Talk:Fox News/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Yes, Virginia, it's conservative.

Anyone have any problems with this? [1] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the misleading edit summary. I added the wikilink to conservatism in the United States as an afterthought. Maybe it's been discussed before. That it's conservative hardly seems to be in dispute though. Fast Clear (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than being a POV edit, no, I don't have a problem with it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to explain how this is a POV edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As is explained lower in the lead, some say the channel is "conservative", but others deny it is. So by stating outright that it's a conservative channel, despite reliably sourced denials and counterarguments, we'd be picking a side. I'm not saying FOX isn't right-leaning; that's clearly true. But Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And there are many verifiable denials, as well as assertions. We can and do include both, but to choose the "right" answer is POV. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some say the Earth is round; others say it's shaped like a banana. Who are we to decide?! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite as clearcut here. A photograph of Earth clearly shows no banana. Here we're dealing with much less tangible things like words, pictures, the way they're used and the interpretations of all three. A 24-hour news channel running this long has been many things at many times, and for every biased story or framing, there's going to be another segment sometime that is straight news. Impossible to define it as a whole. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And until you do, leave the article alone. I really don't want to see any more edit-warring coming from you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't take marching orders from you.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, instead you edit war. You have yet to demonstrate how this is in any way POV, yet you've had lots of fun reverting two editors. How's that working out for you? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I'm hinting that you might want to support your claim. Here's what support looks like: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, could you leave the rest of the edit and just take out the conservative part? I appear to have stepped in a hornet's nest. Fast Clear (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to gently point out that, despite my request, you've done nothing to support your claim that the edit was POV or refute the source I cited. This will protect me against charges of edit-warring after I revert you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to gently point out that I'm just a new user who's learning some wiki-lessons the hard way and I have no prior involvement in these matters. o.o Have fun. Fast Clear (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE

I've moved the following from the article:

== Current programming ==

=== Weekdays ===

ET	Program	Host(s)	Location	Description
5a–6a	Fox & Friends First	Rotation of Fox News talent	Studio H, NY	Early morning newscast lead-in to Fox & Friends.
6a–9a	Fox & Friends	Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade	Studio E, NY	The channel's morning editorial program featuring news and political opinion.
9a–11a	America's Newsroom	Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum	Studio J, NY	News program.
11a–1p	Happening Now	Jon Scott and Jenna Lee	Studio H, NY	News program.
1p–3p	America Live with Megyn Kelly	Megyn Kelly	Studio J, NY	A daily look at Breaking News and analysis.
3p–4p	Studio B	Shepard Smith	Studio H, NY	Afternoon news broadcast.
4p–5p	Your World with Neil Cavuto	Neil Cavuto	Studio E, NY	Business news and opinion.
5p–6p, 2a-3a	The Five	Rotation of Greg Gutfeld, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Andrea Tantaros, Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Juan Williams.	Studio D, NY	A nightly roundtable talk and analysis program featuring political opinion and discussion of pop culture.
6p–7p	Special Report with Bret Baier	Bret Baier	Washington	American politics and world newsmagazine followed by political discussion with guests.
7p–8p	Fox Report	Shepard Smith	Studio H, NY	The channel's flagship evening news broadcast.
8p–9p, 11p-12m, 4a-5a	The O'Reilly Factor	Bill O'Reilly	Studio A, NY	Cable news's top-rated show. Nghtly editorial and opinion program.
9p–10p, 12m-1a	Hannity	Sean Hannity	Studio J, NY	Political opinion program.
10p–11p, 1a-2a	On the Record	Greta Van Susteren	Washington	Nightly newsmagazine featuring politics, legal matters and human interest stories.
3a–4a	Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld	Greg Gutfeld	Studio E, NY	Late night talk variety program featuring satirist Greg Gutfeld.

Although I appreciate the effort involved in compiling the schedule, in light of the above-mentioned policy (#4: "...For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc.") I don't believe it's appropriate in the article. Miniapolis (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but think we should still list the shows. Airtimes should go, and which studio they're from is a pretty mundane detail. No need for a table, just a list (preferably in two columns). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, just a "See Fox News Channel programming". I'm a bit surprised that article exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say Hulk is probably correct. A mention of current shows, but we don't need a table that lists locations, times etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This information is important and significant. These programs should at least be listed on the article, as they are what makes up the channel. Also, why haven't you removed the full schedules from MSNBC or CNN? Why are you singling out Fox News? --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 01:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is not being singled out; the policy cited above states, "an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable". This, of course, would also apply to a TV channel. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I still believe the content is important enough to be at least listed. Exact times and locations of each program isn't needed, but at least a list of programs is fine. However, if you still support the removal of the schedule on Fox News Channel, would you also support removing the schedules from CNN and MSNBC? --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 04:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is listed in its own appropriately titled article. Per the same policies against a schedule here, it shouldn't be in any other channel's article either. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A full list of programs, in my view, would violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE; a list of "historically significant" programs (as cited in my comment above) would be fine. I have no dog in this fight; as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I arrived at this article because it was tagged as needing a copy edit. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still with Hulk on this one. The topic actually has it's own article, so nobody can say the info is being supressed in any way. A simple link to that article should suffice. As for the CNN article or what not....I don't care what those articles decided. It has no bearing here other than as a suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we include a Navbox for News Corp?

