Talk:Fox News/Archive 11

Different Approach...
I've been told not to protect this page, however I am archiving the talk and starting it fresh. If you think something in there is still alive, feel free to start the discussion, or bring it back from the archive. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 14:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Silverback was the one who asked you not to protect this page. Sadly, it was mainly Silverback I had in mind when I asked for this page to be protected. I'm obviously biased against Silverback, but, IMO, Silverback has a tendency of engaging in edit wars if things aren't going his way on the talk page. The main reason I'm asking for page protection is that we are having a lot of little issues cropping up faster than we can deal with them. And Silverback's edits are a fairly large (but not the only) source of these issues. Protecting this page will at least force Silverback to bring his proposed changes up for review on the talk page.

If Silverback is the only one who has asked you not to protect this page (and if he isn't, I apologize for bringing this up), I ask you to please reconsider. However, I have no issues with Silverback's edit of 06:20, 26 Jun 2005 being made the protected version. What issues I do have with that version can be worked out more permamently on the talk page.

I'm happy to hear that you are somewhere on the pro-Fox side of the spectrum. I think it would be helpful to have someone who is somewhat sympathetic to Silverback's POV provide some sort of sanity check. We on the anti-Fox side do try to be fair but... crazyeddie 17:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Silverback deliberately uses ambiguous (often snarky) edit summaries (like his "reverting to a 'good' version"), makes repeated deletions without discussion (many of his edits over the past month are identical deletions), and I sincerely doubt Silverback's request to leave the page unprotected has any "good faith" to it whatsoever. It's as though he thinks people will just grow weary of trying to work out consensus, allowing him to revert, delete, and misrepresent critics any way he likes.  I likely agree with Silverback on the issues moreso than I do crazyeddie, but agree with eddie's request that you protect the page regardless of Silverback's desire to continue editing it.  We need people editing this page, the Talk page, right now – not the main article. Shem(talk) 20:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I will reconsider protecting the page if that's what both of you think. Unless I get a good enough reason not to... &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 04:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate for you to make an agreement to revert the article to a specific version and then protect it. This is a clear violation of the Protection policy. Cross-posted on Administrators' noticeboard. Rhobite June 28, 2005 05:10 (UTC)

No Original Research -- please document and source all "right-wing" name calling
There are several uses of "right-wing" as perjorative name calling. The redundant "right-wing conservatives" is particular obvious. Unless documented and sourced, this original research. "critics" or "many critics" is not a source. --Silverback June 28, 2005 04:55 (UTC)
 * "Pejorative," you mean. No, Silverback, "this not" original research.  There are consistent wikilinks to Right-wing politics throughout the article, and the term is no more pejorative than "left-wing" or "liberal."  Your editing, such as Alan Colmes' critics being "the anti-globalism anarcho-progressives"  is, and your hubris with regard to this is nothing short of POV hypocrisy. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:09 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that wasn't hypocrisy, that was a reductio-ad-absurdem of your defense of "right-wing" pejoratives, from anonymous, unattributed critics. Evidently you don't like it, only when you don't agree with it.--Silverback June 28, 2005 10:25 (UTC)
 * The two aren't at all comparable, and I wholly doubt you were looking to make a point at the time. If you weren't, it was blatant POV editing at its finest, and if you were, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Silverback.  You are absolutely not editing in good faith. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Silverback, Shem, if you will direct your attention to the to-do list, you will see that this topic is second on the list. So could you please hold your horses? I think this will go much smoother if we take things one step at a time. crazyeddie 28 June 2005 06:23 (UTC)
 * We were well on our way, I think, before Silverback decided to take the interpersonal route (combined with false invocation of Wikipedia policies) instead of a full-editing-stop consensus approach. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:27 (UTC)

