Talk:Fox News/Archive 39

Using biased sources and competitors as sources
Reverted the following changes added first by Sooganssnoogans and later back by JzG, finding that these changes are using FoxNews competitors as sources as well as other hyperpartisan sourcing with an axe to grind. Since when do we trust a competing entities opinions?--MONGO (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As seen above contentious additions for sure. In general this article needs academic source upgrade.-- Moxy 🍁 14:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The content you're referring to has been in the article since at least September 2019. The content in question includes citations to two peer-reviewed publications. I'm also pretty sure I did not originally add the parts of the content which are not sourced to peer-reviewed research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources in question
 * , I am absolutely for more robust sourcing. I am puzzled, though, that you removed academic sources. I think the best way to analyse Fox's move from rioght-leaning mainstream to the conservative hyper-partisan bubble is by reference to academic sources like Benkler's Network Propaganda. More facts, less commentary, all good. But that works both ways, right? The WP:MANDY statements go at the same time. But Snoogs did not add this content. He reverted its removal by . So did I. Routine reversion of drive-by whitewashing. You might want to consider the "Who Wrote That" extension, which helps with that kind of thing - here is the original insertion. Guy (help!) 15:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * NewYorker leans left, Vox leans far left, not sure on Foreign Policy, PBS centrist slight left, Media Matter far left...these are all mostly financial competitors for a piece of the News viewership. I never trust competing interests when voicing opinions about their competition.--MONGO (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Jane Mayer is an expert investigative journalist and this is in-depth factual reporting not opinion, so the source matters only in that it needs to be reliable for editorial oversight (which it is). Max Boot is a conservative. PBS is as centrist as they come. MMA I would not use. But overall, I would keep Mayer, PBS and the academic sources you removed, and remove the opinion content (Vox, Boot and MMA). Guy (help!) 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So now Fox News is in competition with Oxford University Press and the Newyorker? Seriously? That's the argument for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals? 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And absurd claims along the lines of "Vox leans far left" have gotten editors topic banned in the past because they display a pretty clear WP:TEND approach to editing this topic area.  Volunteer Marek  15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with that. Vox, yes, rated as left .--MONGO (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you didn't say "left" you said "far left", which is nonsense.  Volunteer Marek   18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , meh. Vox is leftist. I never cite it. I'm inclined to interpret the removal of academic sources as being bundled with a reflexive revert based on the fact that CNN and Vox were cited as sources, which would be a red flag in a watchlist for this article. Now we know it's been there for most of a year and what MONGO was seeing was reversion of drive-by edits by a user with under a thousand edits (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Hsinghsarao) I think we can skip the recriminations and focus on content. Guy (help!) 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea and now another such account is jumping in to edit war on their side .  Volunteer Marek   18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you lost me at Fox being part of the "conservative hyper-partisan bubble". I reverted the edits based on a challenge to them. I suppose we can draw up an Rfc and hope more neutral voices arrive to render a verdict on this.--MONGO (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, which of the listed references are actually "academic"?--MONGO (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - There seems to be a lot sources you're rejecting: all academic sources, the New Yorker, conservative Max Boot, and PBS. So who does that leave as a reliable source for you? Do you mind listing the sources you suggest we use? BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, still in denial about that are you? OK. Guy (help!) 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but New Yorker is NOT an academic source. Neither is PBS. I suggest we don't use any of the details I removed. I challenged the edit...that was why I reverted JzG, and before anyone calls me a partisan they need to look at who brought this to FA and supported this at FAC.--MONGO (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No but this is and both Newyorker and PBS are reliable.  Volunteer Marek   18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Since you reject all sourcing from: all academic sources, the New Yorker, conservative Max Boot, and PBS - Do you mind listing the sources you suggest we use? Just saying "no" to all sources, and not offering suggestions is not helpful. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted that entire change. I don't support any of it, so I removed it. Since that is the case, why would I wish to add references?--MONGO (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the description should be based on scholarly rather than mainstream sources is a matter subject to local consensus. The WP:BURDEN is not on MONGO, however, to supplement or supplant sources he believes do not meet these standards. El_C 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - I agree with you. That's why I asked MONGO to please list sources he/she will approve. And you are also correct, whether to use scholarly or mainstream sources is subject to consensus and if MONGO chooses not to list any sources he/she'd approve of, then so be it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , eh? No, of course it's not. It's a piece of investigative journalism. The academic sources were: and . I dientified the sources I agree are problematic - Vox, Max Boot and MMA - and the ones I think are reliable - New Yorker (because it's investigative not opinion) and PBS. Guy (help!) 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We have academic sources + other high quality reliable sources like the Newyorker. There's no policy based reasons for these attempts at removal.  Volunteer Marek  18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The deleted edit should be reinserted. I agree with that the sources are high quality academic sources and reliable sources.   has not given any good reason to remove it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am having a hard time finding a reason why Vox or MMfA would be reasonable sources for this article in general? I am sure more quality sources could be found for any claim they make and if not that claim is most likely undue. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - per MONGO - UNDUE, fails WEIGHT and NPOV - it is biased criticism, in part by network competitors who are hardly expected to praise their competition when livelihoods are at stake. The other part is criticism based on biased political views by academics. Inclusion of this material is the antithesis of whitewashing. There are certainly enough opinions to encompass all news media as explained in the book, Critical Perspectives On Media Bias; it's what the experts say. We should try to maintain some consistency in the way we treat all news media, and it starts with editors choosing sources from a NPOV, not necessarily neutral sources. Writing for the opposition also helps, and is a much better option than singling out Fox News simply because of disagreements over a political POV - which is dependent on the time of viewing because the network offers news & opinions from both a left and a right perspective throughout the day. Editors should not push the POV that my news is better than your news. News is news, opinions are opinions and the Systemic bias of Wikipedia should not be glaringly obvious to our readers. We all should practice closer adherence to WP:NPOV for the sake of the project. Atsme  Talk 📧 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Atsme, this is WP:NOTAFORUM and this too you have been previously warned about.  Volunteer Marek   06:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you've recently asserted a systemic bias of Wikipedia. Are you suggesting it's a liberal bias? soibangla (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The long-standing edit is fully supported by multiple reliable sources and should be restored in its entirety. soibangla (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we seriously arguing against using The New Yorker as a RS? It's the gold standard of a strong RS, green-listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources, end of story. Regarding using news sources as references for each other, Notability (media) is very pertinent. Any entity in the business of being a reliable source is by definition going to be a competitor to other reliable sources in the loosest sense of the word "competitor". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. Are you honestly going to try and say Media Matters for America is an appropriate source for this content?! A company that is literally known for their "War on Fox"? Full stop, I don't think so. Several of those sources go far beyond just "competitor" for these kind of situations. If facts matter, these are not the sources you want to use. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MediaMatters source should be removed. But that doesn't change the fact that there are multiple OTHER sources, academic and highly reliable, which support the text. Keep the text and other sources, remove MM. Simple and by the book.  Volunteer Marek   18:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to edit the MMfA article to show one instance in which it has been called out by reliable sources for making stuff up, as opposed to, say...this. If history is any guide of the response whenever I make this challenge, I anticipate strictly crickets. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with MONGO that theses are all biased sources. And even if we decide to use the biased sources anyway (which is permitted), there absolutely needs to be attribution which is completely missing here. It should be stated as according to (biased source 1).... See WP:BIASED. Also, I will state I oppose the way these sources are being used and would not use them here at all--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In 2018, you were "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources." You are now claiming that two peer-reviewed Oxford University Press books by recognized experts are biased sources that we should not use in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please retract your WP:PERSONALATTACK. I absolutely did not make any such claim about peer-reviewed books. First of all, I don't even know what you are talking about. The rest of us are talking about the five sources in the box above which are not peer-reviewed. I refuse to discuss an AE request from two years ago here and derail this discussion. Cease your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior immediately. Instead of personalizing the dispute, please explain to me why we are using biased sources without attribution in direct violation of WP:BIASED.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to keep up with what's happening then. MONGO removed both academic sources and non-academic sources, and explicitly said "I reverted that entire change. I don't support any of it, so I removed it." when asked about the removal of the academic sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , PBS is fine, Jane Mayer is fine, Foreign Policy is fine. You can't write a neutral article if you reject every source that is critical of a subject, especially when that subject is Fox News. Guy (help!) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of PBS's political leanings (and it is left), the report is a collection of interview clips that would need to be attributed to the person who said them (WP:BIASED) and the same for the rest of the sources. One of the people being quoted in the PBS report is from Media Matters and I'm glad that we can both agree Media Matters has no place in this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , your objections to every source critical of Fox are noted, but you are putting words in my mouth. We routinely do include quotes of unreliable sources when they appear in reliable sources, because the reliable sources have either checked them or provide context. Guy (help!) 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters for America
Can we at a minimum agree that Media Matters should not be used at all in this article?. It is a far-left organization that has declared a "war on Fox News". It is purely an advocacy organization, not a reliable source.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking at the listing, every statement for MMfA is attributed to MMfA, so per Reliable sources/Perennial sources there is no issue. They are a watchdog organization that has never that I can find been accused of fabrications, deception or the other sorts of conduct that have made Fox wholly untrustworthy for anything regarding politics. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