This thing is huge, and all the topics are only indirectly related. I can see how this might make sense on News Corporation's page, but this is excessive overlinking for an article about just one asset. I think a Fox Entertainment Group navbox is broad enough, but adequately specific. Opinions? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No objections in eleven days (the signature timestamp is misleading), so it's gone. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What studio did Glenn Beck tape his show in at FNC?

Did he use the studio that "The Five" now uses? I'm really not sure about this one. Curvebill (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the question has to do with this article. Elaborate? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I noticed there used to be a box in the article with the shows and the studios they are produced in. That's what it has to do with this article. Curvebill (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's been removed, per a discussion above. Perhaps you'd like to ask at Fox News Channel programming? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Or maybe at Glenn Beck (TV program). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It was Studio H. This article will also teach you more about "the cube" than you could ever want. Probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) But next time, if I have a question about programming, I'll ask it in the Fox News Channel programming section. Curvebill (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Google is pretty helpful, too. In Verbatim mode, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pointy edit?

This was recently inserted: "In 2012, The Union of Concerned Scientists published a report stating that primetime coverage of climate change is overwhelmingly misrepresented. The report asserts that 93 percent of primetime discussions were inaccurate. Fox News was found to be consistently dismissive of the established scientific consensus on climate change." I'm having a couple of issues with this. First, it just seems WP:POINTy. This is mainly based on a study by a climate change group. They are hardly unbiased and have a vested interest in deriding anyone who disputes climate change. Second, the study is very focused on FNC and the WSJ. Maybe I missed where they compared them to other outlets, but it sets out to target those two outlets. Lastly, the whole claim is based on the premise that the climate change scientists are right. Are they? Who knows and that debate doesn't belong here. But what is not in debate is that their position is not proven and does have many opponents that are much smarter than me. (Please spare me the "flat earth" answers. I'm not here to debate global warming). In short, the longer I look at this, the more pointy the edit looks. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I added clarification tags to this and edited it somewhat. It definitely seems a bit pointy, but since I can't view PDFs on my PS3, I can't be sure. As it is, we're not saying the report is correct, just relaying what it says. I'm for waiting to see if anyone clarifies the vague points before I decide whether I think it belongs. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone fleshed it out a bit, but I'm still lost on how coverage can be "misrepresented". Stuff can misrepresented in coverage, but unless Fox is analyzing climate change coverage itself and bullshitting it, the sentence doesn't really say anything. Or maybe it does, and I'm stupid. Either way, some specifics would be nice, if we're to keep this at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Megan Kelly/Karl Rove exchange during the calling of the 2012 Presidential Election

While I'm not sure whether this should be included here or not (there might be an issue of longevity of issue), but I wonder if anyone else considers the exchange between Megan Kelly and Karl Rove during the 2012 Presidential election coverage to be worthy of mention? It's been covered in just about every news outlet out there, and I would say its relevance to Fox News and how they are perceived is huge. Any other thoughts?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you list a source? I'm not familiar with the incident, but I am familiar with the news' tendency to overstate the importance of unimportant things, especially during election cycles. This sounds like it might be one of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is one of those times where Hulk and I agree. Just because something gets coverage in a news cycle doesn't mean it belongs in an article. If you read WP:RECENTISM (yes, I know it is an essay, but it is still good sense) and apply that standard, this (non)"event" wouldn't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we've only disagreed once. The disagreement was a few long sections, though, so it overshadows the rest. That's undue weight, like this would be (I read up on the story). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree. But at the same time, it might be interesting to revisit the question in a couple months. When you have a major News Organization who is calling presidential election results with the head of the largest Republican PAC (Karl Rove) sitting right next to you, telling you to change/question your call for the presidency, well, it just feels a little bigger than your typical blip on the 24 hour news cycle. Hulk, if you haven't seen it, it's pretty epic. I think every news outlet reported on it, from the hard news folks down to the soft news folk. Just do a google on it. It's about a 7 minute event. It begins with Rove questioning the Ohio call, includes Brett Bayer (sp?) saying "Karl says we need to figure this out" (after they've already called the election), Megyn Kelly walking out of the studio and down into the lower offices to question their data guys about the call, and concludes with Megyn saying "Is this real or is this just math that Republicans tell themselves to make themselves feel better?" I dunno. It might not have any real staying power, but to have a Republican Super Pac owner (who put $300 million of his own PAC's money into electing Republicans) on air during the calling of a presidential election on a news network...it just seems pretty significant. But maybe this has become so normal on cable news that it isn't noteworthy.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I said above that I'd read up on it. It's much more sizzle than steak. Worth a mention on Rove or Kelly's article, or the election's, but not significant enough for an article about the channel. During election run-ups, you can find 10,000 sources for every poll, gaffe or talking point. The news has entirely different standards for "importance" than an encyclopedia does. But yeah, if you'd like to ask again in a couple of months, who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not go edit the MSNBC article which had a full roster of Obama sycophants. Arzel (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I hope you're having a nice day and that you have a great weekend.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

