| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
|
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fox News. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fox News at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
“Conservative”
editI don’t think the fact that Fox News is “conservative” needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph; maybe that should be briefly discussed toward the end of the intro. 76.170.142.83 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi
editHi everyone, I want to replace the sentence 'Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization' with 'Fox News is a right-wing propaganda organization'[1] because it's more specific. Let me show my sources of information: [2][3][4][5]
Volantor (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote the original sentence and I think the new sentence goes too far by definitively stating FNC is a propaganda organization. I think we should go only so far as to say many have concluded it is. soibangla (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I simply disagree Volantor (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DUCKTEST Volantor (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". Volantor (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The duck test does not apply to article content. Of course Fox is a propaganda organization. (My opinions are not that of Wikipedia.) But, it requires massive documentation to state that in WikiVoice, particularly since there exist supporters here. Your proposed change would not be possible at this time. Avoid Sisyphean tasks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Truth matters Volantor (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's an essay, not a policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- If a statement is not false, it is true. ... not to say “the Earth is found by many to be round” but "the Earth is round". Volantor (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- How many references are needed to state that in WikiVoice? Volantor (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- If a statement is not false, it is true. ... not to say “the Earth is found by many to be round” but "the Earth is round". Volantor (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's an essay, not a policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Truth matters Volantor (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The duck test does not apply to article content. Of course Fox is a propaganda organization. (My opinions are not that of Wikipedia.) But, it requires massive documentation to state that in WikiVoice, particularly since there exist supporters here. Your proposed change would not be possible at this time. Avoid Sisyphean tasks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". Volantor (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DUCKTEST Volantor (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I simply disagree Volantor (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Show me a news show that isn't slanted. 2600:1003:B124:396B:384F:7D87:B848:A19D (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- So I guess that we can brand CNN and MSNBC as left wing propagandists, you will agree with this? 46.97.168.128 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- CNN and MSNBC did not have to pay $787 million for spreading lies. Which is a small part of the problem. In any case, those are other articles about other organizations. What Fox is does not apply to what CNN and MSNBC do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Preview of references
edit- ^ The Staff (2010-07-29). "Tell the White House Correspondents Association to give Helen Thomas' vacated briefing room seat to NPR, not FOX". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2024-08-03.
Fox News is a right-wing propaganda organization.
- ^ Multiple sources:
- A.J. Bauer; Anthony Nadle; Jacob L. Nelson (2021). "What is Fox News? Partisan Journalism, Misinformation, and the Problem of Classification". Sage Publishing.
- "The Fox Diet". Oxford University Press. October 2018.
- Yochai Benkler; Robert Far; Hal Roberts (April 21, 2023). "Fox News and the marketing of lies". Financial Times.
- Haag, Mathew (June 7, 2018). "Former Fox News Analyst Calls Network a 'Destructive Propaganda Machine'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 14, 2024. Retrieved May 14, 2024.
- Sarah Ferguson; Lauren Day; Laura Gartry (August 22, 2021). "Insiders reveal how Fox News became a propaganda outlet for Donald Trump". ABC News (Australia). Archived from the original on May 21, 2024. Retrieved May 14, 2024.
- Alterman, Eric (March 14, 2019). "Fox News Has Always Been Propaganda". The Nation.
- Axelrod, Tal (March 19, 2019). "CNN's Zucker: Fox News is a 'propaganda outlet'". The Hill.
- Darcy, Oliver (October 19, 2023). "Mitt Romney criticizes Fox News and right-wing media for warping Republican Party". CNN.
- Concha, Joe (October 24, 2016). "Ex-CIA director calls Hannity a 'true propagandist'". The Hill.
- Illing, Sean (March 22, 2019). "How Fox News evolved into a propaganda operation". Vox. Archived from the original on December 10, 2021. Retrieved July 27, 2019.
- Mayer, Jane (March 4, 2019). "The Making of the Fox News White House". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved March 4, 2019.
- Serwer, Adam (February 19, 2024). "Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers". The Atlantic.
- Darcy, Oliver (May 30, 2024). "Fox News and right-wing media have already decided the Trump trial verdict". CNN.
