Talk:Fox News/Archive 23

Removed...
Removed link to foxattacks.com. That's a partisan website that isn't a reliable source.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

cumulative audience
"In CNN’s decade-long struggle against Fox News, one measurement by which it has consistently surpassed its rival is in “Cume,” short for cumulative audience. This calculation refers to the number of individual (or “unique”) viewers who watch a channel over a fixed period of time.8 Ratings, by contrast, measures how many people are watching at any given moment. If more people watch CNN over time, though fewer at any given moment, CNN can claim that it has a wider reach. And indeed, historically CNN has used this metric to sell itself to advertisers despite Fox’s advantage in ratings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin1975 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Source: Nielsen Media Research on Media Bistro.com, retrieved on October 3, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin1975 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Marlin, that Cume reference is something that CNN has been using to try and downplay it's losses to FNC. By all that matters, and all that stations use for rating purposes FNC is far and away the leader.  CNN POV has no place here.  Arzel (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is not CNN but how Nielsen Media Research measures it. Fox uses one part from Nielsen as does CNN. Even CNNs wiki has the same data that fox has higher ratings but lowwer cumulative audience. So either remove ALL data from the Nielsen Media or include it all. I have made the Fox wiki less biased as I included all data from Nielsen.--Marlin1975 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Go here this is how they are judged, that is just how it works. FNC is far and away the leader, it is really not even open to discussion.  Arzel (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Judged"? "Leader"?  Let's try to treat this a little more clinically, Arzel -- this isn't about judgements and winning, so let's avoid that sort of loaded language.  As far as I can remember CNN has always surpassed FNC in total cumulative viewers.  This is generally covered in college courses that deal with the CNN effect, and the available data pretty conclusively shows that FNC has a smaller base of fervid viewers who watch for long periods of time, whilst CNN has a wide audience who tune in for short news summaries (which, incidentally, is why CNN Headline News was formed).  To ignore this (significant) difference in FNC vs. CNN viewership results in an imbalanced perception -- both statistics are significant in a holistic treatment of the subject.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos, I can always count on you to start a battle when one does not exist. By Judged, I am saying that is the way "They" those that matter judge these things.  CNN uses CUME to try and say that they are number one in total viewers, yet that is not the way advertisers rate these things.  FNC has been far and away the most watched network of the three major cable news networks.  Here is a nice little article that talks about CNN's use of cume.  Regardless, this is something that has been discussed quite a bit in the past.  If CNN fanboys want to force the issue and say that they have the most cumulative viewers on the CNN page that is fine with me, but to imply that FNC is not the number one watched news network is simply fantasy.  Arzel (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quel suprie... Arzel, you seem to be confusing the "raw numbers" with your own personal "interpretation". The numbers are factual, accurate, and germane to the topic at hand.  Your interpretation (including how CNN "uses" them) is synthesis of thought... regardless of what you think they mean, that doesn't change the fact that they are verifiable facts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos......That is how CNN uses them, this is a reported fact from the state of the media report. Would you PLEASE stop accusing me of presenting my own personal interpretation, I have used what OTHER EXPERTS have said to define what CNN does.  Arzel (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have included the info from Nielsen Media Research. So either remove ALL stats based on their work or leave them all. What I added is their full rankings and removed the Bias from the Wiki article. You seem to be bent on slanting it and only publishing what makes fox look good from the Nielsen stats. --Marlin1975 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the language around a bit (removed stuff like "surpassed" for example) to get the same point across. However, I do think CNN's periodic use of Cume to claim "Most watched Network" status is indeed contested, and could be explored further in both articles by editors who have actual knowledge over why Cume is not considered the same as the regular Nielson number. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nielson measures hours watched, cumulative metric measures total number of viewers. IMHO, I think the interpretative slogans offered by both networks are irrelevant marketing smoke and mirrors and should have no influence here; however I do believe that Wikipedia articles should offer an unambiguous statement of fact (that FNC dominates one metric, and CNN dominates the other).  As far as I know none of the verifiable facts are in dispute, and so I fail to see how marketing slogans should have any role in our discussion here... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, I'm not saying it should, and I honestly don't know where you pulled that one from . I'm saying that a discussion of why one metric is preferred over the other (if that is the case) could be explained in the ratings section. On second look, perhaps I should have put a period behind "..."Most watched Network" status is indeed contested..." to avoid the run-on. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not even insisting on inclusion or exclusion of the slogan's disputed status in the article; my proffer was to squelch Arzel's attempt to tell us how he "judges" FNC vs. CNN, and to answer your question about how the two measurements are derived. I'm sorry that I gave the impression I was critiquing your edits.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you need a lesson in interpretation? I am not judging the criteria being used.  Advertisers use the standard Neilson ratings.  Those are the ratings that most people understand.  CNN uses the cume to try and sell themselves.  I don't even know why this being discussed.  FNC is absolutely crushing both CNN and MSNBC in raw ratings that advertisers use, this obfuscation of the facts to try and imply that under some vague statistic CNN is number one is very misleading and has no place in the lead.   For example, in July, FNC was the #3 cable network, CNN was #15 and MSNBC was #26, this isn't my judgement, these are simply the facts.  Arzel (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not concerned with what advertisers use. We are not concerned with which measurement is the "right" one.  We are not concerned with how CNN "uses" the measurements.  We are not concerned with how FNC markets the measurements.  We are not concerned with your synthesis of thought.  We will present the verifiable facts to the reader (read: "both measurements") without any of the interpretive crap you (or FNC or CNN) are trying to use to spin this.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we concerned how a competitor interprets the numbers? What happened to unbiased third party sources?  This reeks of POV. Bytebear (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it looks like POV, but it is also verifiable fact, which makes exclusion tough. My only suggestion was a sentence in the ratings section that says "although there is a difference between cume and X, X/cume is the preferred method of judging ratings because..." As someone ignorant of how this ratings stuff work, I'd find it would be an interesting thing to learn -- which is, you know the point of an encyclopedia ;). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess what I am suggesting is that we rely on third party sources to comment on these stats. We can present statistics all day and make conclusions, but that would be original research.  Do we have sources that discuss these stats? Bytebear (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hope that at this point I wouldn't need to state that requested information be verified, especially since all in this discussion are experienced at Wikipedia. I apologize if my request sounded like an open door for original research.  I was giving editors here credit for knowing that synthesis is not allowed.  Anyway, I'll drop it and get the information elsewhere.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For one, I don't think that the numbers themselves are contested -- they are what they are. For two, why are any of you trying to do any interpretation at all?  My position is that we simply lay the bare facts out there, and don't say anything about how people "use" the numbers or what is "preferred" (a very subjective POV focused solely on advertisers).  Just say something to the effect that FNC is the leader in the Nielson hours viewed metric, and that CNN has a larger cumulative audience who tend to watch for shorter periods of time.  Simple enough?  It's what has been done for at least the five years I've been around... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see how you can have one w/o the other, provided that they're both used and are both considered reliable. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CUME numbers are only available to clients of Neilson. The raw ratings are those that are reported in thirds party sources and are the only ones used on a regular basis.  Arzel (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant on all counts -- how they're used, or how they're distributed. Don't try to use them at all, just bloody state them.  Done and done.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that context, or lack thereof, does not affect POV? Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should help resolve the issue. Third Party Source stating that CUME is not the industry standard nor are they publically available.  Ratings  Arzel (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Industry standard" == advertising concerns. This is an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to advertising metrics.  The information exists, it is reliable and verifiable, and it is germane -- It would appear to me that the only reason to exclude one or the other is to attempt to spin the perception.  Just present the facts, and let the reader interpret them.  There is absolutely no policy, guideline, or practice that justifies exclusion.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Blax. You are spinning so fast, your feet are lifting off the ground.  If you want to include these metrics, you have to do it with context, which is that these numbers have never historically been used to define vieweship.  Bytebear (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "context" you mean... "Fox has a smaller number of viewers who watch for long periods of time, CNN has a larger total number of viewers who watch for much shorter periods of time". If you guys insist on adding a blurb about how ratings are computed by total hours (not cumulative viewers), whatever.  I think it's unnecessary and it seems intended to somehow sell "FNC is better than CNN" (Arzel especially), but if the consensus that it's a necessary inclusion then okay.  Beyond that, I've seen no references to policy that would indicate that we should exclude germane and verifiable information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, It has been stated like this for quite some time, you never seemed to have a problem with it before, now that CNN is trying to sell itself as number one you suddenly have a problem?  My primary issue was with the seemingly SPA that wants the lead to present a CNN POV and the addition of a contrived paragraph to strengthen the POV of CNN.  If you notice there is currently a sentence in the ratings section which makes the distinction, with which I don't have a major problem.  Your arguement that I am somehow trying to sell "FNC [being] better than CNN" is extremely ironic since it is CNN that is trying to sell itself as better than FNC which is what brought us to this point.  Arzel (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only "Fact" is that CNN started using CUME to sell themselves after they fell into 3rd place behind MSNBC. It would be undue weight to present CNN's point of view, especially on this article, when the vast majority of the ratings world doesn't use CUME ratings, and the vast majority of the public doesn't even have access to them.  Arzel (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! That debate just kept going, didn't it? Dumaka (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a few days to try and comprehend Arzel's position and I just can't understand why he continues to focus on what CNN/FNC do with the numbers. Arzel, your argument seems to be focused on debunking CNN's purported "use", which is completely irrelevant. All we need to do, indeed all I am advocating, is that we say each number and how it's calculated. Rating == hours watched, Cumulative audience == total number of viewers. That's it. EOF. Nothing more needs to be said. Just state the facts. No interpretation. I don't know how to say it any more clearly. Other observers: is my point clear and correct? Am I missing something? Help me out here... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I couldn't really understand Arzel position either while I was reading through this debate you all were having.Dumaka (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with saying it leads by Nielson and is ranked however high by the other rating. I don't see why CNN needs to be brought into it at all. If others think that it should be fine, but I think it better just to list Fox's rank in both cumalulative audience (and a quick explanation of what it is) and Nielson's. Soxwon (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yellow journalism
It has been sourced and is non-pov. No reason to delete. Dumaka (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is every reason to delete. A blogger's inherently subjective opinion is hardly an objective fact. Otherwise, we would simply keep in every Wikipedia article every negative (or positive, for that matter) thing said about Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC, or any other topic by someone on the internet. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if you can use newshounds, what's to stop me from using WND or Free Republic? (other than the fact I never go to the sites) Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is nowhere near the quality that sort of label would require. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK you all may be correct. However, let's get one thing straight, none of you will be able to sign my yearbook...Dumaka (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can arrange to have it signed by Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and some of your other favorites at Fox News. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just died a little inside...Dumaka (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, it's nice to see people can still laugh at themselves (and each other) sometimes. This place gets so SUPER SERIAL sometimes.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead is entirely unsatisfactory
The key criticism about Fox News is not that it promotes conservative positions. The key criticism is that it only promotes biased, inaccurate, one-sided, partisan infotainment masquerading as "news" while at the same time claiming to be "fair and balanced". This needs to be directly addressed in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mixing up the two issues, for which there is only one to argue of. Fox News Channel has been criticized by others for being a one-sided and biased news channel due to their to their seemingly extreme conservative nature. The lead shouldn't be changed because numerous sources (which have already been posted) have stated that Fox News Channel promotes a biased conservative base and not a more neutral one like CNN. Their biased point-of-view and twisting of facts is a direct biproduct of their alleged conservative nature as a news source.BalticPat22Pat 13:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not mixing up anything and the lead as it currently stands does not meet the barest criteria of WP:LEAD, nor does it summarize the most important point of the criticism. It is highly misleading to write, "Critics and many observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" when the primary criticism is concerned with bias, inaccuracy, distortion, and partisanship.  Simply reducing this to "promoting conservative political positions" does not even begin to encapsulate the criticism, rather, it completely and totally ignores it.  The point is not that FNC is criticized for being conservative, it's that they are criticized for being unfair and unbalanced while they claim to be fair and balanced.  The criticism directly addresses their claims;  That they are accused of being conservative completely misses the point.  The most important criticism attacks their claims, not what other people claim about their political affiliation.  Fox News does not claim to be conservative.  They claim to be fair and balanced, and that is exactly why they are criticized.  Every analysis of their news coverage shows that they are neither fair nor balanced, hence the criticism.  Whether they are liberal or conservative is a red herring. Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current wording is fair and balanced ;) and i do not think it needs to go any further into attacking the news channel in its introduction. If we look at other American News channel articles most say nothing of criticism, yet they all have their problems. The sentence on here seems to be along the same lines as MSNBC, both of which statements seem fair, reasonable and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current wording is inaccurate and misses the point, and criticism is not an "attack"; That you see criticism as an attack speaks volumes. Each article is treated on its own merit.  This is not an article about MSNBC.  The lead does not currently summarize the article and needs to be fixed.  As it stands, the most essential criticism about Fox News is that while they claim to be fair and balanced, an analysis of their reportage clearly shows that they aren't.  Whether this is because they are conservative is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, the intro does summarize what this article is about. Its about a news channel which some think pushes Conservative POV, the intro says that, i dont see the problem. "They claim to be fair and balanced" is said here "Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting" although i do think we should add something like "and they often use the phrase "Fair and Balanced" when talking about their coverage on air". "Critics and many observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" - This covers the fact that people say fox news isnt fair, it cant be fair if its promoting a certain side can it?  The statement sums up ur concerns already,  You can find critics of every news channel out there, most do not make it into the intro. Atleast here it does. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, the intro does not summarize what this article is about, and does not meet the bare criteria in WP:LEAD. Furthermore, the criticism is inaccurate and misleads the reader.  Whether Fox News is conservative is irrelevant to the fact that they have been accused of making false claims about being "fair and balanced".  That you choose to focus on this irrelevancy simply serves to disinform the reader.  The lead is not acceptable in its current form. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the lead already covers this matter ,although i think "fair and balanced" slogan should be added after the bit about them denying bias. How does it mislead the reader? Saying someone promotes a certain point of view is exactly the same as saying they are biased. I dont see the big problem, it could be expanded but its certainly doesnt seem to be misleading.


