Talk:Fox News/Archive 6

Allegations of Bias Archive
This is a topic specific archive of all the discussions on Allegations of Bias and the rewrite that occured January 2005 as a result of those discussions.

Much of "Allegations of Bias" moved to separate article
The first paragraph of the "Allegations of Bias" section gives plenty of NPOV summary of the various positions on bias at Fox News. The remainder of the section is almost exclusively POV, so I am moving it to a new page at Fox News Bias and linking to it in this section. To add any of this information back, please restrict additions to lists of links to the source documents that substantiate the claims. Otherwise, we'll get into POV madness again. Thanks. (70.179.158.69 22:37, 29 Nov 2004 UTC)


 * Begging your pardon, Wikipedia protocol suggests that articles dedicated to criticism of a subject are to be avoided since they are magnets for the sort of POV warring which you are trying to avoid. The discussion over the bias section has been mild, friendly, and productive, and if you don't mind I will move back the section you have removed. Dan 22:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine. I agree that articles dedicated to criticism of a subject are to be avoided, which is why I moved criticism of the subject away from this article, as this article had become largely devoted to criticism of FOX News. By NPOV guidelines, we limit discussion of POVs to characterizing what the POVs are and who believes them. Making detailed cases for and against various inflamatory criticisms goes beyond the scope of NPOV. For example, the same attention to media bias is not being paid to articles on ABC News and CBS News, whose biases have been the subject of far more study and substantiation. Mentioning that FOX News has been accused of unfair bias, generally characterizing the accusations and defenses, and linking to source material with more detail should be the extent of the coverage of the POV that FOX News is biased. Providing more detailed arguments on both sides of the issue is really not necessary for an encyclopedia article, but we can provide access to such details through lists of external links at the end of the section. There need be no more than one paragraph dedicated to allegations of bias against any popular news outlet, particularly because almost every popular news outlet has occasionally exhibited signs of systemic bias, and allegations of bias are inherently based on POV. For example, if I say "God Exists" or "God Does Not Exist", both are points of view, even if one is true and the other is false. Similarly, if my POV is liberal, then I believe liberalism is true and may not mind reporters who also assume liberalism is true when reporting the news, as from my POV they are reporting the truth. From the opposite POV, however, a conservative might disagree with me on what is true, and therefore the conservative might see bias where I merely see truth. And vice versa. Such is inherent to the nature of all news media so wasting so much web "ink" on it in an encyclopedia article seeking NPOV is hardly justifiable. Major scandals like the Dan Rather incident are one thing, but by and large allegations of news bias are so run-of-the-mill and so politically motivated that NPOV generally requires brevity. Imagine if we were to detail in an article on NFL referees each time fans say they called penalties unfairly, or wrote the article on police such that more than three quarters of it were devoted to police brutality accusations. In the grand scheme, accusations of bias against news media might be real, but they are not really very important to the understanding of one particular news organization or another.


 * the entire section is POV. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for judgment.  wikipedia does not determine worth, credibility or importance of any topic.  that is for the reader to decide. 141.211.120.147 15:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too much of a bad thing
I think the Allegations of Bias section has gotten a bit out of hand. It is nearly half the article. It either needs to be severely trimmed to balance out this article. Its really looking like a joke. TDC 03:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * The allegations are the only notable feature of Fox. Names of presenters etc. are boring and uninformative.  The only real reason for reading an article about Fox is to find out about their lies.  It is not surprising that it is the longest section. Chamaeleon 05:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The same could be said about the BBC or the Guardian. TDC 03:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * (wikified BBC and Guardian in TDC's post) I'd be very much surpised is something similar wasn't said about the BBC or the Guardian. crazyeddie 06:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? "...to find out about their lies." The POV in this statement actually supports TDC's contention that the section needs to be trimmed to provide the proper NPOV presentation of this article. --Trodel 16:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * While Chamaelon's comment could have been better phrased, I find myself somewhat in agreement. The widespread allegations regarding Fox's alleged bias are noteworthy. So are the other networks', but Fox's supposed bias has been given a lot more play. The other networks' articles AFACIT also have Allegations of Bias sections, but Fox's section is much larger because it receives more attention. The reason it receives more attention I leave as an exercise for the reader... crazyeddie 06:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But the statement is not in a Wikipedia article, but a Wikipedia talk page. Individuals are allowed to express opinions, you know.  I have noticed that editing too much on Wikipedia causes people to regard "POV" (which means "point of view" &mdash; opinion, for chrissake) is the ultimate symbol of Wiki-evil, alongside "vandalism".  You say "POV", but you mean that I am wrong.  It's not the same thing.  You have the POV that the criticism section should be trimmed.  Chamaeleon 16:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * To summarize (I have no problem with POV on talk pages, and don't think one can remove POV from one's writings without substantial energy - thus the beauty of this discussion and the wiki theory):
 * -TDC started the discussion with a claim that the "...Allegations of Bias section has gotten a bit out of hand." The implication being that the length of the section (compared to the article) presents a POV to the reader that FOX News is more about being biased than reporting the news.
 * -Chamaeleon defended the length by claiming that the length was justified since "...only real reason for reading an article about Fox is to find out about their lies".
 * -I was incredulous thinking that it was obvious that such a statement supports the allegation that presenting an indordinately long section on Allegations of Bias presents a POV to the reader that Bias is what FOX News is all about.
 * THUS, the contention remains that the Section should be shortened with no real arguments presented against it. As pointed out below, some of those allegations are fading through time. There are not similar allegations alleged in any of the major US news providers, although there are articles about Media bias and Liberal bias in general. I agree that the claim of Fair and Balanced by FOX News invites such a section and it is appropriate for the article. However, the length of the article should be similar to in % to that in the BBC article. --Trodel 19:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But the statement is not in a Wikipedia article, but a Wikipedia talk page. Individuals are allowed to express opinions, you know., incase you cannot grasp the utter stupidity of your statement one flows from the other. I think someone needs to read up on wiki's POV policies. Well at least one person, Trodel, is with me on this. Now the question remains, how to put the Allegations of Bias section into its proper perspective. Better come up with some good suggestions Chamaeleon, before I break out my pruning shears. TDC 03:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. Chamaeleon 06:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe NPOV does not mean "check your POV at the door" as that would require major brain surgery. Rather, it means working with others of differing or even antagonisitic POVs to create consensus articles that fairly and accurately represent the stances of all sides. I think Chamaelon is allowed to express his POV on talk pages, even if he does do it in a way that hurts his own cause. Just because he has a POV doesn't mean that his edits or the article as a whole violates the NPOV policy. crazyeddie 06:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Names of presenters are boring and uninformative" - an absurd statement. Anyhow, I agree that the allegations section could be dramatically shortened. The topic is, indeed, one of the most notable aspects of Fox, and shouldn't be removed, but many of the allegations listed have faded into the oblivion of last year's news, and only a few (the FAIR and PIPA studies, etc) remain notable long after the event. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 04:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it absurd? I'm not saying the names of presenters should be removed.  They are just not as interesting as critiques of Fox (not that no pruning should be done). Chamaeleon 06:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is advocating removing the names of presenters. I'm not sure that the allegations section should be shortened. Every single allegation appears to be well researched and cited. IMHO, the sole reason the Fox allegation section is long relative to similar sections in other networks' articles is because more allegations of bias have been levelled at Fox than other networks. crazyeddie 06:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not only, from my POV anyway, is every single allegation well researched and cited, I think the opposing POV has had a chance to make a rebuttal. Is this a question of NPOV, or excess length of a section? What points are in violation of NPOV? What points need to be trimmed?crazyeddie 06:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is both an issue of POV and length as they are linked together. Too much emphasis on one particular topic is a form of POV as per Wiki policy. I would think that this section be no more than 10-15% the entire content of the article. TDC 18:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this policy? I would like to refresh my knowledge of it. Now, to the business at hand. Firstly, I think that any allegation of bias against a major news source is of great interest to Wikipedians. If you feel that the Fox News article has been treated unfairly, perhaps the answer is adding to the allegations sections of other major news sources' articles. I've heard reasonably vague accusations levelled at CNN from both the left and the right. It would be nice to see if there is anything to them. Or, adding more information to the parts of the article that aren't part of the allegations section. That said, apparently the problem is that the section, IYO, is too long, not that any one point is POV. So, what allegations are no longer notable? Let's take this on a case by case basis. crazyeddie 19:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a better comparison than BBC or CNN is The New York Times article. crazyeddie 21:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, I see you've added "Propose alt language to FOX News#Allegations of bias section" to your to-do list. Since this is likely to take some time, I'd like to remove the neutrality warning while we wait. I'm not sure if this proper protocol - this is my first neutrality dispute. Does anybody have any objections to removing the neutrality warning at least temporarily? We can resume this conversation when somebody has a concrete proposal to make. crazyeddie 19:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I have a concrete proposal to make. Let's go through the Bias section paragraph by paragraph and see if anything can be trimmed on notability grounds, rather than NPOV. I would strongly object to imposing a quota on this section, and would like to avoid that discussion if possible. crazyeddie 19:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not calling for a quota as such. Problems I have run into in other articles like this have been extremely difficult to deal with as well. Just how much can one article focus on the arguments of detractors and still maintain its credibility, is not an easy question to answer, that is why I gave a percentage of the article that should deal with criticisms of FOX as a good rule of thumb more than anything else. Criticisms that I feel are motivated more by a political agenda rather than any real desire to "set the record strait". Some articles on topics cannot help but to sound like a POV screed, after all how many people, user:Ruy Lopez excluded, can defend Pol Pot or Stalin. These subjects are notable by almost everyone, from nearly every imaginable perspective I might add, for mainly one thing, the negatives.