Admin User:Ilyanep colluding on content before protecting
Starting with this diff here, see the rest of the discussion above and perhaps on their talk pages, to see this admin colluding on content before protecting. It was an unnecessary protection at that. His co-colluder User:Shem obviously is unfamiliar with the history of this article, since he accuses me not using the talk page, which I certainly have in the past. He is unresponsive to edit summaries, restoring unsourced and undocumented and unattributed material. His co-colluder User:crazyeddie is always playing to the crowd instead of objectively applying wiki standards to the material.--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:17 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I've read the archives in their entirety. You know (good and well, I'm sure) that I'm referring to your activity since I began contributing on this page.  Your claims of others reverting "unattributed" (et al) material refer to ideological descriptors only you dispute (right-wing, yet not conservative), the reasons for which you do not elaborate upon in edit summaries (preferring instead to apparently accuse me of following "Kennedy or Chomsky" ), instead incorrectly (perhaps falsely?) invoking No original research.   Hell, you're actively building more strawmen than a Kansas cornfield right now with this nonsense interpersonal PR rhetoric, and're accusing User:crazyeddie of "playing to the crowd" how? Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:24 (UTC)


 * You should read the Kennedy/Chomsky statement again. I didn't accuse you of anything. I just was wondering who the unnamed critics were that were calling Fox right-wing.  Lets attribute the namecalling.  If the name calling is not original research, you should be able to document it.--Silverback June 28, 2005 07:10 (UTC)
 * I contest that it is "namecalling" at all, and will not address this framed in your rhetoric. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)
 * You remind me a lot of Crazieddie. He also would refuse to discuss things with me on talk.  You need to make up your mind whether you want to discuss things on talk or not.--Silverback June 28, 2005 10:35 (UTC)
 * Untrue, I said I'd not address it under your rhetorical banner. You claim the term is pejorative (and "name calling"), which I totally dispute.  The burden of proof lies with you ("prove it is pejorative," not "prove it is not pejorative"), and I await something from you other than rhetoric, misrepresentation, and personal attack. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)


 * You neglected to respond to the part about the label being unreferenced and unattributed, you are refusing to prove that it is not original research. This isn't just a matter of word choice, you are apply a label to people that some might consider pejorative, objectionable or false, document and attribute it.--Silverback June 28, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

I suspect Silverback is confusing "making sure I have consensus approval before doing major editing" with "playing to the crowd". If you will check out Shem and Illyanep's talk pages (as well as the histories, to verify that no incriminating evidence was edited out), Shem made exactly one comment: "I'd love to have Silverback on the Talk page, for once. Indeed, come over." It is difficult to construe this as "collusion". As for myself, all of my interactions with Illyanep have taken place on this very talk page.
 * Also (conveniently) omitted is that the comment I'd made on Ilyanep's talk page was to Silverback himself, not Ilyanep. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Illyanep has expressed concerns about taking an administrative role over this article, because he admits to a bias. But, according to him, this bias is pro-Fox. So why would he be colluding with two anti-Foxers? (Assuming that Shem is willing to admit to being such. I freely admit it.) I also suggested that Silverback's edit be made the protected version. But Rhobite has pointed out that reverting to a prior version and then protecting is against Wikipedia policy. According to the article history, Illyanep did not revert the article, he simply protected the current version. By chance, the protected version (aside from some edits done to the "controversial article" box by Illyanep) happened to be Shem's. I suspected that Silverback would object strongly if his version was not made the protected one, which is why I suggested that his be used.

Quite frankly, Silverback's statements are showing why it was necessary to protect this page, far better than anything I could say. crazyeddie 28 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)
 * I'll be frank with my impression thus far: Silverback apparently has an ideal version, and has moved to implement it via interpersonal dialogue and excessively liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy – not consensus. What he's started just now is meant to shift focus away from building consensus. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Looking through the above text, I came across this:


 * I will protect it tomorrow morning (so be quick and revert to a good version) if no other admins post here. After that, I will archive this talk page and start a to-do list, etc. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 03:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Going through the history now, I'll only be 10 minutes. Shem(talk) 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Make an edit comment that says "keep this version for tommorow". Thanks. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 04:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, no worries. Shem(talk) 04:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This might be the "collusion" Silverback is talking about. However, Ilyanep changed his mind about protecting the page after Silverback had a discussion with him on Ilyanep's talkpage: User_talk:Ilyanep

