User talk:François Robere/sandbox/Fox News

v1.x
Rev. 884579975 and later

Cheers to everyone. All of you participated in in some RfC or discussion regarding Fox News during the past year. I'm looking to file an RfC of my own at some point in the future, and would appreciate your comments on the draft. I'm not going to try to convince anyone (and we should generally avoid this discussion), I just want your input - regardless of whether you support or oppose the core proposition.

Would this proposal convince you if it were filed, and if not - why? Is there anything you would add in terms of policy or evidence? Is there any part of it you would change? What options would you submit for a vote? If this was your proposal, how would you approach it to maximize its chances of being passed? Feel free to email me if you prefer, and thank you all in advance for participating. François Robere (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose the proposal. Yes, the channel has an editorial point of view, as all news sources have an editorial point of view. Your very first sentence, though (I don't think one should capitalize the first letter of a word after a colon, it's still the same sentence), points out that they do keep a difference between the editorials and the news reporting, and as long as we treat news reporting as one, and opinion as the other, a blanket deprecation is uncalled for.
 * By the way, note that the references you are using are explicitly biased in their mission, for example, here is what our article about MediaMatters says: "Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a progressive[2][3] tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, with the stated mission of 'comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media'.[2][4] MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center.[5] It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its 'War on Fox News.'[6][7]"
 * That is not a good standard bearer for demonstrating you are presenting a reasoned and considered opinion, instead it tends to imply you are following an ideological crusade. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I have low enthusiasm for pursuing this proposal, although I also have low enthusiasm, personally, for doing much editing about present-day US politics. What I think is missing is a demonstration of why it is needed, in terms of recent content disputes. I don't think it's sufficient to write about current views of Fox News (and I would suggest making that a lot shorter); instead I would want to see examples of recent content disputes where there was lack of clarity about where it is or is not reliable, and where a clarification would help. For that matter, I don't really see a difference between saying that it is reliable except for its commentary shows, and saying that it's unreliable except for its plain news shows. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

v2.x
Rev. 886673829 and later

Hey I'd appreciate your input here: I've prepared some material for an RfC, as you can see in the accompanying article. It's different from the usual one-liner RfCs, but the scope of the subject is much broader as well. Is there any policy that could stop this from reaching discussion (eg. on grounds of length or tone)? Any other input you may have would be welcome as well. Thank you in advance! François Robere (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the approach you're taking would be useful. I suggest your approach be more like that of writing a top-quality article: focus on the sources. Remove all one-off sources, and be careful of using any source that could be seen as having a strong bias. Emphasize sources that are clearly well-researched, reviewed if available; and high-quality, investigative journalism. Be careful of relying on authors who might be seen as having a clear bias. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for you input. You're suggesting I dilute the text; do you have any particular sources you'd discard? François Robere (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An RfC should be neutral and brief. I don't know what you mean by "dilute", but any bias should be removed. I suggest you look more at WP:RfC. I've no idea how to best start such a complicated and contentious RfC. Maybe put your argument in a "Discussion" section? --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just rewriting my reply in order to clarify something: a lot of the sources are serious research, both journalistic and academic, and none are partisan or non-RS. If we just followed those sources this would've been easy peasy: academics and media critics by and large do not consider Fox News reliable; but for some Wikipedians it's not enough - they want our distinctions to be more granular. So for example if we have a well researched, peer reviewed study that shows that Fox News as a whole is biased and unreliable, some editors will ask you for specific data on the news division. In other words, they ask for analyses many sources simply aren't concerned with, rather than accept their conclusions as-is (which is what Policy usually mandates). My approach to mitigating that was to try and cover everything; could be wrong. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And there are reliable sources that point out that this "news division" distinction is their own propaganda and highly suspect. Yes, look at the past discussions and address the concerns raised in them. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for drafting this proposal. I have recommended a new Fox News RfC for quite some time, although I would wait a few months before posting this RfC on the noticeboard to give editors some time to recover after the , which had high participation.
 * My main concern about this proposal is that RfC statements should be "neutral and brief". It's considered bad form to introduce an RfC with an extended argument. (The initial presentation of the second Daily Mail RfC was criticized for this reason.) To address this, I would make the RfC statement a shortened version of "The Proposal". I would also remove the rationales (i.e. "For spreading conspiracy [...] of journalistic integrity" and "For poor fact [...] talk show colleagues" from the RfC statement, as they are less than neutral, and probably won't help you accomplish your objective (because editors who agree with the proposed actions but disagree with part of the rationale may oppose the proposal).
 * The remainder of the proposal ("The Seven Sins of Fox" and the introductory paragraph) fits best under the "Discussion" section. It is okay to provide extended arguments in an RfC, but they must be positioned after the "neutral and brief" RfC statement.
 * Personally, if I were to start the RfC, I would write it in the format of, and ask editors to provide separate options for Fox News's website and commentary if they have different opinions for each. —  Newslinger  talk   01:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I've been considering just that. This form of an RfC feels (like some other aspect of this system) backwards, as its "aggressive neutrality" fits best with narrow propositions where participants are expected to know the gist of the argument, rather than major policy changes where there's a lot of information to consider. Please take a look at the latest revision - I've moved the RfC template down, so the "RfC proper" is the usual form. As for voting - my only problem with that is that it results in eight different options - I'd need a table for that... François Robere (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add that a review of WP:RSP might help to develop a sense of what criteria editors agree upon in determining the reliability of sources.
 * It might be best to treat the "Fox News (news and website)" separately from "Fox News (talk shows)" as done at RSP. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to do (I actually discussed these bits at RSP). The problem is if you start an RfC on one, it might quickly evolve to an RfC on the other. So the question is - if you split it to two or three RfCs, how do you prevent editors from mixing the issues? - what about having the background section followed by three separate votes, one for each proposition? François Robere (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The January 2019 Fox News discussion is archived at "", and summarized the outcome of the discussion at "Possible change to the classification of Fox News". In light of the opinions expressed in that discussion, I think your proposal has a low chance of passing. I also think you would receive some backlash for posting this RfC: not as bad as "" and "", but enough to provoke accusations of "liberal bias" that would make the noticeboard and WP:RSP look less credible. So, I can't support your proposal in its current format. Please don't take this personally – this is just my honest assessment. —  Newslinger   talk   09:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's one difference between all previous discussions on Fox, and the NYT discussion, and in fact most RSN discussions - and this one: I have 61 sources, and counting. Of course, for many Wikipedians it won't matter even one bit, in this or any other RfC. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded below. —  Newslinger  talk   07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that many editors would become frustrated with the incessant discussions regarding Fox News. Considering that the previous discussion was only held 2 months ago, many editors would not want to deal with the issue again so soon. I agree with what Newslinger said regarding the bias of this proposed RfC. I'd add that if you would like to present the points on this page, it's better to link to it in a comment than to copy and paste its content to RSN. feminist (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm trying to solve here. Per Newslinger the last completed RfC took place in 2010 - everything since then were just discussions and terminated RfCs. Isn't it time to just take a vote? François Robere (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