The first line of the MSNBC page says it is "progressive cable news...". Fox News should likewise have "conservative cable news" in its first line since it is well documented this is the case (cited in the Controversy section). It should be clear to the reader what the nature of the channel is from the first line, similar to the MSNBC page. Otherwise there should be a common standard of leaving explanation to later in the article. 115.64.142.41 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

MSNBC has explicitly stated that they are a progressive channel, FNC has made no such declaration. Arzel (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If this characterization of FNC is indeed well sourced and fairly uncontroversial, then adding it seems a good idea. (Do any noteworthy sources claim that FNC is not "conservative"?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

FOX News itself has denied it, as indicated in the third paragraph. I think that paragraph sums it up as clearly and fairly as it can get. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

When you say Fox News has denied it, what do you mean? There are plenty of commentators who have admitted to bias on the channel as a whole - Bill O'Reilly has stated that "Fox does tilt to the right" - I mean, that's even in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

BOR said that FNC tilted to the right with regards to the coverage of the war in Iraq, he made no such blanket statement for the station in general. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• What the editors at the MSNBC article decided to do doesn't carry any weight with me. The argument for putting it in the lead is weak. The fact that the issue is covered in the article shows it isn't being hidden, but everything doesn't belong in the lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not everything belongs in the lead. However, the channel is in English and it's American; isn't its conservatism (in the American sense) the third most important/obvious thing about it? -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Its sensationalism, flashy graphics and headlines that end in question marks are more immediately conspicuous thsn its political leaning, in my opinion. But those don't belong in the lead sentence either. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This is escalating past what it needs to. There's no reason to put it in the lead, as there isn't sourcing that they have explicitly stated they are right-leaning/conservative/etc. This is already in the article, but has no place in the lead. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone shut down a conversation like that. Well, just to respond. Juan Williams stated on Arpil 6, 2010, "Fox News is Conservative. There's no revelation there." Chris Wallace said "MSNBC has a liberal bias, and we tell the other side of the story." That's not as compelling as William's comment, but Bill O'Reilly has stated on multiple occasions that Fox News is conservative. Look, I don't know that it belongs in the lead either, but to say they haven't admitted it, isn't entirely true. If the argument is whether it belongs in the lead, that's a fair question. But whether they're conservative or not and admitting to it? I think that's stretching reality.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

O'Reilly has also said they're not conservative. From the source for the "denied any bias" bit in Paragraph 3: "If Fox News is a conservative channel — and I'm going to use the word 'if' — so what?" O'Reilly said Tuesday night as he removed his makeup following a broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor from inside Fox's skybox in Madison Square Garden. "You've got 50 other media that are blatantly left. Now, I don't think Fox is a conservative channel. I think it's a traditional channel. There's a difference. We are willing to hear points of view that you'll never hear on ABC, CBS or NBC." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I agree that FoxNews should not be labeled "Conservative" even though I consider it a complement. In contrast to other stations that do not consider Benghazi news, they are more conservative, but why point out the obvious? Why do you think Glenn Beck left? Was it because they were too Conservative? And, to editors here, "Keep up the good work!" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Beck left because he's insane. Not really relevant to how conservative he or Fox News is (or this conversation). Fast Clear (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A different approach: "What are feelings on this line: Fox News Channel (FNC), also known as Fox News, is a cable news and entertainment channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group..." They've actually registered with the FCC as a news and entertainment channel, with programs like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., being listed as entertainment.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a sneaky way to work in Jon Stewart's Bullshit Mountain meme rather than a constructive suggestion. Fast Clear (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, if you source it and nobody finds a source denying it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Jason, if you want others to work with you with the idea of good faith I suggest you remove the following statement from your page. Wikipedia insight: On Wikipedia, just like in real life, our best minds do not go into Republican politics. Leave your personal attacks for the Kos boards. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, someone else wrote that on my profile page without my knowledge, and I reverted it. I appreciate you calling it to my attention. And I hope life is treating you well. I'll look for a solid source for the "entertainment" add. Anyone else besides Hulk OK with that addition? Or am I wasting my time?Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are very correct, I should have looked at the history to notice that it was SPECIFICO that edited your page. Appologize for the accusation. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't see this as an improvement. Yes, Hannity, Reilly et al are "entertainment" and not news reporting, however, the same is true for CNN, MSNBC and other networks. The primary focus of the channel is news and IMO, this edit diminishes that idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What about "news and opinion channel"? Yes, that would also apply to CNN and MSNBC, but I think within a historical context, it's interesting to note that these aren't just news channels anymore.Jasonnewyork (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• My question here would be, if is essentially does apply to all of them, why do we need to specify it here? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not for singling out FOX, but if this is true for all these channels, I think that's important to note in each article. Most readers would likely assume these are officialy news channels, even if they recognize the content to be fishy. Wikipedia should correct these assumptions (with a reliable source, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The thing here, in my view, is that they (and the others) have a primary focus on being a news channel. I look at it like my local grocery store. Their primary focus is selling groceries. Yes, I can by a USB drive there, but that doesn't make them a computer store, nor does the ability to buy Fix-a-flat there make them an auto parts store. It's sort of a simple view, but sometimes simple is good. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but if your grocery store was registered with some official grocery store regulatory body as an auto parts store, it would also warrant a mention. Jason's proposal calls for "news and entertainment" (in that order), so the primary thing goes first, at least. Still, I have to see the source saying any of this FCC stuff checks out before I make up my mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(od) Unless there is clear consensus to so describe all the "news channels" I doubt consensus will back ascribing that term only to Fox. I would note, in fact, that CNN has essentially the same percentage of "commentary" shows as Fox has, and MSNBC has a higher percentage of "commentary" shows. Collect (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic, but what does the (od) before your comment mean? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• od= outdent Niteshift36 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly advocate for its implementation across all pages, since it does apply to all. But I'm not sure how you would implement that. Each page has its own primary editors. The people on MSNBC didn't say "OK, we're only applying the 'progressive news channel' label to the MSNBC page if Fox agrees to add "conservative news channel to theirs." On a side note, it's proving surprisingly difficult to find an official source for this, so it might be a moot point anyway. I've tried searching the filings at the FCC, and I can't find anything. I'll keep looking.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters

Seriously, why does Media Matters get any mention here? They exist solely to trash Fox News Channel and have zero credibility. Steve (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If we throw out info from sources that disagree with FOX, we'd only have those which agree. Wikipedia would lose credibility. "Fair" and "balanced" actually mean something here. Anyway, this belongs in a new section. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between those that disagree and those that are actively trying to destroy (as MMfA has stated). Arzel (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the information that matters, not the intentions of the source of the info. FOX News actively tried to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan (and is still working on Iran) with their coverage, but we use their info (among others') for articles about those countries, if it's noteworthy and factual. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• "actively tried to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan"? That's a pretty strong opinion that is unfortunately anything you can back up with fact, just more opinions from others. MMfA shouldn't be used. Nobody is saying we should exclude anyone that is critical, however much of MMfA's stuff is little more than their opinion. Considering all the unbiased (or at least less biased) sources that have said something critical of FNC, I see little reason why we need to use an activist org. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't use their opinions. But if they present a relevant fact, we can't exclude it solely because of their general bias. It's something to be decided case-by-case, by the usual reasons for or against inclusion (notability, significance, weight, whatever). The march to war on FOX was a blatant one, and well-documented, but that's beside the point. I used it only as a similar (though more extreme) example of how Wikipedia uses facts with an impartiality to who is providing them (as long as it's a reliable source, by Wiki standards). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• What you call the march to war is still a matter of people interpreting events based on their point of view. If it's beside the point, then why make it part of the point? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My last sentence answers that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• If it did, I wouldn't have asked the question. It really doesn't answer it because it was a really bad example. Never mind.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fox News exists solely to promote a right-wing agenda. Does that mean that Fox News should never be used as a source in any article? In fact, its use as a source on Wikipedia is widespread.

The issue isn't motive, it's reliability. Media Matters has presumably made errors, though I don't happen to be aware of any, but the errors of Fox News are legion.

