Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

FAIR and MMfA

FAIR and MMFA both describe themselves as Progressive (see liberal) groups. To say that FNC recieves criticism from interest groups without context of who they are is disengenious. Furthermore with the recent complaints by Democratic presidential contenders about FNC it is common knowledge that Democrats and liberals alike criticize FNC for what they claim is a conservative bias. Another alternative would be to label them by what they do, which is crititize those they feel are conservatively biased. Both groups state that they look only for what they feel is conservative bias. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a huge number of blanket statements in your comment that you need to document. To focus on the subject you need to find references that: One, that when they describe themselves as progressive that they by progressive means liberal (both of those terms are extremely vague, they can mean anything). Two, that they only look for conservative bias, only MMfA has stated anything like that. Carewolf (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean? FAIR declares themselves as Progressive on their own website, as does MMfA. Progressive is used interchangably with Liberal under almost all circumstances as an anti-thesis to conservative. I challenge that they are extremely vague, especially under the context by which FNC is criticized as being conservatively biased. Lets look at it another way. To say that they are "interest groups" implies a political agenda. FAIR and MMfA accuse FNC of taking a viewpoint consistant with Conservatives (ie Republicans). FAIR and MMfA both claim to be Progressive (ie Democratic, Liberal). Perhaps I should ask why you feel the label is unwarrented when both groups are quite proud of it themselves. Arzel (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, when does this ever end? You are not going to start labelling or characterizing the critics of FNC, not on the Fox News Channel article, not here, not anywhere on Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's sourced, he certainly can. Arkon (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only can. Should. Andyvphil (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OP I agree with you, why list idiots like freaken Media Matters, the most progressive loons on the planet as opposers to Fox. Also, they list freaking HOWARD DEAN?? The most liber politicion ever? Do they see their hypocrasy? They will chastise Fox all day becasue it actually shows some right wing ideas, but let MSNBC and their ridiculous left wing support pass on buy. Freaking hypocrite politicians.

I am still to see MSNBC manipulate photos, have previous employees talk about the executives manipulating the journalism and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.125.166 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is your focus on MMfA and FAIR being added to articles and not MRC, the conservative equivalent? And other than that, MRC, MMfA, and FAIR are fine sources and there are nothing wrong with them.

-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass Effect

Apparently Fox news made some hiddeously untrue statements about Mass Effect and very biased statements about games in general. I wonder where we should put this into the article.

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/22/1993/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU

Father Time89 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FNC is known for presenting issues in a decidedly biased way. That being said, of course they seemed to misrepresent the issue and make some false claims. However, in the large scheme of things this is just another minute example of a very vast problem and probably does not rise to the level necessary for inclusion. Should you find a reliable source that is critical of this exchange further discussion might be warranted, but for now it's probably a violation of WP:OR in general, and WP:SYN specfically. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why you can't provide a NPOV for this article. You literally just gave away your bias.PokeHomsar (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this is a very good example of falsities made by Fox News. We can use Jeff Brown's letter of view the game itself as a source.

link: http://kotaku.com/348187/ea-calls-fox-out-on-insulting-mass-effect-inaccuracies (letter from Vice President of Communication at EA that is critical of this exchange) 70.185.107.180 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see so far we have EA (the publisher) and the ECA (a consumer group).

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/24/ea-calls-out-fox-news-over-mass-effect-smear/

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/28/ecas-hal-halpin-calls-on-fox-news-to-retract-mass-effect-story/

And one of the speakers in the segment has since retracted her statements whilst Fox News has said nothing.

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect/

Do you think this makes it good enough for inclusion, (and to be fair the issue is still ongoing so it is not too late for Fox News to say something in the matter)? Father Time89 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Falsities? Why the hell are you quibbling about this when many people like the ACLU idiots and media matters drones are trying to turn us into france. Sure, Fox got mass effect wrong (I like that game quite a bit actually} but its not enough to say "I'd say this is a very good example of falsities made by Fox News. We can use Jeff Brown's letter of view the game itself as a source." I mean, what the heck is that? You are basically saying "HAW since fox got something on a game slightly right it suddenly verifies all those things my friends at the ACLU and Nambla said!! YAY lets go smear Fox on wikipedia!." Well maybe next time you should think and look at all the CRAP "FALSITIES" MSNBC puts out everyday such as using false polls to show Obama in the lead, and their huge SUPPORT of the left wing. So before you go out on a left leg and smear Fox, get your facts straight so that you dont look like a hypcritical moron.

Turn us into France? STFU you hypocritical moron unlike your dumbass they have presented evidence for their arguement. You must come from one of Glen Beck's republican zombie hordes. Why you don't you stfu and go eat up everything Fox feeds you, hurry up go back to your tv you uneducated moron.68.218.140.174 (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul reporting

I believe that the plentiful criticism of Fox News' coverage of Republican candidate Ron Paul is notable of an edit. Please tell me your thoughts and I would be happy to include it. --Screwball23 talk 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are the critics? are there any reputable critics? Paul has 2% in the Florida polls. Any comments that he is not a real contender are valid. Bytebear (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He came in second in either Nevada of South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Any comments that he is not a real contender are valid"' This is not the place to float your political opinions, bytebear, and your POV is (again) noted. Regarding the actual issue at hand, I'm sure that any dedicated editor could find more than a few articles regarding this (at which point it will be included). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its not a place to float YOUR political opinons, Blaxthos, as anyone willing to write about a controversy with Ron Paul is wasting time. He was a Socialist masquerading as a republican, and Paul was not strong enough have a good talk on Fox as his real ideals would be revealed through the interviewing of O'reilly, hannity, and others. Is it not right for a news station to show how a candidate is not what he seems? Atleast they let the public know about him while other stations just sat by. Besides, Paul was one of the least voted for candidates, and its not surprising to see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.38.244 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The media in general, not just Fox, marginalized reporting on Ron Paul not due to any political bias, but because he was seen as a very minor candidate that would never attract enough of a following to be a viable candidate (ie., a candidate with a realistic chance of winning the presidency, or even the candidacy of a major party) and thus wasn't worthy of major coverage. History has proven this to be a correct assessment. Ron Paul not only failed to win the presidency but did not even win the Republican nomination; nor did he even come close to doing so. It's fact now, not opinion. 24.8.163.253 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mort Kondracke

Under the Criticisms of Individuals section, Mort Kondracke is identified as a moderate. According to who? That's pure opinion and not backed up. What I don't understand here is why it's necessary that somebody should have to be a "far left" liberal to be a liberal. I mean Hillary Clinton can be considered a Centrist/Moderate, but you wouldn't hear any complaining if she filled Kondracke's seat. The whole section should be edited.Flproject131 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about his political leanings, but the section was linked to a topic that had nothing to do with the section (MM link was not relevant to the criticism). Second link was to Think Progress, which is a Blog site. So I removed the section all together. Arzel (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

The section on Richard Dawkins also says quote "When Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, who is an outspoken atheist, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, he was simply labeled: "Atheist".[98]" I don't see how that is a conservative controversy. The man is an atheist, it's not a crime to label him as such on the television screen. This could possibly be reworded in a better way or removed all together. Flproject131 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and it has been removed. For one, it was simply a link to YouTube without any actual criticism. Additionally, the actual video didn't just label him as an Atheist, it switched back and forth between Atheist and Author. He was on the program specifically discussing views relating to his atheism, and his book which are both relevant to the labels he was given. Ultimately this appears to be OR. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; there has been criticism on this point and will be re-inserted with appropriate citations in the near future. Also, please refrain from simply removing with the summary "removing youtube", as youtube is a delivery vehicle (not the actual source); cite the specific issue instead of blanket removal of sources that are delivered via youtube. In this particular instance the statement you removed violated WP:OR, not because the segment carried was via youtube. If the youtube video was of a reliable source/critic uttering criticism of the athiest(/author) issue then it would have been proper. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I still don't see what the problem (nor has it really been addressed) of why it is inappropriate to label somebody as an Atheist on TV when they are exactly that. It's hardly a controversy. It's just nitpicking at Fox. Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and its not inappropriate for Fox to label him as such. However, it may have been MORE appropriate to label him an author and atheist, but that doesn't make it inappropriate to label him an atheist. Anybody who really thinks this is a controversy has to have an anti-Fox agenda here.Flproject131 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They actually did label him both an Author and an Atheist for what appeared to be about equal time. It is nit-picking by FNC haters. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of the criticism is irrelevant. The fact that it is criticism (or will be, once it's reliably sourced) is the crux of the issue. Again, your ad hominem characterization of those who support said criticism as "nit-picking by FNC haters" is yet another example of inappropriate behavior. When will it end, Arzel? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is no more irrelevant than yours. Why not get off your high horse. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't try to use my opinion of criticism to remove it from articles; you do. I try to remember that it's not my opinion (or yours) that means anything. The criticism exists, is germane, neutrally presented, and reliably sourced. Just because you think "It is nit-picking by FNC haters" does not give you any justification to remove it. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've explained this to you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's controversial for this reason: I'm from Tennessee where, as in many places, the word "Atheist" provokes a knee-jerk negative reaction, especially among the religious conservatives who dominate the state. Atheists go to hell, along with anyone foolish enough to listen to their blasphemy. Dawkins could have been more accurately labeled "Doctor of Science" or "Evolutionary Biologist." But then, religious conservatives might have been fooled into listening to him, instead of dismissing everything he had to say out of hand. An analogy would be having President Obama on Fox News to talk about African American issues and labeling him, "Liberal Black Activist". What's wrong with that? I mean, that's what he is, right?Pisomojado (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Until Fox identifies everyone in their intros by their religious affiliation (ie: Donald Rumsfeld, Lutheran or Ann Coulter, Scientologist ::both just random examples!::) it is disingenuous to list perceived religious affiliations for certain guests and to ignore same with other guests. It is part of a "priming" or "shaping" strategy where people who are "identified" are separated from the average person by these labels and the lack of those labels on other guest presuppose that no label is required because they are "like you." In actuality, using labels specific to a person's religious affiliation would create some bias, even if the identified person was a member of a typical denomination of a common religious order.