RSN discussion result
I recently closed an RSN discussion on whether CNN is usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News. "The consensus is that CNN is a usable source for unflattering information about Fox News. Editors largely do not accept the financial COI argument to disqualify CNN. Several editors feel that attribution is needed. Meanwhile, WEIGHT / DUE has been listed as a factor by several editors as to whether such content should be used." In relation to the above discussions, the argument against the possibility of using competitors as sources (if they are already known as reliable sources) seems to be rejected at RSN.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversies section
How does anyone propose shortening that section to address the tags left there? I've tried shortening it but couldn't find anything that warranted removing. Are the tags misplaced? Love of Corey (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Fox War Channel" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fox War Channel. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"All American New Year" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect All American New Year. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced
The main article that [citation needed] for the statement that Fox News still keeps the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Here's the citation showing that Fox News has the trademark registration over "Fair & Balanced" https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000075280027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:82D8:4480:E15A:1B0A:3B5E:6489 (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020
Please change "The Fox News coverage extended throughout the programming day, with particular emphasis by Hannity" to "According to Media Matters, the Fox News coverage extended throughout the programming day, with particular emphasis by Hannity." Attribution is needed. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Attribution is in the in-line citation.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please check WP:RSP again. Anything from Media Matters needs attribution in every case. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅, and if you can find a better source please suggest it. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020
(1) I think you need to edit this segment here:

"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24] Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During Trump's presidency, observers have said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "It's the closest we've come to having state TV."[26][27]"

These lines are very editorialized and represents a very particular line of harsh criticism from Fox News' biggest detractors, who of course tend to have their own politics. Appearing in the summary gives the strong appearance of non-neutrality of the overall article. It is fine to mention its political bias in the summary, but the full discussion of various defenses and criticism (including harshest criticism) should appear in the section on political alignment.

(a) The referenced paragraph in the summary should instead read:

"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of Republican Party candidates and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22]"

(b) This should be removed from the summary since it already appears word for word in the section on political alignment (where it belongs):

"Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During Trump's presidency, observers have said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "It's the closest we've come to having state TV."[26][27]".

(c) The following segment should also be removed from the summary, as it is already in section on political alignment. To me, it is also unclear:

"Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24]"

What does this mean exactly? The citations are also unclear both in how they support the allegation (not to mention what the allegation exactly is). What is the "integrity" of the news? How does Fox damage the integrity of the news (eg is its bias that damages the integrity of the news)? It should also be elaborated on a bit more and because it is unclear (but may be valid or a widely shared criticism worth noting) it should appear in the section on political alignment. This is not merely an allegation of political bias--even if a strong political bias. Again, it is a point of view of Fox's harshest critics and doesn't belong in the summary. Aapelle (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The text seems pretty clear to me, and is well-verified--and obviously important. It's a news organization which is strongly criticized for doing things that are opposed to what is generally considered to be the media's job by very reliable sources, including scholars writing peer-reviewed, academic articles and books, so that this is leadworthy is really a given. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Drmies I understand reliable sources say this, but if I am reading the article it is not immediately clear that it means. It is detrimental because of its bias or because of mis-reporting? Regardless, most of this section is repeated in the body of the page word for word. It appears in both the summary and the section on political alignment. It should not appear in both places. Makes the whole article messy. I think the summary paragraph on this section is already too long, too. For both those reasons, it to me makes sense to leave this in the section on political alignment. I suppose you could also remove it from the section on political alignment, but that would require the removal of that whole section. That would be regrettable, since I think the section is already too short as it stands.Aapelle (talk)
 * If it's in the main text, with so much detail, that's all the more reason to keep it in the lead. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Did you read it? It is repeated word for word in both places. Is that best practice? There is no additional detail currently provided in the section on political alignment. It is a copy paste.Aapelle (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020
The second paragraph within the Fox New Channel description is entirely biased regarding left leaning media companies and newspapers opinions of the Channel. The sources quoted are just media sources themselves which makes them no more valid than just somebody off the street. I recommend this whole second paragraph be deleted since it is based on opinion. Leave the rest of the paragraphs alone that focus on the facts of the company and the history of it which mostly avoids political opinion. I'd edit this way myself if allowed. Cschlise (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Conservative" in lead
There was been quite a fair amount of discussion on talk:MSNBC about whether the network should be described as liberal or progressive in the first sentence of the article. As that seems to be going nowhere, I suggest removing this descriptor from the top sentence of this article for consistency and fairness. One can read down the lead which discusses at length Fox News' conservative editorial slant and allegations of reporting bias. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. It is properly sourced, and it is one of the network's main claims to fame. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dimadick The network does a lot to seperate its commentary and news content. It doesn't hide its leanings in the former. The network doesn't claim to be biased. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree. Fox's conservative bent is irrelevant to its definition as a news channel, and I have moved the aforementioned sources elsewhere in the lede. The lede still adequately discusses Fox's appeal to conservative audiences. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Numerous sources (as cited in both the lead and body) indicate that Fox's purpose as conservative outlet is central to its definition as a news channel - indeed, it is well-sourced that that was the entire reason it was founded. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Vrrajkum Agreed. There ought to be consistency amongst articles for outlets that lean one way or another. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is WP:FALSEBALANCE. We cover articles according to how sources describe them; Fox's purpose as a conservative voice simply has more coverage.  There's also a substantial difference in how the two are covered and what the sources say - MSNBC made a decision to brand itself towards a more left-leaning audience for marketing purposes (though there has been considerable internal pushback and efforts to walk it back at times), but this isn't comparable to the extensive sourcing indicating that Fox's purpose is, and has always been, to advance a particular ideological agenda (stemming from a collaboration between Murdoch's desire to use the media empire he inherited to advance his ideological preferences and US conservatives who concluded after Nixon's impeachment that he could have been saved if they had more control over the media landscape.) Essentially, based on the sourcing, the top-level decision-makers for MSNBC are focused on making money; the top-level decision-makers for Fox are focused on advancing their particular ideological goals. The two are not comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of reliable sources describe MSNBC as liberal or progressive, whilst MSNBC is not described as such in that article lead. Likewise, Fox has made a clear distinction between largely conservative opinion content and nominally impartial reporting (refer to Fox News' former slogan "Fair and Balanced"). Both are private entities intent on making money, and both have a clear ideological slant in terms of both viewership and opinion content. I fail to see the difference in that regard. WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't apply. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aquillion - Where are your sources for the above assertions? Answer:  NONE.
 * Clear evidence of Wikipedia administrator bias. Fox News get jammed with "conservative" label while clearly leftwing news sources are protected from a "leftist" label. I was recently blocked for adding "leftist" to the Daily Beast description.  The administrator who blocked me focused on hidden text buried in the article: "--do not insert left-wing or other political orientations, these edits have been rejected earlier. Please discuss them at the talk page"  Let's try this and see what happens:  Let's remove the "conservative" label and add this hidden text.  (See The Daily Beast article for clarity)