If, on a particular issue, there's a good-faith dispute about the accuracy of an assertin by Media Matters (as opposed to general smearing of the organization), then we can report what Media Matters says (properly attributed) and report the opposing contention. When Media Matters makes a statement about what did or did not appear on Fox News, that's an assertion concerning a matter of fact. Any falsehood is likely to be exposed and refuted in some other source. JamesMLane t c 13:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is your opinion that they "exist solely to promote a right-wing agenda". It is fact that MMfA states their target is FNC. I'm not suggesting that we reject MMfA wholesale, but they should be used very, very sparingly. Just as you submit that any falsehoods by MMfA would likely be exposed by other outlets, I submit that any wrong-doing by FNC would likely be reported on by other outlets too. So I guess my question is, why should we trust the rest of the media to expose MMfA, but not to expose FNC? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the Iraq example (sorry), FOX News (and the other US networks) used to open their stories with fancy graphics saying "Target: Iraq" and "Target: Saddam", often with actual gun target designs. Stories like this and this leave little room for doubt or "matter of opinion" talk. But they're used as sources in the Hussein article. The WMD thing was one very well-publicized exposed falsehood. There are others in this very article's Misrepresentation of Facts section. But still, we don't use FOX "very, very sparingly". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• The graphics? Really? They need a catchy phrase and graphic to draw viewers. It can't look like what the other news outlets are using. I'm sorry, but that is still a weak example that is based on opinion. You consider it a "march to war", I see marketing techniques. Maybe it's the difference in our backgrounds, maybe a difference in political viewpoints. It really doesn't matter why, but that it exists because the claim is.....opinion. As for how frequently FNC is used, I'd ask how frequently it is used in articles about MMfA? Random, non-contentious articles shouldn't matter here, so I took a quick look at the article for Barack Obama. The largest, most watched cable news channel (FNC) is used 3 times out of 325 references. By comparison, CNN, which is less watched, is used about 28 times. I'd say that would border on sparingly. Not a scientific sampling, but kind of interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, the "Target Saddam" one can't be a good example of a "march to war". Look at the date. It was Aug 2003. Little late for a march TO war, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is an example of the march to war. It's a response to the second sentence of your comment. You say it's a fact that MMfA targets FOX, so shouldn't be used here. I say it's a fact that FOX News (and the others) targeted Saddam and Iraq, and are used as sources in those articles. Yeah, it's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point, but it's logically sound. Anyway, if I argue each of your points, we're going to end up in another giant off-topic, uncivil debate that leads nowhere. Let's just agree to disagree for now. If there's an actual issue with a specific Media Matters reference sometime, we'll pick this back up then. Sound good? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've never said they should never be used. But I believe they should be used as a last resort and only on things that aren't opinionated. The difference in our opinion is that MMfA has actually said they target FNC, while you are taking a graphic and drawing a conclusion from a marketing tool. There is a difference and that's what I'm getting at. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch says he tried to push a pro-Iraq war agenda, not just on FOX News, but through the whole machine. Is there still a difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I hear laughing, like his answer is a joke. then he gives a serious answer that he supported the policy, not the execution. MMfA just says it outright, not with a chuckle or smirk. Sorry, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear restrained cackling, not chuckling, and can't differentiate between backing a policy and backing the execution of a policy. But yes, we can both agree we disagree, and that whether or not we agree has nothing to do with the article. At least not right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It helps if you know what the policy is. The Bush Policy or Bush Doctrine, which is being referred, is that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups. Murdoch clear said he didn't support the execution of that policy. Ironically, Obama also supports the Bush Doctrine only that the increased use of drones is a different execution of that policy. The big question you should ask yourself is why is that not an issue from the left? Look, if you are really interested in bias in a news organization, go work on the MSNBC page. MSNBC has gone off the deep end to a degree which is not even on the same planet as FNC. Arzel (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't say he doesn't support the execution. He says "We were very critical of its execution, but I support his (movement?) very much." Anybody know what that mumbled word was? "Secure itself against..." is a euphemism for war, I'm sure we can agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

He supports the policy he did not support (was critical of) the execution. Here is an example to show the distinction in a hypothetical scenario. "I support your goal of losing 50 pounds, however cutting off your legs is not the correct way to go about it." Arzel (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so in this case, they supported the execution (invading Iraq), but were critical of how it played out (hoped it would be quicker, cleaner and cheaper). Your hypothetical would be more appropriate if FOX had advocated for a diplomatic solution or less-direct military intervention (a drone-only campaign, for instance). But it's more like if Colmes is irritating Hannity with his mood, so Hannity hooks him up with that hot new intern to relieve some pressure. But Colmes totally embarrasses himself on game night, gets more moody and annoys Hannity even more the next day at work. Hannity may be critical of how it turned out, but he wanted it to happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Again, saying MMfA targets FNC is easy. It's clearly stated by MMfA. Your eample requires significant interpretation that clearly not everyone agrees with. So really, this is looking a lot like a dead horse. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's forget about that, then. What about using police statements in articles about criminals? Surely we agree that cops target criminals. But they have facts as well as opinions on them, just like Media Matters on FOX. If either has a useful fact, it's allowed. If they offer a biased opinion, it isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not the first time the cops and criminals thing has been tried. If the cops are cited saying that John Doe was arrested for X, then it's a fact and I'm ok with it, just like I am ok with MMfA saying Fox broadcast X on a specific date. Fact is fact. What I have objected to is MMfA being used as a source for OPINION about something they exist solely to oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we agree, I guess. Is there a specific part of the article we're talking about, anyway? If so, start a new section. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He supported the Bush Policy, which I already outlined. My hypothetical was trying to show the difference between a policy (goal) and the implimentation (execution) of said policy. You still seem confused by the difference. Arzel (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I get it. Both sides were pushing for the same general method of executing the policy. FOX only criticized the details, they never said America shouldn't have invaded at all. Like if Hannity was watching enthusiastically from the closet as Colmes got going, but then became frustrated with the ineptitude as it dragged on. He may not like Colmes' mishandling, but still supported the decision to penetrate her border. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing opinionators like H and C with what Ailes said and the network as a whole, not to mention that your hypothetical is very strange indeed. Bush's policy (doctrine) was not to invade Iraq, the policy was to protect the interests of the USA regardless of the location, to go after terrorists regardless of their location. The execution of that policy was to invade Iraq and Afganistan. The vast majority of people agreed with the execution to invade Aganistan. The majority of people also agreed with the execution to invade Iraq. I personally was against that execution because I thought that SH was lying about his WMD (and he was) and that if Bush was wrong the left would hang it around his neck like lead weight. Once the execution began, however, most were initially supportive of it, even if most will not admit it today. So there you go. The policy was protection of US interests. One aspect of the execuation of that policy was to invade Iraq. Obama, in contrast, has the same policy, only his execution is increased drone attacks and attempts at the Arab Spring (yet to see how that mess works out). Arzel (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I used Hannity and Colmes as two arbitrary names, somewhat relevant to the topic. Nothing more to it than that. If you'd find it less weird, replace their names with Abbott and Costello or Bert and Ernie. Guy A and Guy B, even. I'm getting the feeling this argument could theoretically last forever, and there's no real point to either of us convincing the other of anything. Unless/until there's a specific article issue that needs to be addressed, I think it's fair to declare this a No Contest. Sound good? I agree with you about Obama and other networks also being guilty of this, by the way. I never meant anything in a "Red vs Blue" type of way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To the point, Media Matters remains a joke. Are they still around? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ratings and Reception confusion.