If, for example, someone is Lutheran or Methodist, identifying a guest in their intro as "Southern Baptist" might influence the watcher and their perception of the accuracy, validity or context of statements even if they are not specifically addressing topics of religion. If one, for a theoretical example, a news network, were to identify *only* atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jain (yes, it is a religion, look it up!) then it works as a blunt instrument to divide "us" , the unlabeled, from "them" the labeled.

If the news piece is centered around a topic in which religion is a major piece (say the Ryan Report of abuse in Catholic reform schools in Ireland), identification of one speaker as "Catholic" would be appropriate. However it would be JUST AS NECESSARY to identify a strong critic of the speaker (the counterpoint) as to their religious affiliation. The presumption that the Catholic speaker is influence by bias, but the other speaker who is unlabeled is not would be an incorrect perception. For example, if the critic were an Irish Protestant, one could assume some animosity to the Catholic speaker, if the critic shows that tendency in what they say. Divorced from the "Protestant" label, the critic carries a presumption of neutrality where one may not exist. It allows the viewer to ignore the "differences" between critic and viewer and presume that there is a general agreement between the critic and viewer on their respective viewpoints. This is "shaping" behavior and is subtle. It allows the "theoretical" news network to claim balance while actually influencing perceptions within a story labeled as "news." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.98.164 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I had to watch the video of this interview to be sure I knew exactly what the controversy was. As far as I can tell Richard Dawkins' label of atheist related to the topic of the interview in a very direct way. Bill O'Reilly, acting as the counterpoint to Richard Dawkins, clearly states his religious affiliation. Whether or not either speaker is labeled or not, their religious affiliations are made apparent by the subject matter alone. The fact is that neutrality does not exist under any circumstance and I agree that this should be re-instated with proper citations (if such citations exist.) 72.219.176.29 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Brit Hume

"Brit Hume created controversy when he made the misleading claim that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California". Based on population, rather than unit area, a United States soldier in Iraq is actually 60 times more likely to be killed than an individual in California."

Both sources lead back to the original column by Brit Hume, and a criticism by Al Franken. You can't get any more biased than that. This is another section that needs to be edited or deleted entirely. Flproject131 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show the policy that suggests criticism by Al Franken is to be removed? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a policy, but if your trying to make a fair criticism Al Franken is hardly the person to use. The man is a self professed liberal. There isn't one person in the middle that would agree that a criticism by Al Franken serves a neutral purpose. Controversies occur when there is some kind of consensus amongst everybody from all sides of the political spectrum about the issue (like the discredited military contributor). There is no controversy when Al Franken says I don't like Fox News. Thats merely his opinion. And any numbers that come from Iraq that he disagrees with also fall within his opinion. Flproject131 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The first four words of your reply are sufficient. The rest is completely irrelevant -- please see our core policies and guidelines for additional explaination why. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to argue policy it violates Wikipedia:neutral point of view. You know it and I'm going to continue to fight for this to be a neutral article. The entire article should be renamed to Media Matters Criticisms of Fox News, because thats where about half the sources are coming from. To quote, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."Flproject131 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about Al Franken; now it's morphed into "the entire article should be renamed to Media Matters Criticism of Fox News". I'm sorry if you disagree with the criticism, but that's not justification to excise criticism. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive warning

Notice to Arzel and Flproject131: Please don't start agreeing with each other, calling it a consensus, and begin removing proper & compliant information. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos. Please don't start with your assumption of Non-Good-Faith. Arzel (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes to this page at all, I've merely brought up important discussion points to make this a much more neutral and fair criticism of Fox News.Flproject131 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is assumed until there is reason to doubt such. That being said, I'm simply suggesting that you attempt to be more inclusive of established editors' opinions before falling into the pattern described above. It certainly would help assauge any worries of bad faith.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout - why not use sub-headings instead of bullet lists?

Surely we should use sub-headings instead of bullet lists? It is impossible to create a new paragraph within lists - and sometimes, for the sake of readability alone, that is required. Subheadings can be as small as you want - you can even use can use up to 5 of these '=====' - giving the same effect as bold: Smallest heading.

You don't have to use the sizes in sequence - ie. sub headings under a section heading can be any size you choose.

We are given these headings for this purpose, why not use them? Bullet lists are designed for a point or list system, where the elements are related in some way - not to separate different topics, like how we're using them now.

Sometimes heading can be hard to get right, granted - but we should stick to the style guidelines here, IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacking FNC viewers???

I don't see how what the viewers believe is relevant to the bias of the network, rather it shows the political beliefs of the viewers. I don't think anyone is going to question that more right-of-center people choose to watch Fox News than left-of-center people, just like more left-of-center people would listen to NPR or watch Public Broadcasting. That doesn't prove or disprove network bias. Conservative-thinking people would be more willing to believe that there was a link between AQ and Iraq, or that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction. That doesn't really warrant mentioning in the article at all. It neither proves nor disproves a systematic bias by the network, rather it simply means nothing. Sadistik (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This information you refer to wasn't stating that people that watch Fox News have conservative opinions, it was that they believe things to be true which aren't. Which reflects somewhat on Fox News' ability to inform. In saying "Conservative-thinking people would be more willing to believe that there was a link between AQ and Iraq, or that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction." you're saying that Conservative-thinking people are more likely to be ignorant, which is obviously POV without sources, and shouldn't be reflected in the editing of the article other, e.g. by the removal on information regarding the viewers beliefs. --88.108.232.211 (talk)

What the heck do you mean True "which aren't". I would like you to give me examples on how Fox misinforms the people. Also, your remark that conservatives would be more likely to believe that is FALSE and stupid. Bushs approval rating at the time of that announcement was around 80%, showing that all types of people believed the news, and there was no reason to not believe it at the time. All stations, not just Fox aired that info you Hypcrite.

06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you could temporally segregate those beliefs to a time when everyone was ignorant in the general population as to the validity of statements like "Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq" you might have a point. However, a large percentage of Fox viewers believe (because they are told to disbelieve other news sources) that WMD's were actually found in Iraq, even today. I have relatives that email all kinds of stuff to me, culled from Fox transcripts that suppose, allude or just *say* that WMD's were found in Iraq. This is not a difference in "interpretation." It is the espousing of a viewpoint based on a falsehood. In less neutral terms, a "LIE". The poll cited is making the point that people who are avid Fox viewers are clinging to false beliefs and that there is a strong correlation between their loyalty to Fox News and their belief in "false-facts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.98.164 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE" I would like you to give me examples on how Fox misinforms the people." Ok, but just one today.

Actually not just misinforms, LIES TO. During the Republican Convention, Fox reported that the teleprompter used by Sarah Palin failed and that she delivered her whole speech from memory. NO. Falsehood. Lie? Hmmm, Maybe just misinformed at that point. But proved to be false. In the days after the speech, the statement was debunked quickly. At this point, just an inaccurate statement, we presume.

On Sept. 4, 2008, Journalist Jonathan Martin wrote- Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech. But I was sitting in the press section next to the stage, within easy eyeshot of the teleprompter. I frequently looked up at the machine, and there was no serious malfunction. A top convention planner confirms this morning that there were no major problems.

Erickson writes that the same malfunction happened during Rudy Giuliani's speech earlier in the night. Again, I watched the teleprompter during this speech, and it worked without problem. Giuliani, as is his wont, simply decided to go off-script and add some new lines, such as one attacking Obama for his "bitter" comments.

So it was generally debunked as false. So we go forward to "fast-forward" to this year, 2009, APRIL.

On camera (look it up), as part of a story about Obama and teleprompters, Glen Beck says about that speech, and I quote, "Do you remember Sarah Palin's teleprompter "acted up" during her acceptance speech. Remember this is the first time on the national stage, butterflies and everything.And remember she's the dummy that doesn't know Russia is a country. She gave the whole speech without it! We all watched in amazement, in the few places that actually reported it." This is a lie. If Beck doesn't know, that would make him an idiot. My opinion is that this is a falsehood that helps the "Sarah Palin Story", a myth that Fox will keep reporting until it's viewer assume it must be true. There you go, bud, misinformed PLUS. There are plenty more. You are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.98.164 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Synthesis

Arzel has once again tried to cull valid criticism, with this in the edit summary: "Source was from 2004 and did not mention this study. Too be sure MM attacked CMPA, but this is SYNTH in this form.". The text removed is the following:

Media Matters has attacked the credibility of the study, claiming that it was "funded by right-wing foundations and conducted by individuals with conservative ties."