 * Perhaps it would help if you proposed the wording u would like to see instead? i dont mind it changing if its to something better which is "Fair and balanced". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I want, is for the lead section to accurately summarize the main points in the article. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The talking points allegations are particularly egregious, and should appear in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lead does cover the main points in the article, with the exception of a mention of their slogan and the fact its available in many parts of the world. "talking points allegations" is covered in the fact they promote conservative political positions. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. Again, their political positions are completely irrelevant.  What is relevant, is that as a news organization they failed to follow basic journalism ethics and standards.  That is the point.  Continuing to point out their politics is a red herring meant to distract from the fundamental problem under discussion.  Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You aren't making any sense. Many critics of Fox News Channel state that they put their conservative political nature ABOVE the news that they give. Your argument holds no water. BalticPat22Pat 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm making perfect sense. Critics of Fox News consistently criticize the total lack of basic journalism ethics and standards, "the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability" among others.  My argument addresses the entire problem.  You are continuing to distract away from this problem by claiming the entire criticism can be reduced to "conservative political positions", when in fact, the problem is much greater and all-encompassing, and touches upon the very foundation of journalism itself.  No, I'm afraid the lead is entirely unsatisfactory and must be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Viriditas, your position almost exactly mirrors mine when I first "arrived on the scene" around a half of a decade ago. Since then, we've been through a ridiculous number of RFC's and hundreds of discussions about FNC's bias and the proper way to present it here. All of the RFC's resulted in the same determination (what you see in the lead today), and as such I've done my best to adopt that position as my own.

