Talk:Fox News/Archive 15

My complaint with Fox news and this article
Fox news has a clear slant or bias towards the Republican Party. This is fine. There is a radio network named Air America out there with a clear slant towards the Democratic party.


 * I Agree, why is this not mentioned in the article? Everyone knows it is so why no mention? Please Justify. --Chrisp7 11:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Fox news denies their bias which is dishonest. Further this article by ignoring this whole issue is not being honest or truthful.01001 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be true during the more commentative broadcasting hours (O'Reilly, H&C, Greta, Gibson, Cavuto) but doesn't necessarily stand throughout all the broadcast day. The one point I would like to make would be that there are many out there who believe CNN has a liberal bias, but do we label them a liberal network? Chris 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It may well be that CNN has a liberal bias, although a very strong logical argument can be made that it has a right wing bias or at least a corporate bias. But clearly, CNN does not pretend to be that which it isnt at least not to the extent of Fox News.  It is obvious that Fox news has a bias towards the Republican party.  It is not honest for Fox News to deny this bias, and it is not honest nor truthful for this article to ignore this bias also.01001 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This will certainly be the argument that sways the masses!

Listen, until Fox says they’re right wing, or there is an unbiased report saying so (I believe there have been several to the contrary), the article shan’t contain “right wing”, “republican”, or “propaganda”. And now comes the time I pick apart your previous statements: 1.''It may well be that CNN has a liberal bias, although a very strong logical argument can be made that it has a right wing bias or at least a corporate bias. '' Ok, first off…you just negated your premise, and then negated the negation. 2.But clearly, CNN does not pretend to be that which it isnt at least not to the extent of Fox News. So CNN doesn’t pretend to not be a liberal leaning network? Then they’ve admitted it, or at least have addressed it in some fashion. Oh, they haven't? Then why pick on FNC because you think they're so obviously rw. Squiggyfm 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC) This is getting heated real quick lets step back and think about this. Try to view it from the other persons viewpoint both sides have some valid arguments thanks--Soliscjw 20:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As a libertarian with conservative values and a fan of Fox news, I totally believe that Fox is biased towards conservatism and Republicans. I think conservatives denying Fox's bias (with a straight face) is a big joke, viewed by them as equally as ridiculous as liberals' denials that the "mainstream" media in the U.S. isn't liberally baised. I wouldn't be surprised if the inside joke behind Fox's "fair and balanced" is that they mean "we're fair and balanced because we balance the mainstream media's liberal reporting with conservative reporting".  Unfortunately, it is not in the interest for someone who makes their living through supposedly objective reporting to admit they even have personal political views, let alone that they affect their reporting. Lawyer2b 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How can it be maintained that the mainstream media is liberal in view of the coverage of WMDs in Iraq before the invasion? There was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs, and yet the mainstream media gave the argument that Iraq had WMDs credence.  How can the mainstream media possibly be considered liberal in view of this?01001 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a statement such as:
 * The network appears to hold a rightist slant due to the nature of the news it mentions.

would suffice? --Nantonos 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, that would violate original research. Secondly, it isn't permitted under NPOV.  Thirdly, it isn't a fact.  Like squiggyfm said - until it comes out and says it is a conservative/liberal/republican/democratic/libertarian/green/rabbled etc. network, it is not factual to claim it as one.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * until it comes out and says it is conservative/liberal/republican/democratic/libertarian/green/rabbled etc. network, it is not factual to claim it as one..


 * That's a fascinating concept: for wikipedia articles, persons and organizations OWN the right to describe themselves; anything other than THEIR label is POV. If Fox, for example, has 90% of its commentators being acknowledged conservatives (I haven't checked, but this wouldn't surprise me), would that be - a coincidence?


 * Fox isn't going to ever formally acknowledge that it is anything but "neutral" - why should it? If it did, it could lose viewers, given the belief in the U.S. that "neutral" newspapers, TV networks, etc., are better than partisan ones.  If it says nothing (or claims to be neutral), it won't lose conservative viewers, who either see the neutrality claim as a clever joke (see above) or who think neutral = true = conservative.


 * In short, who here REALLY thinks that Fox is truly neutral, equally willing to have liberal and conservative commentators host its shows, equally willing to present good arguments by conservatives and liberals, equally willing to say good and bad things about the Bush Administration (conservative) and the Clinton Administration (liberal)?? (And yes, if it comes down to it, there are reputable sources for this - but before we go there, why not do a reality check?)  John Broughton  |  Talk 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While in general I agree that Wikipedia should use a person's or organization's self-description, they should not do so when that bends the laws of reality and common sense. Does anyone really believe that Fox is not conservative?  It has been asserted that it would be "POV" to describe Fox as such accurately. But to parrot the official Fox "fair and balanced" line is what is POV.  To not even mention that they are the US' most prominent conservative voice is POV.  To pretend they are just some random cable news channel and not even touch this matter with a ten foot pole in the introduction is POV. Gamaliel 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ypu are both welcome to your POV that no-one "REALLY thinks that Fox is truly neutral", or that no-one "really believe that Fox is not conservative". Others disagree, and WP policy is to use ONLY an organization's self-description, and avoid poisoning the well, especially in the lead para. Contarary to your claim, criticisms of Fox's alleged conservative bias are mentioned in the article, and even have a compalte article dedicated to them. Isarig 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a link to the policy which states "WP policy is to use ONLY an organization's self-description"? Thanks.  Note that I did not claim the article did not discuss "alleged conservative bias", I was discussing the introduction, as I noted above. Gamaliel 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with putting FoxNews is a conservative news operation in the introduction is that it may be misleading. It gives the impression that it is a conservative enterprise. It's a news enterprise with a conservative slant. To use an extreme example, Al Jazeera is a news operation that is, let's just say skeptical of the US and the West in the War on Terror, but it would be wrong, and POV, to label it a terrorist news network here at Wiki. However, that criticism does belong in a controversies section. Same here. The conservative accusation belongs in the controversy section. Finally one note of correction, FoxNews does not support the Republican party, it supports the conservative movement. If a Republican, let's say McCain, steps outside of the conservative movement, they will get treated just as every other liberal, and if Democrat adopts a conservative position, they will get the red carpet treatment. See Lieberman. Ramsquire 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig said Others disagree [that Fox is conservative]. I'm curious if "others" include includes the editor making the comment. So, as a data point - Isarig, do you think that Fox is at about the same point on the continum of conservative-liberal as, say, NBC, CBS, and ABC, for example?