Then, Ilyanep changed his mind again after both me and Shem requested that he protect the page. Ilyanep clearly asked for conflicting opinions. "I will reconsider protecting the page if that's what both of you think. Unless I get a good enough reason not to..." AFAICT, since there were no further objections, with two contributors asking for protection, one objecting, Ilyanep simply went with the majority. crazyeddie 28 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)
 * After (pro-FOX News) Ilyanep "colluded" with User:crazyeddie and myself, he decided against protection. Editing was open even after I'd posted "keep version for tomorrow"; it was not protected in any way. He later took it to the Talk page, waited, and reconsidered. Again, I believe User:Silverback to be engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Ilyanep announced his renewed intention to protect the page at 04:03 27 Jun - after Shem made his last edit at 20:47 26 Jun. Unless Shem had somehow gotten advance warning about the protection, I fail to see how the two could have possibly been in "collusion". crazyeddie 28 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Shem did have advance warning of protection, that is why he was careful and quick to revert tongue in cheek claim that mine was the good version. He was still intending to lobby for protection and hope that Ilyanep would be compliant.--Silverback June 28, 2005 10:28 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory and deliberate misrepresentation, nice. No, I reverted you for editing under the summary of "rv to a good version" without discussion, having assumed the page would not be protected and was open to editing. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)


 * Three people, none in danger of 3RR violation do not an edit war make. There was and is no need for protection. If you don't value your edits enough to provide and attribute references, then don't make them. It doesn't matter what the "consensus" is.  Instead of whining for support, just address the issues.--Silverback June 28, 2005 07:15 (UTC)
 * More rhetoric, the "whining" card, now. Charming. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Please stay on subject. The subject is whether Ilyanep was engaged with one or more parties in collusion over what version of this article was protected. The subject is not whether or not this protection was necessary. The subject is not this whole right-wing vs. conservative argument. The subject is not whether or not I "whine". Shem, it's getting late, and tempers are getting hot. Let's sleep on it shall we? crazyeddie 28 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)
 * You stomped the words right from my just-submitted edit. ;-) I ain't much for getting "hot," but my bed (and work in the morning) is calling.  Hopefully, we can restore the to-do list and archiving of this Talk page tomorrow.  Cheers. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:37 (UTC)

Re-Archive.
Can we please do the following?:
 * Stop whining
 * Re-archive the talk page
 * Restore the To-Do List
 * Vote on the conservative vs. Right-Wing issue
 * Go on with bringing this article up to an encyclopedic standard which everyone can be happy with.

&mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 28 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)


 * In fact, I will go an re-archive the talk page. Silverback, if you have any particular issues, please feel free to bring them back, but please don't bring back the entire talk because it makes this page too bulky (as some of the issues have been resolved, or need to be presented differently) &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have made the right-wing vs. conservative issue first on the list ;) &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Ilyanep, with all due respect, Silverback has made some serious allegations. If those allegations are allowed to stand unchallenged, it could significantly impair your ability to function as an administrator.

It seems to me that Silverback is in clear violation of the “Assume good faith” policy: WP:AGF. Silverback has failed to apply Hanlon's Razor, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Even if our actions regarding placing this page under protection were in violation of Wikipedia policy – an allegation that I deny – such violation could be explained by a lack of understanding on our part.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Silverback’s wild accusations can not be explained by mere stupidity, and that we are forced to assume malice.

With this in mind, I would like to begin the dispute resolution process as outlined here: WP:RFC.

The first step in this process is to attempt to settle the dispute by direct discussion with the other party.

With this in mind, I request that Silverback retract his allegations that Ilyanep, Shem, and myself engaged in collusion regarding which version of the Fox News was placed under protection, and that he apologize for making such allegations.

If he does this, then I will consider this dispute settled, and we can return to either discussing whether or not this article should be continue to be protected, or discussing the right wing vs. conservative terminology dispute.