I have re-instated for the following reasons:

1. There is no synthesis going on here. There is a direct quote from the source, and Arzel himself admits that "Too[sic] be sure MM attacked CMPA". The accusation of synthesis of thought carries absolutely no weight, and I am having trouble understanding how Arzel even draws that conclusion.
2. The fact that the reference is three and a half years old is of no consequence. Wikipedia relies on reliability and verifiability, not recentism.

Arzel, before you go removing any more information using buzzwords in edit summaries please bring them up on talk and ask for the community's input. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. My comment in the summary should have stated "To be sure MM HAS attacked CMPA in the past."
2. Well how about the fact that it reads like Synth by stating that MM criticized THAT study, when in fact they have not, they have criticized CMPA in the past. Hardly the same thing.

So. Please tell me how comments made by MM in 2004 can possibly criticize a study done in 2007? Arzel (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional searching has shown that MM has made no comment on this study. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the study (as referenced IN THE ARTICLE) has been ongoing since 1988. They need not re-iterate the same criticism every year. Restored. As stated before, since this is a contentious article, please consult with the community before attempting to remove sourced information./Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Read what MM has said. They were not criticizing the CMPA study on presidential elections, nor where they criticizing previous CMPA studies regarding presidential elections. That link has NOTHING to do with that study. There is no requirement that discussion be required to remove patently false information. I see now that you have changed the wording to fit your POV regarding the issue, but that doesn't make it any better, as it is still a Synthesis of material. Unless you can find a somewhere that MM has talked about this issue specifically it has to go. Arzel (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is not an article on CMPA, so if you want to take this coat and put it in the CMPA article, go right ahead. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guy, but you're just plain wrong. There is no "patently false information", as your own edit summary specifically admits. When you're trying to use the CMPA study to refute information contained in this article it is absolutely appropriate to include challenges to CMPA's methodology and objectivity. Now, for the last time, ask for the community's input before scrubbing content. Why is that so hard for you? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets review.

1. The statement read originally "Media Matters has attacked the credibility of the study, claiming that it was "funded by right-wing foundations and conducted by individuals with conservative ties". Now as I pointed out, the ref did not mention the study. The ref, in fact, is unrelated to the subject entirely. I removed the information because 1) it did not reflect what the ref said, plus the ref was referring to Krauthammer and Barnes miss-representing a Pew Study in 2004 when this is related to a 2007 study.
2. You, Blaxthos, reverted my good faith edit without even examing why I did what I did.
3. I removed again, because of the previous reasons.
4. You, reverted again, chaning the wording to "Media Matters has attacked the credibility of CMPA studies, claiming that they are 'funded by right-wing foundations and conducted by individuals with conservative ties.'" However, the link is still unrelated to the paragraph for which it is included. You reinserted Synthesis of Material.
5. I removed again, because of the previous reasons.
6. You reverted again, in viloation of the 3RR. Again inserting the Synthesis of Material.::::::Now, I ask you, why do you feel I need community input to remove information that is both incorrect, and Synthesis of material? Arzel (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your (incorrect) accusation of WP:3RR violation, simply see this reply. Regarding the rest... Isn't it possible that maybe your interpretation is just plain wrong? Especially given your past track record on these sorts of issues, I would hope that you would be more willing to listen to community input... this certainly wouldn't be the first time that your ideas were refuted by the community. Consensus is not what you alone think, and I should certainly hope you'd be more willing to consult the community before making controversial changes. Yet again you've shown you're more interested in enforcing removal of material unflattering to things related to FNC than you are in finding out what consensus acutally is. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, you did not revert more than 3 times. This however, does not validate your continued insertion of synthesis of material. Nor does it excuse your intitial revert of mine reverting to include again a false statement. You have still not explained how MM's position is germaine to this issue when they did not even comment specifically on it. Arzel (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction

I've reviewed the material for a third time, and I have to retract. The source does specifically cite a past poll, and I can see how Arzel wants to limit the criticism to one particular poll. A more specific source needs to be found. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it and seeing what I have been trying to say. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons

Should thier censorship of the simpsons be mentioned? or thier treatment of obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain Daily Show removal

Someone removed the part in this entry about an episode of the Daily Show critical of Fox News. Why was it removed? I've tried putting it back but get reverted as soon as I do so. The initial edit summary said that the Daily Show is not reliable, but there is no reliability issue here since no one is trying to use the Daily Show as a source of facts but only to source its own "criticism" of Fox News. The next edit summary said "agree" with the last guy and now I'm hearing that my own POV opinions do not belong here. Can someone explain this, because there is no reliability issue nor does this have anything to do with my opinions? Perhaps there is too much space given to the mention of this episode, but at the very least shouldn't we have a one liner about being criticized by a notable political satire show?PelleSmith (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem was that I used the wrong summary for my edit. The thing is, the Daily Show is a comedy show, and so things that Jon Stewart and the other comedians say in the course of reporting the fake news should not be considered to be reliable, except as an indicator of what the writers of the Daily Show think their audience will find funny. It's not even reliable as to what the Daily Show staff actually believes. Do people seriously believe "Randolph was a quarterback of war; Murdoch — he's a cheerleader." Maybe, maybe not... but the fact that it was said on the Daily Show tells us nothing.

Now, if there was a "In Popular Culture" section, then it might make sense to include this there. But it shouldn't be lumped in with people who are legitimately criticizing the network. — PyTom (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for straightening that out. However I still say that reliability is not an issue here, and I don't think anyone is taking John Stewart literally in the example you site which is a claim that sits at the foundation of your new explanation. The Daily Show is a political satire show, and as such does what satire has done for centuries, utilize comedy to offer social critique. In other words the Daily Show is not just some "fake news" show that panders to the whims of its audience by whatever means necessary to get a laugh. This would be like saying that any show offering social or political critique, however "serious" it may seems on its face, is simply a show that maximizes utility by pandering to media consumers of one kind or another. Do you think that the (liberal) audience of the Daily Show doesn't actually take something substantive out of this show? Do you think its all just a laugh to them? Do you seriously think it is for Stewart? He's dead serious with his critiques, however "funny" they may seem in presentation. His critics and his fans certainly know this. The fact that he gets a laugh while doing this should not be a basis to discount what he has to say, and there is a long historical tradition of various forms of satire that backs this up. What's next? Are we going to claim that Mark Twain's "War Prayer" wasn't actually a critique of what he saw as the religious and patriotic fervor motivating war? I'm sorry but the fact that its comedy doesn't change anything. Its notable critique. I might agree that the length and detail of what was originally there is unnecessary. How do you feel about a one liner instead?PelleSmith (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There must be some threshold for inclusion, otherwise every and any barb directed at FNC could be placed in the article. Since this particulary satire has not received any independant mainstream coverage, listing it here comes awfully close to trivia. The fact that the Daily Show is a critic of FNC can be noted in the article but to get into a specific skit or criticism without outside independant sourcing may not be the best way to go. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i think what was written was ok in itself but it seemed like it was more suited to a trivia section (which is not really encouraged) or as another person said a "In Popular Culture" section. compared to more serious studies etc this bit just seems out of place and not really a worthwhile entry. Perry mason (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsquire. It'd be hard to demonstrate why this particular criticism is any more notable than any other jokes directed at FNC. The Daily Show has actually done entire segments satirizing FNC, so it seems you'd have to maintain a stricter criteria for inclusion in cases like this. One good question to go on is: has the criticism itself received any "independent mainstream coverage"? --Ubiq (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, but you'll find that very few criticisms of anything mentioned here on Wikipedia have received this kind of "independent mainstream coverage." Generally when criticisms are included they are so because the source of the criticisms is notable enough, and not because the the criticisms themselves have been noted, attributed and commented on by reliable and notable third parties.PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As others have pointed on in the past, satire is a form of criticism (even if it is comedy). That doesn't necessarily mean an individual incident (especially every incident) should be covered, however I do believe that a general mention of the criticism oft mentioned on The Daily Show is appropriate (preferably via reliable secondary sources). It is not an issue of reliable sourcing (as alleged in the repeated removal), but since The Daily Show is a primary source, Ubiq is correct in noting that secondary sourcing is preferred. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A general mention that TDS has criticized FNC is probably appropriate, but as others have mentioned, specific skits should probably not be covered unless they recieve specific coverage outside the show itself. For example, the SNL fake news regarding Obama and Clinton was covered outside SNL and became a story in itself. However, TDS and others criticize through satire on a daily basis, and it becomes a point as to where the line is drawn for inclusion, less articles become littered with satirical comments from various sources. Furthermore, satire is usually in the form of an extreme point of view done for laughs, and not an objective view of the situation. Arzel (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So we agree that a one liner short reference is appropriate here? I'm not opposed to that at all and don't think that this particular mention is that noteworthy in and of itself. However, I objected to the rationale for removal, which was that the Daily show was not reliable as a source for criticism, and then as seen above because it the show is done within a humorous medium. If we can agree that these are not reasons to exclude a reference I'm more than happy to admit that this particular episode isn't necessarily notable, and or that a much more general reference to TDS is appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

POV dispute.