is the only requirements here that I place all the evidence in the "discussion" section? Will that "balance" it in your eyes? François Robere (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because such a large amount of content would obstruct discussion. Nobody wants to read a wall of text before looking at other editors' opinions. My recommendation would be to link to your evidence instead. feminist (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which no one will follow... Thanks anyway. François Robere (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed the location of the RfC tag in Special:Diff/889102290. This addresses the "neutral and brief" rule, and I no longer have any objections about the RfC statement. I still expect some editors to object to the presence of the "Background: The Seven Sins of Fox" section if the RfC were to be presented in this way, but I think it's compliant with WP:RFCBRIEF.

's suggestion is a good one, and I think the RfC would garner better reception if you turned "Background: The Seven Sins of Fox" into a user essay and introduced it with a link. This allows you to present all of your arguments without appearing to bludgeon the process. You can also reuse the essay for future discussions, and it would be preserved in a page that you can update instead of the noticeboard archives (which are not supposed to be edited).

I've read your entire proposal a couple of times, and appreciate the amount of work you've put into researching your points. The proposal is comprehensive – there's no lack of sources. But, not everyone will agree with the exact classifications in your proposal. For instance, "Fox News's talk shows are to be deprecated from Wikipedia." is a specific all-or-nothing proposal, and the RfC statement provides two options: "yes" or "no". Editors who think Fox News talk shows should be considered generally unreliable (but still usable in limited situations under WP:RSOPINION) would vote "no". If there are enough of them, the end result is that Fox News talk shows remain classified as "no consensus..." instead of "generally unreliable".

