Talk:Fox News/Archive 4

NPOV in Dispute
I took this header out - as I read the article it gave me faith in Wikipedia - the article is well written and presents both sides of the FOX News leaning right wing and in general the article is careful to use NPOV descriptions - Also the talk page indicates no dispute on NPOV but a good discussion of what should be included or not included with the inference being "to maintain the NPOV stance of the article."

Material which has fallen by the wayside
I notice that some material has been lost from the current revision. The 19 August edit by 64.109.128.86 included:


 * Some mention of PIPA and FAIR.


 * "...unlike reports on the Arab-Israeli conflict from the BBC, and US channels such as CNN, Palestinian and other Arab militants are generally referred to on Fox News as "terrorists." Many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant," or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber." ...."


 * and a passage describing Ofcom's ruling against FOX News for John Gibson's criticism of the BBC (moved further down the page for further editing).

I'm not the kind of FOX News expert who can tell whether these assertions are true, but as a Brit who has watched FOX News, they look worth re-including. Can any of the above be salvaged? Tim Ivorson 22:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Thejackhmr wiped out half the article, mostly the criticisms section. While I disagreed with this, I have enough other worries to want to fight it out.  See User talk:Thejackhmr. V V  23:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The FAIR and PIPA reports probably merit re-inclusion, but it must be done carefully (there was a big argument on the subject before their disappearance). As for John Gibson - his "My Word" is an opinion segment of an analysis show which is reproduced online as a column. FOXNews.com provides both the original column and Gibson's response after he was censured by the British government. This was not an "allegation of bias" against FOX; it was simply the BBC getting offended at Gibson's opinion. No-one has asserted that his statement was anything but one man's opinion. Thus if the incident is to be included in the article, it should probably not go under "allegations of bias" - maybe there needs to be a general controversy section. &mdash; Dan | Talk

00:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I agree that it was simply the BBC getting offended at Gibson's opinion. I believe that Gibson mischaracterised the events according to the dislike of and rivalry with the BBC of Rupert Murdoch, FOX News's proprietor. It is probable that some viewers have been wrong-footed into adopting the Murdoch line against the BBC. Of course, Murdoch's real reason for disliking the BBC is that, as a competitor to his B Sky B, it is an obstacle on his path to market domination, rather than any belief that the BBC is biased against his adopted nation. Tim Ivorson 07:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * PS. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if it was included under another heading, perhaps "other criticisms" or "international views." Tim Ivorson 08:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * PPS.
 * Have you read the pages that you linked?


 * My opinion is that the original piece was a fairytale. In it, Gibson says that the BBC "insisted its reporter had a right to lie," (CF FOX News BGH suit). However, the BBC never acknowledged that it lied (it appears that it actually was an honest mistake) and, therefore, never needed to assert its right to. He continues, "...the BBC knew the war was wrong and anything it could say to underscore that point had to be right." There was an academic study, like those by PIPA and and FAIR, that sought to show the BBC to be biased in favour of the war. (I agree with the study's conclusions, but I don't think that it showed anything more than just watching, or listening to, the coverage would have. I felt that the BBC had under-reported arguments against the war, though this has changed since the war "finished"). After accusing the BBC of "blatant anti-Americanism," (presumably meaning critical of US policy, though I have yet to notice the BBC straying from its neutrality towards US politics), he calls Gilligan "pro-Iraqi and anti-American." This hardly seems relevant, as Gilligan's opinion was not reported. Gibson uses the terms `anti-American' and `pro-Iraqi' without specifying whether he meant them with respect to xenophobia or criticism of government policy (the different usages might have been opposed). I suspect that Gibson intended to confuse the issue. Gibson claims that "Gilligan got a guy named David Kelly to tell him a few things about prewar assessments on Iraq's weapons' programs. ...Kelly committed suicide over the story" but doesn't take time to debunk the popular view that it was mishandling of the situation by the Ministry of Defence, Kelly's employer, that lead to the suicide.


 * The Hutton report, which prompted Gibson's first piece, was the conclusion of a government inquiry into controversial BBC reporting. The BBC claims in question were good investigative journalism and an exception to heavily pro-government reporting. The British government tried to paint a minor factual error as fundamentally flawed reporting. With the help of the government sponsored Hutton inquiry, the government turned investigation of its own behaviour into an investigation of the usually supportive BBC. Some have likened the BBC reporting what might be facts inconvenient to the government based on a single source to the government publishing intelligence based on a single source for propaganda purposes.