While I would like to make the change myself (and have already attempted), it will be instantly reverted. I'll give this 24 hours, then, I'll probably attempt it again myself unless responded to. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News is no Longer a Conservative News Channel
I would change that Fox News Channel is a conservative news channel. It should be changed.
 * Why? What are the sources that say this? O3000 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding this correctly, pundits' grumbling about why the Democrat and not the Republican won the presidential election is left-wing, but actually accusing the people running the polls of manipulating the votes without evidence to back it up is not. What irony.  Free Media  Kid!  04:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm aside, I think it would be an excellent thing for Fox News to become center-right, as while still keeping its distinctively conservative identity the source would at least become much more usable and that would help to avoid stigmatizing rational Rockefeller Republicans. However, Fox News is still right-wing.  Free Media  Kid!  07:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

First sentence appears to be false
Fox News Network, LLC Terms of Use Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News) states, in part (first sentence of second paragraph), "Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment." This statement is what protects them when they exaggerate and or lie. Therefore, please change:

“Fox News (officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox) is an American multinational conservative[2][3][4][5] cable news television channel. “

to:

Fox News (officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox) is an American multinational cable television personal enjoyment and entertainment channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.183.93 (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Conservative is an appropriate label important for understanding the subject of Fox News. Also, you need to develop a consensus and cite reliable secondary sources to support your change.  Free Media  Kid!  07:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2020
Remove the last paragraph in the beginning of the article because it is exactly the same as the content of the “Political alignment” section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The lead section should summarise the article, and Fox's political alignment is pretty important to this article, so I would suggest getting consensus before doing this.  Seagull123  Φ </b> 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

State TV
The last sentence of the lead includes a quote describing Fox as "the closest we've come to having state TV." I don't see the value of having this quote in the lead, as it has no summary value. Hence, I have decided to ask for comments on this quote existing as it does in the lead. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted the phrasing to be more consistent with a summary style. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert
A edit I made moving the descriptor of "conservative" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead and added "some" to the statement former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives", with the reason given that these edits were "not an improvement". As per remedies, I have raised this here to see if a consensus developed. In the mean time, as more than 24 hours has passed since my original edit, again as per remedies, I will re-instate. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits (the first of which removed "conservative" and the second of which de-emphasized it) are a violation of the editing restrictions on this page, as well as a the spirit of WP:BRD. Fox News is a "conservative cable news channel" and should be described as such (as countless reliable sources do). Just saying it's a "cable news channel" and adding a sentence lower down the lead about how it is "known for its conservatism" is not the same, and fails to clearly and succinctly inform readers that its primary claim to notability is as a conservative news channel. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its primary claim to notability is not as a conservative news channel. Its commentary content certainly is, but its news reporting is (nominally, at least) independent. RS do describe it as having such an opinion stance, but it's not befitting of the first sentence. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:WEASEL regarding the word "some" Vrrajkum (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020
Shorten the final paragraph of the article’s introduction. It is nearly identical to the Political alignment section of the article. I understand why deleting the paragraph would not be feasible, but I believe cutting it down is very much necessary given that there’s few differences between the paragraph and the Political alignment section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Swil999 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing practices that are antithetical to improving this article
A certain editor, whom I will not name, has as I see it showed an aversion to even slight improvements to this article. I plan to restore my most recent edit, which was already a compromise as I see it, as more than 24h has passed. Any editor who has an opposition to these is free to justify those here, in accordance with ArbCom remedies. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring and not assuming good faith. Gain consensus for your edits. O3000 (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020
2603:9001:407:C800:56BD:79FF:FE4D:6E3D (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) I personally find your "accessible reading material" on FOX NEWS is incorrectly based! FOX NEWS' contributions are open, clear, and informative for all open minded, clear thinking & true information seekers!

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Newfound opposition to Trump, opposition
My recent edits on the new relationship between Trump/Trumpism and Fox News has been reverted. I understand that the lead should be a summary of the article, but I think these new developments (as well as the rise of Newsmax and OANN as far-right alternatives as a result of Fox's more critical stance on Trump, bolstered by Trump himself) should be mentioned as this issue has been mentioned a few times on the talk page. – Bangalamania (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that Fox News still counts a being pro-Trump, with its prime-time conspiracy theorists considering Mr. Trump to be the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election. It may be useful to note in the body of the article, however, that Fox News has been met with increasing criticism from right-wing watchers who do not consider it conservative enough and would prefer far-right media outlets. While that may be true, it would be ironic, considering that Fox News was the one that reflected and reinforced its viewers' anti-Democratic Party ideas. As much as I have been disgusted by its journalistic standards, I would actually feel bad to see it dissolve because it was not "conservative" enough.  Free Media  Kid!  01:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you on all points there, although I would add that if it is mentioned in the body of the article that there should be a brief mention in the lead of Trump supporters' opposition to Fox ebbing away. And I do note the irony of seeing right-wingers calling out Fox for being "Faux News" because it isn't right-wing enough. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello freemediakid!, can you provide a reliable independent source for you statement about conspiracy theorist. But I also agree with the OP, it could use an update as this is a big change in the way they are reporting. WILDGUN96 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Fox News
Comment only. I like the information all being in one spot. (like a book). Don't break it all up please. 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:101:5F0:E455:40FF:2C22:563C (talk)

