that is based solely on "watchdog group"'s views on accounts. The following are from the "Evaluating reliability" section:
With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
A particular source which aims to have credibility beyond a particular POV is generally regarded as more reliable than one whose audience is narrow in terms of its ideology, partisan agenda or point of view.
In general it is preferable to cite the original source for an assertion, as well as important confirming sources. It is generally preferable to cite reliable sources over less reliable sources when given a choice.
Media Matters for America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and others are not services for which noteable controversies are brought to fame - just because these organizations may criticize networks for their work, it is not noteworthy in its own source just because they have. Many of this section here are sourced by only the first group listed; some are also sourced by the second. These services are not notable enough to be used as a source extensively in this article; just like other watchgroups like NewsBusters aren't notable enough to be sourced extensively in CNN's main or controversies article.
Sections in this article that only use watchdog groups as sources should either be removed or more sources should be sought. --Mrmiscellanious 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment by Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez. This is a notable incident that was widely reported. Also what did User:Aaron mean by "pulling rank"; I wasn't aware that contributors had rank. --CSTAR 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the two above users; the incident deserves mention. Whether the title of the section should be changed from "False Reporting" is another question. Sure, accidents happen everyday, but if there's controversy regarding biased reporting and O'Reilly's show just happens to label the most reviled politican in America a Democrat, then it deserves mention, Aaron's opinion about its motivation notwithstanding. MastCell 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just coming back here to try to correct my "rank" statement (though there's no real way to alter an edit summary that I know of). I absolutely was not trying to make some sort of insinuation like "I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have, thus I know better." What I meant to say by that, and should have spelled out, is that TV news is my career, and more than once I've personally been responsible for some Chyron screwup that got on the air (and for which I have, more than once, been on the receiving end of more than one chewing out by my boss). You have to understand that this sort of thing happens every single day, on every news channel and on every local station's news broadcasts. This is a fast-paced business, where you don't have the time to leisurely pore over your graphics hours ahead of the broadcast looking for the tiniest misspelling. If you're lucky, and you work on a show where at least some of the contents are prepackaged and thus can be all put together in advance, you might get a spare two minutes here and there to quickly scan over the contents of the lower thirds you've already fed into the computer, hoping to catch really blatant errors. With this sort of half-assed system, you'll probably catch 75% of the mistakes ahead of time, but that still leaves one out of four that sails out onto the air. Add on top of that the fact that you're looking at a constant stream of (D)s and (R)s if your newscast has heavily political coverage, and chances are the only time you'll notice a mistake there if if it says something like (Y) between those parentheses instead of (R) or (D). And as I said, all of this is assuming you even get that extra time to plan ahead. A lot of these graphics are generated on the fly and fed into the computer more or less live. In that position you don't even have time to think. And on top of all that, you need to keep in mind that the entire control room staff at Fox and CNN and MSNBC tends to turn over every hour or so; the people running things at noon are gone by one, and the people running the show at one are going to be using their own graphics because they don't have a clue what the guys from noon had fed into the computer; thus, even more chances for screw ups.
Given all that, I think it's absolutely unfair to accuse Fox of a systematic campaign to switch people's party affilations around for partisan gain. It makes Wikipedia look like bad, because anyone coming here to look at this article that sees this listed (especially under the strongly POV subhead "false reporting") who knows anything about TV news will instantly discount the entire article as worthless. They know the (D)/(R) mixups can't possibly be true, so how can they trust anything else being allowed on the page? (As an aside, the Chaffee mistake is itself evidence that these are just mistakes; Chaffee is a Republican; why would they want to make people think he's a Democrat, especially less than a month before an election where the GOP may well lose the Senate? Qui bono?) --Aaron 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the CNN "Cheney X", it too is equally BS, and was just as much a meaningless dumb mistake. The X was from one of those "swooshes" that CNN uses to switch from one shot to another (usually when switching between two entirely different stories). It shows the director exactly where to cue up that piece of tape (actually, it's usually saved in RAM these days, but you know what I mean) so that when he hits the button, the "swoosh" will take over the screen at the exact moment he's switching camera shots. The next time you're watching CNN, take a look at it and notice that for just about 1/2 second, the "swoosh" fills up the entire screen; that's when the director's supposed to push the button to switch from one scene to the other. The result for the home viewer is a nice smooth transfer from some standup in Washington to, the swoosh and then to, oh, a weather report or something. But if the "swoosh" starts too early or too late, you'll actually see the switch between the two shots, which tends to come off as jarring to the home viewer and, worse, often involves a split second of the new scene being out of sync with the screen (you know, where you see a quick burst of bright static on the screen and the the new scene sliding up into view as what we used to call the "vertical hold" actually takes hold). So anyway, while that X was queued up, just waiting for the transfer from Cheney's speech to whatever was next in the lineup, the director simply hit a button by accident that caused whatever was on screen A (in this case, the X) to be laid over top of screen B (in this case, Dick Cheney live). It could just have easily have been a generic CNN logo plugged into a corner or even another piece of videotape that got overlayed. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, and everyone in TV news just laughed at poor CNN for getting attacked by all those "know-nothings" that just assumed it was an intentional plot.