 * In his response, Gibson colours himself as standing up to the British government, but he took the line of Murdoch, the US government and the British government against the BBC. It would be closer to the truth to claim that the BBC had stood up to the British government.


 * Gibson may appear bewildered, but I believe that he understands that he is being dishonest. I disapprove of the Murdoch media all the more because it distracts me from criticising the BBC.
 * Tim Ivorson 12:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether Murdoch was involved in this debate at all. As for your opinion of the story, valid or otherwise, it could only be expressed in the article in the context of a quote, or in describing a controversy. Yes, I read the pages I linked, and I see no more than a man with an opinion (albeit a strong one). Anywho, neither opinion on the subject belongs in the Wikipedia article. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to suggest that Murdoch intervened, but rather that Gibson knew that he was expected to do his employer's proprietor's bidding. I didn't mean that my opinion should be covered in the article, but I thought that maybe it was something to bear in mind when covering the alleged bias of FOX News. Tim Ivorson 07:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any more necessary changes to the proposed passages for re-inclusion, so I'm waiting for more feedback for the moment. I have had another look through the Talk archives and I found PIPA study and Neutralization on archive two. Are these the whole arguments on PIPA, FAIR et al? I also noticed comments by Zoney and Lee M. Alleged bias aside, I think that it would be interesting to add something about international difference in programming and broadcast methods. For example, here in Britain, as Lee M mentions, it has weather instead of adverts, which makes it unwatchable during hurricane season. Tim Ivorson 16:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could start editing replacements for the deleted passages here on the talk page. I have included below, all with changes of my own, four passages that I think are worth putting back into the article. External links, , and  to be included in external links section? Tim Ivorson 14:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I have made a few changes: I added your external links, and mine regarding John Gibson, into the text "in context." Also, I've mentioned the fact that FOX does not refer to "suicide bombers" but rather to "homicide bombers," for which it has drawn criticism from conservatives for being too Politically Correct, and I changed "alleged POV language" to "biased language" because readers may not know what POV means. I made a few other word choice/sentence structure changes as well. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Should these passages be put into the article now? If so, where should they be put and should the subheadings be preserved? Tim Ivorson 16:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think they are ready to go into the article, under Allegations of Bias. If the subheadings are preserved, the rest of that section should have appropriate subheadings as well. &mdash; Dan | Talk 23:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have put them in. Instead of putting them at the end, I tried to chronologically order the "allegations of bias" section. Tim Ivorson 09:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Biased language
Some critcise FOX News for calling Palestinian and other Arab militants "terrorists," while many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant," or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber." It is argued that, although "terrorist" may be accurate, the word carries a negative connontation and does not give enough detail. FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" in place of the more common "suicide bomber." Critics maintain that this substitution is an unnecessary instance of political correctness and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.

Ofcom
In early 2004, when the Hutton Inquiry had just closed, FOX News broadcast an opinion piece by presenter John Gibson which claimed that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military". Viewers filed twenty-four complaints with Ofcom, the United Kingdom broadcasting regulator, regarding the incident. In its case, FOX News claimed that the "heroic repulsion" quote was mere paraphrasing and pointed to a Google search for "BBC anti-american" as proof of bias. Ofcom subsequently released a report censuring FOX News for not giving the BBC a chance to respond, failing to back up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and not making it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words.

FAIR
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a left-leaning media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News". The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?"

Many commentators, especially on the right, regard FAIR as biased in its coverage of media issues.


 * What has the alleged bias of FAIR to do with the fact that 89 percent of the guests of Brit Hume's show were Republicans? Unless there is evidence FAIR lies about statistics, its bias, so-called, is irrelevant to an assessment of objective data.  Not to mention that FAIR is already identified as left-leaning in the first sentence.  I'm going to remove this last sentence from the main article. Bds yahoo 23:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PIPA
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, claims that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network (, link in PDF). The study lists three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions," that are more common among FOX News viewers:


 * That evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been found;
 * That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq; and
 * That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war.

Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs.

Critics of this report such as columnist Ann Coulter condemned the choice of misconceptions as hand-picked "liberal talking points," "deceptive," and "designed to falsely portrary FOX News viewers as ignorant".