Fox's pattern of anti-semitic attacks on George Soros
At Village_pump_(policy), has suggested that the section Fox_News should be expanded to cover the entire pattern of anti-semitic attacks that have been made by Fox hosts. I am starting this discussion here to work on wording and establish sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) comments by this sock puppet are struck per wp:talko
 * More specifically, I suggest that the section talk in general about Fox's controversial hosts and the network's apparant continued support for them; touching briefly on any specific incidents with them on the assumption that the host's bio page would have more detailed coverage. It's not just Beck that is controversal at Fox, but also Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. My point at the NPOV board is that this article gets a bit too focused on microscopic aspects when those aspects are better covered as part of the macroscopic picture of criticism of Fox. --M asem (t) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Specific incidents" would seem to also include specific long-term TARGETS of Fox's attacks, correct? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The way I would envision a section would be "Controversial hosts" and would be read something like (not final wording, this is off the cuff) "Fox News has been criticized for its continued support of its controversial hosts of its various talk and opinion shows. Among such hosts include: (list format here to have two or three sentences on each) Glenn Beck, who has spent several years making anti-Semitic remarks and false conspiracy theories about George Soros. Fox has defended Beck's comments as..." with the understanding that if I went to Beck's page, there's probably a good full paragraph or three about this (and I see there is). Remember that this article (Fox News) should center on criticism of Fox News, and so in talking about Beck specifically, we need to establish just enough (his repeated attacks on Soros) to understand in reasonable depth why Fox is criticized for carrying Beck, not for why Beck is criticized. Leave details of the latter to Beck's page. --M asem  (t) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Asking you and others to help provide sources regarding anti-semitism by Fox hosts or regular contributors below. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) ===General background:===
 * https://theintercept.com/2019/01/23/plot-george-soros-didnt-start-hungary-started-fox-news/
 * Possible WP:RSOPINION: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/15/why-fox-news-has-gone-wobbly-anti-semitism/
 * Possible WP:RSOPINION: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/03/fox-cant-shake-anti-semitism/
 * Letter to Fox News from ADL regarding anti-semitism's prevalence on the network - https://www.adl.org/news/media-watch/letter-to-fox-news-channel-on-use-of-antisemitic-tropes

Sources re: Glenn Beck

 * https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/why-the-conspiracy-theories-about-george-soros-dont-stack-up
 * https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/05/30/unpacking-the-george-soros-was-a-jew-killing-nazi-conspiracy-theory-that-roseanne-barr-spreads/
 * ADL Criticism - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/adl-beck-soros_n_782420.html
 * ADL Criticism - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/12beck.html
 * Roger Ailes and Fox 'defense', including describing NPR as 'nazis' - https://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/18/roger-ailes-fox-news-npr-nazis

Sources re: Tucker Carlson
https://www.salon.com/2019/11/20/tucker-carlson-claims-he-didnt-use-anti-semitic-trope-despite-suggesting-vindman-has-a-dual-loyalty/
 * https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/fox-news-tucker-carlson-claims-george-soros-is-remaking-america-1.7362111

Sources re: Newt Gingrich

 * https://money.yahoo.com/newt-gingrich-asks-fox-news-035534018.html
 * https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-hosts-get-real-awkward-when-newt-gingrich-tries-to-do-a-soros-dog-whistle

Sources re: "Fox & Friends"

 * https://forward.com/fast-forward/431143/fox-and-friends-airs-soros-migrant-conspiracy-theory-pegged-as-anti/
 * https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/13/fox-news-host-george-soros-funded-protests-are-anti-semitic

"and conservative columnists, such as Jennifer Rubin"
Jennifer Rubin does not identify as a Conservative and has sought to distance herself from that label. Should this sentence be rewritten? Juno (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Rubin was a conservative when she had the valor (the gall, I would call it, although that term has negative connotations, so it is best to avoid it) to criticize Fox News. While I do believe that she still considers herself to be a 1990s-kind conservative and not a right-wing populist, it is irrelevant to write down what she believes now. However, if she had cited Fox News as a reason for her denouncing current right-wing politics—which could be mistaken as 1990s conservatism—I could see someone clarifying in the Fox News article that she has since renounced the label, citing Fox News as one of the reasons.  Free Media  Kid!  09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021
In the controversy section, there is a subsection called Journalistic ethical standards. This section should include the case of McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC. This case determined that Tucker Carlson is NOT being a reliable source of facts. This is the argument of the Fox news lawyers. There are many articles about this case including the judge of the case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye 2600:1009:B016:9143:8967:869:58E4:22A0 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 15:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning of fake news and alternative facts in the introduction
The current introduction is not very perspicuous when it comes to the fact, that Fox News had repeatedly spread fake news and alternative facts. The Fox-News wiki-article in other wiki-language-Versions are more straight forward in their introductions of fox news. I at least recommend for other users here, to go for example to the french or german fox-news-wiki artice and use a translator-app, to see how they describe fox-news in the introduction. besides a report in a scientific-journal the sources being used are huffpost, forbes , Los Angeles Magazine , CNN , Le Monde , Die Zeit and Slate france. Well I guess that if some of the mentioned sources (for example: cnn, Huffpost, Forbes) would be used for mentioning fake news and alternative facts in the introduction of fox news, the editing would most probably be reverted. but what if we would use - next to the scientific report - the english-based Los Angeles Magazine or the french "le monde" or the german "Die Zeit"? With translation programs everyone can check the non-english-sources themselves. So there is no boundary, when it comes to the use of those, right? LennBr (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , TIL that "politologue" is a word. I will be using it frequently. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fox News and unreliability for politics
I was overhearing some discussions down at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and found this link. I dunno if it's any helpful, but I just wanted to ask if there is any worth in mentioning more about Fox News and its unreliability surrounding politics-related topics. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , in the article? No. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. It's an unreliable source, right? I thought Washington Post was reliable. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or is it just straightup not relevant? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021
add Ron DeSantis to Regular guests and contributors

see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/06/desantis-gives-fox-news-exclusive-signing-new-voting-restrictions-into-law/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/05/06/fox-news-didnt-ask-for-an-exclusive-on-desantis-bill-signing-network-says/ https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-exclusive-desantis-florida-election-bill-signing-2021-5 71.173.64.11 (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. We need a reliable independent source explicitly identifying DeSantis as a regular guest or contributor. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are these two not independent enough? Just asking and am curious. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or was it that these sources are not reliable enough? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * More likely that the sources do not identify DeSantis as a regular guest or contributor.  Free Media  Kid!  16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021
Fox News is available on Foxtel on channel 608. 175.32.196.147 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  &#124; 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use&#32; on reply) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Vague references - clarification needed
The section about Fox News’s political bias needs to be significantly improved to be neutral. In terms of semantics, the use of the word “conservative” requires clarification and more specifics, as Wikipedia, especially the English version, suits the global English-speaking audience. Moreover, the obfuscated use of “scholars” or passive voice dent the credibility of Wikipedia in the eyes of conservative readers. This is not to say that the bias doesn't exist, but it needs to be more properly explained and supported. 109.66.6.108 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are sources cited in the article (per both 'scholars', and un general), and I likewise fail to see how any of them are "vague", so I'll assume you were using the word 'sources' in the colloquial sense, and were in fact referring to the prose itself. The terms being used are the correct ones, taken directly from RS, and it seems sufficiently clear in this context; I'm honestly not sure there's any potential for global readers to be confused, as it fits either way. The information itself is "properly supported" by the aforementioned reliable sources, and it likewise seems sufficiently and clearly "explained", at least as far as I can tell, so I suppose I'm not actually seeing the issue(s) raised here. Do you have a more specific suggestion? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

More specifically, I think it would be better to be more semantically accurate (for instance “socially conservative”/“religious”/“a free market (or capitalism) advocate” instead of the umbrella term “conservative” in the specific context in which these are mentioned. Conservative could also mean risk-averse, for instance.

As per “scholars” I was unclear. The article (the prose itself) is properly referenced. Specifically the general use of “scholars” or of the passive voice is what bothers me, as it puts the burden of proof on the reader (to discern from the sources the opinions of scholars) rather than be provided with the names outright. This usage also sounds a little bit pompous, as if the writers know everything that had been said about this in the scholarly world.