 * Now, is Fox notable only for its perceived slanted coverage as some claim, or is Fox more notable for its domination of cable news as others argue. I think this is a debate worth having, but I cannot stress enough the near uniform left wing nature of Fox's critics, which definitely indicates that this is more political smear than an honest critique on the quality or bias of Fox's reporting.
 * That is simply a smear against the left and no argument whatsoever. Chamaeleon 20:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As you so eloquently pointed out, this is a talk page and we say what we want here. I also wanted to say that I will be happy with the outcome of this debate either way it goes. This will act as a precedent for other articles because of the amount of discussion and debate that is going to go into this. If it is found that too much one sided (i.e. all sources for criticism come from left wing rags) information can dominate a criticism section which can in effect dominate an article, then the flood gates open on a whole host of articles. If, however, the opposite is found, then maybe some true balance can be brought to many articles that currently lack it. Remember, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. TDC 21:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore your absurd ad hominem and prompt you to rethink this. Chamaeleon 11:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted the ad hominem - lets keep it civil Trodel


 * I think it would be a good idea for everyone to refresh themselves with this guideline on NPOV as I have done this morning. TDC 20:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. How should I put this? First off, I resent TDC's remark that almost everybody who criticizes Fox is a member of the left wing. I consider myself a moderate politically, and I have voted pretty much 50/50 Democrat/Republican in every election with the sole exception of the election of 2004. I voted Bush in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004. I don't consider myself a member of either wing. I personally believe that Fox is biased, but I'm not 100% sure, mainly because I don't watch it.

One might as well question the near uniform nature of Fox's defenders.

However, the source of the accusations of bias doesn't matter, only their truth. Or rather, making sure that the allegations listed here are properly researched, cited, etc. And that the defense also has their say. Yes, the liberals have been advancing most of the allegations. But the conservatives have also been forcing them to make sure they have their facts straight. I would say that the resulting crucible has done wonders for the quality of the article, and has put it on the fast track for featured status.


 * While the truth of an allegation is disputed, its source does matter. Tim Ivorson 14:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The existance of this crucible makes me question the alledged non-NPOV nature of article. I notice that you (TDC) are not trying to criticize the NPOV of any particular point, only the overall length of the section.

I would not say that the alleged bias of Fox is its only notable quality. However, I would say that it is its most notable feature. Further more, IMO, this alleged bias is much of the reason for the channel's popularity. Conservatives watch it to escape the "liberal bias". Liberals watch to see what the fuss is all about. I believe that the proportion of the article given to this topic is appropriate.

Comparing the amount ink dedicated to Fox's alledged bias to that of BBC's, CNN's or even The New York Times' alledged biases is misleading. It appears from the articles for each news source that "Allegations of Bias" sections are reserved for news sources that are alleged to have consciously biased their reporting, not news sources that may unconsciously bias their reporting because of the staff's own POVs. AFAI (or anyone) CT, neither the BBC or CNN have consciously biased their reporting. If there were credible allegations of this, I would fully support inclusion of these allegations into the relevant articles, regardless of how much space it would take. I believe that the amount of space allocated to the discussion of alledged bias in these articles is appropriate.


 * I believe that there are three separate issues here. One is the bias inevitable in news and not unique to FNC (because fallible reporters must decide what is newsworthy and tend to err in the interests of their bosses). Another is FNC's tendency to report more opinion than some other news organisations (making its bias more conspicuous, but not necessarily making FNC unfair). The last is FNC's susceptibility to error (making it unreliable). None of these really make FOX News more biased than the BBC, CNN, Pacifica, etc., IMHO. I think that the section should be renamed, because what is most notable about FOX News is that it is opinionated and error prone, compared to the BBC for example, not that it is biased. Tim Ivorson 14:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree - the article should include bits about more FOX News shows being opinion based (comparably), and the difficulty in building up the infrastructure of a news organization as its public and rapid growth have put on display. Trodel 19:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is credible evidence that The New York Times has engaged in conscious biasing. But at least they are looking into the matter internally! (As is stated in the relevant section in the New York Times article.) If anybody has further allegations of bias against the New York Times, I would also support inclusion of those allegations, regardless of the cost of ink. I believe that the amount of space allocated to the discussion of the New York Times' alleged bias is also appropriate.

To sum up, IMO, the reason the Allegations of Bias section for Fox is so long is simply because there are so many allegations. Every single one of the allegations, until proven otherwise, adhere to the NPOV policy, are notable, and have been correctly researched and cited. All of these allegations are widely believed, and should be included, if only to rebutt them, or appear to be credible. The opposing POV has been given ample opportunity to rebutt these allegations, which has also added to the length of the section. I believe that the article, as it now stands, is quite NPOV, and that TDC is attempting to make the article adhere closer to the pro-Fox POV. crazyeddie 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I may not think they are all notable - the descriptions are much to verbose - lets start there and maybe that is where it will end (probably IMHO), but at least it wont be 2-3 screens of "blah blah blah" (the response one of my friends to the original text). And thus more likely to be read and not skipped. --Trodel 19:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of bias
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news" (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").

FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.

The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections. Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the The Times and the New York Post. In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular. He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show. (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)

Some criticize 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" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.) FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber". Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.

Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law.

During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so. At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election, as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.

In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive 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 political commentary show 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?".

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports 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. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter, argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the "Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.

A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online. They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an axe to grind."

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's statutory 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" to support Gibson's claim of bias. Ofcom ruled on mid-June, 2004 that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: failing to honor the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Its report highlighted the fact that the BBC was not given a chance to respond, Fox News failed to respond to Ofcom by backing up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and the broadcaster did not make it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words.

A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.

In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated. FOX News later retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.

FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal, stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.

Header
There was a discussion above about a change in the header name. I'll move it down here when I get finished. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here we go:
 * I believe that there are three separate issues here. One is the bias inevitable in news and not unique to FNC (because fallible reporters must decide what is newsworthy and tend to err in the interests of their bosses). Another is FNC's tendency to report more opinion than some other news organisations (making its bias more conspicuous, but not necessarily making FNC unfair). The last is FNC's susceptibility to error (making it unreliable). None of these really make FOX News more biased than the BBC, CNN, Pacifica, etc., IMHO. I think that the section should be renamed, because what is most notable about FOX News is that it is opinionated and error prone, compared to the BBC for example, not that it is biased. Tim Ivorson 14:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree - the article should include bits about more FOX News shows being opinion based (comparably), and the difficulty in building up the infrastructure of a news organization as its public and rapid growth have put on display. Trodel 19:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Tim Ivorson 13:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From what I see on FOX, to say the least, they report more opinions on the right than the left, which makes them biased. Mir 03:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So you would be worried about bias to the right, but not to the centre (wherever that is)? It is my view that political journalists are bound to have opinions (biases perhaps) and news organisations have to pander to governments, advertisers, audiences, etc. and that therefore bias is inevitable. It seems to me that, compared to FOX News, what makes the BBC, for example, different is not that it is less biased, but that it is more cautious about reporting its opinions (and perhaps that those opinions are, more than FOX News, centrist, mainstream, politically correct or something like that). FOX News does precisely what it should; it is open about its opinion, so it can easily be seen that it is (what seems to me to be) very authoritarian and very reactionary. The BBC leaves us to deduce from what it chooses to report that it is (what seems to me to be) slightly authoritarian and slightly reactionary. Of course, it's possible (though I consider it unlikely) that FNC's stated opinion is sarcastic or that it is a dummy to conceal from observers the real bias conveyed in the facts that it chooses to report (or not to report). Assuming that FOX News really means its opinions, its just being honest about them and making it easy for us to dismiss them. Tim Ivorson 13:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you define bias. One way of defining it is the the involuntary slant a reporter gives a story, because a human always has a POV. These allegations seem to add up to a bit more than that. Maybe "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Integrity" would be a better phrase? crazyeddie 20:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Current Version
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news" (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").

FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.

Trodel's Proposal
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.

Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:

Crazyeddie's Proposal
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party.

Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:

Comments
Removed a sentence that I think should be placed in the last paragraph. If we decide to use Trodel's version of the last paragraph, we should also use his introduction. crazyeddie 07:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See crazyeddie's comments on response for agreement on this paragraph Trödel 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original version
The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections. Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times. In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular. He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show. (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)

Trodel's version

 * Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times.
 * Ailes past activities including: Republican campaign work, involvement in the Willie Horton ad and his production of the Rush Limbaugh television show.