So, in short: No, the X thing does not belong on the CNN page, and it renders that CNN page just as illegitmate in the eyes of those with actual TV news experience. However - and far more importantly for our purposes - the "what about article A?" argument doesn't carry much weight on Wikipedia. Each page is its own battlefield, and the fact that you find a similar screwup on another article doesn't mean this one should contain the same mistake. Likewise, nobody involved in this discussion is under any obligation to go over to the CNN article and take care of that X mess just because it was invoked over here. (Although I probably will at some point; it's been bothering me for a long time.)--Aaron 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comment makes sense now, thanks for the explaination. And you have a point, but to make it more general, we shouldn't be accusing anyone of anything. We should be reporting the accusations of others. Whether or not we think they have merit doesn't matter; that is for the reader to decide. Gamaliel 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually Chafee has often been called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) by the right, his conservative credentials have been questioned, and there was an effort to run a more right-wing, conservative, party-line candidate against him in the primary - so labeling him as a Democrat could, conceivably, be intentional. O'reilly does have a well-documented history of dishonesty about things like this. Just as conceivably, it could be an accident of the type that Aaron describes. I like the edits that Isarig just made; I think this deserves short mention, but as Gamaliel said, it's not up to us to make accusations in the article. For that reason, we should reconsider the section heading "False Reporting" - what about "Accusations of false reporting" or some such thing? MastCell 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a much better heading. Gamaliel 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That heading may cover two of the incidents mentioned; however the incident about presidential candidate John Kerry seems clearly "false reporting". Whether it was meant as a joke or not is irrelevant, no? --CSTAR 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
John Moody
The link to John Moody in the Ownership and Management section goes to a John Moody who died in 1958. Is there a page for the Fox News exec John Moody?
Bias?
I found this video on YouTube of a MSNBC report of Fox News bias. I'm not sure when this was originally aired (posted on Nov. 15), but the news is alarming. Significant? JumpingcheeseCont@ct 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I found the complete transcript on the MSNBC website. Apparently, The Huffington Post found some memo regarding a Republican bias in Fox News. JumpingcheeseCont@ct 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Groseclose study
This article states, "A study published in November 2005 by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, comparing political bias from such news outlets as the New York Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, the Los Angeles Times, and Fox News’ Special Report, concluded that Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was closest to the political center, and that Special Report was the most centrist news program on television"
However, this contradicts the citation, which says "The most centrist outlet proved to be the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. CNN's NewsNight With Aaron Brown and ABC's Good Morning America were a close second and third." The citation also says that "Only Fox News' Special Report With Brit Hume and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."
Initially, I was going to delete the offending portion, but, since removal would render the paragraph and the following one almost meaningless, I wanted to open discussion of this point. The purpose of the paragraph is, I assume, to present a study showing that FOX is not conservatively biased. If there are any studies that actually say this, they would be appropriate in this section, but the citation clearly does not say this. The following paragraph attempts to argue against the study's methodology, but this becomes meaningless, since the previous paragraph is no longer accurate in claiming that Special Report or Fox News is centrist.
I think either the 2 paragraphs should be rewritten with correct citations or they should be removed. Thoughts anyone? --Geespelvin 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No one responded in the last couple of days, so I went ahead and made changes. Although I think the paragraphs aren't completely clear, I wanted to at least change the incorrect statements about Special Report, so that it correctly reflects the two relevant conclusions of the citation, namely that according to the study Special Report is to the right of center and most news outlets are to the left. --Geespelvin 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Obama Madrassa Media Scandal
I'll add this in this week, if anyone wants to help. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a some extra information on the FNC VP's involvement, as well as some citations.Athene cunicularia 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ADD THE MADRASSA SCANDAL?! This is a major, major incident that discredits fox reliability.
Rationale behind my recent edit
I just edited this article to try to clean up some misrepresentations. I'm not a Conservative, but rather a Libertarian, and I dislike Fox News as much as most of the Liberals, but I think its important to properly disclose that media watchdogs FAIR and Media Matters, news program Democracy Now, and the documentaries Outfoxed and The Corporation are liberal biased themselves. To not disclose stuff like that is to go down to the level of Fox News and is unacceptable. If you feel that liberal is too loaded of a term, feel free to change it to progressive or whatever the Dems are calling themselves these days. Just please don't portray left wing as objective by not disclosing the slant. You'll just strengthen the Conservatives case for Liberal Media bias and you definitely don't want to do that. 206.251.2.43 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded upon your recent edit, but I have not labelled the documentary or the essay as liberal. The producers of those two pieces of work present them as neutral and factual (regardless of their political leanings). Therefore that is a matter of point of view, and we at Wiki must remain neutral in these areas. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
To 206.251.2.43: The article on Fox News Channel controversies is not the place to inject your opinion about whether a media group is "liberal". There are articles dedicated to each of these groups right here on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that they have their own "Controversy" sections that you can improve. If they don't, you can feel free to create one, using evidence and citations, that conveys your point. But if keep doing stuff like this, and it will be seen as vandalism- like what you did to the Prescott Bush article when you said "[He] would be ashamed to be the grandfather of current President George W. Bush."Athene cunicularia 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Foxattacks.com
There should be a link to foxattacks.com since it is mostly based from clips from fox news.
they mention an interesting tactic for those who dont like fox news
STEP 1. Watch the Fox News Channel.
STEP 2. Identify local businesses that are advertising on the Fox News Channel. Find their contact info and enter it into our database so that other people will be able to contact these advertisers too.
STEP 3. Call and/or Write to these local businesses and (politely) ask them to stop advertising on Fox until Fox stops acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
perhaps this should be mentioned?
How about immolating themselves in front of the advertiser's headquarters? This tactic drew excellent media coverage in the 1970s. --CliffC 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
hello! after doin many searches and many readings to find the specifics on the lawsuits concerning a fox news affiliate WTVT, to keep this short, concerning the Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson. I'm just curious, shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere on this controversies page? oops forgot to sign first time, Lalelale 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)lalelale
Interesting, Isarig.