 * I note that Ramsquire, for example, says It's a news enterprise with a conservative slant and FoxNews ... supports the conservative movement. So who are those "others" - reputable academics and media analysts? John Broughton  |  Talk 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the problem. It is 100% irrelevant what an editor thinks and Isarig's opinion should not matter. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a NPOV. It would contradict this to insert an opinion that this channel is conservative, especially when the channel adamantly denies such allegations. I dont have a problem with the way the intro is worded now. Previously it stated definitively that FNC is conservative, while it now states that critics believe this to be the case. It's a verifiable fact that critics believe it's conservative; I don't see a verifiably fact that it is conservative. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving an entire paragraph on the subject to the intro is flat out not happening. The original issue was whether or not one single word, conservative, should be included. How is moving an entire paragraph of criticism to the intro helping? It's not. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This does not need to be mentioned in the intro. There is an entire article devoted to controversies with a section in the article pointing to it. It is not intro material. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 19:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, moving things out of view into a sub-article is a well-known tactic, which we have seen at play with Wall Mark, which has been abundantly commented, and recognised for what it is. We will not condone it. Rama 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fork was done eons ago, with 100% consensus by all sides at the time, if I recall correctly). Everyone was happy: People concerned with encyclopedic quality were able to reduce the main page to a managable size, and the Fox haters got their own page to post practically anything they wanted. Any attempt to remerge the pages is likely to be met with extremely stong resistance. --Aaron 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is "entire article devoted to controversies" is precisely the reason it should be mentioned in the intro. If there is enough discussion and material about those controversies, then they are important enough to be addressed in the introduction of the article. Dismissive invocations of "POV" are not a substitute for a reasonable argument.  It is not POV to mention a controversy and you are not serving NPOV by ignoring all mention of a relevant and important matter in the intro. Gamaliel 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As Aaron said, this has been debated numerous times before. The information does not belong in the introduction. This has been decided numerous times before. Please stop adding it. If you feel it is necessary, request meadiation. Ignoring the past doesn't change it. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaron's comments are about the POV fork, and as I am not trying to remerge the pages, I don't see what relevance have to your comments. You have not explained why this material does not belong in the introduction and the only reason you have given in the past is in fact a strong argument for including the material in the introduction. I am more than willing to discuss alternative wording if you do not care for my phrasing, but not mentioning this important matter in the intro is an inexcusable oversight. You don't duck a controversial issue by ignoring it and you don't make an article NPOV by cutting out references to controversial issues. Gamaliel 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While Aaron may have been speaking of a POV fork, the comment still holds true to this argument. This has been debated numerous times and each time the information you are adding, or something similar, has been removed. Please stop adding it; it is not your place to choose which discussions can and can't be ignored. The information is not relevant to the intro. Even if you believe it is (obviously you do), continually adding it is the wrong way to approach the situation. DISCUSS changes that are controversial. Discuss. Not one argument I have made has been for including the material. There is a controversies section for a reason. The intro is for specific information about the subject of the article, not opinions of the subject. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 22:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of everyone's positions, can we please move this discussion to a new subhead at the bottom of the page (which I'll create in a few moments)? This section was originally created in early August for a not-quite-related argument that shouldn't have been on a talk page anyway, so it's just messing up the flow of the talk page. I have no objection to anyone cutting-and-pasting relevant conversation down to the new section, and I doubt anyone else will either. Thanks, --Aaron 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Gamaliel has now made 3 reverts within the last 24 hours; not exactly a good way to handle this situation. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 22:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not true. Please don't make stuff up because you disagree with me in an editing dispute. Gamaliel 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not making stuff up., , . I am however stepping away from the discussion for a few days; always a good idea. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 22:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The first link you provide is an original edit I wrote this afternoon. If you think it is a revert, please provide a link to the version I am supposedly reverting to. Gamaliel 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote the 3RR warning, "(Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) " Reverting to an edit you made a few days earlier is still a revert. The only difference is that the edit a few days ago doesnt count as a 4th in 24hrs. There are also these two edits where you attempt to flat out call FNC conservative: . Now, like I said, I'm leaving this discussion for a few days. My talk page is always open. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​ ​Talk 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware that "Reverting to an edit you made a few days earlier is still a revert". But as I already noted that first link you provided is a link to an entirely new edit.  Please be accurate when you accuse people of things. Gamaliel 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that if all else fails, you can note that EVERY COMMENTATOR IS RIGHT WING. Excuse my shouting but you and I both know it. (I won't dignity it by using the word "conservative" that is too often abused by neocons). I don't count Colmes, who is somewhere middle of the road and never gets his way anyway. I also think the whoel argument was given away by the guy who said something like "If a Republican ever goes bad, Fox will hound him like a liberal." Gee, ya think maybe they're not fair and balanced after all? It is QUITE CLEAR that (a) Rupert Murdoch is right wing as they come and (b) Fox News is 100% for the Republican Party regardless of whether the Republicans adhere to conservative principles (like less government interference in private lives!). So why does this article make Fox News sound like a bastion of impartiality? davert