Crazyeddie's version

 * Rupert Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times.
 * Roger Ailes's, the CEO of Fox News, past activities including: Republican campaign work, involvement in the Willie Horton ad and his production of the Rush Limbaugh television show.

Comments
I think we need to explain who Murdoch and Ailes are. Probably explained earlier in the article, but by the time they get down here, the reader has probably forgotten. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about internal links to the same article - I don't think it is too much to ask a reader to know who the owner and management are (as opposed to the an not well known personality). Trodel 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I knew who Murdoch was, but not Ailes. How's this version? The links go to the actual articles instead of being internal links. crazyeddie 20:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original version
Some criticize 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" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.) FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber". Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.

Trodel's Proposal

 * Along with News Corporation subsidiary New York Post, was only major news source to use of the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested news organizations make the change.

Crazyeddie's Proposal

 * Using the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested news organizations make the change. Along with the New York Post and Pravda, it was one of the few major news sources to do so.

Tim's Proposal

 * Its use of the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" at White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's request. Apart from fellow News Corporation subsidiary the New York Post, it was the only major news sources to.

Comments
I'd like to make the statements a bit stronger in order to make it obvious why the critics find this objectionable. crazyeddie 21:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the wording here (even my own) because I am in the camp that terrorist is a legitimate word with a well defined meaning (which I would define as a someone who does bodily harm to civilians for political, religious, or idealogical purposes) (I know - offtopic). The issue for me is what is the critic claim? (1) that FOX News calls all middle eastern criminals terrorists or (2) that it uses the term terrorist instead of militant? I had assumed it was the latter. Trodel 22:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is the accepted definition. However, it is a highly negative term, like fascist, so it should be avoided unless you really mean it. I don't think critics would mind calling a proven terrorist a terrorist, but calling someone a terrorist when there might be a reasonable doubt that they aren't is asking for trouble. It would appear that people besides Fox, including the Wikipedia, use a "millitant until proven terrorist" policy. I'm not sure how Fox uses the term, since I don't watch it. In what cases does Fox use terrorist when other networks use millitant? crazyeddie 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer crazyeddie's version of the homicide bomber bullet point. Tim Ivorson 13:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, if it makes you feel better, remember that you're reporting the views of the critics, not your own. You might not have a problem with calling a spade a spade, but the critics do. (After all, isn't "spade" a slang term for a black man? Maybe that phrase doesn't mean what we think it does...)

But the issue does remain: what do the critics claim? We'd have to track down a critic who has made that claim, and ask them how they meant it.

Here's a possible workaround: I've heard that the Israelis have cut off diplomatic communications with Abbas, the new Palestinian president, following a rocket attack on a patrol in Gaza Strip. I believe that this attack is a case of legitimate asymmetrical warfare, not terrorism. The targets were not civilians but millitary or para-millitary troops. So, in my book, the attackers fall under the general category of "militant". If we can find an example of Fox referring to this attack as terrorism, then I'll make the claim, and we can quote me. If not, then maybe we can find a similar example. crazyeddie 21:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Found the story. Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144351,00.html Unfortunatley, it seems that Fox is learning :-(. We may have to backtrack through the history and see who put in that remark in the first place. crazyeddie 21:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is an example of Fox not calling a militant a terrorist. So I suppose I'll have to remove the word "all". Is that enough for you, Trodel? crazyeddie 21:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that defining the terms as inflammatory and generic is not appropriate here - let the words stand on their own - supporters of FOX News would see the use of inflammatory as degrading and those that think it is inflammatory will still think the use of the term terrorist is inflammatory without describing it as such Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I did some extensiver research on FOX News (website) and the use of the term terrorist - specifially I found that terrorist was reserved for true terrorism and FOX News seems to be using militant for activites that are not clear terrorism. See terrorist 2004 search and militant 2004 search. I spot checked many of these and it looks like FOX News uses some discretion in using terrorist. Although they did use terrorist 4 times more frequently. Try some other search terms like "hezzbollah terrorist" or "palestinian militant" etc. Note that terrorist vs militant usage is about 50/50 with the term palestinian. Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally is there any support for the "only major news source". A quick search on Google News reveals use by New York Post, Pravda also using the term recently. Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm basically doing my best to interpert what whoever was the first to add those points to the article was trying to say. I don't watch Fox myself, so have no idea what they do. Maybe "only major news source" is a bit of a stretch, but the Post is also a Murdoch publication, kinda a print version of FNC, and Pravda is... well, Pravda. (Pravda means Truth in Russian, which is ironic, since it was an infamous source of Soviet propoganda back during the Cold War. From what I've seen of it, it hasn't improved much since then.) That's the trouble with trying to rephrase what some unknown person said - information is lost or gained in the translation. Maybe we do need to track down whoever put these bits in. Or we can continue trying to hash out compromise language that seems to mesh up with reality. crazyeddie 10:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about "one of the few major news sources, along with the Post and Pravda". I must admit, there is a certain righteousness in seeing Fox and the Post in the same sentence as Pravda. crazyeddie 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you possibly do a similar militant/terrorist search on other news sources? If CBS, CNN, NYT, NPR, etc show a similar pattern, I'd be in favor of scrapping the point altogether. crazyeddie 10:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've adopted Tim's changes for now, expcept on odd usage (possible Britishism?). Also wikifyied Post and Pravda. However, I still think we should figure out if there is anything to that militant/terrorist bit. It maybe that it's something Fox has fixed, or it could be something that was blown out of proportion. In this case, if it is a disproven allegation, I think it's minor enough that we should cut it. crazyeddie 21:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Re the possible Britishism: It took me ages to see it. It's difficult for me to tell whether it makes sense to non-British people. I've heard other British people talk like this, so it's not just me who uses it. Tim Ivorson 20:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still like my original versions for these sentences - My research on CNN revealed that their "Palestinian Terrorist"/"Palestinian Militant" is 7:1 (favoring terrorist) which is higher than FOX News. The other news organizations were about 1:1, like FOX, (give or take 20%) except for the NY Times which used militant much more frequently.

I think "... at Ari Fleisher's request..." implies a personal appeal by the whitehouse as opposed to a open request to all news organizations during the press briefing (which by the way I could not find any reference to - after spending some time on whitehouse.gov searching the archives). Based on this information I have changed my proposal unless someone can find the person who put the terrorist vs militant comment in and the history - I am not as good at searching Wiki history as using google and add-on tools to target a specific site. Trodel 12:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to share your results with the other articles. Adds some weight to the leftist anti-CNN people. I wonder if this was something Fox fixed prior to 2004, or if it was never there. If the first, that might explain CNN - Fox had its feet held to the fire over it, CNN didn't. At any rate, let's remove it.

Here's the closest thing I found to a source for the "homicide bomber" term so far: It at least gives a time frame to look in. From the link, it looks like it wasn't really a request. It was a trend/fashion that Bush and Fleisher were trying to start, and Fox, Post, and Pravda were the few who actually followed suit.

As for going through the history, the best method I know is brute force. Go through the history 500 edits at a time, looking for a version that doesn't contain the target section. Fine tune from there. But I don't think that'll be neccessary. You've done more research than the original contributor did. crazyeddie 18:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE Pravda and Pravda Online are apparently two seperate beasts. Pravda the newspaper is liberal, Pravda Online in nationalist. Which one did you get a ping on Trodel? crazyeddie 20:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did some reviewing of my history on this (thank you Google Desktop!). The article comes from pravda.ru - not sure which one it is; however the thing I overlooked is that it was a reader letter - not an editorial or news article of the site itself. And I could find no other references to "homicde bomber" on the site. See

I took out pravda and (hopefully) reworded my version above to make it as short as possible without leaving out any pertinent information. I agree with the removal of terrorist because they have (at least in 2004) been discriminatory in their use of the term and use militant frequently when the suspected combatant's description is not clearly terrorist. Trödel 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trodel's version looks good. Tim - about that Britishism, it's understandable to this American, it just sounds odd. I've heard some other Americans the speak the same way, but they seem to be a minority. crazyeddie 23:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to defend the terrorist point. I'm not sure about this, but I currently see it in the following way. If FNC calls people or organisations terrorist at all, especially as it has become quite emotive in America, some people probably don't like it. The "terrorists" might say that their victims are collateral damage, while America's civilian victims are targets. Tim Ivorson 12:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, it looks like FNC's use of the word is consistant with how other major news sources use it (which ones did you compare it with Trodel?). The sole exception is CNN, which is actually noticebly worse, and the New York Times, which is pretty convincingly accused of being biased in a liberal direction (but not as badly as FOX, IMHO). It is also usually clear if civilians were the target, or just innocent bystanders. (Assuming you don't think Trodel biased his research - I suppose we could always replicate the experiment.) So if we point fingers at Fox on this issue, we have to do it to several other news sources also. crazyeddie 18:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning Trodel's research, and neither am I ready to say that the terrorist label point simply must be included. Let's leave it out for now, on the understanding that if somebody takes issue with its omission or it turns out to be central to somebody's criticism of FNC, then we'll discuss it again. I think that FNC is no worse than other elite media outlets in the bias stakes. There absolutely should be criticism in articles about other media organisations. FNC is strange, rather than remarkably bad. Tim Ivorson 22:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if we can come up with a wording that would be acceptable re the "Terrorist" vs "Militant" claim as this is something that is fairly frequently thrown as an accusation against FOX News. I still want to keep things short though and not keep it if it is not notable. My thought is that searching the website might not be sufficient because of the verbal use of the term on the shows. I don't have access to a good search tool like Nexis or Dialogue (presumming that they carry transcripts). Given our precedent to include accusations that are prevalent I am willing to reconsider dropping this one. Trödel 22:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I thought the terrorist/militant claim was a major one, I'd also support its inclusion, along with a rebuttal. Major defined as "likely to be re-inserted if removed." I'm not completely up on the FNC debate so I'm not sure if this point is that major. crazyeddie 22:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law.