The article begins with five paragraphs of Democrats saying they hate Fox, followed by one paragraph depicting exceptions. This is a bias of uneven venue, ironically the same thing Fox is being accused of. The first paragraph also contains four blatant ad-hominem insults against Fox, and the fact that they are cited does not change that. What is the relevance of including them? Is Wikipedia a collection of fart jokes now? The "Wikipedia edits" section is also not noteworthy to anyone except Wikipedia contributors, and shouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia's internal edit wars are not content for external controversy. The site is world-editable. Grow the fuck up. --76.202.226.195 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many primary sources that are basically stating opinions. We need either second or third party references to comment on these accusations, or we need an independent non-bias study of the accusations. Bytebear (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we will not be performing "studies" on the criticisms. Also, the nature of this sort of article requires primary sourcing. We should, of course, limit inclusion of trivial criticism, or criticism from voices without due weight; we should not, in any case, attempt to evaluate the correctness of their assertions or "comment" on them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I don't think you understand how references work. Primary sources are never as good as commentary by secondary sources, because using primary sources introduces POV and OR. See [[1]]. Bytebear (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If we didn't use primary sources here there wouldn't be much of an article, almost the whole thing is one party criticizing FNC without a third party even talking about it. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the article needs to be paired down, or removed altogether. Bytebear (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This article screams liberal POV. My alarm went off after reading the first paragraph. This article needs to be more neutral or removed altogether.PokeHomsar (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An article titled "Fox News Channel Controversies" (emphasis added) will generally not be flattering to Fox News and that fact does not make it POV. If you want to make an article titled "Fox News Saves Little Children and Gives to the Homeless", then by all means do so, but don't call an article "liberal POV" simply because it discusses controversies. Idag (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with the way references are used. Someone saying they don't like Fox News for whatever reason isn't notable in and of itself. Even if that person is world famous (or a screaming liberal). What makes it notable is if a third party notes the comment. The references need to be reviewed and all primary sources should be removed or replaced with a third party reference. Bytebear (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This Article seems to have an extreme Left-wing Bias, this is an obvious fact, not my opinion. I would also cast my vote to have the article deleted. I appreciate the help User:Gamaliel, I'll try to look out for my mistakes in the future. 63.241.158.129 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact my updated ref points to something I did has no bearing on the fact it predates anything else of its kind.

(1) "Spam" is unsolicited. A reference that denies me my rightful credit is about as solicited as it gets.

(2) Before my first edit, this page alluded to the use of "Faux News" as a derisive term for "Fox News." I can provide an earlier instance of this derisive term. If that instance happens to be something I did, so what? If you're genuinely interested in accurately representing the history of this term, and still think my reference needs to be removed, I'd submit you need to find an ealier instance of "Faux News" online (you won't - I was the first) before doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauxnewschannel (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI. What is more important, that the content is in here, or that you get credit? That's why I reverted. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a change to the reference only. I'm not selling anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauxnewschannel (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are selling your website/blog. My only position is that YOU shouldn't be the one changing the reference to link to your website/blog since its a conflict of interest. If another non-affilliated editor did it, I wouldn't care (I barely care now, honestly). Especially since the point is that "Fauxnews" has been said, not who said it first and the Colmes/Franken tidbit is really trivial. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:SPS / WP:RS, WP:NPOV, take your pick... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume that some reverting is in order? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly. Done. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Juan Williams on Special Report

Why are Juan Williams' appearances on Special Report characterized as being rare? He is quite a common sight on the "All-Star Panel." Perhaps this ought to be changed somehow? Especially since none of it is sourced, so I'm guessing its "first person" testimony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.101.44 (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's changed by now (and should stay this way) since you're right. --Floridianed (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

According to WP:V information added to it must be supported by reliable sources. I am basing my entry on what my sources state. If you want to change my edit, then please provide your own sources. But please do not misquote the source used. I am using the language of the source I provided, not what editors of the article believe to be the case. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I got a reliable source. It is better to find a source which does not employ waffly language like "apparently doctored," especially in situations where journalistic integrity are involved. What I am saying is that you are morally responsible for misleading people by using a weak source and not finding a better one. (Also, I was not quoting. If you were quoting, you should have used quotation marks. Not using quotation marks would be plagiarism.)JohnKoziar (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. It's not a good idea to label yourself as a troll within your first ten posts. My edit is from the first independant report of the story. They couldn't use the stronger language of the Globe and Mail because the story was still developing when they wrote it, and I added it then. Assume good faith and don't be a dick by accusing people of being morally responsible of misleading people, especially when I am the one who asked for another stronger source. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, I was being serious, and I maintain my opinion. I've never read most of Wikipedia's rules, and don't care to. You are lucky in this case that I happen to have not obeyed them.JohnKoziar (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All this is an excellent example of the old "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin debate." Debating about Fox News´s "alleged" right-wingedness "controversial" is like discussing around in circles about the "controversy" of whether or not ingesting a lot of snackfoods and sugary drinks, coupled with lack of excercise causes people to become fat. AtomAnt (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pot Calling Kettle?

And which far-left-leaning individual wrote this article? Anything a moderate or conservative person says in the medda is controversial to such a person, as the comment or reported news story simply chafes against their leftist world view. Controversies? Sometimes the truth hurts, Lefties. It appears Fox News is simply self defense against an ever-more-liberal mainstream media. The groups cited as unhappy with Fox--MoveOn.org, etc., were not accurately described by the writer of this article as uber-liberal, with their own (anti-conservative) political agendas. Play fair. (Unsigned)

I don't think it is the comment or slant that bothers some people so much as the occasional blatant deception, such as the photography "controversy" discussed above. Whether or not the truth hurts isn't something one is likely to learn by watching Fox News, so much as whether or not it hurts to have uglified versions of one's face broadcast to an international audience.

I like to imagine we're all in this together, trying to make the place a bit nicer. Let's try to avoid hyphenated name-calling. JohnKoziar (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's about CONTROVERSIES of Fox News, of course it's going to talk about their CONTROVERSIES, which will, in turn, downplay Fox news. Amamamp (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

talking points

hello, could someone add the "talking points sent by the white house" section to the criticism--that is, if everything thinks it is necessary to add. I would do it myself but i broke my toe about 2 hours ago and i dont feel like doing anything but drinking pabst blue ribbon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.102.187 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Formerly Codename Colorado | The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Language Log" :
  • {{cite web| last = Lieberman| first = Mark| title = Multiplying ideologies considered harmful| publisher = Language Log|date=2005-12-23| url = http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html| accessdate = 2006-11-06}}
  • {{cite web| last = Liberman| first = Mark| title = Multiplying ideologies considered harmful| publisher = Language Log|date=2005-12-23| url = http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html| accessdate = 2006-11-06}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BST controversy

I am surprised that this is not addressed: Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_against_Fox_television. This should be included. --Xris0 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant to Fox News Channel. While both FNC and WTVT are owned by the same parent company (Fox Entertainment Group which is owned by News Corporation), they are separate entities. A controversy surrounding one is not necessarily a controversy surrounding the other. - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See also section

Could someone please explain to me why exactly we have internal links in the "See also" section going to BBC controversies, CBS controversies, CNN controversies? Is it possible that we should add controversies to other controversy pages, such as, if they exist, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Headline News, or PBS controversies? Formerly Codename Colorado | The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism from other networks?

Potentially, could we add a section detailing criticism of Fox News from other television networks? I'm thinking of Keith Olbermann. Formerly Codename Colorado | The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo manipulation

I am about to restore the deleted section of this article entitled "Photo manipulation" and delete the final paragraph, which is sourced to a blog. Wikipedia:FAIR#Images this section of WP:FAIR clearly explains why these images fall under fair use.

5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.

Clearly, the images are necessary to make discussion of the subject understandable and the fair use claims at the image pages fit entirely within the guidelines. Without the statements from the blog, there's no problem with any of the sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that two of them fall under fair use. The Attack Dog picture appears to fail 1.

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

The other two do appear to satisfy all 10 criteria, but 3a states

3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

So, we should probably pick one of them. Arzel (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree/disagree partially. The "poodle" image is not required, you don't need it to understand the full story…

However, I feel that the "Redicliffe" and "Steinburg" images should stay, one would look strange in the article (why would we have one but not the other?), and I think that both images will satisfy 3a, as "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Formerly Codename Colorado | The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FOX News and the Church

Amongst all the criticisms I have seen on FOX News, one that struck me the most was the claims that FOX was too pro-life and too Catholic. While it does seem that FOX News might be susceptible to a certain kind of social conservatism, in my view this is only because other news outlets like MSNBC and the New York Times are commonly alleged to be anticlerical and/or anti-Catholic. [2] ADM (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• What plausible reason can exist for a news channel to be supportive of any religion whatsoever?

"Firing" of Roger Friedman

A recent development, Foxnews entertainment columnist Roger Friedman may be fired for writing an article which points out the ease of watching pirated movies on the internet. (one of many sources: http://www.variety.com/VR1118002128.html) The content of Friedman's article, now excised from Foxnews, is as follows:

Yes, I've seen "X Men Origins: Wolverine." It wasn't at a screening, either. I found a work in progress print of it, 95 percent completed, on the internet last night. Let's hope by now it's gone.

But the cat is out of the bag, as they say, and the genie is out of the bottle. There's no turning back. But no, I will not tell you the big twist/surprise toward the end. Not now, a whole month away from release. That wouldn't be nice.