In this section, it says FOX is the second most trusted network and the most distrusted. If there were two networks in this poll, that would make sense. But this section also mentions more than two other networks in the poll. Does this make sense in some way I'm overlooking, or is it nonsense? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is kind of confusing, but if you look at the sources, I see what they're getting at. Of 6 networks, Only PBS had more people that trusted it. At the same time, more people distructed FNC than other outlets. [2]. Truthfully, I'm not sure how we can comprehensively explain the poll and I'm not entirely sure it belongs here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

However the numbers came about, the two conclusions clearly contradict each other. I can't see how any reader could learn anything from this paragraph. I'll remove it. It can be re-added if someone figures a way to make real sense of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support the removal. At a minumim, it needs re-written. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To be, or not to be? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be removed. The 2nd most trustworthy rating comes from Fox's entirely devoted base, which is larger than any other networks. The least trustworthy rating comes for the conglomerate of people who rely on other, less watch and independent networks. Its comparing unrelated things really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.204.246 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The last paragraph in the lead is not significant enough to be mentioned, as it gives undue weight in relation to the page as a whole. Plus the criticism seems to be from sources of a biased opinion (Rachel Maddow). It either needs greatly shrunk and reworked for neutrality or removed entirely. As it is it cannot stand, and so I'm removing it. Naapple (Talk) 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede of an article is intended to summarise the body text - the paragraph does this. It isn't solely sourced to Maddow, and in any case, we'd need better grounds to label her opinions 'biased' than the assertions of a single contributor. Or perhaps you'd like to explain why your assertions of 'bias' are legitimate, and Maddow's aren't? The lede has been discussed repeatedly, as the archives indicate - and note that it is only stating that critics have accused Fox News of bias, which is demonstrably true: such accusations have been made. I am going to revert your removal of sourced material from the lede, and suggest that you read the archived discussions, and come up with better grounds for removal than 'I don't like it' before discussing the matter further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That Maddow is biased is pretty much not debatable, but I like her being used as an example as it shows that most of the criticism is coming from the very far left. Arzel (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of that two sentence paragraph is about how news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other. It can't be shrunk much further, and if it leans any way, it's to the right. But it doesn't lean any way. Both sides say their piece. If you trust FOX's story, great. If you trust the critics, great. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my absence, exams week. So: Two of the citations in the first group are from a left wing commentator, another was about OJ Simpson (removed), and the last 2 are from the current democrat administration. That plus the Rachel Maddow cite leaves all sources as biased. This has now been clarified.

I'm sorry, but a "it's in the archives" argument doesn't cut it. I'm bringing up the issue now. Also, neutrality isn't a bias on both sides. Neutrality is a lack of bias either way. If some part of the article is right-wing biased, then fix it. I'll take this as an admission that the lead's previous wording is a left wing bias to counteract the right wing bias. Thanks for that. It's now been clarified.