Trodel's Version

 * Accusations by two fired reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson that superiors demanded they revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways they saw as being in conflict with the facts. In a subsequent whistleblower lawsuit a jury ruled that FOX had ordered the reporters to distort the facts, but was overturned on First Amendment grounds. need source of result that is not so biased

Crazyeddie's Version

 * Accusations by two fired reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson that superiors demanded they revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways they saw as being in conflict with the facts. In a subsequent whistleblower lawsuit a jury ruled that WTVT, a Tampa Bay Fox affiliate, had ordered the reporters to distort the facts, but was overturned on First Amendment grounds. However, it should be noted that the case was against a local affilate station, not Fox News Channel itself.

Tim's Version
Additions to Crazyeddie's Version in bold, removals struckout:


 * Accusations by two fired reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson that superiors demanded they revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways they saw as being in conflict with the facts. In a subsequent A ruling in a whistleblower lawsuit a jury ruled that WTVT, a Tampa Bay Fox affiliate, had ordered the fired reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to distort the facts in a story about Bovine Growth Hormone. , but was overturned WTVT successfully appealed on First Amendment grounds. However, it should be noted that the case was against a local affilate station, not Fox FOX News Channel itself . (PDF)

As it might look:


 * A ruling in a whistleblower lawsuit that WTVT had ordered fired reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to distort the facts in a story about Bovine Growth Hormone. WTVT successfully appealed on First Amendment grounds. However, the case was against a local affilate station, not FOX News. (PDF)

Comments
Copied from notability check discussion:

I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Verified that this lawsuit was against a Fox affiliate and deals with a local news story - see District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District decision. Should not be included. Trodel 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that we should include it, but make it clear the case was against a Fox affiliate, not Fox itself. Heck, I'm arguing this for the good for the pro-Fox side. If a factoid is included here, then it is probably being bandied about by liberal rumor-mongers. It'd be nice to put this rumor to rest, as far as we have anything to say about. Just because an allegation is not credible doesn't mean it's not notable, if enough people believe it. Think "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". crazyeddie 23:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who tried to keep them quiet (allegedly offering bribes and asking them to agree to secrecy according to The Corporation)? I got the impression that it was FOX News. We seem to be linking to the wrong Steve Wilson. Perhaps this one could be given fuller treatment where it is more relevant. Space is of the essence, so perhaps crazyeddie's version should be shorter (and maybe somewhere other than the allegations of whatever it is section, as you seem to be saying that this one is resolved). I think that it's worth mentioning in this article, because this is a notable controversy. Tim Ivorson 14:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an allegations section, not proof. I think we should list all the major allegations the critics of Fox make, wether or not they have been disproven. If they have been disproven, we should make a note of it. If you think you can make my version shorter, go for it - in your own fork that is, if I like the changes, I'll adopt them. And if you can find an article about the right Steve Wilson, go ahead and change the link in my version. Now what's this about a coverup? Do we have sources? Are they credible? crazyeddie 20:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My source is my memory of The Corporation. It may be a far from reliable source. I'm not good at discerning the difference between FOX News, Fox Network, Fox affiliate, etc. and I may have been confused when I saw it. Perhaps someone here has a good command of Akre and Wilson's claims, but unfortunately that is not yet me. I'm fairly sure that Wilson claims to have been offered a bribe to sign some kind of agreement not to tell his story. On hearing that it wasn't enough to keep him quiet, he asked to be sent a copy of the agreement. He then told his story. Tim Ivorson 15:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, until we know more, I guess we'll have to keep it like it is. But if you happen to watch The Corporation again, take notes, do some research, and see if there is anything to it. I like your version better than mine, but it still needs some work. crazyeddie 22:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but it could be some time before I get round to it. Tim Ivorson 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so. At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election, as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.

Trodel's Version

 * During the 2000 Presidential Election FOX News was the last major network to retract its call of Florida for Gore, and at 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX News became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election, as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.

Crazyeddie's Version

 * During the 2000 Presidential Election FOX News was the last major network to retract its call of Florida for Gore, and at 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX News became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election, as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.


 * John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. However, this possible conflict of interest affects all clients of VNS, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the Associated Press, as well as Fox.

Crazyeddie's Additional Bullet Point

 * John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. However, this possible conflict of interest affects all clients of VNS, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the Associated Press, as well as Fox.

Trödel's Proposal

 * John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m. However, all major networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m. Additionally, Ellis admitted to informing Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone how projections were going on election night.

Comments
I think we should keep the bit about Ellis, including the bit about it being about VNS, not FNC. I personally believe that Fox's actions during the election reporting don't show bias, but they are at the center of many conspiracy theories. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the bit about Ellis should be included in Voter News Service. The consipiracy theorists don't limit this conspiricy re Ellis to FOX News but to the reporting by all news organziations especially thouse that used the VNS. Trodel 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say no to it being included in the VNS article. But I also think we need to include it here, but make it clear that it didn't directly affect Fox - or just Fox. We don't want to be accused of being part of the coverup by some wingnut :-) However, if somebody else agrees with Trodel that it should be removed, I won't buck. crazyeddie 21:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just added it to the VNS article. I strongly don't think it should be included in an article about FOX News since it is about Voter News Service. It could be included in the Media bias artilce as well. I'm sure to be accused of coverup by some wingnut so I don't let that bother me (too much :). Trodel 21:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on this issue for now, and wait for others to break the tie. crazyeddie 23:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any other comments on adding this bullet Trodel 12:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that the consensus on the whistleblower case sets a precedent. Notable because it's widely believed, but pretty well shot down, which we've made clear. crazyeddie 18:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am reluctantly ok with including this. We should try to find a reference that he contacted both Bush cousins otherwise I would say leave that out - I will do some looking tonight to see if I can verify that it is more than conjucture based on the relationship. If we can't I say leave the middle sentence out. Trödel 23:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's a moot point here, since it's pretty clear that wether he did or did not, it doesn't directly affect Fox. However, it should be done for the sake of the VNS article, and might as well do it now, so we can sync the two versions (VNS and FOX article versions) up. crazyeddie 23:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement here so I will move to the concensus section. Trödel 22:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Found evidence of Ellis' relationship with FOX News both CBS News and The Guardian refer to Ellis having admited giving the Bush brothers up to date information about projections (with the Guardian citing a New Yorker article. Also the relationship to FOX News is also clear - Ellis was one of 4 consultants assigned by VNS to work with FOX News and that group recommended to FOX News to call for Bush in Florida which they did an 2:16 am. So now we have that all cleared up I am going to try to write a proposal that puts things in context better. Trödel 01:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS I wouldn't recommend wading through the hyperbole of the google search I started with. It would make things easier if people would reference their claims :)

Original Version
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive 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 political commentary show 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?".

Trodel's Version
FAIR also claimed that between 1998 and 2001, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson with themes regarding a past extra-marital affair and the use of donations to make maintenance and child support payments.
 * In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News," which compared guests on FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume with those on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:

Crazyeddie's Version

 * A report released by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" This report compared FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume with CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. The report states that:
 * 89% of FOX's guests were Republican, while 57% of guests were Republican on CNN
 * 65% of FOX's guests were conservative, while 32% of guesst were conservative of CNN

Tim's version

 * A report released in August 2001 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News," which:
 * States that guests on FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume were:
 * 93% white,
 * 91% male,
 * 89% Republican, and
 * 71% conservative; and
 * Claims that, despite his claims to the contrary, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly is conservative.