Right now, my "cousins" at 20th Century Fox are probably having apoplexy. I doubt anyone else has seen this film. But everyone can relax. I am, in fact, amazed about how great "Wolverine" turned out. It exceeds expectations at every turn. I was completely riveted to my desk chair in front of my computer.

I don't know what the really big headline is here: the fact that "Wolverine" is so good, or that I also found the current top 10 movies in theaters, as well as a turgid domestic drama called "Fireflies in the Garden" with Ryan Reynolds and Julia Roberts -- the latter in a minor role while her husband, Danny Moder, is credited as director of photography.

I did find the whole top 10, plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. I could have downloaded all of it but really, who has the time or the room? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!

But back to "Wolverine": this is the prequel to the first "X Men" movie. Directed by Gavin Hood, the film is as cutting edge as it is old fashioned. This may be the big blockbuster film of 2009, and one we really need right now. It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional. Hood simply did an excellent job bringing Wolverine's early life to the screen.

Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, of course, and he is more a movie star in this movie than ever before. It doesn't hurt that he's spent every waking minute in the gym. Hood doesn't hide that. Jackman fans will get their fill of their hero. He's joined by a phenomenal cast, too â" Liev Schreiber as his evil but equally clawed brother, Victor, aka Sabretooth; Ryan Reynolds (he gets a lot of work, that's for sure) as Deadpool; Dominic Monagan as Beak; Kevin Durand as the Blob; and the sensational sort of Han Solo-ish Taylor Kitsch as Gambit. There's also sultry Lynn Collins as Wolverine's love interest, and Danny Huston as the villainous Colonel Stryker.

I do think the film works so beautifully because the screenplay is so streamlined. David Benioff (whose real name, I read, is David Friedman -- he's married to Amanda Peet) carefully delineated these characters and did a smashing job. I had less trouble following this story than the one in "Fireflies in the Garden." He's made "Wolverine" just the right kind of summer entertainment -- a thrill ride with lots of emotional investment and a hero simply bigger than life. That's all you can ask for.

Now, I did see "Wolverine" on a large, wide computer screen, and not in a movie theater, but it could not have played better. Still, this was a workprint and there were about a dozen things not finished. A couple of times it was possible to see the harnesses on the actors. It didn't take away from the film at all. But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects!

This news item and the controversy around it has brought fresh attention to Friedman, who's wikipedia page was recently deleted for lack of notability. So the question is, where does this information and the debate around it belong within wikipedia?Pisomojado (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how this is anyhow related to the Fox News Channel. Although Friedman may have contributed on the network, this has absolutely nothing to do with his work for FNC. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead semtence and photo caption

I have changed the lead sentence to Some so as not to imply all critics have made these accusations. I also removed the caption per the old consensus that was made. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party Protests

This entire section is based off one source from a week before the protests, not to mention that that one source is MMfA which is biased against FNC. It should be focused and not reliant on one biased source. FNC's point of view should also be included. Arzel (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That they even have a point of view indicates bias, but in any case Arzel is correct; if FNC has put forth an opinion it should certainly be included. However, don't be fooled -- MMFA qualifies as a reliable source (as noted many times past, WP:NPOV applies to Wikipedia, not sources), and there are certainly other sources we could use. I agree -- let's diversify the sources and ensure neutral presentation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Memos? Ridiculous

The sources for this assertion are the outfoxed documentary, which has being thoroughly trashed for its inaccuracies/bias, the huffington post, which has, this year alone, posted at least 2 videos that were altered to make fox look bad, and Keith Olberman who is quoting the Huffington Post.

Good grief. The references are ridiculous - even if you have the balls to reference the huffington post you don't go and reference Olberman who is quoting the Huffington Post as some sort of substantiation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW!

I can't believe there is an entire page dedicated to Fox News Channel controversies. Sounds like to me that Fox needs to be taken off the air. Dumaka (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Airtight logic there. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell me you're being sarcastic. Do it. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright - I was! Korny O'Near (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking points from Bush White House should be removed...

There was never any evidence of this presented, ever. A ranting and raving from a fired Bush Administration employee should not hold water without evidence. Controversies should only be put here if they provide at least some evidence for the claim.PokeHomsar (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so I can post anything I want without adhering to evidence or credibility? So, I could say: FNC cures cancer without evidence and just a link to a "reputable" source and I could put it here? Because, that's basically what you're saying. Considering most of the "facts" in McCellan's book have been disproven time and again, why quote him? PokeHomsar (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Under your rules, McCellan's book is a questionable source. PokeHomsar (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of party affiliations

Would it be of importance to add a section to this article regarding the pattern of labeling Republican politicians who are the focus of negative news as being members of the Democratic Party?

eg.

Sanford
Chafee
Toomey
Foley
There are others out there, I was surprised to have not seen mention of this as of yet. rmosler (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Check Fox News Channel controversies. It may warrant inclusion in the main article per summary style. //Blaxthos ( / c ) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says there is a pattern? Left-wing sites? How about some MSM sources. This type of nit-picking is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, looking over the posts made by Blaxthos they appeared to be fair in context with NPOV. Statements of fact clearly supported in each case by the visual evidence. They did not contain commentary nor did they assign meaning to the incidents described. The original images were from a MSM source, that being Fox News. In both cases, he additionally provided the response from Newscorp.

From evaluating your short explanation it appears your better approach would be arguing against source reliability. Undue weight tends to be with the amount of space a minority viewpoint takes up on a single subject. While a section on whether aliens fly in round spaceships, or in triangular spaceships has little bearing on an article concerning the physics of space travel, it could consume a significant portion on an article about alien spaceship conspiracy theories. If this was posted to the main Fox News article, I could see your point and fully back your position. The article in question is concerning controversies regarding Fox News.

On the reliability front Wikipedia follows a rule with source reliability wherein the more exceptional the claim, the higher reliability the source needs to be. The simple claim in this context is that there is a pattern of public figures who are incorrectly labeled during the newscast. This could be due to political reasons, shoddy fact checking, a transposition of keys on a keyboard, or any number of things. The section that you blanked did not make a guess as to the reason, only that it happens. Not all sources require primary referenced research, but those that make a great claim such as assigning meaning to the actions of other require much more evidence. This section assigned no meaning.

I don't want to start an edit war here, but as I was working on the section when you blanked it, I will post my changes so that the Wikipedia community can further evaluate the appropriateness (or not) of the section in question. rmosler (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The section was added as "Mislabeling Public Figures in News Captions". Some of the wording was toned down, each listed instance can be expanded as needed, but I for one am into "baby step" edits so that other editors can respond. Please respond prior to deleting the section. rmosler (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are implying that there is some notable aspect to these incidents and using screenshots of FNC as your reliable sources claim. Unfortunately, most of these instances were reported by questionable or non-reliable sources. Show me some MSM sources that actually point to these incidents as a criticism from a general form, and not just a couple of left-leaning sites. As it is you are giving undue weight to some fringe groups that feel there is some conspiricy that FNC is biased against Dems. If you really want to get into the field of miss-representation of political figures within MSM there are dozens of incidents of Democrats involved in controversy that are not even identified by political party by the various news entities like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC. Seriously, these kinds of incidents are very petty and read like Original Research since you have yet to provide any MSM commentary that even makes this an issue. Arzel (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that most criticism probably comes from partisan sites, but to include only MediaMatters, crooksandliars, huffingtonpost, ect in a section seems overly biased/undue weigh. I would preffer if this was to be included that it had been covered extensively by the main stream media, even if folks think they are biased to some degree. Was this a big deal according to NY Times, washington post, 4 major networks ect, ect?? Anyways, enjoy :) --Tom (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, MSM is not going to carry this because they will be accused of bias for carrying such a minor story, even though it is truthful. However, FoxNews mislabels enough disgraced Republicans that this cannot always be attributed to "honest mistakes". There is nothing wrong with using any of the aforementioned sources since the mislabeling is verifiable---NO ONE, including Fox, is disputing the facts. The article also stated that the critics were left-leaning, but Fox certainly did mislabel the politicians. PS--if Fox News can be used as a mainstream source, then HuffintonPost should be allowed as well. The current president addresses them in the press room as often as Bush did Fox.67.8.85.33 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The key phrase is "minor story". It is simply not noteworthy. It is also easy to understand that may be an honest mistake. Compare [3] to [4] for example. Bytebear (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a source that showed evidence that Fox has mistakenly labeled Republicans (namely John McCain) as democrats (which was promptly removed as "unreliable" despite ample evidence [5]). It's clearly a simple mistake, but because the left gets upset it becomes news? This is simply not noteworthy, unless you feel all incidents are noteworthy, or you are willing to balance the issue with evidence of leftist hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. Bytebear (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Have any news outlets other than the actual critics even commented on these issues? If not, I believe these events do not meet the requirements for a third party reliable source. Bytebear (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have with your edit is that it may be tinged slightly with synthesis. Both links do verify that McCain was labeled as such but I don't see any explanation of why like in your text. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues here. First, there is no third party commentary on the complaints by liberal media outlets. Second, it shows there are examples of other copy edit errors that apparently are not controversial, or if they were, they do not pass the test of long term noteworthiness. The problem with this section, and the majority of this article, is that it pecks little issues, and collects them to make it out to be some massive conspiracy theory, when in fact, no event, in and of itself, is noteworthy. That is synergistic Original Research. If I had my way, I would scrap the entire section, but since I know that I will be blasted as being POV, all I can do is point out the hypocrisy of the situation and show that such mistakes are not uncommon, and have no real bearing on political leanings, other than in the minds of left wing opponents of Fox News. For example, the first reference is from the Huffington Post, a bias media outlet, but beyond that, it is actually a copy from Brad Blog a left wing blog (clearly not a reliable source, other than to state the fact that Fox did in fact make a mistake). But commenting on the mistake, and presenting it as a criticism makes Brad and his blog the primary source. This violates reliable sources and external links. In order to comply with Wikipedia standards, you need an external third party of some credibility (beyond a biased and parroting HuffPost) to show that the criticism is more than just a left wing blogger blathering about how horrible Fox News is. Bytebear (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

70.119.153.76 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Four times with four disgraced GOP politicians is not coincidence. It is a pattern that deserves to be here for people to make their own determinations. Some people here have obvious ulterior motives and would like all criticism to go away.