By making the options more granular, you can get a more accurate measurement of editor consensus. Here's roughly how I would do it:

This looks a bit messy, so your suggestion to split the RfC into three parts may be a better choice. I recommend a combination of the above mockup and the format used in last year's "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" RfC (see the final result here). —  Newslinger  talk   07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This could work. My only problem with splitting the evidence part is that no one is going to follow the link. Wikipedians aren't that interested in evidence. François Robere (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could collapse your arguments with Collapse top and Collapse bottom. This way, the arguments would be on the same page as the RfC, but won't feel so overwhelming. You can't really force anyone to read anything, but you can present your arguments in a cordial way and hope that other editors are receptive to them. I suspect that many editors would scroll past your arguments regardless of how they're presented. —  Newslinger  talk   10:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect so. Thanks for your input! François Robere (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. One last thing: it would be better if you waited at least several months before posting an RfC on Fox News. Repeated discussion of the same source tends to annoy editors on the noticeboard, and editors treat proposals less favorably when they're annoyed. Remember that there's no deadline for submitting an RfC, so there's no need to rush. —  Newslinger  talk   11:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Seven Sins of Fox: Where we're presented with wrath, greed, deception... and a strange affinity to well-dressed deer. This reads as being overly provocative and flippant. It reads as an attack on Fox (and those that find Fox reliable) rather than a case for it being unreliable. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if it wasn't somewhat humorous it would be boring, and then someone would say it's a "wall of text" etc., so let's at least make it interesting. In earlier versions I've had more "Easter eggs" there instead (you can browse the history), but decided against some of them. François Robere (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd second what Ronz said. Additionally, the assessment you have is highly inflammatory without convincing evidence to back them up: In short, I think this is high on opinion and low on objective analysis. It's obvious you don't like FN and this comes across as poorly researched/unconvincing/full of WP:SYNTH. Buffs (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The talk shows are bad. Agreed? Agreed. Moving on.[1][2][3] First, all 3 sources are from the same source, the Washington Post. The first video states that Fox News covers things OTHER than just negative Trump stories. The Washington Post also does the same. The second one merely is a collection on "The War on Christmas" stories. Whether you find these opinions accurate or not (or if the talk show is good or not) is completely subjective and hardly an academic assessment of whether the talk shows are "bad". The last one is (again, Tucker) an interview he chose not to air. Again, there is zero subjective analysis as to whether anything said was accurate or "bad".
 * The news programs are shoddy. The news programs may be better than the talk shows, but they still have issues: they've been known to air completely ridiculous stories with little to no verification (and belated retraction, if any),[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Lots of sources here (WP:CITEKILL?), but they don't support your assertion. In the cases you cite, #4 was a first-hand war report which Fox acknowledged had errors within about 72 hours. #5 was a 24 hour retraction, #6 doesn't support your claim (it's about an instance where reporters were used as human shields), #7 was a live event and errors were corrected within 30 minutes. #8 was corrected in LESS than 24 hours (closer to 12). #9 is a complaint, not objective analysis. In it, optometrists CAN prescribe unnecessary pain killers. The point is not that the AOA is the problem, but that the law allows for it. #10 They DID issue a correction, but it was later than it probably should have been; to be fair, the interviewee hid his past.
 * Hey, and thanks for taking the time to go through this. The talk shows are already deemed "unreliable" by most Wikipedians (see for summary WP:RSP), so I don't really have a burden of proof there (although the "commentary" section touches on that, for other reasons). As you can judge from the accompanying music, the WaPo folks don't think so either (as an aside, that in its own right shows just how bizarre Fox News is perceived to be by mainstream media outlets). If you've any indication that Wikipedians actually consider Hannity et al. factual, I'd like to know.
 * WP:CITEKILL only applies in articles. You're placing more emphasis on the retractions than on the quality of the original reporting (eg. fact checking), which is far more important:
 * The point with #4 is twofold: first, it's heavily critical of Rivierra's tone, and of his gonzo-style journalism. Second, notice the scope of the error - reporting from hundreds of miles away from the scene (even bigger a mistake considering it was a warzone, and travel had to be carefully coordinated) - and to the fact that his retraction was wrong too.
 * #5 is a ridiculous report that should never have passed fact checking. It doesn't matter if they retracted it in minutes or in months, it's plain ridiculous. BTW, where's the response from PETA? Journalism 101.
 * #6 It's not about human shields, it's about Fox falsely claiming that reporters from other networks "served" as human shields (with no verification or comment form the other networks), while sending an untrained security guard to the scene as a reporter . These are major breaches of journalistic ethics.
 * #7 is again completely ridiculous: A reporter on the ground saying he saw something that didn't happen, and even adding "we don't need to verify it"? It doesn't matter if they retracted it or not - it's absurd to begin with. You'd think a reporter standing at the scene would know if the guy was shot or not.
 * #8 Actually it's two mistakes in the span of 24 hours, both would've otherwise been gigantic scoops during an election season. This is really poor reporting. Most newspapers have multiple levels of editors that catch these kinds of error, where were Fox's?
 * #9 I understand the point; my point is it's a bizarre claim for a senior reporter to make. Since when do optometrists prescribe opioids? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of this as a phenomenon.
 * #10 Yeah, they did issues a retraction almost two weeks later, and again on something that could've been easily verified. A guy comes to you and says he's a war hero with two purple hearts and two dozen other commendations, and that's it? You air it? to be fair, the interviewee hid his past He didn't hid anything, they just didn't bother checking. A completely random guy caught it and calls Fox in less than a day, and they couldn't do it beforehand?
 * So the point with all of these, as you can see, is that they raise problems not only with particular reporters', but with Fox's editorial process. An off-hand comment can be excused (eg. MacCallum), but repeatedly airing completely false, and easily disprovable items? As for analysis - part of my argument is that I don't really need to provide that, because sources aren't concerned with it. In other words, if we simply follow the sources (and there are a lot), then we don't really need to concern ourselves with whether the news department is reliable or not, because the channel as a whole isn't. Have you looked at the other sources? François Robere (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * #4 I'm not saying he's correct, but mistakes happen in wartime; it's exceptionally chaotic.
 * #5 This was the editorial portion of the broadcast and he inserted his opinion by publicizing what was later found to be incorrect. I disagree that it was "easy" to verify. Mistakes happen in EVERY newsroom and it was corrected in a standard news cycle with an apology, therefore doesn't back up your claim they've been known to air completely ridiculous stories with little to no verification (and belated retraction, if any). It is easy to say that it was with no verification, but other news outlets posted it too. There was no delay on the retraction and the hoax story was delegitimized. This example doesn't bolster your claim.
 * #6 I'm not seeing anything that proves or disproves the claims made. Furthermore, your source indicates he was a "amateur photographer", not a security guard. Furthermore, the missing video link comes from Media Matters...a highly biased source of information.
 * #7 was the reporter stating what they thought they saw. That's an eyewitness. That doesn't mean it's accurate, just what they saw. In a shooting, people see things differently and it's a documented phenomenon...and it was corrected in the same broadcast. Mistakes happen on live TV AND they corrected it.
 * #8 Clinton's email system WAS breached by multiple countries and his opinion as to charges being "likely" was just that, an opinion.
 * #9 The point is that those doctors CAN and that the law isn't specific enough. The point is not that there is a rash of doctors prescribing it, but that the law is so lax that it's perfectly legal to do so. You're missing the point on this one and the statement of the article. Instead you're creating a straw man argument (like the AOA). No one is alleging that optometrists are prescribing meds en masse.
 * #10 It isn't easy to verify records of all military personnel in a time efficient manner. I think they should have caught and addressed this sooner, but the news is replete with such examples of "stolen valor".
 * If these are the best you can do, you aren't presenting a good case. When you throw in the inflammatory rhetoric to appeal to emotion, it makes your argument appear even weaker. Where we're presented with wrath, greed, deception...
 * Focus exclusively on the facts and prove your case without the emotional/inflammatory language and you'll have a stronger case. The fact is, I could make pull up the EXACT same sort of examples about CNN or MSNBC over 2 decades. The New York Times hired a prolific plagiarizer. Washington Post has a highly liberal tilt (to say the least). I'm not saying FoxNews is the bees knees, but it also isn't unique in the business other than it has conservative leanings. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * #6 I've replaced the reference for #6. It was covered by several outlets at the time, so it's not difficult. Also: If one accepts Fox's claim, then one also accepts that they, by their own admission, sent an amateur photographer to be used as a "human shield".
 * #8 At the time it wasn't known ("as of today there still are no digital fingerprints of a breach"). It may be an opinion, but it was given as fact during a news report.
 * #9 I'd appreciate a source on that, because I'm really not aware of regular optometrists (not doctors) prescribing opioids.
 * Okay. Opinions on the rest of the sources? François Robere (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * #8 it's a fact.
 * #9 "The point is that those doctors CAN and that the law isn't specific enough." Even the AOA talks about how to prescribe them. But despite that, you're arguing a point I didn't make. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. The fact that people can find this much fault with your "evidence" in the first 10 sources alone, I'd recommend NOT submitting this until you can do so in a measured manner free from hyperbole, exaggeration, and other inflammatory rhetoric. It doesn't bode well for your argument if the facts don't back up your conclusions. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * #8 It's a fact today; by the reporter's own admission it wasn't a fact then (see quote above).
 * #9 Rather, I think you're missing the point I made. Also, your source discusses banning this prescription power three years before MacCallum's remark, which suggest they didn't have that power when she made it. I may remove that source, but I'm still doubtful as to whether her remark was factual.
 * There's no hyperbole, exaggeration or inflammatory rhetoric, just plenty of sources and a well-spirited start. I appreciate your playing "devil's advocate", but it's impossible to please everyone anyway, especially on Wikipedia. At best, I've put a caseful of sources for anyone who wishes to read. Thanks again! François Robere (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