It is purely about semantic. As a non-expert, I was sure the article is biased at first glance. Only after putting in time analyzing it did I realize it is a purely linguistic problem. 109.66.6.108 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Climate Change Section is out of date.
Without taking a position, such a controversial subject needs to be updated. The references are 10 years old and the amount of research in the last decade is humungous. Some positions of Fox and scientists may have changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.63.8.238 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The section appears to be accurate and supported by acceptable sources. You're welcome to suggest recent reliable sources if they contradict its material, — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021
May I request to remove Rick Leventhal from the list of Fox News personalities. He already left the network on June 2021. Thank you https://pagesix.com/2021/06/17/kelly-dodds-husband-rick-leventhal-leaving-fox-news/ 49.204.181.142 (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Fix Lead
Last paragraph needs to be moved into the body. No other news sources has it. It's ridiculously biased. 2600:8805:C980:9400:B419:EACF:C083:FF90 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph is fine as-is, as Fox News has a well-known reputation for this. The lead of the article summarizes the body of the article. ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't who made you the exepert?2600:8805:C980:9400:5C01:5E1B:F64C:7382 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Fix lead2600:8805:C980:9400:5CD4:9B4B:C130:4BB (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Fall of kabul
i believe that with the amount of coverage Fox News is giving the fall of Kabul i believe a new section should be added
 * Like their exhaustive coverage of the fake Benghazi scandal they invented? Nah. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

25 years
As of today. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is shown in the infobox. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, i know that. It's updated now. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was probably just a cache issue then. It updates automatically but sometimes needs to be purged. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the Pro-Republican and pro-Trump bias section. It was caused by this edit, that removed the auto1 reference while it was still in use.

The following:  

should be replaced with:  

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thanks. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Kelly Wright
He should be included in the list of former hosts and contributors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.154.136 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"conservative" in the first sentence
I'm not denying Fox isn't a conservative news source. It is. But for the sake of consistency, I believe the word "conservative" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Mind you, it's coming before even "cable news television channel". No other article for a mainstream, mass-market news channel, of which Fox is one, has mention of its political leanings in the very first sentence. MSNBC, for example, which I'd argue has a roughly equivalent progressive bias, only mentions accusations of liberal bias at the end of the lead. I am not advocating that any and all accusations of conservative bias should be removed from the lead, they shouldn't, but having mentions of political biases in the lead is completely different from having mentions of political bias in the first sentence. Mentioning biases in the lead is crucial for properly summarizing the most important parts of the article below but placing the word "conservative" in the first sentence right before "Cable News Television Channel" is tantamount to saying Fox is a conservative news channel, not that Fox is a news channel accused of conservative biases, despite the talk page stating the article takes no position on Fox's political biases. Unlike the article on Fox News, taking example again from MSNBC, the article does not state MSNBC is a liberal news channel, rather that it is one accused of liberal bias. I looked through the article FAQ, as well as the linked RfC, and nowhere does it state "conservative" should be placed in the first sentence, only that mentions of conservative bias should be included in the lead. I am taking no political position here, I am not trying to right great wrongs, I am not even trying to defend Fox. I am trying to make the article consistent with what is stated in the article FAQ, where it is stated, the article takes no position on the biases of Fox News. In its current state, this article does. Brazenly. I am suggesting simply that the first instance of the word "Conservative" is removed from the lead. Nothing else would change, and the incredibly important mentions of conservative bias would remain.

I would appreciate if someone would be able to tell me why "conservative" is used in the first sentence of the lead, and redirect me to the appropriate RfC which mandates that "conservative" be used in the first sentence, not the RfC which mandates that conservative bias be mentioned in the lead.
 * Addendum: In an above thread on the talk page, the user AndyTheGrump stated that a consensus would be needed to remove "conservative" from the first sentence. Why would consensus be needed to remove something which is contrary to the article FAQ, claims that Fox News is a news channel inextricably linked to an agenda, and which wasn't mandated by a consensus?

Thanks,  KlammedyKlamKlam:Nosh 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes Fox News from others is that it was deliberately conceived to be slanted. The same is not true for MSNBC, CNN or network news shows. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that so? According to the first edit found including "conservative" in the first sentence, found [|here], the original purpose of including "conservative" in the first sentence was to be compliant with MOS:LEADSENTENCE, providing a concise definition of the subject for the nonspecialist. However, if that were to be the case, and it seems to be given that "conservative" has been included in the lead since 2019, then "liberal" would be included in the first sentence of MSNBC, and other news channels with similar political slants. Also, saying that Fox was deliberately conceived to be slanted is not necessarily true. Wikipedia's own History of Fox News, under the "Launch" section, makes no mention of Fox being created as a conservative news channel, rather it was created to be a "fourth network". One will be quick to note that the article states Fox was created to be a republican centered alternative to CNN, but this is not cited, the only citations in the lead are of Fox's network placing, there are no correlating citations in the body as to be consistent with WP:LEADCITE, and the lead has a tag. Also, in multiple other locations, such as the History of Fox News article or the "fox" disambiguation page, Fox News is not referred to as a Conservative news channel, rather a normal news channel.


 * Additionally, since "Conservative" was added to the first sentence without consensus, why would it need consensus to be removed, unless I was misinformed. If "Conservative" being added to the lead has been reaffirmed by some form of consensus or community discussion making it both standard policy that the reason for "conservative" being added in the lead is due to Fox being founded for the express purpose of being a conservative news channel and is now therefore unable to be removed without consensus, could you please provide me a link to said dialogue?

Thanks,  KlammedyKlamKlam:Nosh 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If History of Fox News does not include it was deliberately conceived to slant right, that article needs some work. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, where was it stated by a community discussion that an article regarding Fox news needs to regard it as a "Conservative" news channel or news channel deliberately conceived to slant right in order to be neutral?


 * Additionally, none of the talk page archives linked in the FAQ, nor the RfC mentioned in the FAQ, discuss the inclusion of the word "Conservative" in the first sentence. All of the talk page archives and the RfC are also from before the addition of "conservative" in the first sentence.
 * I reiterate, I am only advocating for the removal of "Conservative" in the first sentence, not any mention of conservative bias in the lead. All my suggested change would accomplish would be to not accuse Fox of being an inherently politically charged news channel. I am not advocating for this edit due to any personal political bias, only a bias against bias on Wikipedia.

 KlammedyKlamKlam:Nosh 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Conservative" has been in the opening of the article for at least the last 2 years, Jan 21 andJan 20. That is what we call "established". If you want to change it, feel free to initiate that discussion, but the onus is on you for removal, not on other editors for retention. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

“What distinguishes Fox News from others is that it was deliberately conceived to be slanted.”