All of that being said, I think you are making an important distinction that has (to my knowledge) never been discussed previously -- separating the political bias criticism from the lack-of-journalistic-integrity criticism. I think the natural progression has been to lump them both together because of the possible causal relationship (bias begets unethical behavior), and that my be doing a disservice to the article. I am amenable to the idea that they are disparate subjects that should be addressed separately (not all unethical conduct is due to bias, and not all bias results in unethical conduct). Do you have some reliable sources that will help us make the distinction and properly formulate presentation? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blax, I mentioned this a few months ago and you slammed me for it. Nice dose of hypocrisy, there!PokeHomsar (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to find you some. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Bovine_somatotropin - Covered by the major media, and the subject of several court cases and two films.  "Fox had no legal requirement to report the truth in a news story."  "In February 2003, the Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by Fox News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States." (see also: Wines, Ethics, Law, and Business, 2006; Boje, Critical Theory for Business and Public Administration, 2009)
 * 2. Allegations of pay to play news coverage:  Using the media to influence health policy. (Mason et al., Policy & Politics in Nursing and Health Care, 2007)
 * 3. Karen Ryan's promotion of Bush's Medicare and education programs; State Department produced segments on the War on Terrorism:  Fox news affiliates aired government produced segments without disclosing the origin of the material.  The code of ethics of the Radio-Television News Directors Association states that broadcasters must "clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders."(Barstow & Stein, "Under Bush, A New Age of Prepackaged TV News", The New York Times, 2005) The General Accounting Office said that federal laws had been violated, because federal money cannot be used for "publicity or propaganda purposes" unless authorized by Congress.
 * 4. History of restrained press freedom; Limited objectivity and scope: A former reporter for the Australian states that "journalists on Murdoch's papers aren't given the freedom to operate as journalists should operate."  David J. Sirota of Salon describes Fox News Channel's early Iraq war reporting as a "caricature of state-run television, parroting the White House's daily talking points, no matter how unsubstantiated."  Writing in The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg said Fox's approach to television journalism "casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core."  Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil describes the limits on editorial freedom in Murdoch's newsroom, with the end result as "a radical-right dose of free-market economics, the social agenda of the Christian Moral Majority and hardline conservative views on subjects like drugs, abortion, law and order, and defence."  New York Post journalist Danny Scheehter says that the paper has "little pretense at nonpartisanship or even conventional journalism."  John Lloyd of the Financial Times describes Murdoch's commitment to "openly biased media" as a business decision, because, according to Lloyd, Murdoch believes that is what people want. (Allan, Journalism: Critical Issues, 2005)  Howeer, according to Higgins & Sussman, "The business of news distorts its public and community character and the institutional responsibility of news organizations to inform and educate, free of commercial or government imperatives, and improve the quality of a democratic civil society...A 2004 documentary film, Outfoxed, exposed the politically partisan news spin orders that regularly came down from Fox TV executives to the network's news anchors and talk show hosts...Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation, is widely reported to strictly control his news outlets, print and television, including Fox News, with staunch commitments to politically conservative values.  Murdoch hired Roger Ailes, political strategist to Nixon, Reagan, and the elder Bush, to run the Fox News network.  Under such leadership, balanced, journalistic freedom is out of the question." (Higgins & Sussman in Gibson & Lowes, Urban Communication, 2006)


 * There is nothing new here that hasn't already been covered in Fox News Channel controversies. I think some of the material above shows that the allegedly unethical behavior is caused by business and political connections, not necessarily conservative bias. The use of segments by Karen Ryan and the Office of Broadcasting Services at the State Department were illegal according to the GAO.  And, the use of White House talking points merely confirms the practice was widespread.  The FCC has enforcement power, yet has never used it to enforce the provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act which "prohibits the Executive Branch from distributing propaganda at home".  Fox even argued in their court case "that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States", and yet there is.  The fact is, the controversies subarticle contains 3,362 words.  Summarizing that entire article with 16 words in the lead amounting to "critics and many observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" is not acceptable by any interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Blaxthos's point is a good one, and there may be some merit to separating the issue of taking a political side from the issue of shoddy journalism. Croctotheface (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is evidence of "shoddy journalism" about almost every single American News channel, most do not go into detail about it in the lead. I think the current sentence on their bias is reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One, the editors point is that "bias" and "lack of ethics in journalism" are two disparate issues. Two, the logic "we shouldn't mention it because there are other ethics violations elsewhere" is not a valid reason to exclude discussion here.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact Fox pushes a conservative point of view is noteworthy (obvious to everyone) and justified to be included in the intro, i do not think "shoddy journalism" or what ever way someone wants to describe it is justified because statements attacking news channels of that sort of thing can be found for any news organisation (especially American news channels). Im not trying to exclude discussion, however i do think we should atleast take into account how all other news channel intros are on wikipedia, and i have not come across any mentioning "shoddy journalism". The closest example to Fox would be MSNBC, which currently has exactly the same sort of statement on political bias in their intro. This is fair and reasonable.


 * Attempts to add further criticism of Fox News to this articles intro would put this articles neutrality at risk as far as im concerned, especially as the editor seeking change seems to think this articles intro is currently "highly misleading", which its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The same argument was made by those opposed to the current intro: that such bias and advocacy was common to all media outlets. The editors here concluded that argument was invalid and since the bias and advocacy of Fox was a significant part of the Fox article and far exceeded similar accusations made against other outlets, including it in the intro was appropriate. If the issues discussed here a significant part of this article or its subarticles and it is properly sourced, then it's fair game for the intro. Gamaliel (talk)
 * The fact they push conservative positions is clear to everyone, the "shoddy journalism" is very different and plenty of sources could be found saying that about any news organisation. The fact there was so much dispute to get the current article intro to say what it says means we should avoid trying to expand controversial stuff further which will lead to even more disputes.