You consider the Democratic Party and Fox News to be "political opponents" of one another? [13]Italiavivi 12:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the Democratic Party considers Fox to be a political opponent, as evidenced by the quotes you provided. Isarig 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Monsanto, BGH, Whistleblower lawsuit.
I'm confused why the whistle blower lawsuit doesn't show up here. Is this because of the suit was against an affiliate?
--Charles Merriam 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Media Matters overuse
What is up with the inordinate number of cites from Media Matters? of the 100 or so citations, over 30 were from MM alone, this looks like a Media Matters outlet. In anycase the whole suggestive cleavage issue is not noteworthy, and entirely opinion based. The only criticism is from Media Matters, and it is all what "they consider". Arzel 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Other Criticism
A number of items in this category are uncited and non-notable and have been removed. Additionally, much of the section reads like a rant. Arzel 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed some items without citations or with incorrect citations, as well as the Ted Turner incident which is not criticism of FNC, but Ted Turner making a rant about FNC. Please explain how this might be notable. Arzel 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Ted Turner's "rant" is criticism, and it's certainly notable, coming from him. It might be insane criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that it belongs here. Korny O'Near 03:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually think it is better suited in the Ted Turner article. The real controversy is what he said and that he was then criticised for his statement by FNC. The primary problem of including the rant here is that these statements are made often by various people, and before long the article would be filled with comments by various celebraties denegrating FNC for one thing or the other. Just becuse someone famous makes a statement doesn't make it instantly notable. Arzel 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That might be true, but in this case Ted Turner is about as notable as it gets, given that he's the founder of Fox News' main competitor, CNN. Korny O'Near 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that TT is notable, but the question is what is the controversy or criticism of FNC? It is not that he said FNC is this because of that, and he doesn't criticize FNC for any specific thing. He simply says that he thinks FNC is some blanket statement to which FNC responds "sour grapes". I realize that TT makes an inflamatory remark regarding FNC being associated with Hitler, but that is a criticism of TT. Possible interpretations: "Ted Turner has been criticized by FNC for claiming that their rise in the ratings is similar to the rise of power of Hitler in Germany." OR "Ted Turner has been critical of FNC for their rise in their ratings which appear similar to the rise of power of Hitler in Germany." I just don't see how you can turn a statement made by TT into a criticism of FNC when he doesn't make a statement of criticism relating to anything. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I just don't think it's our job to decide whether criticism is valid or not. A very notable person makes a criticism, it should go in the article - let the reader decide whether it's informed commentary or a rant. Korny O'Near 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat that this is not criticism of FNC, if you want to inlclude it, put it into the TT article. As to your final arguement, by inclusion, you have already made a decision as to what it is, or whether it is valid or not. If this approach was to be taken on everything, then Wikipedia would be a huge mass of comments without any review. Arzel 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Ted Turner calling Fox News "a propaganda tool for the Bush administration" is not criticism of Fox News? Korny O'Near 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say that he is attacking FNC, but there is no context for his attack. He is not saying FNC is bad because of some specific thing that FNC has done. He is just making a blanket statement of attack, his opinion. It should be noted that this is far more of a criticism of TT for making a comparison of Hitler with his remarks. So to answer your question, "No". If he has said that FNC is a propaganda tool for the Bush administration because of [some specific action], then you have TT criticizing FNC, where his statement is an adjective describing the criticism. On the other hand, the others have criticized TT for his statement comparing FNC with the rise of Hitler. Do you see the difference? Arzel 06:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand the difference, but in this case "propaganda tool", etc. was the evidence cited. You don't think it's enough, and in most cases I might agree that it's not enough, but I think Turner's notability as a competitor puts it over the top. Presumably, it is the view of Wikipedia that Ted Turner is a reliable source of opinion and not just an insane man ranting. Korny O'Near
Agree with Korny. Restoring the Turner criticism. Italiavivi 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Is not making a statement of criticism, he is attacking FNC with baseless comparisons to Hitler. Additionally, BOR is not making a criticism for FNC either. You cannot use someone comments to put forth your own personal opinion. Finally, Italiavivi, are you ever going to respond to my earlier issue dealing with you taking my comments out of context? Arzel 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this is bordering on rediculous. It's absolutely not our job to discern what criticism is legitimate or not. If it's notable, it goes in. Just stop, azrel... /Blaxthos 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It is the job of those inserting information to make sure that it should be in the article, and just because TT is notable, does not mean everything he says is notable. As I have said before, this is more of an issue where it should be on the TT page as far more criticism is directed towards his comments than his attack of FNC. Even then it is not notable, you don't see me trying to insert it into the TT article. Arzel 