 * I don't think Ann Coulter's criticism of the PIPA study is relevant. She's not an expert on the subject, just a woman with an opinion.  I might as well cite my own opinion, that Ann Coulter is a vile mendacious windbag.  Bds yahoo 23:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * From my userpage: "Why did you (1) revert without discussing and (2) mark a revert as minor? That's dishonest.  I'm reinstating my edits and hope you will discuss before reverting next time. I admit my change was perhaps a little cheeky, but I gave a reason on the Talk page, and you gave none for the revert, either on the page or in your edit summary.  I'm willing to be talked into the revert, but not bullied into it. Bds yahoo 23:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)"
 * As for 'minor' - I clicked the admin auto-rollback as I was watching Recent Changes because it seemed very POV to me - the edit summary is added automatically, and it is automatically marked minor. POV is POV, whether one mentions it on the talk page or otherwise. As for Ann Coulter - it is impossible to express an infinite number of opinions, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals, so I believe the FOX News article should stick strictly to people's opinions of FOX, and not people's opinions of people who have opinions of FOX. Thus the sentence you added to the Coulter paragraph beginning "In the opinion of many on the left..." does not belong. Nor, for that matter, does any lengthy statement concerning the political affiliation of FAIR or PIPA. If you don't mind, I'm going to remove that sentence, and try to get rid of any similar sentences about FAIR and PIPA. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that's fair. My addition about Coulter was intended to draw attention to a certain illogical standard for POV, where POV is somehow legitimized if attached to the name of a wlel-known person, no matter how unqualified that person may be to make that statement. Bds yahoo 00:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Journalistic Standards
Rdsmith4 deleted the following text (from the new 'false quote' paragraph). Rdsmith's objection was that the site did not explicitly accuse Fox of bias, so that it might have been an issue of journalist standards. Fair enough, that's certainly been a major issue with FOX. I propose a new section on 'journalistic standards' as indicated below.

''The next day, FOX published a story quoting a "Communists for Kerry" member stating that both he and North Korea supported "Comrade Kerry". The story continued, "It is unclear whether the Kerry campaign has welcomed the Communists' endorsement." The web page of this group stated that it is, in fact, a campaign of the Hellgate Republican Club. ''