This statement is not fair or accurate. According to the 1996 New York Times article below, which contains several quotes from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes describing how they expect FNC to report news. Making up a reason why a description should or should not be removed is dishonest. I don’t think you should be the one telling others why a news outlet was conceived while ignoring the founders own reasons. If that is the reasoning from removing “conservative” from the lead paragraph or not adding “liberal” to the lead paragraph of CNN than you are wrong. Fox News definitely leans right, just as CNN leans left. Try again, why does one have that description in the lead and the other doesn’t?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/07/business/at-the-new-fox-news-channel-the-buzzword-is-fairness-separating-news-from-bias.html WhowinsIwins (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As you were told at the CNN talk page, peruse the talk page archives to catch up on past disucssions regarding this. Zaathras (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fun read.... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC about Fox being described as Conservative
Should Fox News be described as a "conservative cable news television channel" or should the word "Conservative" be removed from the first sentence without removing other mentions of conservative bias from the lead?  KlammedyKlamKlam:Nosh 20:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The following text was originally written by the author of this post in a preexisting talk page thread posted shortly before the posting of this RfC: I'm not denying Fox isn't a conservative news source. It is. But for the sake of consistency, I believe the word "conservative" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Mind you, it's coming before even "cable news television channel". No other article for a mainstream, mass-market news channel, of which Fox is one, has mention of its political leanings in the very first sentence. MSNBC, for example, which I'd argue has a roughly equivalent progressive bias, only mentions accusations of liberal bias at the end of the lead. I am not advocating that any and all accusations of conservative bias should be removed from the lead, they shouldn't, but having mentions of political biases in the lead is completely different from having mentions of political bias in the first sentence. Mentioning biases in the lead is crucial for properly summarizing the most important parts of the article below but placing the word "conservative" in the first sentence right before "Cable News Television Channel" is tantamount to saying Fox is a conservative news channel, not that Fox is a news channel accused of conservative biases, despite the talk page stating the article takes no position on Fox's political biases. Describing Fox, or any news channel for that matter with a political adjective is equivalent to saying that a news channel as a political bias. Unlike the article on Fox News, taking example again from MSNBC, the article does not state MSNBC is a liberal news channel, rather that it is one accused of liberal bias.
 * I reiterate, I am not advocating for scrubbing any mention of conservative bias from the lead. All I wish is for the first instance of the word "conservative" to be removed from the first sentence. Describing Fox as a conservative news channel is an example of the article taking sides, despite the article FAQ under the question "Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias" stating:
 * "Wikipedia takes no position on whether Fox News is biased"
 * This FAQ question can't be changed, nor can it be removed. Most importantly, Wikipedia cannot take sides, especially on something so subjective, and this is an example of taking a side, and it must be removed.
 *  KlammedyKlamKlam:Nosh 20:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your proposal and your argument need to be split. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I have split them; I am not a very active Wikipedia editor and therefore will not be able to easily voice my opinions. Therefore, I have posted a comment containing my reasoning. I was not under the impression that the poster of a RfC could not participate in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlammyKlam (talk • contribs)
 * The FAQ (Talk:Fox News/FAQ) actually can be changed and removed. Though it is there because it has overwhelming consensus. –– FormalDude  talk  08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for "conservative" before cable news television channel. Multiple reliable sources describe it as such. shanghai. talk to me 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An accusation of a source of a political bias should be taken with a grain of salt. Such accusations are prone to influence by the author's own personal biases, and therefore any mention of them should really only be used to state that a network has been accused of political biases. The sources used after the word "conservative" are written by a total of eight people, and to the best of my knowledge, are written offhandedly and are not incredibly connected to the actual research at play. The offhanded statements of eight people cannot possibly be enough to state that Fox is a source with conservative bias, it would be enough, however, to state that Fox has been accused of Conservative Bias.  KlammedyKlam:Nosh 21:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Fine as-is Fox News is a conservative outlier in mainstream media, they pride themselves on this and it is a part of their branding. We do not need to say "MSNBC is a progressive-leaning news network, because pointing out the norm is not useful. It'd be like saying water is wet. ValarianB (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but in its current state, the first sentence insinuates that Fox is a conservatively biased news channel. That's taking a side. The FAQ page states that the article does not take a position on the bias of Fox News, and the WP:NPOV page clearly states that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Just because it is backed up by a reliable source doesn't mean we should present it as fact, especially with something so objective and charged as political bias in news.  KlammedyKlam:Nosh 21:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:NPOV is a little off. It's true Wikipedia doesn't take sides, but what we're not taking sides on is the content of reliable sources. Since reliable sources describe Fox as conservative, that is what Wikipedia must convey. If we don't go by what the sources say, then we are going by our personal bias, and not staying neutral. This even comes down to the wording presenting it as a fact: per WP:WIKIVOICE, we must not present as an opinion what reliable sources call a fact. –– FormalDude  talk  09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So by that metric, even the political opinions of reliable sources are eligible for statement as fact in a Wikipedia article?  KlammedyKlam:Nosh 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are indistinguishable from fact, then yes. There literally is a fairly common situation in politics where one side is on the side of facts, and the other side is lying or pushing propaganda. A good example is Big lie. Fox News and its talking heads have pushed that Big Lie quite vigorously, to the point that a couple honest hosts have left the channel, for example Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the determining factor is whatever the sources say. There are three sources connected to the reference in the first sentence. If these say Fox is a conservative cable news channel then conservative should be kept in. I haven't checked these sources yet. And if there other sources in the intro that say this is a conservative cable news channel, then that is further evidence for saying it is conservative. It is not up to us to say an editor is biased by writing that into this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove. Of course Fox News is conservative (and this is supported by reliable sources), but this doesn't need to be stated in the first sentence. It's fine to cover it later in the lead. The current first sentence gives the impression of editorial bias, especially when juxtaposed with the current first sentence of MSNBC. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mx. Granger, you do realize that many Fox News viewers consider Fox to be middle-of-the-road and neutral? They, therefore, accuse CNN and MSNBC of being far-left, communist, sources. -- Valjean (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've heard things along those lines. I don't see that as relevant to this RfC, though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove from lead sentence per Mx. Granger. While KlammedyKlam is correct that WP wouldn't be exhibiting a bias because an overwhelming number of RS describe Fox News as conservative, and Fox New self-describes as such, even other Wikipedia editors don't get it, so we cannot expect our readers to understand the policy contortions required to get at "this is not really WP being biased".  It comes off as blatantly biased, and that is what matters.  WP is written for readers, not for internal policy wonks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Let's ignore policy and dumb down an article so the yokels won't get mad" is not a valid argument. ValarianB (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Fortunately, SMcCandlish added "from lead sentence" later, so their intention was not to eliminate it completely. It still belongs. NPOV is also for internal policy wonks, governing how editorial bias should not affect editing behavior, but the results are still viewed by the public, so following NPOV means we are required to document ideas and biases that are often far from neutral, are repulsive, and false, and frame it with the bias and tone from the source. We do not cater to the feelings of readers, and yet, the placement is certainly a legitimate consideration, as long as it's not an attempt to bury the objectionable content. Such motivations would violate NPOV. In that sense we sometimes move shocking words to later, but "conservative" is neither shocking nor negative. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: not only is it adequately sourced, it is the network's defining characteristic as it was deliberately designed from its inception to be conservative, while none of its competitors were designed to be slanted, at least not until Newsmax and OAN came along, the slants of which are also noted in their first sentences. MSNBC adopted its current format several years after it was created. soibangla (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. And please let this RfC be the end of it. It's quite ridiculous that we continue to entertain the idea that we should throw out our policies to accommodate the possible perception of bias on Wikipedia. What matters is if this is biased, and it's clearly not. I found a comment from 2006 (yes, 2006!) that is just as applicable to the consensus on this now as it was then: Since the perception of Foxnews having a conservative bias (whether the perception is accurate or not is irrelevant) is sufficiently widespread, to leave it out of the article would violate NPOV. This perception is also one of the factors that makes Foxnews notable, so it should be mentioned in the introduction. Also, since the perception (again not any actual bias just a perception) is so widely known to exist it need not be cited at all. However, to show that said perception is not being pulled out of thin air, there is a citation to a study showing the pervasiveness of the perception. –– FormalDude  talk  16:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in first sentence. Fox News was created by Roger Ailes to be a conservative, unofficial Republican Party, news channel. Burying the word seems to indicate the word is seen as embarrassing or negative. State it up front and own it. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove from lead sentence - there's no need to state the obvious. People don't need to be told the sky is blue. It's adequately covered later in the lead.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">(talk)</b> 04:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don’t live in America then this most definitely isn’t obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Using that logic, if you don't live in America then it isn't obvious that CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, New York Times, Washington Post are all liberal biased, but that description is not featured in any of their lead sentences. But if it is a conservative media outlet, you will most definitely find that description in the lead sentence of their respective articles. I still believe it is adequately covered in the lead of this article.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">(talk)</b> 21:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources exist to prove that or are you just relying on a speculative WP:OR WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you forgetting that Fox itself is RS and regularly accuses others (e.g. CNN) of having a liberal bias? Not dissimilar to what CNN does to Fox. We don't need to cover all the political shit-throwing that happens between the news orgs or at the least should be tactful about it.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:FOXNEWS for political topics, while CNN is considered reliable. –– FormalDude  talk  18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Fox News is considered mostly reliable for topics other than politics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep multiple RS describe Fox as being conservative. This is clearly one of it's main features. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove from lead sentence. All news organisations have biases. AFAIK Fox does not brand themselves as conservative - it has only been accused by others of having conservative bias, and the wording of the lead should reflective this. In this regard, the current 3rd and 4th paragraphs are sufficient. (As a comparative example, MSNBC which openly embraces its progressive slant including with their tagline "Lean Forward", does not have their biases mentioned in the lead at all.) Not to mention having unnecessary adjectives in the lead sentence is generally bad form and unprofessional to start with - a lead sentence should only define the article subject, and that's that. E.g. look at the lead sentence of Donald Trump - only states he served as the 45th President of U.S., makes no mention of his political leanings or whatever despite it being a common media talking point.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference between MSNBC and Fox is that Fox was created by conservatives, for conservatives, and has remained that way since its inception. MSNBC only recently became liberal in the past few years. –– FormalDude  talk  18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't if thats a justifiable argument against calling MSNBC liberal. RS is pretty clear about MSNBC having a liberal bias. If were going to describe Fox as conservative, an action that I support, we should also describe MSNBC as liberal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's its most distinctive feature, and the fact it might be obvious to an American Wikipedia editor does not mean it is obvious to a global encyclopedia reader. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per FormalDude, BobFromBrockley, Valjean, and over a decade of consensus.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep “Many consider Fox News to be middle of the road and neutral" is an unsupported assertion for illusory purposes and should not be considered. Like, he couldn’t even have thought to survey before stating such. --CreecregofLife (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in first sentence I'm hear after seeing the AN discussion regarding the original close.  As was discussed in that AN I think MOS:FIRST makes it clear this subjective assessment (which is clearly widely supported) should not be in the first sentence but should be in the first 2-3 sentences, "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere.".  Also, per that discussion it is important to note that there is a difference between supporting having conservative in the opening vs in the first sentence.  While some have argued that Fox News is a conservative network it's probably better to say they have a conservative view on political topics (broadly speaking including science and social topics with a political angle).  Saying "conservative news network" can imply they only cover topics that have some relationship to conservativism.  The network covers the full range of national news including things like current events, business news, etc.  Contrast that with sources such as Reason which typically covers topics that have a specifically librarian aspect to them.  While "conservative" is an important aspect of the network it is not defining the way "news network" is defining.  The original closer was correct to note that many of the "keep" !votes don't actually address if the term should be in the opening sentence vs early in the lead.  As such they aren't helpful in deciding consensus.  I would encourage those editors to clarify their positions as to why this should be in the first sentence instead of say the second sentence.  Springee (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in first sentence. Promoting conservative views has been a distinctive feature of Fox News ever since Rupert Murdoch hired Roger Ailes to run the channel. (sourced from Reuters in the body text) Attempts to push that fact out of prominent placement in the first sentence merit rigorous scrutiny. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a defining characteristic much-remarked upon in sources, and so needed per WP:DUE, as Bill and others have discussed at more length. -sche (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - If Fox is conservative, then MSNBC is moderate liberal & anti-progressive & CNN is leaning moderate liberal & anti-progressive. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove or displace: I don't like the current sentence mainly for stylistic reasons: American multinational conservative cable news television channel is a mouthful. I would prefer the first sentence read something more like: Fox News … is an American [I would cut 'multinational'] cable news television channel… or some variant thereof. I don't see a compelling reason why its conservative bias urgently needs to be mentioned in the first sentence as opposed to elsewhere in the first paragraph or lead, but if others are adamant, I would prefer to append something like …which caters to conservative audiences. to the end of the sentence, rather than leave it where it is. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep; extensively covered in high-quality reliable sources as the defining feature of the subject, and therefore an essential part of any concise definition. Virtually all academic coverage of Fox (which is extensive) focuses on this aspect and has similar language. Most of the arguments against are not really policy based - they seem to amount to either stylistic arguments (which are plainly not sufficient to let us ignore the sourcing) or WP:FALSEBALANCE arguments that prioritize the appearance of neutrality over adherence to WP:NPOV. Saying that it merely "caters to" conservative audiences would be inaccurate and insufficient - the sources are essentially unanimous that Fox's primary purpose, right from its founding, has always been to represent and advance a conservative point of view in American politics. It is not merely catering to conservative audiences, it was created to advance the owner's conservative beliefs, and this is its defining feature according to the highest-quality sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would note my suggestion merely paraphrases the strongest statement of bias (apart from the one currently under discussion) that appears in our own voice in the lead, when we describe Fox as designed to appeal to a conservative audience. I am open to alternative suggestions but would note that there is not currently a consensus for describing it in our voice as deliberately biased and establishing one would, at this point in the process, require a separate RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would require no such thing, you don't get to shift the goalposts on this conversation. This is a straight-up discussion - keep it as-is (as I noted over a month ago above) or remove it. Why this RfC is still eve ongoing is a mystery, it should've been just been reclosed as consensus to retain. ValarianB (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment It's often helpful to see how Wikipedia characterizes things like this vs other sources. Consider the entry from Encyclopedia Britannica. It's opening paragraph is Fox News Channel, American cable television news and political commentary channel launched in 1996. The network operated under the umbrella of the Fox Entertainment Group, the film and television division of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox (formerly News Corporation).. Discussion of the things conservative are 3 paragraphs deep into the article. Sources that say "conservative" is the defining characteristic of the network appear to be from sources that are making a point about the nature of the coverage rather than sources that are providing a high level assessment. This would suggest that the emphasis we put on this may not reflect out other sources would want to summarize this topic and suggest that we are adding emphasis based on the views of editors here rather than how external sources would summarize the topic. Springee (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cherry pick a source that aligns with your POV and cast doubt by accusing other editors of not being adequately informed enough about how external sources summarize the topic. CPUSH at its best. –– FormalDude  talk  07:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't cherry picking. I was trying to think of high level sources that would provide a summary of Fox News without any particular context.  Encyclopedia entries are the most obvious ones but I'm open to other suggestions. I'm only familiar with 3 professionally edited online encyclopedias, World Book, Encyclopedia.com and Brittanica. World Book has no entry for Fox Broadcasting or Fox News (or related suggestions).  Encyclopedia.com has no Fox News article but does have Fox Broadcasting Company. It mentions the news arm but doesn't say conservative. A number of editors have said Fox is described as conservative in sources but are those high level summary sources or sources talking about Fox in context of politics (including where science and politics cross like climate change).  It's not unreasonable that so many editors here would think of Fox News in context of conservative politics because that is invariably how we on Wikipedia discuss it. Springee (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was once a keep !vote on this, but as I've reflected more I don't think it's needed. Fox is known for just being news channel before anything else, before it's known as conservative. Britannica doesn't say conservative in the first sentence. I also understand the concern with MOS:FIRST that we shouldn't overload the first sentence with descriptors. Also adding conservative just doesn't do much for the article as a whole. There is already a large paragraph in the lead over Fox's conservative bias, and that's good enough. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fox is known for just being news channel before anything else, before it's known as conservative. Do you have a source to support that, or is it just your own say-so? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, what is the general summary source that says Fox News is known for being conservative beyond anything else? Please not general summary source, ie not a source discussing Fox in the context of politics but a source just summarizing it in general.  This is why I point out the Brittanica entry on Fox News and the Encyclopedia.com entry for Fox Broadcasting neither support the view that "conservative" is the defining characteristic and thus per MOS:FIRST should be in the first sentence.  Springee (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked Checkers, not you. Also, WP:BRITANNICA. (Where are the goalposts today? Are you seriously going to ignore the indisputable fact that Fox "News" was created as a vehicle for conservative political views?) Just plain Bill (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your source? Per Britannica Fox News was created because an attempt to purchase CNN failed.  Wp:BRITANNICA isn't really helpful here since I'm not proposing using this as a source.  In general no encyclopedia entry should be used as a source of information for another encyclopedia.  However it does serve as a useful reference for WEIGHT and as example of a source summarizing Fox News absent any particular context.  Can you point to any similar sources that try to summarize Fox News absent a specific reporting objective?  Springee (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is common sense and a routine grasp of basic, unremarkable facts. We don't need to prove that the White House is white, or that Nancy Pelosi is a woman, or that Fox News was created as an intentional counterbalance to the (perceived) left-leaning existing news media of the time. Stop sealioning and bludgeoning the discussion here. ValarianB (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here is the Reuters source I mentioned earlier. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't say what you claim. It doesn't dispute it but it would not be sufficient to make such a claim in Wiki voice.  First, it's Reuters who says Ailes was focused on getting a conservative audience.  It says Ailes wanted "fair and balanced" and then says the critics didn't see the news as fair and balanced.  However, that is the critics.  Reuters doesn't say "conservative" is a defining trait of the network. Also, that article is written in context of talking about Ailes, not a generalized description of Fox News. Springee (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove from first sentence. Fox is not "conservative" because "conservative" isn't even a real thing, it's just a meaningless and inaccurate label. "Conservative", "liberal", "progressive" aren't real ideologies or meaningful categories, they're just labels. The Republican Party isn't "conservative" and the Democratic Party isn't "liberal". If anything, it's more accurate to describe Fox News as a pro-Republican Party news station. The label "conservative" doesn't give the reader any useful information (and worse, risks misleading the reader into thinking "conservative media" is a category of media or "conservative" is a something more than a political label). It's better to explain than to label, and the article explains the network's biases already. The argument that we should label it "conservative" because some people think it's "neutral" (also not a real thing) is just perpetuating the myth that these are meaningful distinctions or real categories and not just political labels. Wikipedia should not join the "culture wars" or "political wars" or the whole "left/right" myth. That's how politicians and media paint it, but not scholars. The single-axis left/right, liberal/conservative dichotomy is propaganda that is useful for politicians and media and corporations, but it is not used by political scientists. Levivich 15:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that I looked at the sources posted by FFF and I feel they further support my !vote. We should be looking at the best 10 academic sources, not just the first 10 GScholar hits, and not all of those are actually real scholarship (as in peer-reviewed, published in a legit journal or academic press), but even among those ten, the majority do not refer to it as "conservative cable news". Most of those are explaining, not labeling, and we should follow suit. Those sources support explaining Fox's ideological bias (widely labeled as "conservative") in the lead, but they do not support using the label in the first sentence. I don't know how you put forward 10 sources and say "the descriptor is abundantly due per use in reliable sources" when 6 of those sources don't use the descriptor. As I say, real scholarship generally does not use such labels. Levivich 16:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * well said. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich, you're making pretty strong claims about how political scientists regard Fox News, claiming "conservative" isn't even a real thing, but you haven't provided any sources from political scientists that line up with that. My preliminary search of peer reviewed studies shows that there are instances where political scientists ascribe labels like "conservative". For example:
 * THE FOX NEWS EFFECT: MEDIA BIAS AND VOTING. By: DellaVigna, Stefano, Kaplan, Ethan, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 00335533, Aug2007, Vol. 122,  Issue 3
 * Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization. By: Martin, Gregory J., Yurukoglu, Ali, American Economic Review. 2017, Vol. 107, Issue 9, pages. 2565-2599
 * I do see where you're coming from, as sometimes studies will use "Republican" instead of "conservative" (as shown in some of the sources provided by Firefangledfeathers). But to remove the primary characteristic that essentially all studies apply to Fox News would not be neutral. The only thing that seems like it could be an improvement is rewording it to say that Fox News promotes Republican views, as suggested by Compassionate727 above. –– FormalDude  talk  11:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * : 'conservative' is a straightforward description of what Fox News is, and should be included per MOS:FIRST. The descriptor is abundantly due per use in reliable sources. As a contribution toward proving that, I looked at the first ten results in a simple Google Scholar search for "Fox News".


