Talk:One America News Network

It’s not far-right
It’s not far-right. 2600:1005:B11E:F984:5C0B:BC7E:7AC7:E5C0 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of this page, as stated in a big box when you posted labeled: "Please read this before posting an edit request for this protected article". O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much bias in this article. You're writing an encyclopedia entry not a fact supported opinion piece. 2600:1700:2191:7E3F:4CEC:4B29:8B6A:B0A5 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a propaganda article with corroborating opinions, not a true and factual piece. 2600:4040:445D:C200:9852:55AA:BC87:3374 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But based upon facts, the IP said so. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If your definition of "fact" is "propaganda", then yes, it is based upon "facts". 2600:4040:445D:C200:924C:A8DF:576C:FAF7 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was, I said the IP said it was. I would sat it is based upon wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:V!? Pfft! Verifiable facts are irrelevant. You're all clearly ignorant of The Truth™!… Article and sources are obviously wrong. Naturally, legal action may be the only solution to stop this Woke Menace. -- dsprc   [talk]  23:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Reception in the lead
I thought that maybe I could propose a way to incorporate how the channel has been received into the lead. There already is a hint as to its reception with "The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories", but I find it interesting that the channel was viewed differently before the late-2010s. It seems, in its short-lived heyday, its reporting was viewed positively, rather than negatively as it is viewed now. After that, the reporting went full Trump mode.

I will admit that the network came to enter the political sphere and widespread public consciousness only after it went full Trump mode, so it may be disproportionate to give a lot of coverage to its earlier reception. Nevertheless, I find it fascinating and sufficiently relevant to include in the lead to note the network's early journalistic U-turn. Therefore, I propose to add to the fourth paragraph the following:

It probably conveys more information about how the public views the channel than just writing that it is "known" for conduct unbecoming a journalist. I would have added that sentence in right now, but I am not sure about whether this article's particular lead requires consensus for changes like this, given the level of scrutiny the article receives daily and the back-and-forth on this talk page over what the lead ought to be.  Free Media  Kid$  01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not aware it began as a straight news outlet. Are their sources for that? soibangla (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it is not just the pundits, but news agencies and even a scientific journal (a prestigious one, that is) that either has attacked it or at least considers it (which would tacitly convey disapproval) to spearhead falsehoods based on its record of such. The proposed sentence has thus been modified. Now, there seems to be confusion over what my proposal was supposed to be precisely, either because of a misreading, or because I revealed something I did not intend to. In case it is the latter, I based my analysis strictly on the Reception section. If I had claimed that it started as a straight news outlet, I am sorry for misleading you. Perhaps it did at first dabble into falsehoods and conspiracies before progressing to true news in its reporting, only to then revert back to its old tactics. Perhaps the honest reporting was just a ploy to draw in audience, only to then subject its viewers to the kind of brash paranoia that, frankly, feels insulting to my intellect. I cannot prove one way or the other how the channel started, which makes the original intent of the network all the more interesting, so I shall leave it at that. As a matter of fact, of what Marty Kaplan and Don Kaplan said of OANN, which seems to be that the reporting was good, but not the talk shows, Marty actually changed his mind by 2020 and said, as this article articulates it, that "where once the talk shows were 'sand traps' in a 'large field of green', the network 'fairly quickly' became 'more like the Sahara'". I realize that early on could be construed to mean "initially", so I changed the sentence to use "early". Whatever the merits of the edit (which I am glad I brought to the talk page first), the critiques could not have turned sour and begun contradicting earlier praises for nothing. If there is anything else to discuss, from what I am proposing to the merits thereof, I am here to oblige you.  Free Media  Kid$  06:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts while I was away. When I made my edit suggestion, I acted with the understanding that the lead serves to summarize all aspects of the article contents. I should have understood it to summarize the most fundamental aspects, and so I thought that the article needed to summarize critical reception of the network, as opposed to just what it is infamous for.


 * I realize that my diction is flawed. For one, it may lend undue weight to past positive appraisals when it could just as well be shortened to Since 2017 or Since the late-2010s. Its reporting style, in the form of straight reporting, which has been noted and is (or was) true for non-political stories, could be written into the article body, and perhaps also the lead. Another flaw was my suggestion of attacked. The word is vague and could be understood as physical, rather than verbal or written. Criticized would do.  Free Media  Kid$  07:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Far right and conspiracy theories?
How is "far right" defined, and where are the relevant cited sources? What constitutes as conspiracy theories OANN is claimed to propagate, and where are the relevant sources? Clearly opinionated content in this article poorly masquerading as factual. 2600:1009:B118:578D:4DC9:4B3E:E015:191E (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There are 194 citations in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See the 16 reliable sources cited at and the prior request for comment at  for details. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources (including high-quality academic sources) agree that OANN is far-right, and this Wikipedia article reflects the same. —  Newslinger   talk   20:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)