Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fox News Channel controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

^ This auto-link failed, both are still dead links. Damotclese (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Fox "News" Banned in Canada

No mention of Fox "News" being banned in Canada for being propaganda, not news? Really? Damotclese (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, Snopes claims that the ban is a myth which I had not expected. Damotclese (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not insane.

Fox News refers to acts of violence and threatening behavior as "shows of strength". They're not actually insane, they are just greedy, insensitive people feigning mental illness. 203.215.119.41 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Court Documents Meet RS Guidelines

Just a reminder: Court documents filed and on record meet WP:RS for purposes of text, reference, and citation. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The a lawsuit was filed is not notable in itself. Lawsuits are filed all of the time, and most aren't notable. Third-party sources are required to establish why this particular one is notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fox News Channel controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fox News controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

Odd that a page titled "Fox News Channel controversies" has nothing about the lawsuits by Gretchen Carlson and Andrea Tantaros, and the details of Roger Ailes documented by Gabriel Sherman. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna add this at some point. There's a new one today.[1] And the O'Reilly one from over the weekend.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead issue

The lead seriously doesn't represent the article's content. I'd tag the article, but I am on a wikibreak and can't login into my original account. Man do I miss Twinkle. Anyways, the lead only mentions alleged bias from Fox News, but the article goes beyond that even having a section for the recent sexual harassment allegations and conspiracy theories. The lead should be more reflective of the article's content. -Callmemirela - 96.20.100.190 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been tagged since August 2015. I only just added the sexual harassment section, and the lead needs to include mention of it. If I don't do it soon, hopefully someone else will. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh really? Somehow I missed it. Thanks for clarifying that. -Callmemirela - 96.20.100.190 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Larry King is NOT RT's

As of 2017-09-07, the text mentioned "RT's Larry King". Larry King has had a long and distinguished career and continues to be a media personality outside of his current contract with RT (TV network). I'm removing the reference to RT, because I think that's POV and a subtle slur given RT's negative reputation among some people. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusing mention of Zurawik and "FNC shows"

On 2017-09-13, I was confused by the following line in the section on "Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers": "Media critic David Zurawik pointed to what he saw as weaknesses in the study, such as that certain government agencies are defined as holding the "true" positions on issues and that the study didn't differentiate between the influences of FNC shows as opposed to political ads that aired within shows.<ref>Zurawik, David (December 18, 2010). "Survey on Fox News: Who defines 'misinformed'?". The Baltimore Sun.</ref>

I'm deleting this line for the following reasons:

  1. This sentence does not make sense to me.
  2. The original link to a 2010 story is now automatically redirected to a 2008 post by Zurawik, which does not seem relevant to the issues discussed here. I didn't read every word, but simple searches for things mentioned in this sentence produced nothing.

If you think this quote belongs, please reword it so it's more easily understandable and fix the link somehow. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fox News controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Fox News controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fox News controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New topics to add to the article

This claim of having fixed talk show analysts and pundits is huge, and comes from a former employee and guest. He also says that Fox news targets older viewers and it's core audience is 68 and above while ads target older viewers:

https://medium.com/@tobinsmith_95851/how-roger-ailes-fox-news-scammed-americas-la-z-boy-cowboys-for-21-years-1996ee4a6b3e

I think this deserves mention in the article.

Also the rate at which Trump has been tweeting and parroting Fox news also deserves a mention. --2601:642:4500:46AB:8D8F:FBC0:826C:DAFF (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. What are you asking?
If you've never edited a Wikipedia article before and would like help, please suggest exactly which part of the article should be changed and how it should be changed to accomplish this. Wikipedia is crowdsourced. Almost anyone can change almost anything on Wikipedia. What stays tends to be written from a neutral point of view citing credible sources.
You can do this anonymously, as you have here. However, it is generally preferred to "Create account" if you don't have one and "Log in" before editing. This makes it possible for you to track what you've done. For example, by clicking "Contributions" in upper right than "Accounts" in lower right, I found just now that I had made 5,087 total edits since 2010-03-26.
Moreover, you don't need to worry about being perfect. Your changes will be reviewed, as I have reviewed your changes to this "Talk" page. If someone decides they are totally inappropriate, they will revert those changes. If someone thinks the comments have merit but are poorly worded, they will attempt to improve the wording.
In either event, you will have opportunities to further modify what you and others have done with the text you've changed. If you don't like the changes others make to what you wrote, e.g., a reversion you don't like, it's best to discuss on a Talk page like this what you did, why you did it, and why you think it should be different from what the other editor wrote. DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Denmark is as bad as Venezuela

I mean, have you heard the ridiculous claims on Fox News? I mean, it is really ridiculous. All the „facts“ she mentioned were just fake: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/08/14/fox-compared-socialist-denmark-venezuela-sparking-puzzled-backlash-top-officials/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0bb8745a369a ... omg, go and read some real news instead of Fox News.--APStalk 22:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to live stream

@Objective3000:

Why undo the entry in "External links" to Fox News Live Stream?