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not your job to decide what you feel is appropriate criticism. Given your edit history and attempts to sanitize the main article, I find it unsurprising that you're removing sourced criticism on this page too. I am, however, glad to know that there are other editors who have noticed and have made objections. You're now in a significant minority, and should probably find something else to work on. /Blaxthos 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I condensed the original article, I did not sanitize it. That information is still on this page. I am not opposed to sourced criticism, but I don't feel either of these instances are criticism. The BOR incident is OR. The only way you can come to the conclusion that BOR feels FNC is biased is by making an assumption regarding the context of what he is saying. It is clear that some editors are trying to use BOR's words to support their POV. The TT inclusion is not notable, undue weight, and not specific criticism, furthermore, it is clear that he was criticised far more for making such bombasitic comments as to compare FNC to Hitler. If you are going to include this comment then you have to include every comment that someone that is known making some blanket statement to effect, and hey guess what, you can very likely find quotes of dozens of celebraties, politicians, and others to make similar statements, do they all deserve inclusion? If you overload an article with dozens of small stupid comments the whole article loses its impact. Add some real criticism if you want, but these pidly comments serve no additional purpose than currently exist in the article. Arzel 02:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You're simply repeating yourself ad nauseum now, Arzel. Korny and Blaxthose have already adequately refuted your (nonsense) claim that Ted Turner is somehow not notable. Italiavivi 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you take your own advise and quit your own repeating. I have stated several times that WHAT HE SAID WAS NOT NOTABLE. Just because he is, doesn't mean everything he says is. Your only reasoning thus far has been since TT is notable than what he said should be included, and that is just plain silly. Arzel 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am concurring with Korny and Blaxthos in holding that Ted Turner's comments are reliably sourced and notable, yes. All you have offered are accusations of "vandilism" [sic], and an all-caps claim against Turner's notability. Consensus is not on your side, and you are making baseless, desperate accusations of vandalism. Take a break, Arzel. Italiavivi 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you even know what consensus means? Consensus is not majority. WP:consensus. I would say that you are working against consensus. I have provided ample argements to why these two pieces of information do not belong, the only arguement for is "Yes they are" and "TT is notable so it is". Sounds like some pretty faulty logic to me. If you want it included simply give me a good reason to agree. Arzel 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: Since the majority of editors here oppose your edit why not simply make the arguments here (leaving the article as the majority would like it in the interim) until a concensus is reached. The alternative would be to file an RfC, or seek mediation. But please, please, please stop the edit warring. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Azrel, consensus certainly doesn't mean "every editor must agree." Quite frankly, there is the basis for a consensus contrary to your assertions. I count three editors who disagree with you explicitly -- you're just plain wrong. The logic, in case you missed it the first 5 times, is this:
Ted Turner (the individual) has obviously met notability requirements.
Ted Turner has made criticism of FNC. Criticism is the subject of this article.
Ted Turner owns/founded CNN, FNC's main competitor. Beyond his personal notability, he's not some random person issuing criticism -- he's directly involved in the cable news industry.
QED The critcism is notable.
Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are my points.
Ted Turner Inclusion:
Ted Turner is notable, however this does not mean that everything he says is notable.
The statment by TT is not criticism relating to a specific action of FNC, at least not in the sense that it is in the article. TT criticizes FNC for not being criticial enough of Bush, but it is not a valid criticism. The title of the article even states that he is attacking FNC without making any specific accusations other than they (FNC) are not critical enough. The Hitler comment is purely for effect and serves no other purpose.
TT has not been chairman for CNN for over four years, so the relevance to him criticising FNC as an agent of CNN is moot as well.
This statement is over two years old and has no legs. It is not well known, nor is it being referenced (outside of wikipedia) in the past couple of years.
This inclusion adds little to the article in general and has the appearance of undue weight and overloading the article.
There is no mention on the TT article criticising him for comparing FNC to Hitler even though a google search for the article is more focused on this aspect of the criticism.
Those pushing for its inclusion here seem to have no interest in including it within the TT article (I personally don't think it warrents inclusion on the TT article either because it is a minor incident and not something he is well known, outside of wikipedia and this article.)
It is purely opinion of TT.
Bill O'Reilly accusation of bias:
He doesn't accuse FNC of being biased.
He specifically states that FNC doesn't try to help Bush (in reference to the 2005 election).
There are only a few google links to anything relating to this comment, with the only one remotely reputable being MM, and they don't include any else relating to the comments made by BOR so it is difficult to know the context.
Including it as it currently is, is very POV and appears to be OR.
It doesn't have legs either, and being over two years old has almost no mention outside of left blogs and MM which is already known to be highly critical of FNC.
It is undue weight because of the source which included it, and may be taken out of context.
It will not gain in notoriaty, and being over two years old and just inserted now does not warrant inclusion.