An exchange on user talk pages is as follows: Wolfman 01:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I find your revert rather purposefully naive. No, the site did not spell it out, but they clearly did not think it was an editorial mistake.  Do you?  I mean, follow the Communists for Kerry link in the FOX article.  Click "About Us".  That's not an editorial mistake.  So, I'll go find some link that explicitly accuses FOX of bias in this case.  Or would you revert that too? Wolfman 23:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry my reversion offended you, but I must stand by it. I don't think an allegation made by a blog on a very minor subject - and one where FOX's malice aforethought is by no means clear - is sufficient to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article. I agree with the previous item you added since Carl Cameron was clearly in the wrong; however, anyone is capable of an editorial mistake. Since there is no proof, I must give FOX the benefit of the doubt on this one, as I did CBS on their recent instance of clear editorial error. My opinion on the subject is, of course, irrelevant. I don't kid myself about FOX's journalistic practices; I'm simply interested in keeping the article relevant and unbiased. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I think your point perhaps has some merit, though I disagree with point about the blog being minor -- that is linked right now by most of the liberal blogosphere.  The verifiable issue is one of journalistic standards; the suspicion is that these lax standards would never happen in an article about Bush.  I think a new section on 'criticism of journalistic standards' is in order.  The 'communists for kerry' clearly belongs there, as does this  story and many others. The BGH story  would fit better there as well. Perhaps a 'journalist standards' section with a criticism subsection would be more NPOV if FOX has any Pulitzers or the like to report. Wolfman 00:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I support some mention of this sort of thing. Wikipedia needn't claim that such events are examples of FOX News bias, but perhaps, rather than giving FOX News the benefit of the doubt, we could mention that it has been viewed by some as mistake and by others as a deliberate distortion by FOX News. It would be more significant if FOX News had made a habit of this sort of thing (and I wouldn't be surprised if it had). Those who give FOX News the benefit of the doubt are unlikely to be impressed by a single journalistic error, but repeated errors would be different. Tim Ivorson 11:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My impression is that it's quite the habit. Remember the fake Fonda/Kerry photograph flap?  That was FOX, too.  Remember the bogus claims Rumsfeld made about the German "Werewolf" resistance.  Those claims were based on a forged Reuters dispatch, initially introduced by FOX.  Wolfman 15:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how it should be written. I believe that it is the combined effect of mistakes that make them significant. Should they all be listed? Tim Ivorson 17:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * They should all be listed on a list page, and linked to this article. --Viriditas 22:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ratings success
The "ratings success" section states, "Television observers credit the success to what they see as FNC's better production values, better graphics and more personable hosts." Is this true? FOX News's overuse of bad graphics is the kind of thing that satirists make fun of. Friends of mine complain about the news ticker. FNC routinely shows muted video of somebody talking, while a host delivers his opinion and this causes people to say, "this is really badly dubbed." Where can I hear praise for such things? Also, I'm not sure that FOX News does have more personable hosts. It seems to me that the highest rating and most distinctive hosts are abrasive (e.g. Bill O'Reilly), and that this is part of the channel's gimmick. I suggest deleting the quoted sentence. Tim Ivorson 11:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Fox's coverage of the vice-presidential debates on 5 Oct 2004 had several major errors including interruptions of the feed for seconds at a time and apparent loss of audio-video synchronization. --Random Reader, 02:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Calling Florida for Bush
The article states: "It was Fox News who first declared Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election, on 2:16 am Wednesday morning. However, FOX had called the state for Gore earlier, and in fact was the last major network to retract the call for Gore." This is obviously a logical contradiction: a network can't be both the first to call Florida for Bush and the last to retract calling it for Gore. The first claim is documented; for lackof documentation I have deleted the latter, which cannot be true if the documented claim is true. I'm willing to defer to evidence, if it exists, that the second claim is true. Bds yahoo 21:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes it can. Retracting a call for Gore is not the same as calling it for Gore.  For a few hours the outcome was indeterminate, called for neither candidate.  Major undistributed middle. Very Verily  10:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that there is disagreement about who FOX News reported as having won Florida. If the CBS link, and any other evidence, doesn't convince people who claim that FOX News reported Gore to be the winner, then the article should acknowledge that some people claim that Bush was reported as winning and some people claim that Gore was reported as winning. Perhaps both claims could be true if FOX News had reported that both candidates had won Florida. I haven't seen the coverage, so I don't know. Tim Ivorson 08:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't pretend to know what's true here, but I do know you can't call a state for two opposing candidates at one and the same time. So if the state was considered indeterminate then that's what the article should say.  Calling Florida for either candidate precludes calling it for the other. Bds yahoo 17:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's possible for FOX News to make inconsistent statements. Tim Ivorson 17:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Then that's what the article should say. Bds yahoo 18:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What the hell is going on here? FOX called for Gore, then retracted around 10pm, then called for Bush around 2am.  They were the last to retract Gore (by hours) and the first to call Bush (by minutes).  Why is this so friggin' hard to understand? Very Verily  12:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Because that's the first time it's been stated clearly that the retraction for Gore preceded the call for Bush. My confusion is the result of bad writing. Including yours. Bds yahoo 15:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please don't shout and be rude. Verily clearly wrote "for a few hours the result was indeterminate; called for neither candidate" which you interpreted as "you can't call a state for two opposing candidates at one and the same time". More your mis-reading than his mis-writing. Pcb21| Pete 17:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't agree. First of all, it's inconsistent to call me rude yet remain silent about Verily's arrogant and contemptuous "Why is this so friggin' hard to understand?" and "What the hell is going on here?" remarks.  If you visit VV's talk page you will find that he has a habit of picking fights with people.  Wrong guy to defend.


 * Second, there was a lack of chronological exactitude in VV's post. As I interpreted it, he was saying that Florida was first called for Bush, then retracted for Gore, not vice versa.  His posts could have been interpreted either way, and my genuine confusion arose from this ambiguity.


 * I'll leave it to other readers to decide for themselves whether VV's posts, apart from being snide and overbearing, were clear or unclear. Bds yahoo 21:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I've edited the article to say that. &mdash; Dan | Talk 13:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This makes me to lose faith in wikipedia
Hello. I am a non-US user of Wikipedia and in most technical or historical subjects it is an excellent and detailed source of information.

However, it is amazing to me (and perhaps to many outside of the US) that there is any contesting of the fact that FOX is a right-wing news service. Why is that considered "point of view"?