Comments
I think we need to keep some sort of summary of the meat of report. Maybe as sub-bullet points? crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

... or we could just bullet point the original version, since it seems to be shorter than my rewrite. :-/ crazyeddie 07:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The progressive link should point to progressivism, but that would still be ambiguous. What makes it progressive? Perhaps progressive could just be removed. Although I have suggested changes to crazyeddie's version, I'm not sure that I don't prefer Trodel's version. Tim Ivorson 16:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Made some changes based on Tim's suggestions. I think we should stick with Fox rather than FNC - same number of letters, and names are less confusing than alphabet soup. I'm not sure, but I think the "progressive" label was stuck in by a pro-Foxer as an ad-hominem attack on the report. So I have no problem with removing it, assuming Trodel and the other pro-Foxers don't object. I think we should somehow keep a summary of the content of the report, because that's what gives it its kick. With out the meat, the reader is left with the "progressive" label and the title of the report. With just those, it sounds like just an attack piece. crazyeddie 20:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I chose FNC's over Fox's because Fox might be confused with other meanings. May I suggest FOX's? It is short, non-confusing and unlikely to be confused with the most relevant of the other meanings. Otherwise, we might opt for FOX News'(s) or FOX News Channel's.


 * My objection to the use of progressive is based on its ambiguity. What makes FAIR progressive? I would consider left-wing and liberal more ambiguous. Progressivism seems to suggest social democratic. Would that do? Progressive also sounds like a term of endorsement and I think that it violates NPOV.


 * The FAIR report is not in the least damning for FNC, as it is an allegation of bias, rather than of error, or worse, systematic inaccuracy. It is not as notable as the mistakes with which it shares a section. Perhaps it belongs elsewhere.
 * Tim Ivorson 13:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made new suggestions above. My suggested removals should save space. It is not necessary to include "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)", because neither name would be used later in the article if any of the proposed changes to this section are made. I prefer simply "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting", but we could save more space with "FAIR". Tim Ivorson 13:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions look good, except I think "1 out of 12" reads better than "1 of 12". Maybe we could just say:


 * report released by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" This report compared Fox FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume with CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. The report states that:

etc, etc. If the reader wants to know more about FAIR, they can click on the link.

As for the rest of it, the name of the section is "Allegations of Bias". If the name of the section is changed, then maybe we should think of putting it elsewhere. As evidence of bias, I think this bullet point is one of the most important. And it's the contents of the report, not the name of the report or who released it, that makes it so. crazyeddie 22:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that you're right about removing progressive. It occurs to me that it might be appropriate to call FAIR progressive if it is unclear whether it is social democratic or radical, but not unclear that it is anti-conservative. However, I think that it is an inadequate label for this page and might be removed. Perhaps we should just call FAIR anti-conservativism.


 * I think that I would prefer something like 1 in every 12 or even a mean of 1 in 12 to 1 out of 12. I wonder whether the numbers should be written out in full (e.g. One in every twelve...). However, note that the linked Manual of Style page says that writers are not expected to follow any of these rules.
 * Tim Ivorson 11:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling this is an American/British usage difference. crazyeddie 19:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think all this detail is not necessary to the allegation and is easily available on the links. Maybe a summary sentance like "...that more FOX News guests were Republican than other news sources." The extra detail provides evidence of left leaning CNN since had only 32% Republican guests. I added the term progressive based on the description of the watchdog group on Wikipedia and the fact that it is progressive. PS although I don't shy from describing groups using words that might be charged, I do think the use of derrogatory slang terms such as spade is aweful - and why I don't use them. Trodel 12:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Didn't think you did, Trodel. (However, I have used that phrase in the past - I wonder what's so offensive about shovels? OH. And, back in the 70s, I think "spade" might have been complimentary - not that I'd use it today, I value my skin!) Tim, in America, progressive is a slightly better defined (or less derogatory) term than left wing or liberal. (Somehow Limbaugh managed to turn "liberal" into a slam all by itself - don't ask me how.) As for "social democrat", well, thems fighting words. If we have to pin a label on FAIR, progressive is probably the best choice. It looks like that's how they describe themselves. But I'd rather we didn't label it. Is it really that important?


 * My thinking was that social democrat means something unambiguous, about which it makes sense to have an opinion. OTOH, progressive is a positive, but ambiguous, word, like good. Where you are progressive may have acquired a stigma (albeit less than social democrat), but Wikipedia insists that it has several meanings. Tim Ivorson 11:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Progressive is what the group itself has picked to describe themselves. If we do use it, then I suppose we should direct to progressivism. However, I think the group's polictial affiliation is less important than "media watchdog group". I think we should trim both. The problem with "social democrat" is the "social". In some ways, Joseph McCarthy is quite alive and well. The term "social democrat" goes over about as well in the US as "Christian democrat". (Which would appear to violate seperation of church and state - or at least it does to most Americans.)


 * That's a shame. My thinking was that progressive would be okay if it was (relevant, there was space for it and) it was enclosed in quotation marks. Progress is a good thing and it is not for Wikipedia to decide what progress is. I thought that perhaps it could be disambiguated to social democrat, but it couldn't really. I'm content to leave a progressive media "watchdog" group out, but I wonder what we should do if we decide that FAIR has to be described. Tim Ivorson 21:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my guns on the details. Actually 57% of CNN's guests were Republican - which might not be a bias, since Republicans dominate the government right now. 32% were conservative - persumably more extreme in their views than just Republicans. I'm guessing another third were "liberal" and the remaining third "moderate". If you can find a shorter way to express this information, Trodel, go ahead. But unless everybody else agrees that the details should be stripped... Look at how much debate these numbers have caused here!

Summarizing the details will lead to the same problems of adding or subtracting information as the "labels" section. The report doesn't state "...that more FOX News guests were Republican than other news sources." Rather it compares two specific shows, one on Fox, one on CNN.

Any idea why so many manuals of style recommend spelling out numerical values? Do they think we can't read numbers? I understand it's a widespread idea, but I just don't understand it. (Then again, my native language is written English, not spoken - I have to translate spoken in my head.) I still think my version reads better. crazyeddie 18:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've no idea why some numbers should be spelled out. It's not something that I'll insist on. Tim Ivorson 20:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been leaving this discussion alone because I don't know much about it. I read (skimmed) the FAIR report today and it seems that the reporting of the data above is not even handed - 93% of CNN's guests were white (for example) and their were varying terms of the study (19 week period for one Brit Hume, more than a year for O'Reilly). Also the choice of example title on Jackson is slanted, the report actually says:
 * "Lest anyone think O'Reilly has mixed feelings about Jackson, here is a partial sampling of O'Reilly transcript headlines: "Did Jesse Jackson Pay His Mistress With Funds Donated to Charity?" (4/2/01); "What Do Jesse Jackson's Financial Records Reveal?" (3/8/01); "Has Jesse Jackson's Tax-Exempt Status Been Clarified?" (3/14/01); "Is the IRS Avoiding Jesse Jackson?" (3/9/01); "Has Jesse Jackson Lost His Moral Authority?" (1/9/01); "How Personal Are African-Americans Taking the Moral Failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?" (2/19/01); and, inevitably, "Jesse Jackson Lashes Out at The Factor" (3/22/01)." see Oreilly portion of study

As far as formatting - I like the subbullets, I think we should use x% and 1 of 12 shows, or something similar. I will see if I can think of something useful to propose. Trödel 23:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering why they didn't compare the white percentage of CNN's guests. If y'all don't mind, I just trim that off. For Jesse Jackson, I'll see what I can come up with. crazyeddie 02:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * FAIR chose to compare FNC to CNN, but I don't believe that what CNN does is relevant to this section, except in cases where it makes FNC qualitatively unique, as in the homicide bomber case. Tim Ivorson 11:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think CNN was choosen as a generic, mainstream control. The fact that whoever wrote the original version neglected to include CNN's percentage of white guests is worrisome. I think we should cut it for now, pending further review of the original source. crazyeddie 18:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be POV of us to accept uncritically that CNN can be used as a control when testing for bias. As you say above, CNN is often worse than FNC. I think that FAIR's failure was not in neglecting to mention the white proportion of Wolf Blitzer guests, but in ever comparing CNN to FNC in this report. Tim Ivorson 21:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Like Mark Twain said, you've got lies, damn lies, and statisitics. Without some kind of comparision, out of context percentages aren't very informative. CNN has its flaws, but it has critics on both the left and the right. So, if CNN is biased, it seems to be biased to the center (as that word is used in the US). From something Trodel said, I think FAIR did mention Blitzer's percentage of white guests, but the "unknown contributor" left it out. I think we need to read the report ourselves, but I don't want to hold up getting this consensus rewrite out just for that. I'd still like to retain some of the meat of the report, but I'd reluctantly go with Trodel's stripped version before including out-of-context information.