 * The current wording is fine, although i do think "fair and balanced" slogan could be mentioned in the intro after it saying "Fox denies any bias" .... and have even trademarked the slogal "fair and balanced" which is often metnioned on air. or along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current wording deals only with the bias issue, and not the ethics issue -- they are not the same thing. Also, again, the existence of unethical conduct by other organizations doesn't nullify its significance here.  The real question is if criticism for unethical conduct (separate from the bias issue) by FNC is verifiable using diverse reliable sources.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By it's very nature "promoting conservative positions" is a violation of journalistic ethics. If there are other instances of "shoddy journalism" that isn't aligned with its bias, clearly it should be mentioned (for example the criticism that many of it programs seeks to objectify women) and would be appropriate for the lead. However to mention both when one is just the means to an end reeks of redundancy. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every rhombus is a square, but not every square is a rhombus? :) I can envision circumstances in which they could act in a biased manner and yet not violate journalistic ethics, and I can also envision ethical violations that aren't motivated by bias.  Given that, I don't know if they should be inherently coupled -- if there are separate criticisms for unethical behavior, that seems to be a distinct issue... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article's lead contains a criticism which is clearly redundant -- and seeking to intimidate editors from correcting this is a shameful mockery of Wikipedia's ideals! ChulaOne (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a request to discuss first is exactly intimidation, nor do I see a redundancy in stating "X says this, Y denies". However, on another note (to the "veterans" of this article), shouldn't the lead be "Critics and some observers...".  I've been through this so many times, I've forgotten. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do all FNC critics claim bias or some? --Tom (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know, but if I had to guess I would say they would. According to the FAQ above "Some critics and observers..." seems to be the agreed upon language, but I do remember it being the other way around at times.  I just wanted to clarify which one's "right". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think its a question of right or wrong, its what folks can live with. Yes, it has gone back and forth over the years. I prefer some otherwise it reads as all critics which I am not sure about. --Tom (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I editted the lead to state that Fox is a "conservative news channel". Is there anyone here (or perhaps I should say, "is there significant mainstream opinion") that would downright deny that Fox is infact at least conservative leaning? --Nick (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, you have to find significant mainstream opinion saying it's conservative, and you are bringing up a subject that has been brought up many times, and has always come back to the same compromise. Soxwon (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think anyone denies that there are hundreds (probably thousands) of sources that apply the "conservative" label to Fox News Channel. However, I think the issue here is that Wikipedia's "voice" shouldn't be used to make the determination.  Now, you and I (and most reasonable people, to be sure) can clearly see the reality of the situation, however as long as there is a significant viewpoint that believes differently, under our core policies it would be inappropriate to apply that label.  There are various methods that have been used to "move the goalpost" (for example, insisting that FNC is the "real" center and everyone else is leftist), and so in my opinion it's better to show the relative difference between FNC and other mainstream organizations and leave the reference points (the what is the center argument, and the "liberal/conservative" labels) out.  Or, ignore my ramblings... ;-)  Either way, Soxwon is right... after like five years and dozens of discussions I am still pretty sure this is the best compromise that's ever been proposed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this really seems to be politcally motivated attempt avoid calling a duck a duck. Personally, I'm an independent, and I'm ready to acknowledge the existance of left leaning media outlets as I am right leaning media outlets.  I really think it's important that we include either "right leaning channel" or "conservative channel" in the header because that really apitimizes what Fox News is.  Asked to think of a conservative TV News Network, I can't imagine Fox News doesn't jump first to peoples' mind.
 * The arguement that "We've had this discussion before" doesn't carry water. Additionally, to say "as long as there is a significant viewpoint that believes differently" could be used to apply to holocaust denialism or alien abduction or any other such nonsense.  We wikipedians have a duty to write the truth as supported by evidence and as held in mainstream informed opinion.  Again I ask, is anyone here really willing to contend that Fox News is not a right leaning new network? --Nick (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point -- we don't decide what's true or not, we simply represent what reliable sources have already published. If you think you have some evidence that consensus has changed, I think you'll find the community uninterested in re-hashing the argument.  I will note, however, that the onus for ripping open this scab usually comes from the other ideologically aligned.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "we simply represent what reliable sources have already published." This was the point I was making.  When you say "existing consensus", are refering to the political oreintation of Fox News or the way this article should be written.  I imagine the latter (as the former is indefensible).  If so, please reference that consensus as I find it difficult to believe it exists.  I think to suggest that there is consensus is slightly misleading. I'll admit to being ideologically committed to calling a spade a spade.  It seems that as it stands this article fails to do so.  I still see no one arguing the veracity of the statement "Fox is a right leaning news channel".  I suggest it be included in the lead. --Nick (talk) 3:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd bothered to look at the FAQ, you'd have seen that there have been several discussions, RFCs, and other forms of communication on the subject. You need WP:RS saying it's conservative, period. You also need concensus. You have neither so you're case doesn't hold water. What constitutes a bias is purely conjecture and so you can't just say something, you need proof. I know several who think of MMFA as being centrist and others who think that Rush Limbaugh is liberal (I'm serious). You need PROOF! Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, no Soxwon -- the concept of "proof" has no meaning on Wikipedia. There is obvious evidence evidence of bias, and there are obvious sources stating such, just as there are plenty of people who believe that everyone else is just plain wrong.  In the end the relevant policies are verifiability and due weight.  I've seen no evidence that consensus has changed, nor do I see any point in repeating this ad infinitum while new editors (both of you) carp on irrelevant "proof" and "truth" arguments.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still no reference to where "consensus" has been established. Still no arguement against the assertion that Fox news is conservative.  Stop spouting terminology and provide some support for your statements. --Nick (talk) 4:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the already existing mention in the following paragraph adequate? It already states that "Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions" in the second paragraph of the lead with two sources given - as well as providing Fox's public response to the criticism.  In the article itself, the issue only appears in the criticism section - so repeating it multiple times in the lead seems to me to be an issue with undu weight for that view.
 * If you want it in the first paragraph, fine, but then the redundant criticism in the second paragraph should be removed, and Fox's public reply to the claim moved up to the first paragraph as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This irks me. It would be like putting in the first paragraph of the page covering the holocaust "Some people reject that the holocaust happened".  Mentioning it like that offers credence to the view.  Like there is some rational reason to believe it is so. I can find no reliable references supporting Fox's rejection of the charges.  --Nick (talk) 4:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have some reliable sources which specifically state the FNC actively supports a conservative agenda you will not be able to add such a statement to the lead. Exisitng research has shown that FNC is the most balanced in reporting of news compared to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC (much to the dismay of those that dislike FNC). As Soxwon has stated, the lead already incorporates the opinion of critics that FNC has a conservative bias, but you cannot state as a fact that it is since there is simply no existing statistical evidence that FNC news is conservatively bias. NickCT there are reliable sources of FNC rejecting that charge of bias. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well congrats Arzel on being the first willing to step up and deny reality. Out of curiousity, are you going to accept things like Pew Research polls (or is "reliable" in your mind only those sources which espouse your views)?  Do you acknowledge that Fox New's viewership is overwhelmingly conservative?  And if you do, is this not enough to call the channel "conservative"? --Nick (talk) 3:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your should avoid making causal arguments. By that logic we could label almost every other station as Liberal.  That conservatives are more likely to turn to FNC is more of a reflection of the liberal bias of other sources.  Arzel (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should avoid making poor arguements. In addition you should avoid contradicting your own point.  If you are saying that Fox News stands out from "every other station", you are essentially pointing out that it varies from the norm (something with which I'd agree).  Saying, "Fox news is different in that it is the only centrist news outlet" is like saying "4-leaf clovers are different from 3-leaf clovers in that 4-leaf clovers have the right number of leafs".  This is a slightly foolish argue.  The average is what determines the norm.  As you agree that Fox News is a conservative news outlet, can we now put this in the article? --Nick (talk) 7:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick, I would caution against feeding Arzel... he's made his position plainly clear, and despite what you or I (or a preponderance of the evidence) would show I don't think there is much utility in arguing with someone who admittedly believes that "FNC is proper and everyone else is biased". Again, this is the "moving the goalpost" argument I cautioned against earlier; I don't think you can ever have a meaningful discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge the validity of any viewpoint other than his own.  I suggest trying to have this conversation within the strict confines of (1) Wikipedia policy; and (2) improving this article.  Anything more just invites more ideological nonsense... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, I appreciate your point, arguement, and NPOV; however, your assertion that we have to avoid writing something that you, I, and probably the gross majority assume to be true because it does not conform with some contrived definition of "consensus" strikes me as short sighted and legalistic. I have however slightly changed my view on this position.  Based of my reading of other articles covering other news outlets I think it would be a unusual (and therefore perhaps improper) to call fox news a "conservative cable news station" in the first line (something which I can't find anywhere else). I'm still convinced that as the article stands now it makes the assertion that "Fox News is conservative" sound more controversial than it actually is.  If you read the article for "The Independent" newspaper for instance it states unequivically that the paper is "liberal leaning" (which I, and I believe the mainstream would agree with).  This article about Fox News needs something similair--Nick (talk) 8:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick, I appreciate your position, however I long ago realized that on Wikipedia one must set aside what he knows to be true to work within the constructs of Wikipedia. I have my own thoughts about the "democratization of fact" model under which Wikipedia operates, but until such time as the Wikiway is changed I think we'll have to color within the lines already prescribed.  It isn't so much that I disagree with what you're saying as it is I have adopted the community consensus position as my own (as prescribed by WP:CONSENSUS).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, can you point to something that shows "consensus" has been achieved on this point. Reading this talk page, it seems to me to rather contentious.  The reason this article is the way it stands now is simply because there are a set of agressive NNPOV editors out there.  I think we have to move to make this page more accurately reflect mainstream public opinion as reflect in Pew polls and other sources.--Nick (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading the FAQ at the top of the page, with links to the many pages of previous discussion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did try looking through there. I couldn't find any points at which there seemed to be wide spread approval of the current wording.  Could you point it out for me? NickCT (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for continued discussion