If he does not do this, then I would advise him to begin his own dispute resolution process regarding this alleged collusion. Meanwhile, I will go on to the next stage in the dispute, which consists of two contributors contacting the user in question on the user’s talk page. Shem, I trust you will act as my second on this matter? crazyeddie 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)
 * Don't try to frame this as personal, when others also see the impropriety. Rhobyte called it "inappropriate" and Proteus labeled it "bordering on unacceptable".  I hope you are not hanging Ilyanep out to dry, by claiming it was all his idea and that Shem and you had nothing to do with it?--Silverback June 28, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
 * Rhobite and Proteus did not have a complete understanding of events; they have not commented since clarification. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you (plural) are trying to go with this, but personally I'd like to stop this petty bickering (I refuse to take sides in this unless it must be brought to RFC), and change the protected version to be to everyone's liking. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 28 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea why you protected the page? The person you colluded with was not editing in good faith, whereas, almost all my edits were in good faith (one out of frustration was tongue in cheek).  My edits generally proposed compromises in the edit summaries.  The compromise was the language or point they want will be accepted if it is referenced and properly attributed which was implied by my request for references and attribution and backed up by my long history of yielding to the evidence.  Some, did that and compromise language was found.  The one you collaborated with did not edit in good faith.  You should realized that page protection is seldom needed, in fact, protecting this page, just removed any incentive to compromise.  Of course, you also should have done a better job of analyzing the situation and should never have colluded.  Do you have any idea why you changed your mind and went ahead and protected after you had decided not to?  Your language seemed to indicate that you did it because "they" wanted it.  You should make your own decisions.--Silverback June 28, 2005 21:23 (UTC)
 * Yes, I protected because there was a consensus within this group of 4 editors somewhat. If you want to make the protected version a 'good' one, perhaps we should go on with discussing instead of this bickering. BTW, co-luuding implies us working together, and we never worked together to make it what you call a 'bad' version...we simply reverted to what he thought was a good enough version before the anon started editing. I don't see why you have to be so vehement about this. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 28 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Whether or not Ilyanep violated Wikipedia policy is another matter entirely. I personally believe that he did not, and I will defend him if and when you intiate a dispute resolution process against him. Am I to understand that you refuse to retract your allegations of collusion and to apologize for them? crazyeddie 28 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)
 * I apologize to you Crazyeddie, the evidence isn't there for you. BTW, Shem doesn't believe in AGF, look at his user page.--Silverback June 28, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
 * There's a marked difference between assuming good faith and editing in good faith. I don't do the former, but you don't do the latter. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)
 * Shem is allowed to believe what he wants about Wikipedia policies, and to express those beliefs on his user page, just so long as he does not actually violate those policies. crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)
 * Were you assuming the page would not be protected when you edited under this summary "Done, Ilyanep. Keep this version for tommorow"???--Silverback June 28, 2005 20:19 (UTC

RfC?
If this article does come to an RfC, I ask that it is brought as an RfC for the article, not against a specific person, this way we can get more done. Thanks, &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 28 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)

If you have suggestions on how to do that, I'm all ears. But Silverback is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and I intend to see him brought to task over it. Shem, the next step consists of two contributors attempting to resolve the dispute on the user's talk page. I'm one, will you be two? crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Done. User talk:Silverback Shem, your turn, assuming you want to. Your call. crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)
 * I have commented on both of your talk pages. Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 06:45 (UTC)

RATINGS
RATINGS The "Cume" debate is quite outdated. CNN stopped using that argument about 2 years ago when Fox passed CNN in cume also. Plus, although the article claims Fox's ratings are falling, it doesn't mention that that info was taken from a CNN press release... and Fox's ratings are higher than they've been all year. The latest numbers have Fox more than doubling CNN's ratings. 
 * The article notes it quite clearly: "Ratings success," paragraph four. Now please, clarify your comments:  Which argument is CNN's, and where can we see that CNN "stopped using it," and whatnot?  I see no mention of CUME ratings in any of your sources, and your last link appears to be dead. Also, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes ( ~ ). Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

"CN"
"By the "share" measure Fox is the most watched, though CN still tops FOX News in unique viewers."