 * Perhaps CNN is biased to the centre, but no less biased than FNC. Tim Ivorson 00:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or we could just trim that off as well. So Fox (or rather, O'Reilly) has an anti-Jesse Jackson bias. Big whoop. crazyeddie 02:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like it included. I think that the example is particularly interesting. Why should African-Americans, more than other Americans, be interested in a black politician? Tim Ivorson 11:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * With the accuracy of the "white percentage" thrown into question, the random inclusion of "hit pieces against Jesse Jackson" looks rather silly. The central, underlying thesis of this section if Fox's alleged rightist bias. I'm not sure how a bias against one politician helps or detracts from that thesis. I'd like to strip this sub-bulletpoint, pending a review of the original source which can help put it into context. Basically, it looks like someone was trying to set up Fox to look racist. That's a serious charge, and I'd like to avoid doing that unless evidence backs it up. crazyeddie 18:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken the Jesse Jackson bit out and put in its place a summary of what FAIR are trying to demonstrate about O'Reilly. Stuff about Jackson is too much detail for here. Tim Ivorson 21:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Not NPOV. True, but not NPOV. Repeating my basic position: Trodel has convinced me that the original "unknown contributor" has not reported FAIR's report faithfully. We need to read it ourselves and write our own summary. I don't want to hold off on the overall rewrite long enough to do this. More to the point, I don't have time right now to read it. I'd like to retain some notion of what the report is about, but only if our "good enough" summary is adequately trustworthy. In a pinch, I'd support Trodel's stripped version, but only as a last resort. crazyeddie 22:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have inserted claims to indicate that this is FAIR's claim (but I think that I may have mangled the punctuation). I take an interest in O'Reilly (I think of FNC as the O'Reilly arm of the Murdoch machine), and once I did read the section of the FAIR report regarding O'Reilly. It is called Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness: Don't call him conservative-- but he is. Just a glance at the title tells me that FAIR's judgement is that O'Reilly is conservative. Tim Ivorson 00:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some time later: Basically, this is what I get for not reading the original source. If the source isn't being accurately reported, we need to read the friggin' thing ourselves and write our own summary. But, if I'm not mistaken, this is the last sticking point before consensus. Let's just hurry up and get a "good enough" consensus bullet point together, so we can get this thing done. We can come back later after we've read the report and fix it up. We can also see how our fellow contributors have treated the rewrite in the elapsed time.

I don't know about you all, but I'm to the point where I can no longer see the forest for the trees. As soon as we have a good enough version of this bullet point, let's archive all of this and take a look at the finished product. crazyeddie 07:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should choose one for now and maybe come back to it later. I'm happy with any of the three versions. Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says that % should not be used in a non-technical context. I don't know what a technical context is, so I think that we may choose whether to use the American percent (this is an American article, after all) or %. I suggest that where punctuation has been omitted, the proposer checks that it was intentional. I would also like for progressive, if it is included, to link to progressivism, rather than progressive. Tim Ivorson 11:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of %. I think we should hold off on grammar/typo checks until we take a final look at the big picture. That might help our eyes uncross. If we use progressive, we should direct to progressivism. crazyeddie 18:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Trodel supports % too. As a proponent of brevity, I'm switching to % in my version. Tim Ivorson 21:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So I have done a little bit of editing - is this an improvement on what we have discussing? Trödel 22:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS If you like the table we can improve the spacing and coloring


 * The table looks like a good idea. If we go with it, then I think that it should be left simple. Perhaps I'll make more comments tomorrow. Tim Ivorson 00:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, Trodel. Let's combine what we got, and look at it altogether. crazyeddie 01:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports 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. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter, argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the "Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.

Trodel's version

 * A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions":
 * 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.

Crazyeddie's version

 * A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold three beliefs than the viewers of any other network. These beliefs, which the report labels "misperceptions", were:
 * 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.

Tim's synthesis

 * A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to hold three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions" (PDF):
 * 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.

Comments
Probably ought to keep the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference". crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody please fix that bullet point? crazyeddie 07:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How about the above? Tim Ivorson 17:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Might want to do whatever voodoo you do to Trodel's also. crazyeddie 20:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done the same to Trodel's version and I've removed one of your versions. The trick is that second level bullets, made with &#8727;&#8727;, have to have a first level bullet before them in the list. The page is converted to HTML for viewing and second level bullets are only possible in HTML as a list within a list. Note also that if you put a blank line in the wiki markup for a list, then everything after that line is a new list and must have its own first level bullet. That's why there was a stray bullet in your version of the FAIR report bit until you fixed it. Tim Ivorson 11:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Trodel's version and I think that both would benefit from removing the (PIPA), as it is not needed to explain a subsequent use of the acronym. Tim Ivorson 11:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the information about PIPA from my version, for the same reasons as the FAIR bit. The only difference between mine and Trodel's version is the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference", which I find a rather important point. crazyeddie 19:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If the list of sponsors is removed from here, I think that it should be put in the PIPA article. It needn't be removed though. It's not as awkward as the progressive thing. Tim Ivorson 21:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've adopted your changes for aesthetic reasons. I believe that the sponsors list came from the PIPA article, along with the progressive tag. In context, the progressive tag establishes a parrellel between PIPA and a similar conservative group. I removed the sponsers list in interests of space. crazyeddie 21:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concensus Recommendation

 * A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to hold three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions" (PDF):
 * 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.

Comments on Concensus
This is Tim's version except I removed "even" from "...reports that, even after adjusting..." Trodel 13:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "even" means that the difference was even more extreme before the adjustment. And they seem to be pretty extreme even after - something like 90% of the regular audience, if memory serves. I'd hate to fight over one friggin' word, but that word is kinda important. The "even" version represents both mine and Tim's opinion. (Last I checked, anyway.) It's not like it causes a line wrap or anything. crazyeddie 19:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Memory, you're fired. "80% held one or more of these beliefs". Not as extreme as memory reported but still pretty bad. crazyeddie 19:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added the "even" back in. I foudn this logic compelling Trödel 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online. They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an ax to grind."

Trodel's Version

 * Photocopied memos from FOX News executive John Moody instructing the network's on-air anchors and reporters to include right-wing viewpoints in their reporting.

Comments
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
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's statutory 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" to support Gibson's claim of bias. Ofcom ruled on mid-June, 2004 that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: failing to honor the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Its report highlighted the fact that the BBC was not given a chance to respond, Fox News failed to respond to Ofcom by backing up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and the broadcaster did not make it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words.

Trodel's Version

 * In an opinion piece on the Hutton Inquiry decision, John Gibson said the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" . In reviewing viewer complaints, Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: "respect for truth", "opportunity to take part", and "personal view programmes – opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence" (see Ofcom complaint, response and ruling).

Comments
I have problems with the drastic removal of text from the OfCom section. OfCom regarded this as a very serious breach indeed, and made it plain that this was o technicality. OfCom found that Fox News failed to respect the truth, failed to give the BBC a chance to respond and failed to ensure that an expressed opinion did not rely on false evidence. This should be reflected in the text. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I left more in that section than others. Additionally, for me, the whole concept of an governmental organization that labels different news stories as a "serious breach" and "truth" is suspect and the beginning of the slippery slope to deny Freedom of Speech. The US media is full of hyperbole and we have the intelligence to distinguish - look at the use of puffing in advertising as another example. --Trodel 13:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the main points of Ofcom's ruling are relevant here, despite any concerns that we may have about government regulating the media. Anyway, I don't think that FNC's right or ability to express the opinions of its choice in the United Kingdom is being challenged here. Instead, I think that it is being criticised for misleading satellite news viewers. There are some places in which one must tell the truth, like on product labels.


 * I consider myself fairly intelligent, but I'm not sure that I could see through something like this. If the shoe was on the other foot, and ITV News Channel news said that NPR was "frothing-at-the-mouth" with anti-Britishism "that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest," then (as a Brit) I might expect ITV to play it up, but if I was the least bit credulous (not being an NPR listener) I wouldn't guess that there wasn't any truth to it.


 * Otherwise, the proposed replacement for the current allegations of bias section is a big improvement. Tim Ivorson 15:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's even better now. Thanks Trodel. Tim Ivorson 19:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the heck OfCom is, but I think allegations of bias coming from it are at least as important as allegations coming from a domestic watchdog organization. Trodel, I'd suggest keeping all of the "bullet points" in the section, and focus on trimming as much fat as possible from each individual bullet point. We can discuss which bullet points are worthy of inclusion in a seperate discussion. crazyeddie 07:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it was just slimmed down, not removed entirely. Sorry, I misread Tony's comment. However, his comments does underscore my point that interpertation provides a buffer that can balance out the material's POV. More comments later, after I've actually read this when fully awake. crazyeddie 07:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Offtopic: I would suppose something like OfCom is needed when one the largest players in the media business is a government entity. Plus, I think OfCom only monitors broadcast media, kinda like the FCC. Since spectrum is limited, it's a national resource that has to be protected. How is laying down ground rules for public debate that much different than saying what body parts can't be shown? I don't like censorship any better than the rest of you, but, like the FCC, OfCom does seem to be limited to just broadcast. Would any UKers like to comment? crazyeddie 09:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Offtopic discussion continued on my talk page. crazyeddie 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.

Trodel's Version

 * A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices.

Comments
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated. FOX News later retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.

Trodel's Version

 * In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." FOX News later retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". ?link to article and/or retraction?

Crazyeddie's Version

 * In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three fabricated quotes purportedly from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." FOX News later retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". ?link to article and/or retraction?

Comments
Making clear that the quotes, were, in fact, fabricated. crazyeddie 23:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Altbhough I think the term fabricated is duplicative since it was retracted I am leaving it in since there have been no other comments to the contrary. Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that I slightly rewrote crazyeddies version to use attributed instead of purported, and removed the word later after FOX News since the retraction was the same day. Trodel 13:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. crazyeddie 19:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original Version
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal, stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.