 * There seems to be some continued change/reverting of the wording of the lead, which is different from the earlier more contentious change. However, the edit summary of the most recent change claims that consensus has been reached for it - but I don't see consensus to make a change in the above discussion.  The change which NickCT appears to be proposing is to the wording which currently states:
 * Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting.
 * To instead be:
 * While Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting, observers and commentators not associated with the channel generally acknowledge that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. The channel attracts a larger conservative viewership than any other major news channel.
 * What are opinions on this change? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears NickCT is confused about what is meant by consensus. It appears he's thinking about a mainstream of public opinion in the world at large, when we are only talking about the consensus of editors on the particular article. There is no consensus for any change of the wording of the intro, at this point. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, we'll need to have a long and painful discussion before making that sort of change. Note I'm not speaking towards the content of his submission, but rather of the assertion that consensus has changed.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep no consensus for that change, and i oppose the proposed change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look.... I think I and a number of other people here acknowledge that as the lead is currently phrased, it appears to state that Fox New's political leanings are a matter of significant controversy. As I had stated above, this is a fringe opinion and should be stricken.  I think the wording should reflect the general (and mainstream) view that Fox News is a conservative leaning channel.  I had made this point above and people didn't seem to want to completely debate it, so after a while I just went ahead and changed the lead.  Cutting to the core of this issue, I think we all know that there is a movement out there attempting to propagate a myth.  As much as Steven Colbert might encourage his supporters to monkey with his Wiki page, Fox News encourages people to do the same.  It is up to those responsible among us to combat these kind of shinanigans. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does fox news accept they are conservative leaning? If they do not, then the current wording is far better than ur changes which basically state everyone one else thinks it is rather than just some observers. I had no problem with the sentence on Conservative viewers though, and would support that being added. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do scientologists accept that they commit organized fraud to dupe people out of cash? Probably not... but that doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.  Arguing that someone has to "accept" they have left/right of center opinions before you can say that they do, seems like a silly arguement.  Perhaps you're right about not saying "everyone", but, as shown by Pew polls, a majority of journalists will point to Fox News as an example of biased reporting.  "Some" is a weasel word, because it implies that it's not necessarily a majority opinion.  I think we need an adjective that falls somewhere between "some" and "everyone". Suggestions?NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most journalists are liberal. That is a fact.  Independent review of FNC shows it to be among the least biased in news reporting.  That is a fact.  What other liberal journalist think is their opinion.  Arzel (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh Gamaliel, I can always count on your wit when I need to laugh. I know you and your friends on the left deride this study, but here is your fact.  I don't know why people like you disregard research which doesn't follow your predesposed line of thought.  I thought all Liberals were supposed to be enlightened?  Arzel (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it's like to be enlightened, but I'm sure it doesn't include accepting as gospel truth every piece of hackwork slapped between two covers called a "study", especially a study by two fellows of a conservative think tank whose methodology was widely called into question, a methodology which labeled everything in the universe "left" and labeled the Drudge Report "centrist". Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What was your point? I'm "biased" because I don't believe in a dubious report that just so happens to "confirm" a cherished myth of yours?  If this is your standard of proof, no wonder you believe this study is sound. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am against that kind of inclusion since not only is it somewhat weasely it could be applied equally to just about anything without really having any meaning. An attempt at a casual relationship where the cause is implied by stating an effect.  Ergo, since FNC has more conservative viewers then it must be a conservative network, or in more fun terms. "If someone weighs as much as a duck then they are a witch."  Arzel (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Arzel. Just because the majority of a congregation at a church is baptist, doesn't necessarily mean it's a baptist church.  I would however say it's pretty strong circumstancial evidence.  Perhaps the tidbit belongs elsewhere in the article. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd never thought of it that way, but I think you have a point here. I and other editors at the JFK assassination articles have long opposed language like "Oswald's guilt is a matter of controversy" because that implies that, outside of Planet Conspiracy, that there is significant controversy.  To put it like that or to label Oswald the "alleged" assassin is legitimizes a fringe viewpoint and states that there is a controversy where none exists among serious historians and scholars.  In terms of this article, does anyone besides the viewership of Fox believe that Fox is not conservative?  The language of the intro is wishy-washy because of the necessity of compromise and consensus that we had to fight our way through, but it is worth considering if this wording legitimizes an otherwise fringe viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll concur, this discussion (IMHO) is long overdue -- though I've been a longtime proponent of the current intro, if you look back to the original discussion 4-5 years ago you'll see that my views were more inline with Nick's, though perhaps not so well formed and presented. Given the arguments he's put forward, I'll agree with Gamaliel's assessment.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok great. So can I have suggestions for a change?  I would suggest we switch "Some critics and observers" for "Most independent journalists and observers".  You could cite Pew polls that would support the statement.  I think that language would more accurate reflect mainstream opinion, while still allowing for some controversy.  For the record, I don't think Fox-News-bias-denialists are quite as crazy as JFK-assisination-conspiracy-theorists.NickCT (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a man of the world, so to speak, I fully concur that Fox is basically conservative, just as I would fully concur that MSNBC is now basically liberal and that Keith Olbermann is a flaming liberal (or a "progressive" if you prefer). The problem is, and Blaxthos among others has been a leading proponent of this, that we have long held that self identification is a necessary component in openly labeling an entity "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "socialist", "fascist", etc. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess your cable company's version of MSNBC doesn't come with Morning Joe. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say this is one of the best attempts at slight of hand I have seen in some time. Argue the point of your opponent.  Argue that if there is a controversy regarding FNC being conservative it is only a wacky fringe controversy which should not be included, but in fact the truth is most people know that FNC is conservative thus there is no controversy in stating so, even without any evidence to back up your argument.  I gave (what I thought was) a perfect example of making false cause and effect statements and the retort was an even better example.  What is most ironic is that today the vast majority of the world is seeing just how biased to the Left our media really is, and yet some have the audacity to claim the only bias is FNC.  It would be funny if not so true and dangerous.  Arzel (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep its scary just how left wing and biased most of the American media is. Everyone knows that Fox is conservative, but to label it as such and not do the same for all the left wing channels seems unfair to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Badmingtonhist. Normally if this wasn't a consensus driven project where verifiability trumped truth, I'd have no problem with a "less weaselly" lead (although I do have some concerns about giving an inanimate corporation a political ideology).  However, I think stating "that despite their denials, FNC is conservative" is opening an even bigger can of worms that just isn't necessary at this point.  To use the JFK assassination articles Gamaliel discussed as an example, the reason we have to be as forceful there, is due to the fact that there are so many myths and urban legends out there that have no basis in fact but are yet commonly accepted in the general public as true.  Here, FNC's political ideology is more in the realm of accepted opinion, rather than objective fact.  I'd say that most people know what FNC is and what it does.  However, if we do this, then I hope we are prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of such a bold move and what it would mean for NPOV.  So to sum up, I do recognize, that there are instances where you should not give much credence to the subject's opinion, but I'm not sure if this is the article.  In addition, to do so on a media (as well as political) article will, IMHO, do harm to the concept of NPOV especially where there are verifiable sources that come down on a different track (regardless of what we think of the reliability of those sources). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok... Allot of opinions here and I want to try and address them all. Badmintonhist- I strongly disagree with your "self-identification" arguement. If I walk up to you and say "I believe in small government, punishing criminals severely, family values, religion in schools etc etc.... But, I am not a conservative", I think you are more than entitled to say "Yes. You are a conservative based off your ideology".  It's not like a duck has to say "I'm a duck" to be a duck.  If it looks, like one, and it quacks like one....... Arzel- You're obviously motivated by a POV so I'm not going to try and argue the facts with you.  Perhaps you might be swayed by the arguement that FNC shouldn't be masking its conservative colors?  I think FNC and Murdoch aim to change the political landscape with thier "Fair & Balanced" claim by trying to make people believe that thier far right opinions are more commonly held than they actually are.  I don't think this is wise or convincing.  There's a pew poll that asked respondents "I believe most of what I see on _____ news channel".  The major news channel to score the lowest was FNC (i.e. respondents found the channel the least believable).  I take this to mean most people see through the "Fair & Balanced" claim and treat the channel with skeptisism.  Perhaps more than it deserves.  If FNC stepped up to plate and wore its colors with pride, I certainly would be more apt to believe it. BritishWatcher- It may be true that journalism in general in the states is leftist.  Let's be honest, different industries do often have political associations (i.e. gun industry conservative, Hollywood liberal).  I think it's important to note though that in this article we are saying "FNC is conservative in relation to other jounralistic outlets".  Not necessarily "FNC is conservative in relation to general US public opinion". Ramsquire- 1) Arguing that weaselly words are necessary in an article is a bad place to start an arguement 2) "accepted opinion, rather than objective fact"- I would say it's more objective fact.  But either way, at the moment it's worded as though it contentious subject on which there is no accepted opinion. In conclusion, can we change "Some critics and observers" to "Most independent journalists and observers" and reference that change with a Pew poll?NickCT (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current formulation could be stronger--"some observers," for instance, could be replaced by "many" or "most," either of which would be accurate. Considering that determining bias involves analyzing intent, I can't support something that would turn it into a matter of fact. Ramsquire's "accepted opinion" description strikes me as right on the money here: the article should have strong wording that reflects the "accepted" part, but we should not leave out the "opinion" part either. Croctotheface (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree Croctotheface. You like the change "Some critics and observers" to "Most independent journalists and observers" ?NickCT (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your points above-- The guideline WP:WEASEL explicitly states that when the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify, it is fine to use weasel words (it's also highlighted in the FAQ at the top). So although you may not like it, it is acceptable in certain instances here on Wikipedia. Further, you call out and then dismiss Arzel due to his POV, and then hang a lampshade on your own.  Should we dismiss you as well? My point is, be careful about assigning motives to editors and just deal with the arguments they present. Finally, the language "generally acknowledge that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions"  has Wikipedia taking a side in this controversy, which violates WP:NPOV.  We're supposed to present both sides, not come to a conclusion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really that we're thinking of "Weasel"s in the same context. But regardless, I think the current wording leads to a false impression that has to be changed. Re Arzel- Arzel is clearly coming from a political standpoint.  I like to consider myself independent; equally ready to call MSNBC liberal leaning as I am to call FNC conservative. Even so, I'm not going to argue that my POV is somehow better.  I'll admit to having allot of POVs that aren't mainstream.  I will however repeat that as this article stands, the lead does NOT reflect mainstream POV and ought to be changed.  I actually agree that my initial choice of words (i.e. "generally acknowledge") was perhaps not the most appropriate as it does seem to "take sides".  So how about we change "Some critics and observers" to "Most independent journalists and observers" and reference that statement with a Pew poll.  That seems to me to correct the false impression that there is significant debate over the issue, while leaving open the fact that there is some debate. NickCT (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you basing this on? What poll? Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm being an obstructionist here (because I'm not), but if we are going to do a piece-meal change, my preference is to just leave it as is.  Right now I'm thinking more along the lines of "Some critics and observers/Most journalists and observers/Many people/etc. of the channel denounce/criticize/etc. Fox News Channel for what they perceive to be its promotion of conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting and claims to only give room to both sides."  In the body of the article, we could flesh out the accepted opinion stuff dependent on the language of the sources and also delve into the potential violation of journalistic ethics again dependent on what the sources say. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have long been in favor of evaluating proposed changes to one article without comparing it to another article -- saying that MSNBC and Fox News are foils is a false dichotomy that ignores other important factors. Instead of trying to "move the goalpost" as Arzel suggests, we shouldn't try to "reference the center", but rather show the relative difference between other networks and Fox.  It's the delta (ie relative position), not the absolute position -- Arzel's argument attempts to interpret the ideology in terms of his idea of the "absolute center", when in reality there is no such thing (hell, by European standards most all Americans are right-of-center).  The only accurate (and neutral) way to represent the circumstance is via their position relative to others (IMHO).  Ramble done.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to attribute my ideology. If you wish to show relative differences then you set up a very subjective yardstick with which to measure.  You make the statement that FNC is conservative compared to the other MSM, but fail to acknowledge that in reality FNC is closer to the center than the rest.  The fact is that there is a relatively easy center to measure from (positive/negative stories from either the republican point of view or the democratic point of view).  By this measure FNC is closer to the middle.  Now, FNC's opinion shows are definately more conservative, I don't think there is any debate, but by the same token MSNBC and CNN are more liberal, no debate their either.  However, when just looking at their news reporting (which I think many people hear fail to look at), FNC is very much down the middle and the existing studies have shown this to be the case.  Arzel (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire- I like it, but eliminate "what they perceive to be". At best it is redundant.  At worst it seeks to minimalize thier opinion.  I prefer "Most journalists and observers of the channel criticize Fox News for biased/its/etc.promotion of conservative political positions". Blaxthos- I respectfully disagree with you reluctance at comparing Fox News and MSNBC articles. I think we agree than Fox News and MSNBC are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  So wording about the bias on one, should be similar to wording about bias on the only.  This is the "fair & balanced approach.69.251.189.69 (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read up on false dichotomy. I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum because you ignore my points.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask again, where is the reliable sourcing saying it has conservative bias? Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to hit a variety of points and finish with the main one. First, in response to Gamiel's jab: I don't usually rise early enough in the morning these days to take in much of "Morning Joe" or its competitors, however I am pretty certain that "Morning Joe" does not provide anything close to ideological balance for "Afternoon and Evening David, Chris, Ed, Chris Again, Keith, Rachel, Keith Again, Rachel Again, Etc.". Even Fox News has some token liberals.
 * Addressing NickCT's point, the ideological "self identification" standard did not originate with me, in fact I argued pretty vigorously against it when it came up almost a year ago in connection to the Keith Olbermann bio. However, it carried the day then championed by Blaxthos among others. Directly calling Fox News "conservative" would, of course, violate this "standard" (or "understanding"). More significantly, as Croctotheface points out, it would treat an inherently subjective opinion (albeit a widely held opinion) as a matter of fact.
 * Moving on, while I rarely disagree with Ramsquire, and am delighted that he has come out of retirement, I can't understand why he is considering a formulation such as "most journalists and observers denounce/criticize Fox for what they perceive to be its promotion of conservative political positions". This would be especially objectionable in the lead where it would clearly carry negative WP:Undue. Moreover, I see it as factually inaccurate. "Most observers" of Fox News are its regular viewers, many of whom probably believe that Fox promotes "conservative political positions" and, far from denouncing or criticizing it, enjoy it for that very reason. A similar statement, substituting the word "liberal" or "progressive" could be made about MSNBC viewers.