Naapple (Talk) 07:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• The "it's in the archives" answer isn't as flippant as it sounds. Just like WP:BEFORE suggests you should do some research on your own before nominating an article for deletion, it seems logical and courteous to want an editor new to the article to see if the issue has already been addressed, how it was addressed and if their line of reasoning has already been presented. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• As for your "I'll take this as an admission.....". I've reverted your premature conclusion. this discussion has hardly resulted in a conclusion that your change is warranted. It may at some point, but we're not at that point yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit goes against what you said about shrinking the section. The whole gist of it feels rather pointy, and an average reader could probably guess the political leaning of the person who wrote it, without looking at the talk page. Not neutral. "Critics" works well. If a reader wants to know details about each source listed here, they can look themselves. Undue weight. Should we briefly describe every other source used in the article, too? These sources are used as examples to back up a general claim made by many critics, not just these three particular ones. Your wording implies these are the only critics claiming this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I do think it's still too large in weight to the article as a whole. There's 7 or 8 sections of this page, one of which is controversy/criticism. My changing of the lead is a compromise, since apparently everyone here thinks it's appropriately weighted. And yes, looking at all the citations, I do think that the only criticism is from the Left. Why are you guys so afraid of complete information? I'm not suggesting that every single citation have it's author mentioned, but all those citations have one thing in common: they're from the Left. This absolutely needs reflected. Don't like it? Find a neutral source. As it is now, no one's given a good reason for the revert. Naapple (Talk) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a neutral source calling these sources "left wing"? If not, it can be removed on simple verifiability grounds. If you find a source which I (or others) perceive as "right wing", would it be OK to point out that that source is right wing? And where would it end? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You clearly haven't reviewed the sources one by one like I did. Please rejoin the discussion once you've done that. Of course you're gonna claim you have anyway, so please enlighten me on the citation that isn't from an openly left wing source. Thanks. Naapple (Talk) 04:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A simple question. Why do you think we should consider your 'review' to be remotely relevant? Given that you seem to be asserting that (a) Fox is neutral, and (b) anyone who says it isn't must be from the left, you seem to be lacking in logic. If it was neutral, wouldn't there also be critics on the right? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR. So because you can't find a criticism from the right, then the criticism from the left must be true, and that it's only from the left must be left out to support your own conclusions. I'll tell ya what: why don't we just drop the pretense and skip straight to the edit war so this can go to the DRN and get solved. Clearly neither of you is willing to seek a compromise and you're only pushing your agenda. This would be ok, except that you're not playing by the rules: back your shit up with citations. Find a neutral citation or accept that your citations will be labeled left wing. I know complete and open information can be scary, but this is an encyclopedia, not HuffPost. Naapple (Talk) 01:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR - you chose to do your own 'review', and then tell us the supposed 'result'. As for 'complete and open information', you were trying to get the section removed from the lede entirely earlier - so cut out the BS. If you want to take this to DRN, fine, go ahead - I'm sure you will be told why your attempt to spin the article isn't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that's about what I expected. You're right (and I'll say it again), it's too large for the section, completing it was my compromise, as I did want to remove it. Lets shine a big spotlight on this. I don't get why you're so afraid of some complete information. All of those citations are openly opinions and stating them as fact is POV pushing. Naapple (Talk) 02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to be obtuse? "Critics have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions[5] and biased reporting" is a fact, by any rational understanding of what the word 'fact' means. They are critics, and they have stated it. We aren't suggesting that their statements are right, or wrong, we are pointing out that they've made such statements - and the sources verify that they have. Anyway, take it to DRN, or anywhere else where others can see your repeated BS about wanting 'complete information' to include your spin/original research, but not any suggestion that Fox might actually be seen as biased by people you can't pin an easy label on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attacks (I see your talk edit descriptions) and inability to discuss any specifics have shown you're either incapable or unwilling to find a compromise, or consider any viewpoint other than your own. As such, I'll be ignoring you until this behavior changes. Naapple (Talk) 05:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Naapplel, entertaining as this is, your curcular argument isn't gaining any traction. You are far from having a consensus here. That fact hasn't stopped you from trying to force your changes in. Perhaps you should consider this a lost cause before your edit warring backfires. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have neutrality in politics so the phrase "_Critics have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting. Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and have denied any bias in news reporting_" should be in the controversy section not in the opening discription, otherwise it makes Wikipedia look like it wants to take sides against FOX news.