This should be "CNN", right? maybe with CNN too?
 * I was going to bring the same thing up. By the way, CNN is already linked, so it doesn't need it again-Jeff 29 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Unfair
I (as the dutch creator of the (unprotected) Fox News article) have not followed the ongoing discussion about this article. I just have to say that the critism in this article on Fox News is about half the article long. In other similar articles like CNN there's hardly any critism at all. Isn't this strange? Wiki213ip 29 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * The article has been measured. The "Allegations of bias" section is less than 1/3 of the article.  Perhaps you should read through the archives, follow the ongoing discussion?  It'd answer many, if not all, of your questions. Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)
 * ;). The answer to this is to lengthen the article relative to the criticisms section. Also, CNN obviously needs a larger criticisms section. --Oldak Quill 29 June 2005 14:43 (UTC) PS. I have just checked the article again and do not believe "criticisms" to take up half. The "Controversies" section takes up rougly a third, but to call something controvertial is not necessarily critical. Not all of this section is critical.
 * Like I said I have not followed the ongoing discussion. Well now I've read a large part of it and I've got some new material for the article on the dutch wikipedia. And second of all; the measure that about the half of the article consists critism on Fox was just a rough guess. But still I think that the're is to many critism on a news station that has twice the size of audiance then CNN. MSNBC hasn't got any critism at all. Wiki213ip 29 June 2005 15:08 (UTC) (excuse me for my English I am Dutch so....)
 * My advice, avoid "rough guesses" and other such "guesstimating" when making comments on such an actively-edited article. As for the other networks, you'll have to take up complaints on other articles with those articles' respective Talk pages.  The controversy surrounding FOX News is an extremely notable element of its identity, and depending upon who you ask, an important part of the network's success. Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)


 * I'm personally not a big fan of comparing other articles like CNN to this page, as CNN and Fox while both cable news networks are completely different organizations. The reason why there is so much allegation of bias is because there is a major debate as to whether Fox is a conservative-leaning station, despite their slogan of "We report, you decide."  CNN, regardless of anybody's personal feelings on the matter, does not have this same debate or criticism attached to it, unless you want to add any studies (preferably not simple punditry) that show CNN shows a liberal bias.  Length of any portion of an article should be proportional to the prescence it has in the public eye. --kizzle June 29, 2005 16:26 (UTC)


 * Certainly not true, it even had the moniker of the Clinton News Network for quite a while. Any criticism that exists for one news station/program will certainly exist for the rest.  If you'd like you could name the channel and I could point you to the complaints even. -bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

I have issues with the CNN allegations of bias section as well, but I'm a bit too preoccupied to do anything about it. To start off with, I seem to remember that earlier versions of the CNN article described international concerns that CNN was too Amero-centric, (including its overseas outlets). There was some concern about its exclusive, in-person coverage, of the Gulf War, and what deals it might have had to cut with the US government to do it. There are also concerns about the "all the news print to fit" problem inherent in all 24-7 news formats. I doubt these criticisms have gone away, it's just that FNC makes CNN look good by comparison. In the existing version, IIRC, all allegations of bias seem to be from the POV that CNN has a liberal bias. These allegations also have not had the same scrutiny from the left as the allegations of bias against Fox have had from the right.

As for MSNBC, I'm not aware of any widespread allegations of bias. I'd encourage anybody interested to do some research into the matter. Some notoriety might improve their ratings. MSNBC is my favorite of the big three 24-7 news networks, not in the sense that I actually watch it, but in that I can stand to leave it on for more than five minutes.

I'd rather not worry about how long the Bias section is, provided its not truly outrageous (which it once was, hence the Trodel Rewrite). If a particular allegation belongs, it belongs. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'd rather not trim out worthy information just because it doesn't "fit". crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)


 * BigDaveDiode here, if I may interject with a short comment. This argument that CNN has a shorter criticisms section and therefore Fox should too is a false argument.  It is not egalitarian to treat different subjects equally if one has a longer history, including a court and legal history, that needs to be covered.  This is a common logical fallacy falsely trying to slip under the cover of even-handedness.


 * If I may say one other thing. I read Silverbacks accusation, then his misrepresentation, and then when called on it his accusation of "whining."  This immature level of posting should not be allowed.