 * Thus far, I favor Croctotheface's suggestion to make the statement about the perception of conservative bias somewhat stronger without treating Fox's conservatism as an absolute fact. Saying that many people believe that Fox is conservative is stating a fact. Directly calling Fox conservative is stating an opinion. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Badmintonhist- thanks for the kind words. We are not actually as far apart as you indicate.  What I was attempting to get a across was a more forceful statement on the perception of bias--hence the phrase "what they perceive to be".  Instead of the critics simply saying FNC has is it (as it is stated in the current lead), I'm trying to go the next step and say not only do they say it, they also disapprove of it.  However, I see that it is contingent on whom we are referring to in the first clause.  It works better with "Some critics and observers" naturally.   To the anon- as has been said repeatedly now, we can't say FNC is conservative.  That would violate NPOV. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of replying separately to a bunch of comments I'll just say my opinion is somewhere around what you and many of the other editors here are saying. My JFK analogy was useful to a point, but you are right, we probably shouldn't come out and say outright that Fox is conservative.  Wikipedia has never been about stating what we think, no matter how obvious it is, but reporting the facts.  But I think my point was clear, and I think many here agree, that this compromise we forged doesn't accurately or completely report the facts and promotes the minority view that there is some kind of serious dispute about Fox's orientation.  Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say I'm astonished that you can spell Olbermann correctly, a feat that I struggle with on my best day, but you mangle my simple user name so badly. Anyway, I don't anyone seriously thinks a token Alan Colmes (or as Al Franken puts it, Alan Colmes) "balances" the fair and balanced Fox, anymore than two commentators make a network that has a three hour daily morning show headed by a former Republican Congressman liberal.  But to bring up MSNBC or CNN or whatever is an argument that promotes the false equivalence discussed by Blaxthos above, and isn't an argument at all, really, since this discussion is about Fox. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Show
Does anyone know what The Daily Show segment is called in which they show contradictory Fox News segments back to back? --24.3.79.47 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "here's your moment of zen" he always says at the end when they play credits, if thats what youre talking about and if my ears arent deceiving me. &lt;tommy&gt; (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding partisan external link
Not sure if adding a search results page from a partisan non reliable site really adds to the article. --70.188.128.226 (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, it doesn't have to be there. But it's no secret that they constantly distort the truth. &lt;tommy&gt; (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know that MMfA has a hard time with the truth. Probably best to not link them ;) Arzel (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting assertion, given that MMFA always provides the verbatim source to which they're commenting. Again, Arzel, just because you disagree with their analysis doesn't mean you can assert MMFA "has a hard time with the truth."  Please try to keep those two very different statements straight.  That being said, I think the proposed addition falls well beyond WP:EL and should be excluded.  MMFA content (and such from other reliable sources) is more appropriately added as text with citations in the article, not as an external link.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings
The ratings section... wooow talk about a POV... While it's statistical, there are a lot of weasel words. I also have a hard time believing that it's growing in the key demo, and frequently uses the wrong tense to show that any slip in the ratings was in the past and cannot still be happening. Tdinatale (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You should probably do some research before basing your opinion on your own belief. FNC's viewership has been growing almost nonstop since early this year much to the dismay of the dems and liberals.  Arzel (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the "Ratings" section is not so much that it's POV but rather that it is much too long and detailed. Adopting the approach taken in this article, by 2020 most of the article would be on the channel's ratings. A brief summary of it's general position relative to its competitors, occasionally updated, is really all that is needed. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a slight tweak to the part about 25% unfavorable in the new Pew survey. Trying to have it match the source rather than read as original research, etc. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

more 9/12 bias
More evidence that 9/12 was really an event organized by FOX News.

FOX News producer rallying protestors during a live report.

I think we should explore how we might mention that FOX News promoted the 9/12 protest then participated in "talking up" the event afterward. Obviously we would need more sources.