Neither of these two items deserves inclusion in this article. They are hardly known about now, and certainly won't be something people think about in the future as they both deal specifically with the Bush administration and mostly regarding the most recent presidential election. Arzel 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, Arzel, you've stumbled upon what I find one of the weakest aspects of Wikipedia. The test of notability isn't whether the story had legs so to speak, but rather if at any point in history the subject had notability. So the fact that Turner's remarks were covered in the MSM for a day is sufficient notability. Personally, I think that's crazy, but that is what the guidlines call for. From WP:NOTE "If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time." OTOH, the notability argument is without merit here. Notability only covers the creation of new articles. Content in articles is covered by WP:RS, WP:ATT and WP:TRIV. I don't think the Turner and O'Reilly quotes would be trivia, and since they are attributed, there really is no basis to delete them without a consensus to do so. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point regarding the TT incident. But I disagree with regards to the BOR statement. It wasn't picked up by any mainstream media, and it was only inserted for the first time a week ago, even though the comment was made two years ago. I'll concede the TT remark, even though I don't think anyone will care or remember in a couple more years. Arzel 19:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be making notability arguments to support your deletion of BO's quote. Problem is, notability only covers creation of new articles. Once an article is created, the policies mentioned above controls what goes in. Simply put, all significant viewpoints are allowed in the article, provided they are sourced. If you are saying that BO's viewpoint is not significant, well that places you in a distinct minority since he is the host of their highest rated show. Again, if you want to keep significant, sourced information out of the article, you need to get a consensus to do so. So far I see none. Perhaps you should initiate an RfC, to see if the community supports your opinion. That is, if you feel strongly about it. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this needs a RfC at this time. The problem with the BOR comment is that as I have stated it was not picked up by any media sources and reported as news. MM had what ammounts to a blog on the subject but that was about all I could find. Furthermore is is undue weight attributed to BOR, not that his viewpoint is insignificant. He has never made any allusion to FNC being biased from what I have seen while doing any google searches. The connection to him accusing FNC being biased is conjecture of his statement, drawing a conclusion which is not attributable to the statement he made. Furthermore it appears this statement was in regards to a specific instance at FNC. The MM reference leaves out everything leading up to the comment so there is no way to determine what lead to the statement being made, and I was unable to find any other reference of this statement which puts the statement into context. In anycase, the current wording gives the implication of a general feeling by BOR that FNC is biased, which is certainly not the case and definately undue weight on the wording. Mostly this is a new addition, which wasn't even added when it first made. Arzel 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments from the network's most prominent host are in no way undue weight; do you even understand WP:UNDUE, Arzel? O'Reilly clearly stated that Fox "tilts" rightward but doesn't support governmental entities. This is absolutely notable where allegations of rightward bias are concerned, and you have no consensus on the side of your unusual interpretation of policies with regard to O'Reilly's comments. Italiavivi 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't lecture me on WP guidelines, your POV is evident. Perhaps if you understood context it would be clear to you. In any case it also fails under poorly cited material of a controversal nature. Arzel 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I lecture you on policy because you seem to be in need of one. It is not poorly cited, is in no way undue, and so far's I can tell this is just another extension of your sanitizing widespread controversy from Fox News related articles. Feel free to repeat your same faulty arguments ad nauseum, the material is reliably sourced and qualifies for inclusion in every way. Mind your WP:3RR, addio, friend. :) Italiavivi 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you always feel the need to personally attack when you have nothing worthwhile to say? Have you even read any of my arguements or just regurgitated the same bile time after time? Perhaps we should review your ideal of sanitation regarding articles. You felt the need to use my words to support "sanitation" of the cnn article to a much greater degree, yet you continually attack me and my motives here, what gives. If you want to be an ass that is fine with me, but perhaps you could be a little more creative at the same time. Arzel 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I will ask that you strike the profane name-calling from your comments. Italiavivi 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Arzel, you're getting dangerously close to becoming disruptive. Consensus clearly doesn't support your position, and several people have pointed out your misunderstandings of policy and guidelines here. If you continue to make arbitrary changes that are not supported by the community, I will seek alternative remedies. Please stop. /Blaxthos 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Individual pundit sections getting unmanageable.
I suggest migrating much of the unwieldly pundit bullets to their subjects' articles, or "[Pundit name] controversies" (like Bill O'Reilly controversies) sub-articles if necessary. They look a disorganized and sloppy mish-mash, currently. Italiavivi 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with merging the section back into the individual subjects articles. However, we would run into notability and forking problems if we simply created new "controversies" articles. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
RfC
After substantial searching, the only source for the BOR quote is a recording on the MM webpage. This is also the only source. Furthermore this is from the BOR radio factor show (supposedly) of which BOR does not identify himself in any manner. This is not written text, nor is it video. You might be able to get a full recording from BOR, but I have no plans on paying for a membership. Thus you have a recording, which noone else can hear the entirety, cut by MM which is already highly critical of BOR, used by MM to support a position they promote, further used to spport the opinion that several editors have regarding FNC. If ever there was an instant of Gotcha journalism journalism this is it, and it certainly doesn't belong here. Arzel 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
When writing RFC requests, editors should summarize content disputes in a neutral manner. You simply used the RFC listing to further push your agenda for deleting O'Reilly's remarks. After being called profane names by Arzel and now this bad-faith RFC listing, I have serious problems assuming good faith on his part. Italiavivi 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I will not participate in this bad-faith RFC. It's simply sour grapes due to an existing RFC on Fox News Channel and being refuted by several editors regarding this issue. /Blaxthos 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you both read the archives from the FNC talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_19 and take particular notice to the way you have both treated me from the very beginning. My initial goal plainly stated was to try and reduce some of the rampent criticism within WP articles so they don't read like rants against the person/entity written about, and the only time I haven't been treated to responses like this (Blaxthos' second reply to me)....No one is saying that there is a "general public concensus[sic] that FNC is biased". Did you read what we've all been saying for the last 8 months? You miss the point entirely, and I'm starting to find it difficult to come up with a response that doesn't involve "you didn't read" or "you do not understand". /Blaxthos 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ....were the times I agreed with your point of view. I have been met with no good faith, and now say that you have serious problems of good faith on my behalf? I want to know when you ever did? Arzel 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