How many sources would you ideally pose here? François Robere (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters given the approach taken in the draft. I think the presentation and focus will be interpreted by too many as coming from a personal bias. I expect it won't get anywhere and will make the next attempt more difficult. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC) (refactored --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Disregarding the unwarranted condescension in your tone, I'll note that most sources are more acerbically dismissive of Fox than anything I've written thus far. Had you gone past the subtitle you would've seen, among others, a quote of Christopher Browning referring to the network as "privatized propaganda"; others making similar criticisms include academics, journalists and White House press officers. While I appreciate everyone have their stylistic sensitivities, I think Wikipedia would've benefited more if you had commented on the body of the text than on the style of the subtitle. François Robere (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No condescension intended. I've refactored my comment. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on rationale
I've thus presented two very different versions: a "traditional" text structured like your typical - if highly condensed - article; and a "pamphlet" version, meant to be readable and inviting. At first I've considered writing a proper article (one unpublished version even contained some introductory notes on Fox's history), but from past experience it was clear that very few people would read it - Wikipedians, in general, dislike reading anything written by their peers if it's longer than ~200 words (unless, of course, it's a 4,000 word policy, in which case they'll gulp it down like an early Dan Brown novel) - so I chose to follow similar lines as I would an article, but in a much terser form. That ended up being too terse, and was criticized for providing details that weren't immediately conducive to my argument (ie for presenting a more balanced picture of the subject), so I re-wrote it as a highly-readable, straight-to-the-point, argument-driven text. I used bullets instead of subheadings for sectioning, as the latter can be intimidating to less patient readers; and chose a catchy title and a humorous subtitle to give the text a lighter feel (I avoided all other jokes for the sake of conciseness, and to avoid misunderstandings). At some point I even considered tagging or sorting the sources, so that someone wanting to find eg. only studies or comparatives could do so without going through all +60 sources. That text was criticized as "flippant" and "biased".