I think it's appropriate for an article on "Fox News controversies" to contain a link to "Fox News Live Stream". Maybe it should be labeled "Fox News live stream USA"?

Deleting that seems like POV editing to me. I plan to restore it. If you disagree, let's discuss.

By the way, I took the opposite position in Talk:Kris Kobach#This is one of the most biased-sounding articles I've ever read for any elected politician in any party. To that comment, I replied, "I agree -- except for one very important thing: Do you have any credible source(s) that say(s) anything different?" DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with POV. It appears to be a spam link to a site in Hanoi, Vietnam. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I just redid your deletion. Please excuse my misunderstanding. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

How Fox News distorts the news: A Mueller case study

How Fox News distorts the news: A Mueller case study

There should be something useful for this article here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

add Joe Walsh warns that Americans listening to Fox News are lied to daily ?

X1\ (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the deal with the hyphens?

The first paragraph under political figures has a bunch of extra hyphens, but there appears to be a note saying not to delete them. Why is that? Frobird (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Allegations of bias"

What sort of section title is that? Is there any doubt that the "allegations" are true? I did not see any quotes doubting the right-wing character of Fox. "Allegations" are always something that is contradicted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Other articles such as CNN controversies treat bias claims as allegations. Why should this article be any different? PailSimon (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Those are two different questions. The CNN article says "It's not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either", so, what I said above does not apply there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Well pointing out a double standard with regards to the thinking of others is certainly a valid observation. The CNN article goes into significant detail regarding Allegations of bias but I think you would agree that to point out that CNN has a centrist establishment liberal bias would be a violation of neutrality. PailSimon (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
pointing out a double standard with regards to the thinking of others is certainly a valid observation Not according to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, not on Wikipedia Talk pages, where the subject is the improvement of one specific page. If all pages were wrong in one specific aspect, it would be impossible to change that, according to your logic, since the first attempt at change would be rejected by pointing out that it is the same on other pages. That is why the rules are different, that is why we should not follow your logic, and that is why WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST exists. So, since this is the Talk page of Fox News controversies, let's talk about Fox News controversies and not about anything else. You are free to do the same thing I am doing here on other Talk pages, such as the CNN one.
So, please explain why it is an "allegation" if nobody ever contradicted it. But this time without any red herrings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy so I'm not sure why you're so reliant on it. Wikipedia does not prohibit analogous arguments. PailSimon (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
More red herrings. I am still waiting for you to explain why it is an "allegation" if nobody ever contradicted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Analogies are certainly not red herrings, regardless the article itself states in the lead that it is contradicted.... PailSimon (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Finally! The end of distraction and start of actual discussion. I'd never thought I'd see the day.
I did not see that one because it is in the wrong place. It does belong in the "Allegations of bias" section. The lead should summarize the article and not introduce new stuff. I'll move it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It belongs in both really. If the bias Allegations are to be included in the lead then the rebuttal should also.PailSimon (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I did keep the sentence in the lead. You deleted it in the article, then unnecessarily reinstated the exact same content twice. A "summary" is supposed to summarize, not repeat. I don't think you know what you are doing. But I guess it's not as bad as before. I can't expect an ideal solution in an environment rife with distraction and obstruction, such as US politics, expecially when the subject is Faux News. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Well a summary is by definition a repetition of information. Regardless feel free to add more on responses to allegations of bias to remedy the situation as you see it.PailSimon (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the lead to avoid suggesting that it's only allegations and added the notable example in relation to climate change reporting, —PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hob Gadling for review as the thread is somewhat old, —PaleoNeonate – 21:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm COVID-19 would be another excellent example, there exist related sources... —PaleoNeonate – 21:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not enthusiastic about the word "criticized", since it is used in Wikipedia for everything between a tantrum and a thorough refutation, but cannot think of a better term at the moment. And I still think that the "Fox News has denied" stuff does not belong in the lead, per WP:MANDY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning the refutation doesn't provide any useful information, and this isn't a BLP, more appropriate would be a refutation of the sources that criticize it by other reliable independent sources... As for "criticized" another option would be avoiding any suggestion of attribution (i.e. if it's not considered an opinion, per YESPOV it could be something like "Is notable for...", "Has reported ... misleading ...", etc. —PaleoNeonate – 18:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
A tentative middle ground using "described" rather than "criticized" perhaps... —PaleoNeonate – 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_controversies/Archive_9&oldid=1140232660"