 * Of the ten, four describe Fox as conservative, three use terms that could fairly be summarized using 'conservative', and the remaining three allude to the channel's conservative bias in some way. Seven of the ten rely on Fox's conservative bias as it's either a key factor in their analysis or is the very thing they're analyzing. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove from lead - it's time to stop conflating news with the talking head conservative pundits on FOX. We don't do it with the news networks that host talking head liberal pundits. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 03:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Godawful close
Gobsmacked that someone, a non-admin no less, had the stones to take a 2-to-1 discussion and call it for the 1. Yes, yes, "not-a-vote", but one needs to see something rather exceptional or extraordinary to pull something like this. Will give the closer a little more time before this moved to a formal close review. Zaathras (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Convenience link to where this is being discussed: Administrators%27_noticeboard &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This should not have been allowed to continue, as the consensus to retain was crystal-clear when a non-admin bungled it with a supervote. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, especially since this entire RfC can be answered with the FAQ from the top:
 * –– FormalDude  talk  08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of last paragraph in lead
The sentence "although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to 'slant the news in favor of conservatives'" is based on a 2004 article referencing a documentary from the same year. Is it not reasonable to either remove the last paragraph altogether or include more elaboration? Seems to be highly misleading to the average reader, especially with it being a pretty serious allegation. Oebelysk (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like WP:RS/QUOTE isn't being followed, that is, there's a direct quote that readers might think is a quote of Fox or a quote of former employees, when in fact it's a quote of Mark Memmott in USA Today. And I'm not sure what he's paraphrasing, I thought that former employees said slanting was encouraged according to the documentary, but if that's all then it looks like "ordered" is just opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have removed the last sentence and provided the only source I could find that actually referenced anything of the sort. Oebelysk (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)