Technical Problem
Could somebody please do something about this wierd doubling of sections on this page? crazyeddie 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 1 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

A belated thanks. crazyeddie 6 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

I've also shifted the FOX News logo down to beneath the "controversial" text, because it was creating a thick band of shite space at the top of the article, at least in my browser. - Mark 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any difference. Perhaps it's an IE thing. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"exclusively" conservative?
I removed that word because its extreme POV to say anything of the sort. How could that be said with shows such as Hannity and Colmes (Colmes is a liberal) that debunk any evidence of being exclusively conservative. THey may tilt right-wing, but to call them exclusive is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One liberal example such as Alan Colmes is probably not sufficient to convince the critics. Besides, what is wrong in promoting conservative ideas? Do you think it is not right? Docku (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with saying "exclusively" is because it deceives people into believing that the network is close minded and/or bias. MSNBC is very liberal, but we can't call them exclusively liberal just because they prefer to promote a left-wing viewpoint. Cannot the same be said of FOX News? And furthermore, at network that calls itself "Fair and Balanced" is clearly not trying to be exclusive. They hire what is profitable, and conservatives are profitable. Thus, they dominate the primetime slots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So the network that dumped Phil Donahue and employed Michael Savage is now a liberal hotbed? I guess these are the new right-wing talking points. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Network employed Savage for a few weeks, and since then the network has made ZERO attempts to be fair and balanced. Name me ONE host on the network that is at least from a centrist viewpoint. The closest they can come up with is Chris Matthews, and he's a huge liberal. I guess these are the left-wing talking points. FOX News is every bit, if not less, bias than the other networks who time and time again are bailed out by the media liberals including the leftist blogosphere who controls the majority of the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about Carlson Tucker? The guy who called Canadians as retarded cousins... Docku (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris Matthews is a huge liberal? Seriously? Assuming that laughable notion was the case, the presence of one or two "huge liberals" does not make an entire network tilt left, especially one that has employed the likes of Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Alan Keyes, and Michael Savage. There simply is no equivalence to Fox, and imagining it to be the case doesn't make it so. Gamaliel (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly stating that a network has a 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias is entirely in the opinion of who's watching. All we can do is present equal viewpoints from highly-regarded people or organizations on both sides in their analyses of the network's supposed biases and make a judgment based on the majority of those opinions. Liberal people think FOX is conservatively biased and conservatives think CNN and MSNBC are liberally biased, and that will probably never change. Unless there's a source that proves every presenter and commentator on FOX News has stated that he or she is conservative, and the same goes for CNN and MSNBC in regards to their respective bias accusations, then I don't think we can accurately state that a network is 'exclusively' anything. NcSchu ( Talk ) 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I say keep it in. Any reader that sees that will realize that the criticism is directed from the extreme left and realize how rediculous the statement is, especially since the most recent surveys show that FNC has been the most balanced with regards to the 2008 presidential election.  Arzel (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann wins large audience
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (NBC) - 3 million viewers The Factor - (FNC) - N/A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.219.159 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it doesnt belong here. Second, do you have any reliable reference? Docku (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What he is saying happened for 1 week, in which half of the week O'Reilly was on vacation (his ratings drop when he is not there) and the liberals made a huge deal of it because they have been getting spanked by FNC for so long. One week doesn't justify a wikipedia notice for anything, and it was by a few thousand viewers even then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For God's sake; Olberman (for example) and others are on vacation too. So why not taking a break till they're all back? --Floridianed (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not be ridiculous. --Floridianed (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we arguing about Olbermann statistics on the Fox News talk page? Let's keep this page for discussion on the content of the Fox News Channel article. Our position shouldn't be to continue the debate between both television personalities. NcSchu ( Talk ) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point! So let's close this discussion here if nobody minds. --Floridianed (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fox news conservative?
How can something like that be said in the lead when there is no agreement to that opinion. Fox is certainly more conservative than the other networks, but they are not conservative relative to the American population, only to the other networks. Verwoerd (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the FAQ will help explain things. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the lead does not say FNC is conservative. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in lead
I have changed to lead. That sentence never had a "consensus". It is simply inaccurate to mention "critics and most observers". Some critics have said that Fox is moderate. To simply write critics without a modifier is wrong.