 * To clarify what I said, someone was referring to FoxNews as supporting the GOP, and I was referring to the fact it doesn't necessarily do. Also my comment was more towards the commentators, like O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, et al.  I don't watch during the day (at work) so I don't know how their "straight" news is. I wasn't referring to that. Ramsquire 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel word tag
In the last few edits, the addition of this tag happened to the article. I am wondering, was the addition of this article encompassing the entire article or a section of the article that needs work? Chris 04:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The NPOV tag has been there for some time, weasle words for nearly a week, and neither LILVOKA nor the other editor have made any specific objections here or attempts to resolve, so I've taken them down. Just slapping on articles then disappearing is a misuse of the templates. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Fox News does use Weasel Words regularly and I was wondering why I don't see this article is not covering this aspect --Howmee 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the network uses weasel-style words, then the tag has no use in the article, but if the article does, then it does deserve to be in the article. Also, there may be some coverage of the network's wording on the controversy pages, but I don't know that for sure. Chris<font style="font-size:80%;"> (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversies consensus
An issue in the past of this article, and possibly to come around again, but how exactly should the article go about possibly introducing the idea of the network's bias in the introduction? One of the latest edits have returned it into the introduction. Chris<font style="font-size:80%;"> (Talk) (Contribs) 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of abolishing both FNC and CNN's controversies sections and articles (they are essentially POV Forks at best). I do not see any substantial criticisms on either side that would meet the criteria for being "notable".  I believe a simple wikilink to the article is best at this stage.  "Summarizing" it will more than likely result in numerous edit wars.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * FNC maintains they are NOT a conservative news channel. If somebody wants to add it to a criticism section, so be it. But it should not be in the introduction. Adding this continually is somebody's POV. I have reverted it again. AuburnPilot 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading the article again, I realized there already is a criticism section. That's the perfect place for allegations of a bias news representation. AuburnPilot 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt this highly controversial subject be added in this section?? The very basis of Fox news as a fair organisation (self appointed) would be up for discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZYA2zFsCK8 Chrisp7 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article sucks
When Fox is discussed, when people search Wiki for FNC, there should be something in the first section and its own section about FNC bias. That's the major issue with FNC, that's what people want to discuss when it comes to FNC. This article really commits the crime of ommission by leaving all that stuff to the separate article. I corrected the obviously bogus implication that Fox and CNN receive equal amounts of criticism but I would like to see this article rewritten in a more reader-friendly style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.179 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2006
 * You are welcome to your POV that 'that's what people want to discuss when it comes to FNC'. If you can substantiate that with some reliable source, feel free to add it to the article. Otherwise, leave your POV out of this article, and remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox. The statement that you 'corrected' did not say that Fox and CNN receive equal amounts of criticism - so please either cite a source that says Fox receives more criticism, or restore the original phrase. Isarig 01:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous version by 141.149.54.179 needed to be changed, but as I began to change it, Clindhartsen did. The new version is written as fact, rather than POV. Much better. AuburnPilot 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as fact it needs some citations. AuburnPilot 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This part of the article is a serious problem. In my opinion, we should have the heading "Controversies ..." etc. followed by a very short, NPOV statement stating the main areas the corresponding article covers. What we should not have is a selection of the criticisms themselves, especially since they have been placed here without any opposing views. Can't we at least agree on this simple point? Edders 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason all of the trademark discussion was listed under the controversy section is that an editor forgot to add the tag to the end of a citation. By doing so, the section was lost and added onto the reference section. I restored the section. Just a side note: I didnt write the section, I just corrected the . I think it needs to be seriously edited to remove POV statements like "Since its inception, the network has been one of the most heavily-criticized of American media outlets." AuburnPilot 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Controversies concerning bias etc. should stay in their respective articles, and not spill over into the main Fox News piece, which many people use simply to look up technical things such as ratings, well-known employees, where it airs etc. Edders 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you are wrong. A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. Neutral point of view Raul654 08:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig, my source would be that for every article you can find that mentions possible CNN-bias, I can find at least two that do the same with regard to Fox. That's why I'm putting it back in.  You can use this baseless assertion that Fox *doesn't* receive more criticism than its competitors, or that we simply don't know, but anyone who reads/views a variety of media knows it.  I'm going to wait a bit to see if there's any more REAL discussion about inserting more information on the FNC bias issues and if a real debate doesn't happen within the week, I'll create a section in my own terms and then revise the maximum number of times I have to keep it in.  The current wording of the article--in which the most heatedly discussed propaganda organ of our times is discussed in a completely apolitical way--is an absurd product of minds that are either defective or tendentious.  I think a small version of the separate article, as well as something in the opening sentence of this article, would be a good place to start.


 * Now if you need a source that the partisanship of FNC is a matter frequently discussed--that it is indeed SYNONYMOUS with the network--I will produce at least 50 different media sources, none of them blogs, that show their paritsanship being discussed *if* you will agree to vigourously defend the new partisanship section when I produce. I have a feeling you won't agree to this because right now you're in the middle of denying the sky is blue (not that Fox is partisan--just that it's an important topic frequently entwined with any (tho not all) of the articles on the network.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.179 (talk • contribs) 7 September 2006

unsigned2|7 September 2006|141.149.54.179: You seriously need to calm down. Insinuating that other editors are either partisans or mentally retarded, just because they disagree with you; destroys the chances of people reaching a consensus on issues. Don't forget that wikipedia asks you assume good faith on the part of other editors, most of whom are simply dedicated to making a more encyclopedic article. Again, keep all controversies and criticisms relating to bias in their appropriate article. When you start adding pieces from that article to this one you have to balance them with counter-arguments or defences, which will inevitably turn a small section into a big one. The unwarranted amount of criticism stuffed into the con/crit, section in this article is an eyesore - readers will scroll through an article that looks (mostly) professional and encyclopedic only to hit a massive pile of POV that ruins it. Sadly, the vast majority of discussion concerning this article revolves around the controversy and criticism section, something that needs to be addressed by moving it to the proper place. Edders 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Radio Tool Bar
I recently created a FREE Fox Radio tool bar that links to Fox Radio,a nd most of the links on FoxNews.com My link has been removed by some, stating that it was not relevant. If a tool bar about Fox news (that contains NO spyware, No spam and No ads) is not relavant to the External links -- then what is? I am curious to know what I could be doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piphy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 September 2006
 * It is not Fox's, and has no sort of encyclopedic relevance to Fox News Channel. --Mhking 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MediaBistro and WP:RS
MediaBistro is a valid source re: WP:RS and should be included as a source.

Some viewing figures are only available to the general public through third parties such as MediaBistro as they are not widely published.

The removal of MediaBistro as a source leaves many gaps in the Ratings section of the article - so many as to seriously degrade the quality of that section.

MediaBistro is widely read throughout the industry and is inluded in PC Mag's top 101 website and Forbes' favorite etc. For more see here: http://www.mediabistro.com/aboutus/ 0-8 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox News is Conservative
I don't disagree with the notion that FoxNews tells its news from a conservative viewpoint. However, FoxNews is not a conservative enterprise as CNN news is not a liberal enterprise. To label it like that is POV. The introduction of CNN makes no mention of its ideology, neither does the introduction of MSNBC call it a liberal cable news station.

Be fair and consistent. Placing that ideological descriptor in the intro is not NPOV. Ramsquire 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling a person or organization liberal or conservative is most definitely POV, but a properly-sourced statement indicating that person or organization has an established reputation for having a particular political slant is NPOV, provided that POV-loaded terms like "left" and "right" are not used. Even then, it shouldn't be put in the intro, which is supposed to be an identifier/definer. 147.70.242.40 00:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no it isn't. Since there are many statements from many individuals, including only one's conclusion would be a prime example of cherry picking, a form of POV.  Not to mention, the statements themselves would be heavily biased, and wouldn't fall under WP:RS.  This article, CNN's article, MSNBC's article, BBC's article, etc. do not need a controversies section - the creation/updating of one usually increases the amount of controversies within the whole article itself.  Unless they are absolutely notable cases, each of the articles' controversies should be deleted for being non-encyclopedic.  --Mrmiscellanious 05:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Should FNC's alleged conservative bias be mentioned in the article introduction?
Simply moving this down to the bottom of the page; it's the discussion of the moment, and should be at the bottom of the page. --Aaron 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving my new reply to AuburnPilot here as requested:

While prior discussion is useful and relevant, it does not mean that the results of that discussion are set in stone for all time. I am discussing the material right here, as I have repeatedly, and so stop talking about this page as if we aren't actually using it. You haven't made a single argument for why the information is supposedly "not relevant" to the intro, you have just repeated that over and over again as if it were a fact. The intro is for an overview of the subject of the article and for touching on major points regarding that subject, including widespread public perception of that subject. (See the intro to the Ted Kennedy article for a good, brief, neutral overview of public perception of him.) To not mention the fact that Fox is widely seen as conservative is overlooking a major fact about the subject of the article. To pretend this perception does not exist does not serve neutrality, it is just dodging the issue. Gamaliel 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Describing Ailes as a "republican operative" is highly POV. As the article makes clear, Murdoch hired Ailes into FNC from NBC's CNBC and America's Talking - another cable network. Describing him as a "republican operative" rather than "president of NBC's cable channel CNBC" is highly POV, and serves only to push the POV that Fox is an organ of the Republican party. That kind of labeling has no place in the lead, or even in the article. The other edit I am removing is the repetition that Murdoch created or founded the channel. It is already stated in the first sentence of the lead that FNC is part of the Murdoch's news Corporation. Isarig 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is that POV? Was he not a political operative? He played a pivotal role in the presidential campaigns of Reagan and Bush Sr. and is one of the most famous living campaign operatives. Gamaliel 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is POV becuase at the time he was hired, he had not been involved in politics for years, and was serving as president of another, comepting, cable news network. There are no allegations that CNBC is a Republican outlet, that should tell you something. You are cherry picking one previous job (which is less appropriate, given that it is older) over another previous job (more appropriate, because it is both more recent and prima-facie more relevant to the role he was doing at Fox) - and the only reason I can see for that cherry picking is to advance the POV that his older role as a political consultant is more relevant to his job at Fox than his role as president of a competitor's cable news network. Isarig 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not cherry picking since I have included and support the inclusion of both jobs, and I would have done so in my original edit had it occured to me at the time. Gamaliel 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this recent comment of yours tells us all we need to know about your POV pushing - "I would have done so in my original edit had it occured to me at the time. " - It did not occur to you that the fact he was hired away from a job as a president of a competing cable network is relevant to mention (even though it is extensively described in the article), but it did occur to you that his work, 8 years earlier, as a political consultant, is relevant, and worthy of mention in the lead. Do I really have to explain why this is POV? Why should we include in the lead the a mention of his role as consultant to Reagan, in 1984, but not his role as an author of a book on effective communication, form 1988?  Or his role as TV Producer in 1991?  Or his role as an award winning

broadway musical producer? Isarig 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I could make the perfect edit every time, then we wouldn't need a collaborative wiki. Should it have occured to me at the time? Yes. Why did it not? Distractions at work? My mind on other articles? Real life?  Who can say?  But thanks to your gifts of telepathic insight, you have the answer: POV pushing.  I have again and again been appalled by the conduct of the editors on this article who have screamed POV from the beginning and apparently live in a world where WP:AGF does not apply.  Were I a novice editor I could have been easily driven away by the hounding I recieved from my first edit on the article alone.  I don't really care what you think about me, but if this is how you treat new editors arriving at an article, the people here really need to shape up.  Gamaliel 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No telepathy is required to figure out the POV of an editor who believes (and says) that Sean Hannity can often be found with his tongue inside the anus of President George W. Bush, or riding on top of Dick Cheney's cock. But if there is really no POV pushing on your part in wanting to include the bit about Ailes being a political consultant to Bush back in 1988, would you be OK if I replaced that with the tidbit that he's an award winning broadway musical producer? Isarig 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said that. That was the text of a vandalism edit by another editor which I reverted. If you are going to dig through my edit history to attempt to slur me, at least get your facts straight. Gamaliel 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you reverted that comment, with an edit summary that said "It's true, but we can't say it on WP". So, you clearly believe that statement, and have said it is true. Now, care to answer my question? If you are really not pushing any POV, would you be ok if I replaced the reference to Ailes' former role as a republican consultant with a reference to his former role as a broadway producer? Isarig 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what I believe is commonly refered to as "a joke". When you cleanup a lot of vandalism, sometimes you have to amuse yourself in small ways.  And in moments like these, when you have to defend yourself from absurd and baseless accusations, sometimes you have to amuse yourself in small ways.  So I'm off to read some comics instead of prologinging this nonsense. Gamaliel 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You've evaded the question twice, so I'll ask a 3rd time: Since you are not pushing any particular POV, just mentioning some jobs he's held in the past, I' assuming you're ok with me replacing the reference to his job working for Reagan with a refernce to his award winning job as a Broadway producer? Isarig 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't evaded it, I've ignored it. I'm tired of your trolling. Gamaliel 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weren't you the one who urged me to use Talk to explain why I found your edits POV? I've done so. I'm now urging you to use Talk to show why your edits aren't POV, and you refuse. You've ignored my question three times now. If you want me to assume good faith about you're edits you've made, you need to respond. Isarig 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AGF is not contingent on anything, it should be automatic. And I don't care for ultimatiums.  Don't spend all afternoon attacking me and then play innocent say "Oh, I just want to discuss your edits!"  If you'd care to start a fresh discussion tomorrow, without accusations and digging up nonsense from my edit history, go for it. Right now I am simply not in the mood. Gamaliel 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I wikilink terms such as assume good faith is to facilitate your ability to actually read the relevant WP principles. When you make such statements as " AGF is not contingent on anything", when WP:AGF explicitly says the opposite, namely that "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." - is it clear you should spend some time reviewing the policy. I assumed your good faith when you questioned my edits and asked me to explain the. I proceeded to do so. I then saw evidence that my faith was not warranted- as exhibited by your repeated refusal to address my concerns and questions. I have not presented you with any ultimatum - you are free to go on ignoring my requests that you explain yourself. But you can't expect me to AGF when you do so. We can certianly pick this up again tomorrow if you prefer. Use the evening well to think about your response. meanwhile, I'll change the reference to Ailes's old job to something equally accurate, and perhaps more relevant, and you can explain tommorow why that should not be in the lead paraIsarig 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me about a policy you've been breaking. You would be correct if you abandoned AGF after assuming good faith it in the first place, instead of attacking me with cries of "POV! POV! POV!" immediately. You are supposed to start out at AGF, not ignore it and attack, then pick it up later if I meet some arbitrary criteria you set. Gamaliel 21:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of what Gamaliel says here, and support his keeping it in this article; WP:NPOV requires nothing less. FeloniousMonk 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also support the intro containing the bias allegation. Outside of Fox being number one on cable news, the controversy is the other thing Fox is notable for.  But I do think it is unfair to label Ailes as a Republican operative in the intro.  It's not like he was some Karl Rove type character.  He had been out of politics for a time before becoming Fox CEO, and as said before was at CNBC prior to being hired by Murdoch.  Ramsquire 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Republican operative language from the intro, but if there is a consensus that it should be mentioned, may I suggest that we say something along the lines "Ailes, who was then the President of CNBC, and had once assisted President Reagan and George W. Bush presidential campaigns..." to be more accurate and neutral.Ramsquire 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But he was a "Karl Rove type character" and played a similar role in Bush Sr.'s campaign. But the CNBC stuff should be included in something like the sentence you suggest. Gamaliel 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He wasn't when he was hired by Murdoch and he hadn't been for four years. Ramsquire 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True, that's why I've added "former" as well as his CNBC presidency. Gamaliel 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding myself damn close to walking away from Wikipedia entirely (for reasons that don't have anything to do with this discussion or the actions of anyone in it), so forgive me if I keep this a little short. First, my apologies to User:Rama above for misinterpreting his post as a call to remerge the two articles. However, User:AuburnPilot's responses further down that thread branch do pretty much sum up my belief regarding how this matter should be dealt with in the opening paragraphs; we settled it a long, long time ago, so yes, some of are going to be a little pertubed by the whole thing coming up again now, WP:CCC notwithstanding. But more to the point, there seems to be a combination of two problems here:

1) Some editors are seeing the "FNC = conservative" meme as a blatant truism on its face, and are unwilling or unable (IMHO) to understand that many other editors do not agree with this at all, and instead find FNC to be the closest thing out there in the United States to a truly "fair and balanced" (no pun intended, I swear) cable news channel. Now, to me, as long as there's any meaningful amount of debate as to how true the "FNC = conservative" meme is, that means it is, at the very least, not an unquestionable truism, and all sides need to take that into consideration. (In fairness, I think progress has been made in this regard, albeit in fits and starts.)

2) Some editors, who are swayed to at least some extent by my contention (1) above, are now arguing (and this is a bit of a generalization, I admit) that, "Well, okay, but even if it's not unquestionably true, it's still believed by so many people that it deserves a mention in the introduction regardless." I have a lot of problems with this sort of argument, because it sort of puts an unfair burden on the Fox News Channel article that similar articles (such as CNN and MSNBC) do not have to bear. I would have no trouble coming up with literally hundreds of links to articles, blog posts, online discussions, etc, that would show that literally millions of Americans consider the TV "MSM" to be overwhelmingly biased towards a liberal POV (especially for CNN), and yet neither I nor anybody else is going out of our way to insinuate in the intros of CNN or MSNBC that either channel has a liberal bias (there are very occasional exceptions to this, but they get squashed instantly, sometimes by me personally). At the end of the day, I just have a big problem with the fact that some feel that FNC must have the accusations against it laid out at the very top, while CNN, MSNBC et al essentially never have to deal with similar allegations of bias against them at all.

I hope this makes some sense. And yeah, for me, this is a short comment! --Aaron 00:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me say this. I understand where you are coming from, but the fact that Fox is widely seen to be conservative differentiates it from the other channels, so it deserves some mention.  It's sort of like in 1947 referring to Jackie Robinson as the black baseball player, but not referring to Pee Wee Reese as a white baseball player.  One is a notable disctinction, the other isn't.  I understand that there is a distinction there since there is some debate as to whether Fox News is conservative while their was no debate about the races of the ballplayers mentioned, but I think the larger point holds true.  If it's in the introduction or in a controversies section doesn't really matter to me.  But there is an argument for stating it up front.Ramsquire 00:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure saying that it's conservative is the same as saying that it has a conservative bias. Maybe it's just semantics, but the former seems less controversial to me, and therefore more acceptable for the introduction. I don't see why there's a problem with calling Fox conservative any more than classifying a particular newspaper is liberal or conservative, which seems pretty common. Cordless Larry 17:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right there is a difference, but for purposes of typing on the talk page I just said "is conservative" as opposed to "conservative slant or bias". But in the article it isn't as sloppily addressed. Ramsquire 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Foxnews does refer to the "mainstream media" as "liberal". So, by elimination, Foxnews must be something... Rama 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about just saying that Fox is to the right of CNN and MSNBC (or CNN/MSNBC are to the left of Fox)? That's something both sides claim, and it leaves the question of who is more neutral/balanced up to the reader.  --Interiot 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, I really just don't care. That's the great thing about a wikibreak. I did remove the word "openly" from the intro, however. Obviously this isn't done "openly" if they deny the charge. As the intro stands now, so be it. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh...I should have guessed this was a hot topic of discussion - I just deleted this phrase from the introduction "Fox News is widely seen by critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions, a charge which the channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies." Not because I take a stand on the discussion here, but because "...widely seen by critics..." is a clear violation of the Weasel Words policy. If the decision here is to mention bias in the introduction, it should be done so without Weasel Words. ("According to the, Fox News is..." 68.205.119.151 06:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The existance of the word widely is accurate (as evidenced by the number of people jumping in to offer $.02). Removing the entire segment about critics' opinions is pretty drastic.  Reinstated per ongoing discussion here (see above).  /Blaxthos 11:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if the word "widely" is "accurate". The statement clearly violates Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy on Weasel Words specifically cites an example using the word "widely". Removing statements that violate wikipedia policy isn't drastic at all. 68.205.119.151 01:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to log in to Wikipedia - signing now Cbuhl79 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can clearly see, I don't agree with the existence of this paragraph. I did however revert your change minus the word widely. Removing widely, rather than the entire paragraph, is enough to remove Weasel Words. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing "widely" is not sufficient. WP:WEASEL specifically cites an example using the word "critics". ("Critics/experts say that..."). I don't really care whether or not the intro discusses the bias of Fox News, but using Weasel Words is against Wikipedia policy. (forgot to log in - signing now) Cbuhl79 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The one very sad thing that many of you have forgotten is rather simple: WP:NPOV. One particular sentence will probably be attractive so most of you: "Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position." What you are alleging here is something that is not fact. Let's stick to the facts - saying "Fox News is widely seen as conservative" is not factual - it's not verifiable. It's opinion. --Mrmiscellanious 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that Fox News is conservative is an opinion, perhaps, but saying that a lot of people see it as conservative, and say so out loud and in print, isn't. That's quite verifiable. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV: "There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player."" would seem to contradict your claim.  Still not permissable under WP:NPOV - you may only report on specific opinions that are attributed by a reputable source (WP:NPOV).  --Mrmiscellanious 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it doesn't need a citation, just that it's not an "opinion" to say what a common criticism of FNC is. That is the kind of thing that can be verified; i.e., a fact.  Unless it actually gets verified by a citation it a reliable source, it has to go, but my point remains - it's not inherently unverifiable, just currently unverified.  There's a difference. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My point exactly -- saying "Fox News is conservative" is, of course, opinion and violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Saying Fox News is widely seen by critics as being conservative" is absolutely factual and verifiable... no different that saying "Al Quaeda is widely seen by critics as being a radical terrorist organization"' -- what's the difference?  Supression of all information regarding FNC's alleged bias is irresponsible and only serves non-neutral points of view.  /Blaxthos 06:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying "...is widely seen by critics..." is a violation of WP:WEASEL, whether you're referring to Fox News or Al Qaeda. Saying "The U.S. State Department considers Al Qaeda a radical terrorist organization" does not violate WP:WEASEL. From the Weasel perspective, I don't care if someone changes it to "Ted Kennedy considers Fox News a conservative news channel.", as long as the critic(s) are specifically cited. Cbuhl79 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry for Al Qaeda says this: "Due to its history, the group is officially designated as a terrorist organization in the United States,[1] the United Kingdom,[2] Canada,[3] and Australia.[4]" - as you can see, it does NOT use Weasel Words. It only states specific facts.