At least you're admitting that this isn't about anything other than your dissatisfaction over being rebuffed in previous disputes. As such, I move to strike this malformed RFC as nothing more than a WP:POINT, and baseless at that (four editors have now disagreed with your position and logic -- no need to continue). /Blaxthos 06:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the bad faith here. I was the one who advised Arzel to file an RfC if he feels strongly about this opinion. The hope is that maybe if he hears the opinions of persons other than us, it may register more. The well seems to be too poisoned, both ways, for any sort of consensus to be reached. I'll say it again, and hope Arzel understands. Arzel, I know where you are coming from, but there is no basis to remove the O'Reilly quote. It is sourced, and is not trivial. The only way to keep it out would be another sourced statement by BOR renouncing the earlier quote, or the consensus of editors to keep it out. Neither is shown here. The context doesn't matter, the editor's motives for inclusion are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that BOR actually uttered the words and it is ostensibly related to bias at Foxnews. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ramsquire: Regarding bad faith, I direct you to this quote by Arzel posted only two hours before the RfC: "I don't think this needs a RfC at this time." What changed so drastically in two hours? I just don't believe it's in good faith, and his response has shown what's really on his mind. Time to strike it and move on... /Blaxthos 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding bad faith; inflammatory, accusatory, POV-pushing RFC descriptions: [14]Italiavivi 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify, I simply don't see the bad faith in starting the RfC. It's not like it is a "responsive RfC" or a "forum shopping RfC" as I have seen previously at Wikipedia. Yes, the RfC descriptive statement was out of line. I totally concede that point. But there is bad faith by Arzel in that apparently he views us as so biased that he doesn't trust anything we say. Of course, he also believes that he is the victim of bad faith, so I didn't mean to say it does not exist. I know he changed his mind within two hours but I don't have any evidence as to why he would do so in bad faith, so I hesitate to label it as such. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing is out of line... the issue isn't contested by anyone except Arzel, whom we know to have an incomplete or incorrect grasp of Wikipolicy; Arzel didn't think it was worth of an RFC, yet an hour later he files one; the description/POV presentation of the issue is completely out of line and is the quintessential demonstration of my problem with Arzel: he pushes an agenda whenever possible; when questioned about the validity of the RFC, instead of discussing the issue he goes into a rant about how he has been mistreated. All this only validates my concern -- this RFC is more about other editors than it is any valid issue regarding this article (and your comments indicate you recognize the same). I don't think we need to know the exact reason he changed his mind to recognize (by explicit and implicit evidence outlined above) that this is a malformed and inappropriate RFC issued because of something other than the issue at hand (QEDin bad faith). /Blaxthos 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As you're well aware by now, I will bend over backward to continue to assume good faith with editors. It has bitten me in the rear end in the past (one situation you are well aware of), and will probably do so in the future. What can I say, I like to see issues resolved through consensus. ;). Ramsquire(throw me a line) 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, a quality I admire and respect especially in the face of the evidence you acknowledge is to the contrary. If you don't mind having a few scars on the tushy, even more respect is earned. /Blaxthos 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyways... it should be transparent that the quote is acceptable. The editor who has a problem with the statement doesn't even claim it's false - he just claims it's "gotcha journalism". So what if it's a "gotcha" - Bill made the statement, and no one contests it on any grounds. Seems like a closed issue to me --Haemo 04:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Summary
I'm closing this malformed RFC as suggested by an otherwise uninvolved editor. Several editors familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines have pointed out that the initiating editor is attempting to misapply policy (and as recently as today continues to try and use such in removing acceptable content). To summarize (again): notability only covers the creation of new articles, reliably sourced comments should be deleted only if it violates NPOV - it is not Arzel's job or right (or anyone else's) to decide what criticism is or is not appropriate. It's my sincere hope that this has now been made clear, and it's my suggestion that any additional attempts to use this sort of logic to censor or cull criticism will be willfull and in bad faith. Arzel, please stop. Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you what, stop pushing minor criticism into this already bloated article and I will agree. There is a certain faction within WP that feels the need to point out every minor criticism regarding some entity they personally dislike. Arzel 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the recent edit I made was from a BLOG site, and as such is not a reputable source. Why not do a little research before instantly attacking me. Arzel 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So why not use that logic from the beginning? First you try to use WP:NOTE, then when that doesn't work you try WP:NPOV, and now you're trying WP:RS... that, my friend, is policy shopping (see below), and is indicitative of agenda pushing. If FNC apologized for the incident (which you state they did) then there is no question that the incident occured, is there? So now, what is your next attempt going to be? Time to move on, man... you're alienating yourself at this point. /Blaxthos 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Arzel's Edit Summary
So what is it Arzel? Should the objectionable text be deleted because it violates WP:NOTE, or because it is somehow POV. If it was the latter, why not say so at the beginning instead of stating your opinion that it was trivial and not notable? Finally, before you accuse me of POV pushing (if you even know what that means, and based on your comment, I doubt it) why don't you read a little about me on my userpage. Then ask yourself which POV I am pushing. Great way to turn on the one editor who was willing to argue with other editors and actually willing to discuss things with you and help you out. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Another scar on the tushie, eh? :-) Policyshopping (repeatedly trying to justify the same change using different policies/guidelines) is the quintessential example of agenda pushing... It's obvious he either doesn't understand the policy, or willfully ignores/misinterprets them when it suits his agenda. No worries, if this continues, I will seek an RFC on his conduct. /Blaxthos 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