Trodel's Version
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal, stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.

Crazyeddie's Version
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal, stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. However, the vast majority of critics do not claim that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the channel as a whole has a systemic bias.

Comments
I would leave out the response of critics to the response of ailes. I put a reworded version of this sentence in the intro - and took it out of here. thougts? Trodel 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this as a summary of the allegations but as the response from FOX News. Trodel 23:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough on the section name change, since it will be taken out when we put the pieces back together. I think Ailes' statement is too misleading not to be commented on. I'd advise moving the reworded version back to here. crazyeddie 23:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to find a place to put the Media Matters link. Not quite sure where yet. 66.189.230.243 07:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind... crazyeddie 07:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we don't need a summary at the end - and that labeling this the response using bold in the paragraph is sufficient. This would then move the vast majority comment to the intro. thoughts? Trodel 13:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree we don't need a summary. And I think that the "Fox News responds" in bold is clear enough that I retract my rebuttal. Which means we should also use your intro, Trodel. crazyeddie 20:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concensus Recommendation
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.

Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
 * Rupert Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times.
 * Roger Ailes's, the CEO of Fox News, past activities including: Republican campaign work, involvement in the Willie Horton ad and his production of the Rush Limbaugh television show.
 * Use of the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer made the request. The only other major news organization to do so was fellow News Corporation subsidiary the New York Post.
 * A ruling in a whistleblower lawsuit that WTVT had ordered fired reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to distort the facts in a story about Bovine Growth Hormone. WTVT successfully appealed on First Amendment grounds. However, the case was against a local affilate station, not FOX News. Appeal Decision (PDF)
 * During the 2000 Presidential Election FOX News was the last major network to retract its call of Florida for Gore, and at 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX News became the first major network to project Bush as the winner of Florida and thus the election, as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
 * John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m. However, all major networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m. Additionally, Ellis admitted to informing Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone how projections were going on election night.
 * A report released in August 2001 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News," which:
 * Claims that, despite his claims to the contrary, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly is conservative; and
 * Compared guests on FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume with those on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:

FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal, stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.
 * - align ="center"
 * rowspan="3" width="60" |
 * width ="50" |white
 * width ="50" |male
 * width ="50" |Republican
 * width ="50" |conservative
 * - align ="center"
 * align ="right" |Hume (FOX)
 * 93%
 * 91%
 * 89%
 * 71%
 * - align ="center"
 * align ="right" |Blitzer (CNN)
 * 93%
 * 86%
 * 57%
 * 32%
 * }
 * A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to hold three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions" (PDF):
 * 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.
 * Photocopied memos from FOX News executive John Moody instructing the network's on-air anchors and reporters to include right-wing viewpoints in their reporting.
 * In an opinion piece on the Hutton Inquiry decision, John Gibson said the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" . In reviewing viewer complaints, Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: "respect for truth", "opportunity to take part", and "personal view programmes – opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence" (see Ofcom complaint, response and ruling).
 * A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices.
 * In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "It's about the Supreme Court.?"; "Women should like me!"; "I do manicures." FOX News retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice".
 * In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "It's about the Supreme Court.?"; "Women should like me!"; "I do manicures." FOX News retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice".

Notability check on Allegations of Bias section
See proposed text - we can discuss notablity if the above is not sufficient.

...

In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive 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 political commentary show 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?".


 * Trodel says this is notable. I'll believe him. crazyeddie 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I said this - I think it should be clear that in the US there are both conservative and progressive (or liberal) watchdog groups --Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...

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. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter, argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the "Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.


 * Again, Trodel vouches for this paragraph's notability. crazyeddie 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * the accusation is an allegation of bias - I am against pro/con justifications/apologists - let the reader research and decide --Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...

By "notability check", I meant checking each "bullet point" one by one, to see if they should be stripped from the article on notability grounds, instead of NPOV. I would advise holding off on this discussion until we see how the first two proposed solutions work out. crazyeddie 07:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving the current section as it is. It seems to be pretty well written and (looking at the sections that I know about) accurate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added notice of discussion to article
Added the notice to the article; hopefully, that will generate comments from more than me, crazyeddie, Tim Ivorson, Tony Sidaway, and TDC. I think a change of this nature should be widely reviewed and discussed. Trodel 23:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I moved the recommendation to the article after getting agreement from Tony Sidaway. I will remove the notice above in a few days depending on feedback. Trödel 17:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the above notice today 18:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concensus Recommendation
See FOX News for recommendation. Discuss language below. For additional history of discussion section by section and original language see Talk:FOX News/Allegations of Bias.

General Discussion of Proposed Language
Although I have left all accusations in the section; that shouldn't imply any opinion of mine about their worthiness. I am editing to eliminate unneeded details and explanations of the accusations. The goal being to leave just the bare facts – I tried to be NPOV – Please comment. --Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll look again tommorrow, when I'm more awake. I'm a bit worried about such a massive change in this section. The current version is the result of several edit wars. (At least that's my impression, I haven't done any digging into the history.) The result of these wars is a balanced NPOV - or at least I think so. This major of a change might upset that balance despite our best efforts. If so, it might cause additional edit war(s) trying to restore the balance, leading to the section being bloated again. To tell you the truth, I suggested trimming the fat from the section as a debating tactic - I didn't have much actual hope for success.


 * From what I can tell, the current allegations section with its clarifying comments on the allegations has been much discussed and language added resulting in its current length.
 * I am proposing that - in the interest of (1) keeping this section in check as to size, and (2) presenting a neutral reporting of the allegations - the allegations be stripped to their essence and the interpretation and details be left to the reader and his ability to follow the links. --Trodel 19:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been very busy today, so I still haven't had a chance to get a good look at the proposed changes. So I'm stuck with commenting on the proposal in general. First off, I believe we Wikipedians should offer intepertations of facts, or, when possible, quote other people's intepertations. Facts, without context, do not speak for themselves. Secondly, I think it is safe to say that most, if not all, of these allegations were added by contributors of an anti-Fox POV. The ability to add context or interpertation to the bare facts is what makes the section acceptable to the pro-Fox side.

Plus, I'd hate to leave out the details. In addition to being anti-Fox, I'm also an inclusionist :-) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I added some language to indicate context - in some I have already tried to give context - but I am trying to trim interpretation out (See Ofcom - it is important I think that the context of the comments was made as a result of the Hutton Inquiry which found against the BBC). new stuff is in green --Trodel sometime, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * These changes are included above - Trodel 20:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since we're condensing each individual point, not changing their order or deleting them outright, I think we should do a point to point comparison, not whole to whole. I'm changing the layout here to that effect. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished making alternate versions. Trodel, let's see where we can work out a compromise version between the two of us, or see where we have to agree to disagree for the time being. For the bits we can't agree on, we can wait for the peanut gallery to propose a tertium quid or come to a consensus on which version they want. crazyeddie 07:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been a while since I watched FOX News since it is no longer included in my satellite subscription; however, my evaluation was that FOX News has biased opinons, but it's news is fairly even handed - the problems it that it intersperses 5 minute updates of real news in the middle of its opinion shows. It is the blurring of the distinction between news and opinion that has led to these allegations. I guess I see less of a hidden agenda than most - especially since the first few claims my friends made turned out to be exagerations. Though like Tim I don't watch it enough to know first hand anymore. Trodel 13:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So none of us watch Fox? That's just... beautiful. crazyeddie 23:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good thing. Anyway, in Britain it's unusual to watch FNC, but certainly not impossible. I think that it comes with every satellite subscription package (although it is possible to get only free-to-air channels from satellite TV without a subscription). Many people get satellite because they want the new, digital-only, free-to-air channels. Satellite coverage is better than digital terrestrial or cable (neither of which carry FNC, AFAIK). However, my housemates settled for digital terrestrial (free-to-air channels only). Many people who have access to FNC choose not to watch it. They get very many channels, including British 24hour/day news channels including News Corporation's Sky News, which don't report as if Scott Peterson was important and Israel was the whole world outside America. I do watch FNC when I visit my parents, but only to learn about News Corporation. Tim Ivorson 12:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally get my news from NPR, PBS, and the New York Times. I was blissfully unaware of the details of the Peterson case until I had to make a computer repair housecall, and the client was watching Oprah in the other room. I was mainly commenting on the fact that three people, with limited direct experience of Fox, are performing a major rewrite on a section in an article on Fox. crazyeddie 19:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I thought that you meant that. I'm concerned (perhaps irrationally) about News Corporation's effect on its audience, so I also thought that non-viewers might do better. Tim Ivorson 20:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much get all my news from Google News and the Wall Street Journal but I do listen to O'Reilly during lunch at least once a week when I am driving to do errands. Listening to his radio show is one reason I am interested in this as the accusations I have heard from others have not reflected what I heard on the show - especially in tone. I would like to see this get presented in a respectable way - I do think that, from what I remember of FOX News (and some of the coverage I saw on election night), FOX News goes out of its way to be sure to present the conservative side of issues.