I should say that I am a right-wing myself and I think it is clear that left-wing governments have failed time and time again around the world. However, I can see that Fox is very right wing. Also I think many of you are confused about "right" and "left" wing. The American Democrat party is a right-of-center party. The republicans are slightly more right wing. There is no question of either them being centrist or left wing.

Surely the only contention with FOX is not whether they are right wing (they are), but whether they are unusually partisan in a way which makes their "fair and balanced" claim a hypocrisy. Furthermore, do they lie and distort facts more seriously than other news services?

The article as it is now, is too long, and seems ridiculously politically correct in many places, especially its attempts to include "pro-FOX" balance. How about a shorter, more factual article which concentrates on the company, and includes notes that as a particularly right wing news service, FOX has sometimes been accused of deliberately distorting facts.

Please do not let "P.C." spoil Wikipedias excellent facts basis.


 * You'll have a hard time selling non-leftists the idea that the American Democratic party is "right of center" and that "there is no question" about this. If you believe that is NPOV, it'll be tough to find common ground. Very Verily  12:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If I can chime in without fear of a snide retort from VeryVerily: I sort of agree. This article is not so much balanced as schizophrenic.  Its made up mostly of sequences of statements like this: "XYZ organization has reported a pattern of distortion on FOX News.  However, in the totally inexpert opinion of right-wing-demagogue-du-jour, XYZ organization has a left-wing bias." Obviously this could go on forever: I can point out that said right-wing demagogue is widely considered to be a right-wing demagogue, and somebody can add that I tend to edit from the left.  And so forth, ad infinitum. Bds yahoo 23:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be simpler and better if it was just asserted that FNC was simply right of center. When it is alledged that "XYZ says that FNC is right of center", that welcomes criticism against XYZ's agenda and invites the need for a counterweight.  Very few people would argue that Fox News is not right wing, and we do not need to quote FAIR or any other organizations with their own agendas in order to be credible.  --Bletch 12:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the addition of the statement "FOX is to the political right of most news sources." It is a value judgement which violates NPOV, and it is hotly contested in the US, where FOX claims not to have right-wing bias and the rest of the news claim not to have left-wing bias. &mdash; Dan | Talk 16:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "FOX is to the political right of most news sources" is nowhere near the same thing as
 * "FOX is biased to the right"
 * Whilst the latter clearly needs strongly sourced back up, does anyone, regardless of political viewpoint, think the former is false? Pcb21| Pete 17:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fox is absolutely to the Right by interpretation of their own definition of other players, as they describe (in nasty language) all other media as being to the Left, Far Left, Radical Left, Leftist Media, etc. So what's NNPOV about describing them as to the Right of most media? Leonard G. 17:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * FOX contends that it is neutral, and to say without qualification that it lies to the right of other news sources is easily open to misinterpretation. There was already a discussion on the subject, during which time a statement very similar to the one I reverted was added to the opening paragraph of the article (see Talk:FOX News/Archive three). It was decided that it would best belong in the first paragraph of "Allegations of bias," where a slightly modified version still remains:


 * FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks, and its promotional statements include "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide." The network thus intends to provide an alternative to such news sources as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS, for those who believe that the other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. There is a widespread perception that FOX lies to the political right of most other prominent news sources; there is much dispute, however, as to whether the channel is actually a neutral source, or carries a bias in favor of right-wing, conservative, or Republican interests.