LMAO... I guess so. I guess I need to start wearing padded pants. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And the personal attacks just keep coming. Ramsquire, if you are so neutral then you would not have been so quick to revert my change. A blog reference is clearly not a reliable source. I know you are quick to reference WP:NOTE, however if you use the direct definition of the word notable you would see that this, among others, is not notable, and has no place in a supposed encylopedia. I accused you of POV because of your response to my edit. I suppose I should have also included the WP:RS at the same time, but didn't think it was neccessary at the time. Now you accuse me of turning on you, when you (admittedly wrongly) responded to a comment I left on my own talk page (which I felt was an instance of trolling). In the meantime I made my edit, and then you appologized. Blaxthos, I'll save you the trouble. Arzel 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
PA? Trolling? Screw you Arzel. I didn't know there was an appropriate period to wait before making an edit. And I can only respond to what you write, unlike you I lack the ability to read minds. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to urge everyone here to relax. There is no need for saying "screw you" to anyone. And ad hominems will get us nowhere either. Perhaps the best course of action here would be to submit an RFI, state the essential argument for both sides, and let new editors take it from here. This is rapidly descending into a bitter, personal problem here. We don't want that to happen, do we? Parsecboy 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus stands somewhere around six supporting/one oppose for inclusion of the O'Reilly and Turner comments. I'm not filing any Requests for [Fill in the Blank], because I (and most of this page's editors) hold that the article is fine. It's up to Arzel to file anything further. Italiavivi 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
FTR- I agree that there is a certain nitpicky nature to some of the additions to this and other articles on Wikipedia (and if I had my druthers there are tons of things in this article I would delete). However, what distinguishes me from others is a) I understand that my opinion is not sufficient to remove reliably sourced contents, b) I will assume good faith until it is specifically shown to not exist (i.e. I take people's positions at face value and try not to imply motives, c) if I am wrong, I try to be honest and say so and d) I follow the policies and guidelines. To sum up, although I don't like everything in an article, I am not going to support someone deleting sourced information when they can't even come up with an actual reason for deletion with reasons at one point in time being "non-notable", "gotcha journalism", "trivial", "NPOV", "POV", "undue weight", "it's from a blog", "I don't like it", "you are biased", and so on and so forth. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
John Conyers
I am not going to debate any further previous incidences involving myself. I still feel that the John Conyers incident falls outside of WP:NOT
'News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.'
Additionally, the statement of history of FOX confusing blacks consists of one other incidence, however Conyers does make that statement. As it currently reads it is a little biased as it doesn't reflect that this is a comment of Conyers, nor is it phrased in a neutral tone as it currently reads that there is a historical trend, which is clearly not the case. Arzel 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The source states that there is (and there are many documented instances of such). Since it's reliably sourced, I don't see the problem. Video feeds of multiple instances are available from the source linked, should you wish to verify this yourself. /Blaxthos 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the source, and am quite certain there was only one other incident mentioned. Being it was a MM source (which is quick to note anything they don't like about FNC), I would be surprized if there exists other incidents that they do not know of. In any case sites like MM and Newshounds are not looked favorably at my work, so I will have to check later. Are you going to address the other issue? I am willing to look past previous transgressions and begin anew, but I need to see some evidence of neutrality, so long as this reference remains libelous I cannot move forward, and I am not going to fix it. Arzel 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Libelous"? You might want to check the definition... it has to be untrue to be libel. ;-) Anyway, the existance of other incidents don't matter (two is enough, IMHO), but since the source of that criticism is Congressman Conyers himself, the rest doesn't matter. His quote is on the record everywhere, and to be clear for you: Congressman Conyers is criticising FNC, not Media Matters. It doesn't really matter if your work "looks favorably" upon media matters or not. FTR, I added information about the apologies, per your request. /Blaxthos 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to this article as being libelous in that it stated no appology had been made, when two had been. I think it still reads a little like editoral, but thanks for adding the reference. Arzel 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Chris Wallace/Bill Clinton interview
Someone should put the mention of the interview between the two it was a heated argument and clinton came out and basicly called fox news conservitive hitmen out to get him. I would put it myself but i wouldnt know the correct place to put it. here's a link to the video on youtube in case anyone wants to see it. Youtube Video—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljackson (talk • contribs)
I have to agree -- this incident was widely covered in the media (Olbermann, Stewart off the top of my head; I'm sure there is some print media coverage as well) and being that it's a former U.S. president that is issuing the criticism makes it significant. I believe we can source the interview itself (primary source) because his criticism was issued on-air with FNC. I'll leave it to others to do the actual legwork (for now)... /Blaxthos 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
weasel words
supposedly ... so-called ... there seem to be a lot of weasel words in this article, I think they do need to be cut down --IvanKnight69 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeremy Glick
Shouldn't there be some mention of the Jeremy Glick interview here? --81.178.233.111 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Relevance Of Frank O'Donnell's Statements
I removed the section, simply because it is irrelevent and misleading to have the statements of someone who worked for a a news operation at a FOX Entertainment Network affialtes, and not Fox News, as as Fox News doesn't own, or even have any control or influence whatsoever over news programming at FOX affilates. If anyone has any issues with this, please bring this up, I really think it is misleading to have it in the article, and it's no more relevant than having something about MSNBC or CNN or Spongebob Squarepants. The infomation I removed should be added to the article about the WTTG FOX affilate though. --IvanKnight69 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The section you removed was both properly sourced and relevant. The article mentions that Fox does not control affiliate content, however each entity is inherently tied to the Fox brand. Solution isn't to remove it entirely, but to put it in proper context (which it does). Reverted -- I also removed the commentary (improper grammar) you inserted. /Blaxthos 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Notable Material Not Covered
I think some sections of this article need to be expanded, it would be nice to have some of the on air 'fights' mentioned in some capacity, such as the ones between O'Reilly and Glick, O'Reilly and Geraldo, Julie Banderas and Shirley Phelps-Roper as I'm sure they notable controversies that have a place on this page. --IvanKnight69 15:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that address them? I have no issue against inclusion, as long as all material is attributed properly. /Blaxthos 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Glick's entry contains references pertaining to the interview. You pretty much just have to enter something like "fox news jeremy glick" to get thousands of hits and numerous reliable sources anyway. --81.178.118.120 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed this section title, without removing any of the information in the article. I don't think it is fair to take criticism and/or jokes about two politicians and make this kind of generalization. Steve Dufour 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons
I put the "blp" box on the article yesterday. It's true that this article is not a biography, but still it is about living persons and the WP policies about writing about living persons apply to it. Steve Dufour 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is, Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This article contains significant biographical material, making the use of the "blp" box on this talk page appropriate. -- Jreferee(Talk) 01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
naming
wouldn't it be more accurate to call this "criticism of fox news channel", since "controversy" is vague and implies a dispute as an event. That would be in line with Criticism of Wikipedia, where the criticism is an accusation of bias and a controversy would be a fight over the bias, but some of the criticisms are fairly uncontroversial, which is why I find the name silly. We need to discourage silliness like "controversy was generated" which is vague, uninformative, and is completely misleading if the criticism went unresponded to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Night. Use of "criticism" "controversies" etc. is one of my POV pet peeve. Per critique usage note, critique is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context. While it is possible for criticism to be an NPOV evaluation or judgment of something, it more often degrades into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic. Critique is a somewhat elevated term for criticism and review is used as a synonym for these but may also imply a more comprehensive study.[15] Naming an article "Critique of ..." or "Review of ..." rather than "Criticism of ...." may make it easier for the article to achieve NPOV. I don't think that article whose focus is "Here is all the reason's why some people think Fox News Channel is bias" could ever be NPOV. -- Jreferee(Talk) 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see the reason for such a long article either. It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be to give basic information about a topic. Not to keep an inventory of everything some people don't like about it. Steve Dufour 05:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is hardly an "inventory." Every single incident listed must still pass the tests of notability and being reliably sourced. That the article is long is evidence of how widespread the controversy has become, not an indication of frivolous "inventory." Italiavivi 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
But what is an "incident"? That someone of Fox said something and someone else complained about it? Steve Dufour 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am asking you for clarification's sake: Are you asserting (by your "inventory" comment and stated preference for "basic" content only) that there are WP:N or WP:V problems within this article? I want to make sure I know where you are coming from. Italiavivi 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not any kind of expert on WP policy. However, it seems to me that an encyclopedia should be a place where people go to find out basic information on a subject. For instance on Fox News it could be: who owns it, when was it founded, how big is it, who are some of its important people, what influence it has had, what people say about it (including "it is too right-wing" and "it is not a good source of accurate news" and "it is controversial"), and things like that. I don't think you can include everything every person who appears on their programs says that causes a controversy of some kind. What if you did that for the New York Times or Time Magazine? Or imagine WP in 100 years. If Fox is still around how long will this article be? I would, however, be in favor of a link to another website with this kind of criticism or controversy list included in the main article on Fox News. Steve Dufour 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And I am saying that if there is notability backed up by reliable sources, such things should be included. Wikipedia covers what is notable (and reliably sourced), not just the basics (or so it seems to me). Italiavivi 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Steve Dufour. People or Organizations with which some people have serious issues tend to include every little incident of issue into their article regarldess of context using "notable" as an excuse. Much of what is here, and elsewhere, will be non-notable in the future, however that is irrelevant to many people within WP (which is the main problem with WP). Aside from being a "I don't like it" WP is a "I don't like them" place to introduce any and all criticism regarding an individual or organization. Arzel 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For better or for worse, WP:N applies to the creation of articles, not as a tool to cull out criticism you think is unwarranted. /Blaxthos 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that is your interpretation of notability, but I feel you are misguided in this interpretation. This is certainly not how a real encyclopedia works, and if WP ever wants the respeact of one we should follow their (real encyclopedias) guidelines. Far too often WP becomes Gosipedia, where any little incident which has been published somewhere is determined notable. And if there is a debate on the notability the action of debate somehow makes the incident notable. Arzel 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the community's implementation of our policies. You may feel that the project is misguided, but it's still how you wish things were instead of how they actually are. Several editors have now explained this to you. /Blaxthos 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps those several editors should take a step back and see the forest for the trees, which is exactly what I have done for the past few weeks (see my edit history). Remember WP:NOT for the inclusion of notability. Work with me, I am trying to make WP a better place, don't assume otherwise. Arzel 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
FTR-- I agree that notability should determine what goes into an article, but unfortunately, verifiability trumps notability for article content. If anyone can point me to a guideline or policy that says otherwise, please do so. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Steve Dufour is arguing for a page identical to the Fox News Channel page that includes a link to this controversies page. Clearly, such an article that meets Steve's guidelines for being "encyclopedic" already exists.
This controversies page, however, is warranted by the fact that many, if not all, of the controversies mentioned on this page made impacts on large, sometimes international scales. Fox News, through its selective reporting and inclusion of personal opinion into supposedly factual reports, creates controversy every single day. If this page cited every single time any liberal got offended and spoke out against some report or some opinion given by FNC, clearly this controversies page would be infinitely long and would cease to pass many of Wiki's guidelines for a reasonable article. However, this page does not mention "any little incident which as been published somewhere" involving FNC. Reports that have been proven false by other news outlets, employees whom have been forced to quit by what they feel as obvious bias, and other such controversies are certainly worth mentioning on a WP page regarding FNC controversies.
I will agree that not every little incident caused by FNC should be mentioned in a WP controversies page, and accordingly, this page does not list every little incident.
BareAss 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Cont@ct 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Cont@ct 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