Well it look like we are getting close - and the problems with wikipedia lately have made this a draining process - I hate losing info - luckly I began copying and pasting before the error occured. Trödel 23:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * O'Reilly doesn't have guests on his radio show. I think that it gets a bit less heated than his TV show. I can hear his radio show in the evenings on the web, but I find it a bit long-winded. I prefer to keep a track of him by by his column on the web. Tim Ivorson 13:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That may explain it (the lack of guests to argue with) - plus I get whatever is on when I am in the car for 60-90 minutes driving around, or waiting at the drive through bank/fast food and not running into a store or post office. So my listening is very hit/miss. I'll try to catch him on that site. Trödel 16:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean Tim. Fortunately, most of them have been too desensitized by the mind control rays to be able to edit the Wikipedia. The few trolls we get are actually the brightest of the lot.  I really hope the developers fix the @##$ servers. Judging from the numbers, Wikipedia might not be "the encyclopedia slashdot built" much longer. crazyeddie 01:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is lightning fast in the morning GMT. Tim Ivorson 08:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Lucky Brits. I usually edit in the late afternoon, Central US time. Gridlock. Even after midnight, I'm having troubles. crazyeddie 08:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Try at two to four AM CST. Tim Ivorson 13:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I can (advantage to working on the evening shift), but if I do it too much I won't be running properly. I guess they've gotten to the point where just adding more servers doesn't improve matters much. Hope they figure something out. It's not like they're really limited on money - just ask, and thousands of dollars will fall from the sky. crazyeddie 18:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should use smaller fonts to make it easier on the servers. Tim Ivorson 21:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * crazyeddie 02:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I have summarized it all under Concensus - I tried to take what seemed to be the objections and merge the FAIR bullet point, and the Ellis bullet point to make decent items. I hope you guys are ok with what I did there. If you need it the [Talk:FOX News/Allegations of Bias|history/archive] is available. I think they will get it up and running - it is getting enough press they should be able to get some corporate donations soon without running ads for them other than identifying them on the contributors page. let me know if I missed anything. Trödel 03:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy with the FAIR and homicide bomber points now. Thanks. I thought that we were some way from consensus on the FAIR point, but I have no criticisms of the current proposal regarding FAIR. Tim Ivorson 08:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, I do have some criticisms of that version. I hope it is OK that I increased the indent of the table. It looks better for me now. Otherwise it began further left than the sub-bullet to which it belongs. Also, I think that 65% should be changed to 71%, because, according to the report "on Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives..." Tim Ivorson 13:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * good catch on the 65% vs 71% - that is what comes of actually looking at the quoted source docs - I wonder how long that has been incorrect in the article. on my computer the bacground of the page is #f8fcff but the table is #ffffff. Should I make them match - or is there some way to put in a color that will match the skin the user has selected? Trödel 16:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For me, the background is #ffffec and so is the table background. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. I had assumed that the way to make a table match the page is to not specify its colour. I think that the software is supposed to provide reasonable defaults. Does it look bad for you? Tim Ivorson 21:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The look ok - I am using Cologne blue skin - and it is a white table on a very light blue background. I thought not specifying a color would do the same as you - it looks fine for me, I was just worried that others might not have the same skin. Trödel 23:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also - is there a style or rule about quoting non wikipedia articles by not having them underline words in the paragraph. This seems fairly common although there are some places where the link is in the paragraph and part of the text though in most cases it is an after sentence reference. If you know of one and can point me to the style article I would appreciate it. tia Trödel 03:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never believed that the section needed a rewrite; I still prefer the current version. I realise that some people have put a lot of work into it, and I thank them for the effort, but for my money the new version does not improve the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Some people objected to the length of the section on NPOV grounds. They believed that the length of the section gave the entire article too much of a focus on the alleged bias. Others believed that the length of the section (about, what, three pages?) was too long from an aesthetic standpoint. We've tried to condense it, while retaining the points the original version made. Along the way, we also looked into the truth of the allegations, and made a note where a point seemed to be contradicted by the evidence. I think our main worry is that our rewrite may cause further edit wars. So we're seeing if anybody has any strong objections to this consensus version. crazyeddie 07:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony - I think that it vastly improves on the current version. 1) it is shorter (810 vs 1585 words) without losing any content, 2) it does not have the pro con debate on each point, 3) IMHO it is more NPOV, and 4) I helped write it :). The pro con debates on each point make this article not encyclopedic in my mind but more of an argumentative essay. I hope that you can see how the new version presents balanced but not argumentative points on each allegation. Trödel 16:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My objection isn't strong enough to make me a stick-in-the-mud on this. I think it's acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait until Monday. I've nobody has any objections, we'll go ahead and make the switch, then sit back and watch the fireworks. crazyeddie 20:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of posted language
See above and archive for prior discussion - new discussion here to make it easier to navigate. Trödel 17:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Language has been up for almost 3 days without any objections - I am thinking of removing the notice after 5 days - any thoughts on if it should be done sooner or later 15:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd recommend watchlist this article if you haven't already, and keeping watchlisted for, say, 6 months. crazyeddie 19:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we reached a concensus on this - removed the comment (banner) - Thanks to all making this my first entry into a significant edit on a controversial subjetct a good one. 18:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of information from opening paragraph
This criticism does not belong in the opening paragraph. There is no consensus to have the information remain24.27.151.226 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility be damned, we are not having this discussion. If you blank the section again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing, and removing a product of a larger consensus than any I've seen. For more information, read Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 21, beginning at section 19, titled "19 Opening Paragraph POV?". However, I cannot be more clear: blank it again, and you will be blocked. - auburn pilot   talk  13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better to say "We've actually had this discussion before" than to say "We're not having this discussion again." You are going to see unaware people wandering in again. Count on it. Urzatron (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a new, unaware person, I'll eat my foot. - auburn pilot   talk  14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is someone we all know. Kid gloves are no longer appropriate.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. My bad, then. Urzatron (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This ip (and has been used by a troll(s)  engaged in mostly racist/anti-semitic disruption and harassment on the talk pages of various articles and users. I have to say it seems so formulaic, so stereotypical that the sincerity of the ip is  debatable. But, regardless of sincerity, this is a troll that should probably be blocked on sight whenever the ips revert to type. SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

and i concur it does not belong since it is there in black and white in the controversies section and i have removed it and will contiue to do so it is very obvious that it is not useful and frankyl is out of place,and i dont have a horse in this race one way or another but it is not a matter of disagreeing with content, its an open and shut case its just a repeat statement that is why there is no need for a consenus and you dont start off a criticism about a news media organization in the opening section it suppose about the news channel its self the criticism sections comes later down the section like in any aticle this seems to be just a political motivated stunt--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "There is no need for consensus"? Allow me to point out that the version in place is grounded in a very strong consensus, and removal of such (especially if you "contiue[sic] to do so") will assuredly get you blocked as a vandal.  Please move on.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really more "inappropriate edit warring" than "vandalism." I think if you were to report it as "vandalism," you'd really be reporting it to the wrong place. Urzatron (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The intro is there to summarize the content of the major points of the article, so repetition is not a valid reason for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 13 May

2008 (UTC)

so puting the rebuttle statement after that one would make it neutral if its okay to repeat one it okay to repeat the other--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The only consensus on the conservative bias of FOX News was reached by liberals and liberals alone. I would first ask that all who voted on this consensus to identify if they are liberal or conservative. A large number of them, mark my words, will be liberal.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the statement to make it more neutral. The previous version was anything but.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is a form of personal attack and I suggest you avoid making them in the future. Consensus was reached not based on the individual political stances of involved editors, but based on a compromise following lengthy discussion/debate. I suggest you take a step back and slow your approach. - auburn pilot   talk  03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone who came to said "concensus" was indeed liberal, then the consensus would be obvious. It is undoubtably what happened here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assumptions are unfounded swirls of conspiracy theory. It's quite clear from your userpage and recent contributions that you are here to push a conservative agenda, and a recent discussion on AN/I confirms this. Please restrict yourself to maintaining a neutral point of view and do not attack fellow editors. - auburn pilot   talk  03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize this issue has been dissected time and time again; both on the MSNBCtalk, and here. I'm still not convinced why the Fox News wikipage rates opening criticism, as MSNBC and CNN pages remain clear, and any criticism is found in the appropriate section. The Fox News entry here has at least seven instances in sporadic sections accusing the network of having a "Conservative agenda." Hardly objective. I believe the opening criticism should be removed, not only because of the issue of objectivity, but because it plainly doesn't belong there. Just as many people, including the Clinton left has accused MSNBC of being biased. Wikiport (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The presence of acccusations of bias in the lead is clearly a departure from wiki neutrality. NBC, MSNBC and CNN have much more blatant bias and dont get hit in their intros. I plan to remove the biased statement from the intro. There is ample agreement with my sentiment in the above and it is clearly the balanced thing to do. Manitobamountie (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)