The main difficulty here is summarizing a broad argument that could easily fill a medium-size thesis, into something the length of an elevator pitch. Another difficulty is with the lack of common grounds in terms of domain knowledge, which means certain arguments are very hard to make within the allocated space, as you have to "fill the reader in" on facts they're unaware of (eg. journalistic practices, methodology...). A third difficulty is with Wikipedia/ns' specific requirements, which mean you have to tailor your argument not to "common sense" or to any solid legal framework, but to a group of ill-defined criteria that are understood and applied differently by each editor. All in all this is an unusually difficult writing task, with little reward at its side. François Robere (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think a Fox News RfC is most likely to be succeed if you:


 * (1) Completely drop any mention of the opinion talk shows. Even though you distinguish the opinion talk shows from the "news" division, it's way too easy for editors to insist the former are bd and the latter are ok if they are presented with those options. I would start the RfC by writing in bold that you are not referring to the opinion content on Fox, you are solely talking about the "news" division, and that you would ask all commenters to not comment on the opinion programming. Because EVERY SINGLE discussion about Fox News's "news" division's reliability gets sidetracked with pointless debates about how bad Sean Hannity is. Any discussion about the opinion content is pointless because such content gets automatically removed and not even the most POV editors attempt to keep content sourced to Fox opinion shows or op-eds. The goal has to be to get the unreliable "news" division thrown out, because that's what editors actually use to source Wikipedia articles.


 * (2a) Demonstrate that the "news" division repeatedly gets stories grotesquely wrong, repeatedly promotes fringe nonsense (e.g. climate change nonsense, falsehoods, conspiracy theories), and does not consistently follow journalistic standards when it comes retracting stories (e.g. see the Seth Rich saga) or pursuing stories (e.g. how they spiked the Stormy Daniels story after confirming it, how they ran an absurdly shoddy Seth Rich story just to divert attention from a bad Trump story). And there's abundant sources that show that all these [intentional] journalistic errors result in hostile stories about Democrats and leftie causes, props up Republicans and conservative causes, and ignores any scandals or controversies related to Republicans and conservative causes.


 * (2b) I know this is hard but one way to demonstrate how Fox News' 'news' division is unlike normal news divisions is to show how they differ in their coverage of the same issue. So, for example, a normal news outlet will fact-check fringe claims by politicians (whether Republican or Democratic) whereas Fox News's "news" division will either skip the fact-check or boost the falsehood if it serves Republicans and conservative causes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Notifications blew up
Looks like you started to leave me a message then maybe changed your mind maybe when you saw the rest of the page. Don't worry, Elinruby (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)