 * Then find the citation that verifies that "Fox News is widely seen by critics as being conservative". -GTBacchus(talk) 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample."

- http://stateofthemedia.com/journalist_survey_prc.asp Doldrums 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is a guideline, not policy, and neither one should substitute for common sense. Is anyone seriously suggesting large amounts of people do not perceive Fox as conservative? The place for citations and identifying specific critics is in the bulk of the article, not the introduction, which should be a broad overview of important issues. Identifing specific critics is not compatible with a broad overview. Gamaliel 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your broad overview is a violation of WP:NPOV. Specifics or it's a violation of WP:WEASEL - and the statement it is stating is not being made in good faith to the progress of this project, therefore it is not acceptable to violate the guideline.  You are inserting an opinion into this project without specific attribution - that is a clear-cut violation of WP:NPOV, as I have commented above.  That being said, you still have not answered why this is even notable for it to be in the introduction, or have addressed the fact that many other journalists may see it as a liberal network.  I'm reverting this article once again - this is a clear cut violation of WP:NPOV.  That policy is non-negotiable.  Do not reinsert this text.  --75.21.236.191 23:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reporting widespread opinions of others is not POV. This isn't a violation at all, much less a "clear cut" one. And are you seriously suggesting that many journalists see Fox as a liberal network?  Please, let's deal in reality here, not absurd hypotheticals, otherwise we won't accomplish anything.  Gamaliel 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - reporting widespread opinions is not POV. Reporting them with Weasel Words _IS_ POV. Saying things like "Critics accuse Fox News of bias" is not only POV, it is not encyclopedic, nor is it useful. You might as well say "Opponents of Fox News oppose Fox News. Supporters of Fox News support Fox News". Saying something like "The Democratic National Committee calls Fox News a conservative mouthpiece, while the Republican National Committee calls Fox News a bastion of free speech." is more useful - it cites specific facts, and it gives the reader at least the opportunity to explore the positions of the groups asserting their opinions. (Note - I just made those up, please do not include them) Cbuhl79 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When an opinion is widespread it is impossible to cite everyone who holds it, and to cite a randomly selected critic or two gives an inaccurate impression that the opinion is merely held by those people. Citing "POV" should not be an excuse for common sense and it doesn't even apply here; in this case it just seems to be a handy cudgel that happens to be within reach. Gamaliel 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but saying "Many people believe <x>" is not Encyclopedic, even though it may be true (see WP:WEASEL). Saying something like "According to a recent poll by Pew, 70% of Americans believe <x>" is Encyclopedic. If you really want to point out here that there is a widespread belief that Fox News is biased, then you should find a reference that cites this.
 * This is what WP:WEASEL says - "Some/many/most/all/few. Sentences like Some people think... lead to arguments about how many people actually think that. Is it some people or most people? How many is many people? As a rule, ad populum arguments should be avoided as a general means of providing support for a position." 159.153.129.39 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was already a reference there. Gamaliel 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Tbeatty's move is a good one. All information is still in the article, but in a more appropriate section. I've tried to compromise on this situation; it would be nice if there was some compromise from the other side. It does not have to be in the intro. The History section is a perfect place for the information. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section is better off elsewhere in the article. However, doesn't it really belong in the "Controversies and allegations of bias" section that already exists? Or at least at the end of the "History" section. As it stands, the first half of the paragraph "The channel was created by...Rupert Murdoch..." is a good intro to the "History" section, but the allegations of bias seem out of place. I haven't moved it yet, I want to see where people think it belongs. Cbuhl79 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the History section, I think that the Project for Excellence in Journalism reference fits in better in the second paragraph, alongside the similar New Yorker reference, so I moved it there and rephrased it to not use weasel words.