 * I think that passage expresses the same idea in a more neutral fashion. &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with Leonard G's latest edit to the article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs under "Allegations of bias," but the first paragraph of that section says the same thing. If Leonard doesn't mind, I will revert it, not because he is entirely wrong, but because the article already says it elsewhere. &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I got your message, just after putting my oar into the article. Revert if you wish, I don't care about Fox that much, but I think that my statement holds up - that Fox is implicitly self describing itself as right wing. What they publicly claim is that they are in the middle, which is a mater of perception management, especially considering what would be to their right, I think that we all realize that the political spectrum is not a straight line, but more like a color wheel, where really extreme left (Communist dictatorship) meets extreme right (Fascist dictatorship). So placing Fox on this wheel is really a matter of finding where the middle is. Another way of classifying is to use a two or three dimensional descriptive space, with the "middle" in the center of the space, and axis describing qualities. Most people are not single dimensional (although they may be subject to single-issue political methods). Best wishes, -- Leonard G. 18:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is really amazing to see discussion about whether FOX has a conservative and right-wing bias. FOX should be considered right-wing at the least. Considering merely the facts presented in the documentary Outfoxed, for instance the fact that there are 6 times more republican guests on the show than democratic ones, statements like "200 days until Bush will be re-elected" appearing frequently during shows, which is highly inappropriate for a news channel trying to be "fair and balanced". -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Outfoxed is a Michael Moorish type documentary and does not deserve any weigh to support an argument. The movie grabbed quotes completely out of context, sometimes the commentators were reading or repeating statements by others, etc.  It purposely did not distinguish between "commentators" like Hannity and Colmes and "news" reporters.  If a news and commentary channel is happens to sometimes support a president (good news out of iraq for example), that news channel is now "right-wing"?  That is utterly silly and is a sad remark for other news and commentary channels.    --Ryan Knoll 06:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ryan, which specific facts do you dispute from the Outfoxed documentary? If a "news" channel supports a particular political party or politician, it is no longer in the business of reporting news. --Viriditas 11:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Political right of most news sources
From Fox's POV, Fox is less 'left' than CNN, NBC, etc, and thus more 'right'. From a leftist POV, Fox is more 'right' than CNN, NBC, etc. Thus, both the Left and Right can agree to this statement.

Archiving
I have made an archive run, removing a lot of material (about 500kB) to Archive 21. Some of the regular editors here may want to break that up into smaller chunks. If some threads were unresolved, I urge editors to reference the archived material, *if necessary*, but try not to reintroduce any inflammatory posts/edits to the current discussion. Please, everyone, be on your best, most polite behavior. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. I've been meaning to do a history merge of this talk page, as the first archives were done using copy/paste and the most recent archives were done using the move method. I'll likely get to it tomorrow, but may make a stab at it tonight if I can't find something to entertain myself. - auburn pilot   talk  00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just cut and pasted, feel free to archive however you think best. R. Baley (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (edit to add: Hell, I just noticed that this page is still 88kB big . . .probably need to archive a bit more. R. Baley (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Looking at the archives, only 4 of the 21 were created by moving the page, so we'll stick with the copy/paste method; it's easier anyway. Feel free to archive as you see fit, as we can always reference previous discussion. A fresh start might be the best approach. - auburn pilot   talk  01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All done. Much easier than I expected, but with just under 4400 revisions, I think I nearly killed the server. Never seen so many consecutive database locks... - auburn pilot   talk  01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did the UCLA section as well. Discussion petered out, and since the consensus is to avoid referencing the lead the point is now moot.  We can revisit if the source is proposed for the body at a later time.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems an overzealous vandal fighter reverted your edit, readding the UCLA discussion. - auburn pilot   talk  03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of archiving, has anyone ever considered archiving by topic since many may seem to get ressurected whether here or elsewhere? Sometimes archiving chronologically makes it harder to find previous discussions. It would be a good way to guide newcomers to see how we got to the current affair of things.  MrMurph101 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a pretty decent idea, though I think we'd need a consensus-blessed blueprint of topics (and what goes where) that we all agree to abide by. Anyone know of any precedents or similar situations?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but it may be quite difficult to implement on this page. Our discussions tend to weave in and out of their intended topic, frequently changing subjects more than once before coming back to the original thought (the "Response: UCLA Paper" section being a good example). It may be easier to simply create an index, where we can list certain topics and the chronological archives where related discussion can be found. - auburn pilot   talk  21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen something before like this, thought it was the Evolution article but that does not to appear to be it. The FAQ gives somewhat of a topic-based archive but maybe something more specific.  Those who have been around this article more would know which topics get brought up more so I would defer to them as to what topics could be specifically archived, obviously one-time discussions don't merit this.  I think one example for archving could be based on a particular source.  The UCLA study comes to mind.  Archiving threads devoted to this discussion go in one topic.  Another could be the discussions about issue of bias.  Basically, highlight topics that keep coming up. Also, just to clarify, this does not mean we shouldn't keep the chronological arhciving.  MrMurph101 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I remembered seeing a bot that would auto-index talk archives, so I've set it up to do a test run. Should run sometime in the next 5-6 hours. - auburn pilot's   sock  22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive index for the bot's work. - auburn pilot   talk  15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad, it wasn't what I was picturing but still addresses my issue. This is good for articles that draw a lot of discussion.  MrMurph101 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)