Barack Obama critcism

How come there is no section about how Barack frequently criticizes the network?[6] Hell I even found this on Rupert Murdochs page:

In early summer 2008, a "tentative truce" was brokered during a secret meeting between Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes (President of the Fox News Channel) at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York. Obama had initially resisted Murdoch's propositions, despite senior News Corp executives having recruited the Kennedys to act as go-betweens. Obama resented Fox News's portrayal of him "as suspicious, foreign, fearsome - just short of a terrorist," while Ailes said "it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand." A "tentative truce" was agreed upon; Obama would be portrayed more favourably, while Obama would be more willing to appear on Fox. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If anywhere, that would be germane on an article about Barack Obama. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

A December 2007 study/examination by Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan media watchdog group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox News's evaluations of all of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates combined was 51% positive and 49% negative, while the network's evaluations of the Republican presidential candidates 51% negative and 49% positive. The study, however, did find that Fox's coverage was less negative toward Republican candidates than the coverage of broadcast networks. In addition, FAIR has noted that Lichter himself is a Fox News contributor. Also, on the January 10, 2008 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Lichter stated that he only examined the first half of the Special Report with Brit Hume.

Why was the above section removed? This seems like a partisan removal.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it back. It had been in there for some time and unless Blaxthos can provide some valid reason why CMPA is not a reliable source in lieu of the many biased liberal sources then there is no reason for removal. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.PokeHomsar (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith... It's a very simple and very obvious COI -- Lichter is a contributor to Fox News, so his "study" can't be neutral or without a conflict of interest. Beyond that, the study is such a statistical outlier that its "conclusions" are suspect. And finally, within the study itself Lichter noted that criteria were inconsistently applied (half of some shows, all of others, etc etc). If this is the best study out there for the "Fox Is Not Biased" crowd, so be it, but that doesn't make it a sound study or reference... in what peer-reviewed journal was this "study" published? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could show just how extremely liberally biased everyone else was during the 2008 election which could be used to show the same point. As to it's use in peer-reviewed journals, it falls into the same classification of the "studies" comming out of FAIR and MMfA, but with less bias. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the obvious conflict of interest? "Fox contributor releases a study that states Fox isn't biased" -- a little obvious, no ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it passes the reliability and noteworthy. Come on, we have blog entries passing as reliable sources in this article. If you want to cut this, you should be ok cutting bradblog and HuffPo as biases as well. Bytebear (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This one is relatively simple guys. Keep the paragraph and add the objections and problems to the study in a subsequent paragraph. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blax, you want the PRC study that showed FNC wasn't biased in the 2008 election but every other news channel was, especially MSNBC?PokeHomsar (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What I want is for Wikipedia to avoid using sources that are paid by the organization being studied -- that's a pretty bright line in any discipline, but most especially academic & research realms. Read this again: "Paid Fox contributor releases a study that states Fox isn't biased". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. Was Lichter on the Fox payroll while the study was being done? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lichter has been employed by FNC since 1996. Generally speaking, those positions are paid on a contractual basis. As to whether Lichter appeared on Fox, or did any "media analysis" for them, during the period of the study I do not know. However, given that he's been on their payroll almost since their inception I'd contend that the microissue of "when" doesn't invalidate the concern (especially given it's such a longstanding relationship). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. And may I assume that he appeared as a paid contributor on Fox alone and not on CNN, the networks, and/or MSNBC, etc.? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he's been quoted by at least CBS, if not others, but I don't think he was on the payroll of the others (though I do not know for sure). Either way, I don't think it mitigates the concern. I'll try to get more information to answer your question. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum -- To be clear, my position is probably softer than the impression I gave. A lot of times these sorts of articles turn into a polarized "all or nothing" discussion, and I want to move things more towards thoughtful, cooperative discourse. I don't think the source is appropriate for presentation as an objective statistical survey for the reasons listed above. Badmintonhist has asked some good questions, and I don't have the answers (yet), though I don't think they're mitigated by those concerns. I am interested in direct answers as to why the COI concern should be overlooked. I am capable of being persuaded, but I've yet to see any compelling (read: any) direct response to my point. Lay it on me.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-addendum addendum -- Scratch all that... given the circumstances, Ramsquire is probably right -- best to just leave it in and note the COI conflict. Personally, I wouldn't include it and I think it should be discussed, but in the end compromise will win out every time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

talking ... and laughing?

...

This article reads, in part;

"The New York Times editorial board criticized Fox News for employing political contributor Liz Trotta, who thought talking about assassinating Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama was appropriate for television and laughed after saying it."

Is the problem Trotta talking about assassinating Obamam or talking about it - and laughing? To suggest the former is to stray into some very difficult first amendment areas and I can't imagine that the New York Times did that. Would it be more accurate to say:

"The New York Times editorial board criticized Fox News for employing political contributor Liz Trotta, who thought talking about assassinating Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama and laughing after saying it was appropriate for television."

Virtually the same thing, just with a clearer link between talking AND laughing, a combo certainly inappropriate for discussions of anyone, let alone a head of state?

avaiki (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

....

I'd say both the article's wording and your version are misleading - the issue is what specifically she said - the whole "thought it was appropriate" thing sounds like editorializing. A simple quote is better; I just changed the wording in the article to something that I think is more neutral. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Networks?

Why are there no pages detailing controversies concerning OTHER news networks? This seems patently ridiculous to me. --209.188.58.212 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is the proper place to discuss this question, but... this article is an overflow from the main article due to article size considerations. The volume and severity of the criticism towards FNC requires a separate article to cover the topic; presumably other networks don't generally receive as much criticism (WP:FRINGE not included). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC, whether you want to believe it or not Blax, has just as many controversies as FNC.PokeHomsar (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Please limit further discussion here to improving this article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this here?

On January 21, 2008, Fox's The Live Desk broadcast a discussion for the XBOX 360 video game Mass Effect, for which author Cooper Lawrence was consulted as a psychology specialist. Lawrence argued that the game was misogynistic and depicted full digital nudity. During the interview, Spike host and video-game journalist Geoff Keighley had Lawrence admit that she had never played the game. On January 26, Cooper apologized and admitted she only heard about Mass Effect a few minutes before the segment and has since seen it played, noting that it was less graphic than episodes of the TV show Lost.

The above section is irrelevant. I'm removing it tomorrow if there are no objections.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, unless someone can demonstrate this incident received play in multiple reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, we agree on something. I just think that criticism of video games is a little stupid to put here. The average demographics of FNC would never buy this game anyway.PokeHomsar (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, the criticism is not "of video games", it's of Fox News for having hosts who try and manufacture outrage based on "hearing about something a few minutes before" airtime without doing any sort of due diligence or fact checking, shooting from the hip, and later apologizing for being completely wrong. I think this is an excellent demonstration of the lack of ethics for which FNC is constantly criticized and would be germane to this article, however I just don't think that this incident received enough play in reliable sources to meet our requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Big difference.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds a lot like what Obama did to Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department. Shoot from the hip, no due diligece or fact checking, and later apologizing for being completely wrong.  ;) Arzel (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Good one! Bytebear (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Owned96.240.140.46 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is gone...PokeHomsar (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a current issue about Obama calling them a Faux New

It was covered this past weekend on On the Media and is the subject of Today's MacNeil Lehrer Newshour piece. Lingust (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wrt the WH-Fox "war": since this topic is as equally about the White House as about FNC, I think it probably deserves its own article rather than to be covered either solely here or the article about the Obama administration. (BTW the talkpage of the Conterversy article is here. --> Talk:2009_Fox_News_–_White_House_controversy)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• BTW the place this topic, or something similar, is currently being discussed is here: Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama#Enemies List.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Faux News????