Original:''Critics and most observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting.'' New: ''Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting.'' Verwoerd (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted, as your changes modify the meaning of the statement. Beyond that, this has been repeatedly decided by a wide consensus over a number of years.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know who put "most observers" in the lead, that certainly does not have a consensus. I believe the consensus was "some observers". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ratings
I was browsing this article for information about FNC's ratings and came across a line under Ratings - "For the year 2007, Fox News was the number one rated cable news network. It was down 1 percent in total daily viewers and down three percent in the 25-54 year old demographic. In comparison, CNN was up one percent and three percent, respectively. Fox News finished 2007 as #6 rated overall cable network.[34]" Well, needless to say, I was wondering why a comparison was made between FNC and another Broadcasting News Network and then the information on FNC's ratings out of ALL cable network stations. So, I went to the 34th source on the article and found that FNC was indeed still ahead of all Cable News Stations in 2007. So, I was just wondering why the comparison was made between the two news corps., and then the information given on FNC's ratings out of all networks listed right afterwards. I felt as if it was giving a false sense of CNN being ahead of FNC - even though the article clearly states differently - just thought I'd throw this info. on the Talk page so it can be deliberated upon. 74.244.29.221 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really understand your reading of the statement. It shows FNC's change in ratings and compares it to what is arguably the other large news network and then it broadens the criteria to include all cable channels. I don't see how it makes it sound like CNN is ahead in ratings of FNC; it merely states they had a raise in viewers whereas FNC had a decline. NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the comparison was made due to this sentence in the lead: In the United States, Fox News Channel is rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers, although CNN retains a larger number of unique viewers. In the section on ratings it appears that there was an attempt to delve into the relationship between the two organizations mentioned in the lead.  I've never understood why the distinction was made in the lead, but with all the other battles on this article, it never really got discussed.  Also I wonder if the information is still correct or does it need to be updated as we are almost now in the second half of 2008, and the information is from 2007. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2007 ratings were reported on January 2008 as per the reference. I dont know if it needs an update unless there is an interim ratings report somewhere. Furthermore, the comparison with CNN makes no sense and it can be removed. It may have been an attempt to diminish the significance of high FOX news ratings. Dock Hi 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I should make it clear however, as I didn't address this in my response, that I do agree that the mention of CNN does seem a bit random and awkward. NcSchu ( Talk ) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I removed it. Now, the article still sounds still a little bit obscure because it doesnt say 1 percent down from when (though I assume year 2006). Also, I am not sure how statistically significant is 1 and 3% to be mentioned here. Dock Hi 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would assume 2006 as well, but it's interesting the link doesn't actually say, as that can make a difference in statistics. 1% and 3% changes all depend on the size of the viewing audience I would think, but I don't think we're really in a position to judge that significance. NcSchu ( Talk ) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the whole history, but this is at least part of it. There used to be no distinction between FNC and CNN, however some time ago someone put CNN as the No. 1 station into it's lead. An editor saw this and put a "conflicting" tag because both stations stated they were the No. 1 station. Not to debate the merits between the regular Neilson Ratings and the Cume ratings, the ratings which are used most commonly are those that show FNC as 1 (Neilson Ratings), and when you hear Neilson ratings these are those ratings. The Neilson Cume ratings (which show CNN as 1) are used as well, but they seem to be used more often internaly by the stations for setting of ad rates. Regardless of which is a more accurate reflection, it is not clear to most people what the difference is (FWIW, Cume ratings indicate unique viewers, Neilson ratings indicate overall viewers. FNC has fewer viewers but they watch for a longer period of time than CNN). So in the interest of removing the conflict between the lead sentences of FNC and CNN, those sentences were put into place. To remain consistant with how the average person views Neilson ratings, this article should say FNC is 1 and CNN's should say they are 2....however, there is nothing that I could find that explicitly states this...so here we are. Arzel (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice perspective, a little confusion. boy, dont you know so much (including ratings used for ad rate). Do you work there or what? (just kidding :)) Dock Hi 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Closest to working there was that I was a Neilson Viewer once. Discovery Channel got a huge boost those couple of weeks.  :)  Arzel (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been some spirited discussion regarding the ratings over the years; most of the established editors of the page are all too familiar with the situation. ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)