 * Incidentally, the actual survey has two questions about (conservative) bias. The first "Is there a daily national news organization that you think is especially conservative in its coverage of the news, or can't you think of any?" - to which 82% responded "Yes". The followup question (asked only of those who answered "Yes") was "What news organization is that? (RECORD VERBATIM. ALLOW MULTIPLE ANSWERS BUT DO NOT PROBE)". 69% of those who responded to that question answered "Fox News Channel". Therefore, I stated that 56% of National journalists surveyed cited "Fox News" as especially conservative (82% * 69% = 56%) Cbuhl79 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it seems other editors would rather continue reverting/reincluding allegations of bais into the intro than discuss the situation further....no POV pushing? right... <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hasn't there been a fairly substantial number of references now cited that indicate a large number of unconnected entities believe Fox News to be biased coverage? Without specifically calling Fox News biased, isn't it an encyclopedia's duty to accurately incorporate information about the subject?  Since Fox News is widely seen as the news organization that most identifies with a particular political view (see multiple references above and below this paragraph -- more can be cited if you need), it would be a massive disservice if we completely ignored their alleged bias and wide-ranging critics.  (and "weasle words" are ok in discussion i hope).  :)  /Blaxthos 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't being ignored! The issue is if placing it in the introduction in an overstated way is POV.  I don't think such a criticism needs to be in the opening of the article, however I don't feel as strongly about it as others.  So if it is done in a neutral way I'm fine with it.  However, citing to polls in the intro is providing an unnecessary balance to the article.  The intro by Gamaliel was fine, if you want to add the research, then do so in the body of the article or on the Fox Controversies page, not in the introduction. Ramsquire 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Ramsquire has the right idea. I adamantly opposed it's addition to the intro initially, but after discussing it, the last version, before the lengthy additions of polls and citations that make the intro much longer than needed, was a reasonable compromise. Sources are cited within the controversy section as well as the seperate article. This version is overkill. So far, I find this version where the paragraph is moved to the history section the best option, but this version by Gamaliel is a close second (a couple citations and minus POVish phrases like "campaign operative"). <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While the supposed "POV" nature of the word "operative" escapes me, we've already settled on "consultant" as an acceptable replacement, and I see Ramsquire's already made that switch in the paragraph below, which looks fine by me. Gamaliel 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I wasn't clear; that was my point exactly in reference to "operative" being replaced with "consultant". <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The POV nature of this statement does not hinge on "operative" vs. consultant. As explained before, it is POV becuase it cherry picks a certain job he held in his past, and from which he had retired years ago, to push the POV that his old job relationship with the GOP played a part in his selction by Murdoch. There is no reason to mention this anymore than there is to have the alternate formulation 'then President of CNBC and a former Broadway producer" Isarig 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's AuburnPilot's opinion, he can speak for himself, but I doubt it is since he was the one who suggested "consultant". Please don't continue to push the absurd thesis that all his past jobs are equivalent and equally relevant.  Alies is one of the most famous campaign operatives in recent history, right up there with Carville, Rove, Attwater, etc., and to pretend it isn't relevant in a discussion of the channel's ideological leanings is ridiculous. Gamaliel 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not speak for AuburnPilot's, and the above was not an attempt to speak for him. I am giving you my position, one that you will have to deal with. Whatever you agree to with AuburnPilot has little bearing on it. You are welcome to the POV that it is an "absurd thesis that all his past jobs are equivalent and equally relevant", but please recognize that it is a POV, one that I vehemently disagree with. Unless you can explain and convince me why it is relevant to mention that he was a politcal consultant, but irrelevant to mention that he was a Broadway producer (other than to push the POV that he was selected to head FN because of his political affiliation), that comment stays out of the intro. Isarig 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would removing "Republican" appease you, Isarig. This would leave the paragraph reading "who hired Roger Ailes, then President of CNBC and a former political consultant for U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush". Rather than removing and saying it's POV, how about a suggestion. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No that would not be accepatble to me, because it is still cherry picking of a certain job he held in his past, and from which he had retired years ago, to push the POV that his old job relationship with the GOP played a part in his selction by Murdoch. As far as a suggstion, here's a suggestion: Leave it out of the intro. It adds nothing but POV. You can discuss it on Ailes' page, you can mention it below in the "history" section, but it has no place in the intro. 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose the second paragraph of the introduction of the article reads as follows:


 * The channel was created by Austrailian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes, then President of CNBC and a former Republican political consultant for U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, as its founding CEO. Fox News has faced accusations by critics and observers of the channel as advocating conservative political positions. For example, a survey of journalists by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Fox was "the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance". The channel, whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", denies any bias in their news broadcasts.

Ramsquire 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

With so much indication that Fox News is indeed well to the right of most mainstream television media (and arguably other forms as well), it seems decidedly POV for everyone to go to such great lengths to keep it out of the introduction. I would be willing to wager that if everyone asked 10 people they know what comes to mind when you say "Fox News", more than 5 would mention some sort of controversy regarding their alleged bias (be it defensive or offensive). Why act like it shouldn't be mentioned, especially now that we've had a large number of verifiable sources. /Blaxthos 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is saying it shouldn't be mentioned? What great lengths? There was some opposition initially, but it's in there now and everyone seems to be OK with it. Ramsquire 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tbeatty's followed me here and has removed it from the intro, but since we seem to have consensus for the broad strokes at least I imagine someone will restore it soon. Gamaliel 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This has gotten so tedious. Everytime it seems like a consensus is reached, someone comes along and puts it back to square one.  I may propose an RfC on this soon. Ramsquire 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No one s saying that it shouldn't be mentioned. But Fox has a number of things they are known for and to single out perceived bias as what should be mentioned in the intro is simply POV. If we don;t limit it to jsut the necessary introductory facts it will grow into something unwieldy. "Bias" is a legitmate criticism and history and it belongs in those sections. We wouldn't put Swift Boat veteran quotes in the intro to John Kerry no matter that they have been foloowing him his entire adult life. It is an aspect but not a summary. --Tbeatty 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I don't really care either way. I would just like some consensus to be reached, at some point, either in the history, controversies, or introduction.  A few days ago, it seemed like we were close.  Then today it seemed like we were close, and then you deleted everything which put us back to where we were last week.  That's the frustrating part.  And as long as we leave it as it is, someone will add the bias info back in, and the cycle will continue.  It looks like RfC will be very likely. Ramsquire 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The near-universiality of this perception of Fox, documented by the citations, is what makes it an important enough and central enough aspect of the subject of the article to demand it be addressed in the introduction. Unfortunatley, too many people think pretending controversies don't exist is what it means to be NPOV, but to not mention it would be POV. Gamaliel 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * all the citations say they are to the right of the other news outlets. There is no universiality agreement that they have are "advocating conservative political positions".  That's an inference that was made but it was simply not true and another reason why it doesn't belong in the intro.  --Tbeatty 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Pew study alone cites 69%. It is widespread enough to demand noting in the intro, it is POV to pretend it isn't a key part of Fox's public perception. Gamaliel 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * THe pew study says 70% of the people see bias in all media coverage regardless of whether it's fox or the NYTimes. But study results don't belong in Intros as it is clear that it is an opinion.  Stick to the facts in intros and relevant facts at that..  --Tbeatty 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And it is a fact, as much as you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that there is a widespread public perception that Fox advocates conservative politicial positions. To pretend this fact does not exist and that Fox is just some random cable channel is POV. Gamaliel 23:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't ignore it. It's well documented in the article.  But it's still peoples opinion.  It doesn't belong in the intro paragraph just like NY TImes liberal bias doesn't belong in their intro paragraph.  It's not the concise snippet of pure factual information that belongs in the introductory paragraph.  While their bias might be the defining element for you, it is still a perception.   Which makes it POV and is unable to be properly addressed in the short space of an introductory sentence. --Tbeatty 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The accusations of bias definitely belong in this article, but they DONT belong in the intro, just like the articles on CNN, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal (all news outlets commonly cited as having biased opinions) don't mention the bias in their intros. 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or just ignore him and put it back. ;) Gamaliel 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Gamaliel method of consensus. --Tbeatty 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Additions
It would be nice to see some examples of fox's bias...like how they defended Mel Gibson based on the fact "There are more important thing to worry about." This apparentley doesn't apply to Jon Benet Ramsey. Also, their amount of conserative versus liberal hosts should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert1991 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article might be of interest to you: Fox News Channel controversies. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Food for Thought (Some References)
I've done some research (currently ongoing) to verify some of the cite-needed and currently disputed issues. I have not incorporated any references into the article (yet), but I think they're good talking points.