Why the hell is the URL named /Faux_News? Talk about biased!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.150.3 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for manufacturing that bit of info. Stop lieing and start constructively editing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by R9tgokunks (talk • contribs)

That is called a redirect, and I assume it is there due to their phonetic similarity. No one is "lieing" or "manufacturing" anything, so please resist the urge to hurtle accusations against editors writ large. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Video Footage/Crowd Size

It is apparent someone really wants this to go away. First the excuse was the references, then it was the ridiculous "it is covered elsewhere", then it was it didn't have "weight"--even though the controversy was extensively covered. Sean Hannity misused video footage, was caught, and he fessed up to it. If that isn't an FN controversy, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.153.76 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found an extraordinary burden seems required to put any sort of info critical of FNC into this article and its parent. The best course of action is to get together a large list of reliable sources to put to bed any tendentious attempts to exclude the information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a WP:EditForTheAges? If not, perhaps it's time for one to be developed. It's difficult to imagine banality of this nature (ed. added: the "Jarret Segment") surviving a week no less a decade in the reputable encyclopedic treatmeant of a subject. Pass the popcorn please. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that would depend on whether or not the pattern continues to repeat itself. Showing video or photos in a false light is certainly a form of falsifying information. One (or two) incidents would be likely to fade into history but if the list continues to grow then it would remain a noteworthy fact. I suppose in the end, it's up to Fox News Ucanlookitup (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Even an article purporting to treat "controversies" requires at least a modicum of NPOV editorial discretion and judgement as to content. Given the recent (and legitimate, I might add) flap and ensuing public embarrassment for Hannity and Fox, if use of this "video" (ed. added: in the "Jarret Segment") was, indeed, further evidence of some systemic "pattern" of willful deception rather than some ham-fisted production error used as a "tease" to some non-descript "happy-talk" afternoon segment, it simply strains credulity to suggest that a video replete with "McCain-Palin" campaign images would be utilized. Let's get real here.

on edit: By the way, both my comments are in reference to the "Jarret Segment" video and I've amended my comments to reflect that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see a pattern of labeling scandal prone Republicans as Democrats, altering photos of Democrats to appear unattractive, and "accidentally" showing (and describing) larger crowds than were actually present. I think what strains credibility is the idea that these are all "ham-fisted production errors" Ucanlookitup (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the Jon Stewart controversy, although it's not worded very clearly. One 9/12 clip deceptively spliced into a video montage of Bachmann's protest, is all it should take. The Jarrett teaser is a joke, only a controversy because some organizations' sole existence is to create such a controversy, typically based on political ideologies. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Actually, the Jarrett controversy is worse because he is not a commentator but one of the Fox News "Anchors" that are supposed to be unbiased, gushing over the crowds that are an obvious fabrication. This has attracted the attention of the MSM, especially considering the former Stewart controversy was just a week ago. At worst, these incidents are intentionally deceptive, at best, extraordinarily incompetent. But they are a legitimate controversy nonetheless.SemDem (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reporting large crowds is not biased, it's reporting. The AP did a story titled "Thousands cheer Palin in Mich. for book tour"[[7]], which on a side note, was changed to read "Hundreds cheer Palin in Mich. for book tour" by Google and Yahoo news. So, I don't understand where you accuse him of a "obvious fabrication," or even "gushing." I agree the legitimate Jon Stewart controversy brought about this abomination.

I do see a double standard here, and think we should look to all news networks that have engaged in such deception. Most recently would be MSNBC using photoshopped images of Sarah Palin. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, I think you're missing the point. "Reporting large crowds" is not the issue -- repeatedly airing incorrect footage that gives a false impression of popularity that always benefits a particular ideological viewpoint certainly is. Also, this page really shouldn't be used to try and incite a retaliatory action -- Wikipedia is not a battleground. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I like you Blax, but you are wrong. I understand the point, but if you believe they were "airing incorrect footage that gives a false impression of popularity that always benefits a particular ideological viewpoint," then certainly, you should contact the best reactionary. I hope we are better than those bloggers who act stupidly in the face of reality. ThinkEnemies (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your reply. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, even my wife has trouble understanding me. ††ThinkEnemies†† (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert

I have reverted my own edit of the following in in Fox News Channel controversies#Video Footage/Crowd Size as I was unaware of the "controversial topic" tag in talk...

The following day, Fox News announced it would discipline the people responsible. cite

This is a factual error developed in the chain of links from an apparent original source and I suggest the following edit...

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. cite

JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, my original edit (which, I believe, is appropriate) was restored by user:Ucanlookitup. Barring any further inputs, I'll take that as consensus being achieved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Political ideologies of critics

I realise this may be opening a can of worms but...

User:SeanNovack recently added the following text to the intro:

Prominent Democratic and Progressive critics such as former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, the Obama Administration, and the group Media Matters for America have accused the network of having a bias...

The edit summary being: " (added detail on accusers of Fox and mroe detail on Fox denial. This information allows the lede to stand alone by showing that the accusers of Fox have their own agenda as per WP:NPOV)"

I am concerned with this for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would seem to imply these criticisms are solely from progressive and Democratic sources - if this is true, it requires a cite of some sort. Also, there was no rationale given for choosing these specific examples - Dean, for example, only appears once in the entire article, making the mention in the intro seem a bit strange (Media Matters and the Obama Administration, by contrast, are both mentioned repeatedly in the article and so their significance would seem to be explained by the references used later on.)

More generally, the edit summary would seem to indicate a belief that the only accusers of Fox are doing so due to their own "agenda" - and that the edit was made to insert this belief into the article.

That said, I am reluctant to edit this out immediately as I'm aware this article is contentious enough as it is. ElijahOmega (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you and I are the only editors in Wikipedialand who make note of the guidance for "controversial topics", but it appears sometimes that we are few and far between. I agree with you that this substantive edit would be better served by posting it here first for a discussion of its merit. I'm also of the opinion that it could be justifiably reverted by anyone under "controversial topic" guidelines and, hopefully, brought here in good faith for consideration. Just my .02 and I'm outta here (for now anyway). JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely "opening a can of worms," and will probably lead us down a slippery slope. I do believe there is an agenda, Media Matters doesn't attempt to hide it and can be called a progressive organization. I don't think the Obama Administration and Howard Dean should be described as "progressive critics," their agendas are implied. ThinkEnemies (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning for not mentioning specific criticisms is can be found in the FAQ at the top of the main FNC page. The point was one of herculean effort by all sides, and is well grounded in policy and history. Though the wording of the intro has been a subject of much discussion over the years, the basic principles of why it is covered in the way that it is has been quite stable, and I find myself unaware of any new argument that fundamentally changes the points upon which this solution was based. As such, I would argue that the same reasoning was inherited here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Blax has a good point (Did I just type that? *laughs* Sorry Blax, I couldn't resist - I'm only kidding) when he mentions the reasoning behind specific examples in the intro. I wasn't trying to bring in every example of suspected wrongdoing, onlyl to summarize the overall issue. This edit was based on a long discussion on the Fox News Channel article itself regarding NPOV and the critisisms of FOX. The examples used here were ones that I took note of in the current references listed for the article itself. I stated that the critics were Democrats or Progressives (such as Colbert or Meyer), and that the groups cited here have a self-stated bias against conservatives. As these facts had already been established in the Fox News article I was simply re-stating them here to attempt to bring the article more in line with WP:NPOV. Once you get past the intro this reads like an attack site and there is hardly any mention of a dissenting opinion or defense of FNC, it seems more than fair to include the fact that the primary detracters of the channel have an agenda. I appreciate the discussion, and if anybody wants to continue I'll check in a couple more times this evening. Rapier1 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not subscribe to the "label every critic" ideology. "Dissenting opinion" and "defense of FNC" are perfectly valid and welcome -- I strongly encourage you to find some reliably sourced instances of such and add them to the article for balance, which is what is recommended by WP:NPOV. The proper solution is not to go and try to explain critics' "agendas" and biases based on subjective editorial opinions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you may have misread what I said there. Not once did I source "subjective editorial opinion". This is an article on the controversies surrounding Fox News Channel. From a neutral point of view, if a biased source attempts to create a controversy around a particular topic, then that attempt should be noted as such. Looking through this article, most of the reliable sources used throughout are either from Democratic/Liberal politicians/activists, or groups that are self-described as standing against a particular ideology accusing FNC of exhibiting the bias of the ideology that the group is against. It is no stretch to state in the intro that many of the critics of FNC are either Democrats or Progressives. It is also fair to include FNC's published refutation of the charges against it (which I did source). If my above statement goes further than I intended when I mentioned an "agenda", I apologize, but please note that I did not include this verbiage in my edit of the article itself. Rapier1 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My position continues to be that labeling critics is generally a Bad Thing(tm); it can lead to the unwanted influence of editorial opinions being reflected in the article -- I just think that the best way to balance articles is to add other reliably sourced viewpoints instead of (proper or improper) labeling of critics at every opportunity. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