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We must avoid synthesis, original research, undue attention and recentism. There is actually a website devoted to Fox News that points out inaccuracies and bias in their news stories every day.  What we need is a reliable source that explains what type of news organization Fox happens to be and use examples provided by that source.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree completely. Reliefappearance (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PEW Research Study
Please be careful when adding information from studies to not summarize or make conclusions from statistical tables that are not reported within the actual study. It was added that FNC is viewed most unfavorably of all sources (25%). However, the next closest example was at 24%, a simple exact test shows that these two are not statistically different. Furthermore that study does NOT note that FNC was viewed the most unfavorably of all. Therefore, we cannot make a statement of fact that this is in fact true when there is no evidence either implicitly or explicitly that it is true. Arzel (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. I was only trying to reword a sentence that would use the study to say that Fox is viewed as the the most unfavorable of ANY news organization, which is OR and does not match the citation, imho. I am very glad that you don't tire of "battling" with the militants on politically charged articles like this. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that you shouldn't use the "most unfavorable" language. As Arzel says, it's a dubious portrayal of the stats.  I do however think we should include information on the unfovarability ratings from that study.  Given that the article talks about the favorability ratings it would be fair & balanced to include info on the unfavorable rating as well.  I will work on a rewrite that avoids the "most unfavorable" language. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez slams Fox News as Liars
Friday, Sept 18th, 340 PM EST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBL3VsFlLU (And I watched this on CNN today ... just so we're all clear)

We should include this under "controversies" somehow... Now Im sure some on the far-right/Rush Limbaugh radicals out there are going to argue and argue and argue with me on this but I'm sorry, This should be in the article, without any POV, because we should be fair and balanced. :)  (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. First of all that appears to be a copyvio. Second, that's not WP:DUE. Third, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a radical, just "different." Please avoid personal attacks. Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Soxwon, you're confusing WP:COPYVIO, which covers article content, and that CNN is the source, youtube is only the medium. Citations would reference CNN, not youtube.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't confused, I thought he was going to reference the video, which would have been a copyvio. Soxwon (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I would say that jumping to that kind of conclusion (and subsequent justification for removal) is a non sequitur, as it's easily sidestepped by "referencing" the actual source. You'll find lots of editors citing a youtube video rather than the actual source, so it's easy to make that jump, but the "youtube" rule is generally intended for self-published videos, not content that in-and-of itself is from a reliable source.  Doesn't really matter, as it's not appropriate on other more germane reasons.  ;)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll notice I also pointed out the WP:WEIGHT issue. I would have been against strictly the inclusion of the video if it were weighty enough. Soxwon (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. An attack is only personal if i'm targeting a specific person, hence personal. 2. I have no idea what DUE or copyvio means, it's a controversy and it's factual and reliable. 3. You're assuming that I think anyone with different opinions is radical, please avoid WP:personal attacks.  (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be more appropriate in Fox News Channel controversies; there is no indication this is any more significant than the dozens (hundreds?) of other criticisms calling out FNC for misrepresenting this or that... If it becomes a bellwether of increased callings out we can revisit, but I don't see the need to place it in the main article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Sanchez is focusing entirely on a specific incident. If he were to comment on a general tendency of Fox News to misrepresent things, to promote instead of cover, etc.. that would be more worthy of consideration in this article. — Mike : tlk  01:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.  (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of the fact that Fox News misrepresents news stories and that its viewers are the most misinformed of any people watching or reading about the news. (I don't know it they are misinformed because they watch Fox or they watch Fox because they are misinformed.)  There must be reliable sources that have analyzed the network.  But providing examples of bad journalism on Fox News would lead to a really long article.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst we dont want to turn this into a forum, Fox is clearly conservative but there are many American news channels which are misinforming the American people about many things. If it wasnt for Fox News today, America would be screwed because most of the other news channels seem to be in the tank for Obama, and theres plenty of evidence to prove it. Perhaps all American media articles need to mention their viewers are misinformed? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, Britain, let's not get personal, k?  (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * American broadcast news is much more biased than news in other industrialized countries, The most egregious example must be their coverage of the lead up to the Iraq war.  Also, when they show "both sides" of an issue they tend to provide a narrow range of opinion, employ a lot of yelling and screaming, and take insufficient time to properly explain issues.  But Fox News is far worse than any of the other networks.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum for hypothesizing.   (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no hypothesizing -- there are several peer reviewed studies out that clearly indicate FNC viewers are the most misinformed of all major media organizations (NPR viewers were on the opposite end of the spectrum). I thought at one time this was in the article; it's a travesty if it's not. I'd consider this discussion a starting point for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: C-Span aired the entire official event from start to finish. Even FOX did not do this. Reliefappearance (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Without Fox it probably would have received far less coverage. They actully created the Tea Party story.  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos would you give us a source for these peer studies? All I am reading from Fox detractors are talking points from Media Matters or other anti Fox Groups. I don't think a fox competitotr is a valid source. Still no response from anyone on suggestion to remove the POV of Fox being a Conservative news station.Tannim1 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fairly widely acknowledged, including by the president of Fox News, that the network conveys more conservative viewpoints, at least compared to other media outlets. It is reasonable to convey that in the lede.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All that article states from USA Today is that Fox is more conservative than their competitors. It can be argued that Fox is modearte and the others are liberal.  Again lets have a reference or eliminate a POV in the heading.Tannim1 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez: To include or not to include, that is the question.
This discussion seems to have veered wildly off course. The question is whether or not to include any mention of the Rick Sanchez "controversy" in the main article here. This isn't a general forum for a discussion on the state of Fox News. Is the Rick Sanchez incident notable? Is it significantly notable enough to survive wp:undue and to be included in the main article? Thoughts? user: J  aka justen (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this guy serious?  (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite serious. User:Soxwon above argued, essentially, that it isn't notable enough to survive wp:undue.  User:Blaxthos proposed considering it for inclusion at Fox News Channel controversies.  Since then, the discussion has become more of a forum on whether Fox News is accurate or informative, which aren't central to the specific question of whether this particular issue, which you proposed, should or should not be included here or elsewhere.  That's what we should focus on determining.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clear as day they lied straight up in an ad in an attempt to divide people...this shockingly enough leads to people questioning their own integrity. Tell me how that's not worth noting because I don't get it.  (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't taken a position on whether it should or should not be included, so asking me rhetorically why it isn't noteworthy would appear to presume I don't support its inclusion. My goal here was to refocus the discussion, in the hope of determining whether there is or is not consensus for its inclusion.  That being said, you're right, it is beginning to look noteworthy, although I'm not sure whether it should be mentioned here or at Fox News Channel controversies.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Hmm... I don't know... to accuse your competition of not doing something in which they did; then to continue to distort that lie to make it look like you're better than your competition deserves some type of sizable, infamous recognition if you ask me. I mean, they advertised a lie to appeal to those on the far right of the political spectrum.  (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Tommy's assessment of the facts, I am still unconvinced this belongs here rather than the more specific FNC controversies article. Tommy, can you speak to the due weight concerns, specifically how/why this should be any more significant than the other multitude of dishonesty accusations? Now, that's not to say I wouldn't support expanding the entire topic in the main article holistically, but short of a wider effort I don't understand why this singular report is significant than any of the others. Help me understand! :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. "Why is this more important than the other multitude of dishonesty accusations?" that made me laugh. Um... Here's what I think would be appropriate: Put this specific event in the FNC controversies article, but put an additional bullet of "Controversy of distorting facts" or something similar or appropriate regarding issues similar to these... and this is not the only one. A summary would be appropriate.  (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me just say this: This issue is different than Keith Olbermann responding to O'Reilly, then O'Reilly shooting back, or commentators on MSNBC talking about Glenn Beck. This was obviously a decision by management at FOX News. Whatever it is, publicity stunt, mistake, deliberate lie, etc... This is pitting FOX against at least CNN and ABC which have both directly responded. I feel the fact that the networks are bickering, the idea that this goes up to management, merits inclusion in the main article. Again, this is just just O'Reilly vs. Olbermann or Beck vs. whoever. This is FOX vs. ABC, CNN etc.. I would also like to note again that C-Span covered the entire event in front of the Capitol, FOX did not even do that. FOX did not attack C-Span of course. It attacked other for-profit news entities. Reliefappearance (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely.  (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez did a cut and paste this is just a way for editors to bash Fox again. Fox would argue that they did not cover the story as far it's significance. Since Rich Sanchez is auditioning for a bigger job, let not bother with him.Tannim1 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh No, no, no, do not give me that crap. Unlike Fox news we are not in the business of speculating and then making assumptions about other people. You saw (or you should have seen) that video. I see we also have a history of lying and sock-puppetry to get our way, hmm?  (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we see you have an inherient POV agiasnt Fox News. That is why I recommend we get rid of the bias tag in the frst part of the entry.65.96.135.71 (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but that doesn't matter because I don't make my edits that way because I think it's wrong.  (talk)
 * You know, the scary thing.. the really scary thing out there, is that people actually believe they're "fair" and "balanced".. That's truly scary. Big lie theory is true, I suppose... but I digress  (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you eliminate the conservative bias, all the name calling on this page might cease.Solarsheen (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Controversy section
Proposal. **And when you consider the following, please keep a neutral point of view, free of your own personal feelings**