- ^ Benkler, Yochai; Faris, Robert; Roberts, Hal (2018-10-18). Network Propaganda. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001. ISBN 0-19-092362-8.
- ^ Yglesias, Matthew (2018-10-02). "The Case for Fox News Studies". Political Communication. 35 (4): 681–683. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1477532. ISSN 1058-4609.
- ^ Martin, J. (2012). The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 38, 189.
Weasel Words
edit@Soibangla Your current statement includes Weasel Words. They should be avoided when we can add specificity. There is no problem with the statement other than that it is unnecessarily vague. At the very least, a word like "critics" needs be added. Your edit has removed specificity and added weasel word statements. Amend it when you can, or I can fix it later. Just10A (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- what weasel words? "many?" I would agree if the statement were not supported by an abundance of sources, but it is. by mentioning just a handful of specific sources in the text, your edit suggests "only these guys believe it."
I can fix it later
if you gain consensus. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- MOS states, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."
- It additionally states that for an editor to simply view an abundance of sources and convert it to a weasel word violates the Wikipedia:No original research policies. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language. Just10A (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- specifically naming a handful of sources when there exists an abundance of sources is deeply misleading.
The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language
is incorrect and the edit is not OR as it is supported by many reliable sources. I think you and I have said enough on this, what do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- If it is incorrect, please provide it. As of now, the majority of the sources from my cursory glance are either stating the position of a specific writer/paper or are using "some say" language. And even then, they are usually citing who they are referring to after their "some say." Additionally, I already said we don't have to only provide "a handful of sources" we just need to qualify it with something like "critics" or name the sources. That would avoid your weasel words issue.
- specifically naming a handful of sources when there exists an abundance of sources is deeply misleading.
- Again, MOS states that, ""Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." as opposed to using Weasel Words. I'm afraid that is just policy. Just10A (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Just10A, you recently reverted this edit claiming it was undue and had weasel words. I do not see how it is undue and do not believe it has any weasel words. If you would like to explain your reasoning please do so, as I do not see the concerns you have raised in the well-sourced and cited edits that were made. Pinging @Soibangla due to his prior involvement in this conversation. BootsED (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1.) Reverting at the very least during discussion per WP:NOCON.
- 2.) The undue and weasel word issues are similar to the ones already brought up (in fact, the new edit made them worse.) As far as undue is concerned, there is not a ton of sources to compare it to, but Fox is not primarily identified as a propaganda org, particularly when compared to other tertiary sources (what wikipedia is). The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, makes no mention of it in the entire article, much less the lead [1]. Additionally, as already discussed, the majority of the sources are either reflecting the position of the specific writer or are using "some say"-esque language. That, combined with the fact that it's contentious and that other tertiary sources don't seem to include it, presents a decent UNDUE chance.
- 3.) The edit clearly includes weasel words per MOS:WEASEL. Weasel words are not entirely banned, but they should be avoided and definitely shouldn't be used for contentious claims. At worst the phrase should just explicitly say "critics", and even then that is still technically a weasel violation.
- 4.) This wasn't mentioned in the original revert, but, in addition to the above issues, WP:MANDY is an essay, not policy. And it is an essay that in my experience is one of the ones most commonly overruled, so that would be an issue as well.
- Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Just10A (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- All boils down to "I just don't like it" with a touch of passive-aggressive condescension (
"Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with"
) at the end. Zaathras (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- Sorry if it came across that way, but weasel words and undue policy are not "I just don't like it", and are quite clearly cited. WP:NOCON policy is pretty clear here too. Just10A (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- In regards to the propaganda claim, there were several peer-reviewed journal articles that described it as such. Despite this, it was still listed as described as, we did not say in wikivoice that is was a propaganda source. Encyclopedia Britannica was not used in the citation to say that Fox was described as "propaganda". There are 17 other sources that do that for us, including several peer-reviewed journal articles. Some of the sources can probably be removed to prevent over-citing this fact.
- In regards to using the word "critics", we can just remove it and say "commentators and researchers" instead.
- Yes, Mandy is an essay, however, the fact that numerous sources, including numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have described Fox as biased, it is fair to say that Fox is biased and not require us to have Fox's rebuttal in the lead. BootsED (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- All boils down to "I just don't like it" with a touch of passive-aggressive condescension (