One editorial

Three things, one I've edited the lede to be more neutral and to provide both sides of the coin. Second, why is a second accusation needed? Third, why pick one out of some random newsweek when there are plenty more to choose from? Soxwon (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new addition implies that FNC's claim that "reporters are neutral" is fact -- if we're going to bend over backwards to explain that assertion, the grammar needs some cleanup (no complex appositives) and we must mention that FNC's claims have been challenged by critics. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, The response from Fox is that their commentators are right-wing but their anchors are neutral. This is blatantly false as they use the opinion shows as springboards for their "news" portion ("Critics say..." or "Some people say...") and some of the most eggregious and downright shocking comments came from the so-called "anchors" during the "news" portion of 9-4 and 6-8. (check out a compilation of clips for just this year: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-) The Fox response doesn't address that primary criticism. I agree with Blaxthos that it should be mentioned that Fox's assertion should be challenged by critics. I do, however, appreciate your attempt. SemDem (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, how is it stated as fact when it begins: Fox News has publicly denied such charges,[1] stating that Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the intermediary deflective appositive that makes such unclear, but I think you're missing the larger point addressed by SemDem and me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for others to comment but I feel that the extra disagreement would be unecessary as we've already stated that the critics find the whole thing biased. Soxwon (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I have argued that most legitimate news organizations seperate their news and opinions. It is very difficult to find criticism of Fox News outside of opinion pieces, because most news orgs. follow the rules. However, FoxNews infuses opinion with fact. Especially since Fox is the subject of this article, I don't see why it is acceptable to use Fox News as a source, but not allow opinions from other legitimate news sources. Secondly, why allow Fox News but not Huffington Post? HP uses professional writers and also has a seperate news site and weblog. If we can't quote HP, then we shouldn't quote FN either.SemDem (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion and there would be a substantial number of people who would disagree with you (while the number 1 viewer rating doesn't mean much, it certainly means a large portion of the population views them for news). Soxwon (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, no it doesn't. Cable News doesn't even come close to Broadcast News (ABC, NBC, CBS) in both the nightly news, morning shows, and specialty shows like 60 minutes. But equating viewership with unbiased credibility is ridiculous. DailyKos is the Number One blog in the nation with millions of registered users, but I am certain you would be irritated if I used that as an unbiased reference. Fox was rated number one against CNN and MSNBC because how the ratings are collected--most people get their news at short bursts at a time, watching for an hour or so. Fox News patrons tend to leave that channel on their homes all the time, non-stop. This doesn't mean that most people view it as "news". In fact, the vast majority don't trust Fox News, just GOPers and mainly in the South.[1] By the way, Huffington Post ranks way ahead of Fox on the internet with 11,100,000 visitors...in fact, Fox News itself doesn't come close to that many viewers. So again, if your arguement is purely population, then why not have Huffington Post quoted and not just Fox News?SemDem (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure what the disagreement is over. Fox News should be allowed to present their side of things if all major viewpoints are to be present. Second, HP is good for editorial and significant minority opinion, but really we don't want hundreds of op-eds and articles crowding the lede. Third, again, this is your opinion being stated (except for the number of visitors to HP, which I could argue is far less reliable than nielson ratings). Soxwon (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, let's put your statement that HP and its readers are of a "significant minority opinion" to bed -- check out the Alexa page rankings for huffingtonpost.com. Be sure to compare FNC and HuffingtonPost. Please note that huffingtonpost actually ranks #40 in the nation (FNC is #42). Also note that HP's reach (and other metrics) consistently outperform FNC. While you may believe that those with whom you do not ideologically agree are a "significant minority", evidence doesn't support your position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's has been from the start a liberal site much like Drudge (though of the opposite viewpoint). While sources need not be non-partisan, if they are partisan, they represent their side of the political spectrum, in this case liberal, a significant minority. Soxwon (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you define the media as "liberal", then you must concede that liberals dominate the news programs. Liberals definitely dominate the blogoshpere, not to mention the legislative and executive branch of government, so could you please define what the heck you mean by "significant minority"? Does that mean that conservatives are "really insignificant minority"? What is the majority?155.95.80.253 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberals dominate the executive branch, academia, the media and blogosphere. However, they are absolutely a significant minority in American Electorate[8], and they're still a minority in the legislative branch. Why do you think Obama is having so much difficulty installing a single-payer health care system, or a tax on everything that uses energy as a means of production or transportation? This country would also be a very different place if liberals controlled the judicial branch. 71.239.179.12 (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's labeling of liberals as a "significant minority" is actually pretty clever. It is a true but entirely meaningless statement. Bear with me a moment and visualize a bell curve representing people's political believes. Liberals are, naturally, represented by the section to the left of the mean and conservatives by the section to the right. Now draw a line where ever you think the cut off is between "liberal" and "moderate" or "conservative" and "moderate". By necessity, both the liberals and conservatives will represent less than 50% of the population. So both can be described as a significant minority. It is like saying "half the population is below average intelligence". It's provocative, but doesn't really say anything significant. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you going somewhere with this? Soxwon (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, and I didn't mean to offend. I just think the discussion of which group is bigger is a dead end. It all depends on where you draw the line. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos and the IP turned it into the viewership sausage fest. I simply pointed out the fact that the HP was a liberal blog and thus represented a viewpoint rather an indicator noteworthy inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Viewership sausagefest? Who is the one who made this statement: "(while the number 1 viewer rating doesn't mean much, it certainly means a large portion of the population views them for news)". That was your whole justification for allowing Fox News as a resource. We were simply pointing out that Huffington Post beats Fox News in patrons in any indicator. Fox News is a conservative media outlet that clearly chooses their stories and slants their coverage to the conservative viewpoint..if you are going to have Fox News as a source of reference, then you have to allow Huffington Post. PS-Calling it liberal is your opinion.SemDem (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'd appreciate you stop putting words in my mouth. I said and I quote

That is your opinion and there would be a substantial number of people who would disagree with you (while the number 1 viewer rating doesn't mean much, it certainly means a large portion of the population views them for news).

What I was referring to were these statements by you that seemed to imply that Fox was not a legitimate news source: I have argued that most legitimate news organizations seperate their news and opinions. It is very difficult to find criticism of Fox News outside of opinion pieces, because most news orgs. follow the rules. However, FoxNews infuses opinion with fact. Now then, as for the rest of your comment.

That was your whole justification for allowing Fox News as a resource. We were simply pointing out that Huffington Post beats Fox News in patrons in any indicator. Really? Where did I say that? Again, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Fox News is a conservative media outlet that clearly chooses their stories and slants their coverage to the conservative viewpoint..if you are going to have Fox News as a source of reference, then you have to allow Huffington Post. PS-Calling it liberal is your opinion. Anyone else notice the double standard there? Fox News is a conservative media outlet...' PS-Calling it liberal is your opinion. Apparently when you label something it's fact but when I do it's my opinion (oh and Encyclopedia Britannica's). I maintain that we should a broad statement that summarizes the complaints against FNC followed by their denial like is listed now. Why do we need another source (and one from a partisan source like the HP instead of a more weighty one)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

Soxwon, the facts are no different here than they were during your RSN request. To quote the last post (from an uninvolved editor): It is rather ridiculous to claim that Huffington Post is not mainstream. Let's stop pretending that the Huffington Post doesn't carry enough weight for mention in the article -- it's absolutely absurd that you're continuing to push that even after RSN said such. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have made it clear that what I was referring to was the LEDE. I was not discussing banning HP from the body but the lede, two very different matters. If you two could kindly limit your comments to what I actually said we might accomplish a lot more. Soxwon (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote you, Soxwon (emphasis added):

While sources need not be non-partisan, if they are partisan, they represent their side of the political spectrum, in this case liberal, a significant minority.

Several times you've either implied our outright stated that you think that liberals are "a significant minority" and you've repeatedly questioned the weight given to liberal viewpoints (always implying that they are given more weight than they deserve). You're flat out wrong on the "significant minority" comments, and you've been rebuked in every place you've tried to assert those absurd statements. It's time to give up that ghost. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been rebuked by you, everyone else admits it's a case-by-case basis which I am advocating. Now then, if you could please explain why we need to further editorialize the lede we can move forward. You and Semdem are really making a mountain out of a molehill and I'm getting rather sick of it. Soxwon (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the past few weeks you've repeatedly asserted that liberal viewpoints are a "significant minority" and that you don't think such viewpoints carry weight, to which others have unquestionably stated that isn't the case. I haven't said a thing about editorializing in the introduction here; I've simply pointed out that your assertions are patently false, and that your repeating of those false statements ad infinitum makes it appear that you're not arguing in good faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, liberal viewpoints on their own may or may not warrant coverage. The lead is what I'm focusing on. This whole discussion has been about why the lede is fine the way it is. Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The lede, for all the reasons stated above and for all the reasons already argued ad nauseum is fine. Rapier1 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If Soxwon's formulation is based upon his repeated stated rationale that "liberal viewpoints are a significant minority", his repeated insistence that they aren't "weighty enough", and his misunderstanding of policy that "sources must be neutral", then I can't agree with a premise based on that rationale. Both of those generalizations have been repeatedly rebuked here and at WP:RSN. To be perfectly clear, I'm not discussing a singular micro-issue of this-word-or-that, I'm pointing out that his whole rationale is (1) factually incorrect, and (2) solidly rebuked by Wikipedia policy and by Wikipedia noticeboard findings. His fundamental misunderstanding of those key points may be a factor in a discussion of a singular issue, but from a macro view they indicate a systemic problem that has and will continue to resurface. I am attempting to help enlighten him to these facts so that we can avoid future ad infinitum discussions based on his misunderstandings. I hope this helped clarify. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They can be weighty enough based on any given situation, hence "case-by-case." The "sources must be neutral" argument has been your argument alone. Mine has been based on the idea that sources represent viewpoints and due weight should be given to each viewpoint. Please stop saying I've been "rebuked" when I clearly have been supported on the "case-by-case" point. Soxwon (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to the lede

I personally like the lead. It's simple, to the point without too many footnotes. The article provides the perspective people want, and need. If someone wants to change the lede, let's get it done. I see many circular arguments. Why not use our time to improve the article, specifically the lede? ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)