 * <tt>"Fox News is significantly to the right of all the other mainstream television networks."</tt> --


 * <tt>"Our main result is that Fox News had a significant impact on the 2000 elections. The entry of Fox News [into a cable viewing market] increased the Republican vote share in presidential elections by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points [in those markets] .</tt> --

Plenty more research is forthcoming, but I figured this is a good starting point. /Blaxthos 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That first reference is indeed a good one, and you're welcome to add it as a ref for claims that FN is seen as conservative or right leaniing. The 2nd refernce actaully says nothign about Fox's alleged agenda or bais - it just notes a correlation. It is OR to conclude from such correlation that FN is conservative. Isarig 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you claim the second reference as original research? The research was done by university professors and researches, and published by UC Berkeley. Additionally, the research bolsters/gives tangeable proof to claims made by others (and by the first reference) -- solid numbers countrywide that show that the presence of Fox News increases conservative voting in virtually all districts (read the research). I fail to see how this qualifies as original research (when it's independantly published, verifiable, peer reviewed). Maybe I'm missing something... /Blaxthos 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read more carefully. The 2nd ref says "the presence of Fox News increases conservative voting ". That is not OR, and I did not claim it is OR. Contrary to what you claim, the research does not "give[s] tangeable proof to claims made by others", if byu that you means the claims that FN is baised. The reaserch does no such thing, and to conclude from that claim that FN itself is baised, which is the point of contention here, is OR. Isarig 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not using this research to say "Fox News is biased." We're using the research to say (paraphrased) "Research shows that the number of Repblican votes increased in each market as Fox News channel became available." It gives tangable (verifiable & duplicated) proof that the presence of Fox News has increased Republican votes. It neither speculates why nor attempts to draw conclusions. /Blaxthos 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Used in this manner, it's fine, but then surely such a point does not belong in the intro. Isarig 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone find better polls regarding public perception of Fox News?

 * I believe that the public perception of Fox News' bias is also interesting, and worth including (probably more interesting than the survey of journalists). Does anyone know of any good, recent poll that includes this? The only one I could find that specifically polled public perception on each broadcaster was taken shortly after the Dan Rather memo scandal, and so is probably not as useful (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast%20Bias.htm). Cbuhl79 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Schedule should be removed
According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles should not maintain schedules. The broadcast schedule listed here should obviously be removed. Currently, the only purpose I see that it servers is that it provides convenient links to Fox News shows and personalities, I'm thinking of deleting the schedule, and replacing it with a list of Fox News shows. Comments? Cbuhl79 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, instead of a list, maybe it should be formatted more along the CNN setup (though that's probably what you mean), in which the programs are listed with added descriptions Chris<font style="font-size:80%;"> (Talk) (Contribs) 18:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The CNN page setup isn't particularly different from the FNC page setup, except it doesn't list actual times. --Aaron 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was basically my thought; the only real difference I see is that the CNN article doesn't list the times up front; they are still in the description. I can't see how having the times hurts the article, or how removing them helps. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, [WP:NOT] specificaly states that Wikipedia should not maintain schedules - "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." Cbuhl79 14:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those cases where you need to look at the context of the statement on the WP:NOT page. It doesn't say in a bold font that "Wikipedia is not a schedule list"; it just says "Wikipedia is not a directory" and mentions an example in passing that happens to contain the word "schedule". I interpret that section to mean that a given article should not exist merely as advertising for the given subject. Obviously, if an article for a local radio station was formatted as in the WP:NOT example, with a full schedule, list of phone numbers, upcoming promotions, etc., then it would basically be nothing but an super-sized Yellow Pages listing ... in other words, an ad. But on this page, the schedule is simply part of a much longer encyclopedia article about a nationwide cable channel with extremely high public interest, and practically each program listed itself has its own article, due to the interest of hundreds of individual editors; it's not just the result of some Fox employee coming in and deciding to jam the page full of puffery. As for schedules in general, there's just huge amounts of evidence all over Wikipedia that WP:NOT doesn't mean "no schedules ever". See American Broadcasting Company, for example, or any of the other cable news channel pages; also note that most of the BBC radio station pages include schedules in one form or another (e.g. BBC Radio 4. --Aaron 17:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A schedule is simply a form of a directory. The WP:NOT policy explicitly says that schedules should not be listed. The problem with a schedule on Wikipedia is that it's just not reliable. For example, the schedule that I replaced had a note on the top that said something like: "As of September 25th, Fox's schedule is..." Well, how do I know Fox hasn't tweaked the schedule since then? Should we expect someone to come along and edit the schedule every time Fox edits the schedule? Again, Wikipedia is not a directory. There are plently of very good directories out there for finding out when a particular show is on, people should be looking there, not on Wikipedia. Cbuhl79 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you guys even sit here and defend an obvious violation of policy? Listing other articles that include schedules is not a justification for your position, any more than trying to say it's okay to vandalize my house because my neighbors' houses also got vandalized.  Opinion is one thing, however blatantly ignoring policy detracts from the credibility and good faith assumptions.  /Blaxthos 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your obvious is another's confused and muddled. Good faith assumptions indeed. How can somebody sit here and defend obvious violations? Because this is a talk page. How do you think policy is made? Changed? Through discussion. Yes, WP:NOT lists schedules as something not to include, but the difference in the way the article was, and how it is now, isn't that great. Let's not turn something minor into a major uproar. The change has already been made and a little civility goes a long way. <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I just see a lot of weasley (is that a word?) behavior all over wikipedia (not meaning just this article in particular) and a lot of people who seem like they're trying to make a WP:POINT, and I generally have trouble AGF when it seems like otherwise qualified users acknowledge what the policy is, but then go on to rationalize why it should be okay to ignore the policy... I will endevor to give the benefit of the doubt.  I apologize.  /Blaxthos 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:AGF can only go so far. And my apologies for the above; after rereading it, I think I was being a bit of a dick (I wish this rule was back on Wiki) Until the next issue, <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4">AuburnPilot Talk 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Identification of bias
It was my mistake to remove this statement to begin with, as I apparently had a very large brain fart and completely mis-read what the statement said (it was early in the morning, and I apologize). However, there are still a few issues with this statement which is why I have added two templates to it. First of all, 'generally' is a weasel word in this statement. How often is 'generally'? 60% of the time? 90%? If it's only sometimes then I don't see the benefit or relevance of even including it! I also added a standard fact template since it's...well...unsourced. NcSchu ( Talk ) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if it is really true and unique of Fox news and can be referenced to a reliable source, it can stay in the article. But I am not sure if political bias section is the right place for it though. Docku Hi 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the weasel word and will find a suitable referance for posting. Thanks for the attention, NcSchu, and I understand brain farts perfectly.  No harm done. FSF-Rapier (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)