Similar to the following:

Allegations of lying
Fox News has been accused of advertising falsehoods about their competition in an attempt to attract viewers in a colored ad in the Washington Post. It accuses ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN of not covering the 9/12 Protest which occurred on Saturday, September 12th, 2009. ref1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/cnn-ad-hits-back-at-fox-n_n_292158.html ref2: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/18/networks-respond-to-false-fox-ad  (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can the Huffington Post be consider a relliable source? It is like a conservative using www.michellemalkin.comTannim1 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't render an opinion on the concept as a whole, but (1) yes, THP is considered "reliable" for criticisms and punditry of subjects within their purview; and (2) the "lying" word is highly connotative, and should probably be replaced with something a little more neutral or at least less incendiary. You can bet the pro-FNC crowd will challenge that to boot.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct we would because I can find plenty of bias on the Huffington Post if I put my mind to it.Tannim1 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is bias everywhere, in case you haven't noticed.  (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you are arguing my original point unless Wikipedia is going to put the same bias note on every news source that it is a POV to put it just on Fox. Example I could say Best selling author and top rated news analyst Bill O'rielly says the Huffington Post has a far left wing agenda.Tannim1 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're looking at the facts and not speculating why. Bill O'Reilly and any political pundit with an agenda is best selling for no different reason that Jerry Springer is: People see and hear what they want to see. Wake up!!  (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is undue weight at this point. Sanchez complaining about a FNC advertisement is simply not that notable in the larger sense, not to mention that the language of the advertisement is open for interpretation. I read the advertisement as a situation where those other news organizations were caught off-guard to the size and scope of the protests that had been brewing. Wikepedia is not the place to promote one sides perception regarding what is little more than a longstanding "We are better than you" issue between CNN and FNC. Arzel (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Arzel, I know you're a big conservative but I figured even you would admit a lie when you see one. I'm speechless.. Did you even watch the video? I don't believe this violates UNDUE.   (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Arzel and Soxwon. Just because it does not put your "news" source in good light does not mean it should not be here, POV. For a major news network to take out a large ad accusing all the other major outlets of not covering something major, which they support, is noteworthy. Then for it to turn out to be false makes it even more worthy or print to their record here at Wiki.
 * Your POV is not the terms under which Wiki runs. --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be surprised, Marlin. Anyway, There is no deadline.  I'm sure if this thing has legs it will be apparent over time.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tommy, I am not a big conservative, but given your stated position, anyone not to the left would probably apear to be so. I did watch the video, and Sanchez did a pretty good KO impersonation.  To say that FNC lied is really in the interpretation of what they said and the overall context of the story.  From The Seatle PI Fox News VP of Marketing, Michael Tammero, stands by Fox's criticism of the other networks' coverage. "Generally speaking, it's fair to say that from the tea party movement ... to Acorn ... to the march on 9/12, the networks either ignored the story, marginalized it or misrepresented the significance of it altogether."  Now I'm not going to get into semantics about whether FNC either was stretching the truth, lied, or simply wasn't clear enough in their presentation, but we should make snap judgements towards what is really notable in the context of the entire history of FNC.  As Blaxthos has stated, there is no deadline, and if it has legs it will become apparent.  BTW Tommy, did Obama lie?  Arzel (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my god you're so partisan you can't even look at something without questioning its integrity if it doesn't sound like something you want to believe. Please, spare me the whole "oh that doesn't sound right so I'm not going to believe it" stuff. If you haven't noticed, Just came out today, FOX again, was caught with its pants down with a woman promoting the protesters to shout. Honestly, keep digging a hole for yourself. No really, keep arguing, you just further prove my point. And I don't care what the VP of marketing of FNC says... they lie and you can't argue against Rick Sanchez by equating him with Keith Olbermann ... that's not even an argument!... And you're going to equate all this over a mere lie (or maybe not) over a f^king tax?!???? Um ... wow. I don't think you realize Fox News has more power thna you think... people actually believe they're fair and balanced... that's scary. Also, If they admitted or said they were conservative... I wouldn't care, they have a right to do what they want. What bothers me is when people spread a lie to promote a hidden agenda in which the intellectually weak believe. (hey it worked for Hitler right?) ... That bothers me. Tom (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tommy, calm down and read up on good faith. I cannot have a discussion if you are going to resort to Ad Hominem attacks.  Arzel (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am calm. Sorry, I had to point out your fallacies. Tom (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very Mature. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, Foxs ad said How did they "miss the story?". It was then shown that CNN, ABC, etc... did not miss it. In fact CNNs own camera has the same angle photo used in Foxs ad. So yes Fox did lie. You have also been shown to work with Soxwon, per your talk page no less, about editing anything negative out from fox and other conservative Wiki articles. Your POV is not needed since it has been shown to be biased. This is not the first time this has come up with you, and you have been warned about other things as well. You can say what you like but your history says otherwise. --Marlin1975 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss this in a mature manner, then please do so. If you want to throw allegations about me or my supposed bias then I will simply ignore you.  Please explain how this passes weight issues with regards to the entire article other than simply relaying your personal feelings as to how egregious this is.  Arzel (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ok... Marlin, please stop WP:ASSUMINGCONSPIRACY. The only thing I left on Arzel's talkpage was a message asking help getting old contributors for a reopened discussion. I agree with Blax, there's no deadline and if it's really noteworthy it will catch on and be included. Soxwon (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your history and his seem to match up and why so quick to say "it will catch on..." when it already has. I have already reported Arzel would you like your history also looked at? --Marlin1975 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Marlin, your actions are coming close to wiki-stalking. Discuss the merits of your edit not the editor.  Arzel (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, I honestly don't care. Apparently Blaxthos is equally partisan as I am agreeing with him. Good luck with that argument. Soxwon (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Obviously a new section like this is going to be a POV-magnet. It will only be acceptable if very good sources can be found to back it up, and if it's written in a neutral way. When I say good sources, I mean no primary sources (ie, no examples of other news outlets or blogs criticizing Fox), but secondary sources summarizing the debate (for instance, journal articles that talk about perception of Fox and stuff; that will be more appropriate for an encyclopedia and more likely to be balanced anyway, since such an article would not be accusing Fox itself, but just reporting on accusations that have been made).

Because of the sensitive nature, any section like this should be written in userspace or a subpage first, then submitted to this talk page to seek approval and tweaking from other editors involved. Only after having been written outside and then agreed on by people here should it be added to the article. That will prevent edit-warring and guarantee a better-written section. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles should not have controversy sections. Criticism of Fox News should be included in the article but it should be well-sourced - not Rick Sanchez but peer-reviewed writing about Fox News.  Sanchez's comments are too recent to have been picked up by academic sources and we have no way of knowing if they are correct or if they are a major story about Fox.  It is obvious that Fox deliberately distorts the news but this article must rely on reliable secondary sources to prove that.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no hard and fast rule about controversy articles, and there certainly isn't any consensus on the subject. The community writ large has always chosen to evaluate this issue on a case-by-case basis, so please refrain from making "absolute" statements that actually reference your opinion.  Additionally, your assertion that "articles should not have controversy sections" contradicts consensus all over Wikipedia, and certainly isn't grounded in policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Criticism sections. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an essay, in which someone expresses an opinion - please stop representing it as official policy, official guideline, or even a style guideline. It carries no authority, and representing it as anything other than an opinion is dishonest.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the only person using the term "policy". Please do not put words into my mouth.  A criticism section is just bad writing.  It puts isolated events into one section because the writers have no idea how to incorporate them into the article.  If you want to write a bad article, go ahead.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please qualify opinion with "I think" or something similar, otherwise statements like "articles should not have controversy sections" come across as carrying an authority that they do not possess.  Thanks. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)