(also this is my first time posting a comment like this so if it belongs somewhere else please move it, thanks)Chinablue888 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead is for summarizing notable aspects of the topic. The subject of conservative bias in news has been widely discussed in many sources, and Wikipedia is just mirroring that, not making its own judgement. We have a sentence for each side, stating their view in about equal size and depth. So we're not picking one side over the other. Regardless of news content, the paragraph makes clear that FOX News leans to the right in commentary. Nobody denies that, and it is helpful to readers in understanding the channel. Not a political statement by Wikipedia, just a statement of fact that happens to be about politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Is Fox's reporting biased? Absolutely! However, look at two other obviously biased news channels; Russia Today and MSNBC. The lead section of Russia Today doesn't mention anything about bias since this is relagated to the "objectivity and bias" section (As it should be). MSNBC's lead section is sort of romantically lables MSNBC "increasingly progressive", but this description is glowingly positive and the words 'criticism' or 'bias' are never mentioned in the header (again, they are correctly discussed in the "criticism and controvercy" section). For those who wish to keep three cited comments concerning the bias of Fox News in the lead section, please satisfactorally answer one question: Why should Wikipedia's article on Fox News mention something in the header that no other articles on news channels address in the header? The obvious answer is that it shouldn't, or if it should, we should also reflect this in these other two articles as well as others. It should be taken out of the lead and moved to the proper section. (Please compare) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Msnbc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.57.187 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are saying that it is the Russia Today and MSNBC articles that are at fault - in which case you should raise the matter on the appropriate talk pages, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is the wrong talk page. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to deleting content as well as articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As for "increasingly progressive" being a romantic or glowing term, consider which side of the fence you're on. A progressive may see the word as a positive, while someone who'd like the status quo to remain (or reappear) would find it negative. Same as "conservative" or any other ideology, religion, race or custom. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, no, I am not saying that it is the Russia Today and MSNBC articles that need to be changed. You should reread my comment and pay attention this time; namely to where I repeatedly mention that in those articles claims of bias rightly appear in bias section rather than the lead. Secondly, this IS the correct talk page for deleting content from the lead. I am suggesting we delete the bit about bias from the lead since it is already adequately covered in the rather large "Controversies" section (and this section should be large). This would bring the article in conformity with other articles about other biased news channels. The bit about the term "increasingly progressive" being positive or neutral is really missing the point and only serves as distracting a red herring. The fact of the matter is the lead of the MSNBC article does not use words such as "bias" or "controversy", but rather just reflects MSNBC's own slogan. I don't have a problem with that, but I am saying that THIS article should save bias and controversy for the proper section. Please guys, I'm really trying not to go here, but it it getting increasingly obvious that some of you are determined to have your own biases reflected in this article. I don't like Fox either, but we really should adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy as well as making sure that our article conforms to the established norm for other such articles. Leave your vendettas against Fox at the login screen, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.11.138 (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I paid attention, I just didn't respond to that part. I know that can feel annoying, like dodging the issue, but it isn't always. Sorry.

FOX's bias controversy is more significantly associated with it than MSNBC's or Russia Today's. It's become something of a running joke in pop culture, thanks to shows like The Colbert Report, The Daily Show and most of its own commentary programs. In more "serious" culture (academic and journalistic), FOX has also been seen far more than the others as a problem. I won't list a billion sources for this, but Google and YouTube will, if you want. (Fun fact: Googling "Faux News" verbatim, in quotes, gets the Wikipedia controversy article third, and the real FOX News site fourth, despite the phrase not appearing.)

So it goes in the lead, as a major part of the topic. I didn't make it that way, society did. It's more important to have Wikipedia reflect reality than to make sure all comparable articles are equal, regardless. If you call adhering to that line of thought a bias, I'm biased. But I don't want to make FOX look any worse than it is (or isn't). That's neutrality. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• While I think the MSNBC issue is a valid one, it really has no weight here. Don't even know if the Russia Today one is valid or not, but it doesn't matter here either. As for Google rankings, that's not an accurate indicator of anything. Wikipedia articles are given extra weight in the Google algorithm and if Google also uses info from your own browser. Two people on different machines will often get very different results. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Even in Verbatim mode? I'd always figured that nullified the "corrections" and the personalization. Even with quotes, "fried egg" gives me two sets of results (different order, at least), depending on Verbatim. Anyway, I didn't mean it as part of my point. That's why it's small. Just a fun fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, even then. I use verbatim most of the time. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Using "some" in the lead

Belchfire keeps removing the word "some" from the lead, citing the weasel words guideline, but apparently hasn't read it too carefully. While the guideline does say to generally avoid them (note that it doesn't say prohibit), it also says: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." Now, the removal has been reverted by more than one editor, suggesting that the removal of "some" actually makes the sentence deceiving and/or inaccurate. Perhaps Belchfire will discuss this here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, without "some", it reads like all critics and observers have pointed out the bias. Not true, and we've got sources backing up "some". A few minutes after I reverted him once, he placed an edit war warning on my Talk Page. I hope that doesn't indicate he's planning on starting something long-term. I responded by directing him to this Talk Page, like Niteshift suggested in his edit summary. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Impoverished article lead

It seems to me that the article lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article. It is a large article with a tiny lead. It seems like the sections in the article ought to be summarized. B^e——C_ritical 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Why? The lead should give you a thumbnail of what the topic is, then the sections explain everything else. Trying to jam more into the lead doesn't sound like an improvement, but if you have a specific suggestion, please present it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well relative to my recent edit, If we're going to say " In 2010, its programs took the top ten spots for most-watched cable news programs in the 25–54 age demographic, and the top twelve spots among total cable news program viewersl" I think that this needs to be balanced. It's promotional in respect to how viewers see Fox, in spite of the balance on other subjects in the last paragraph. B^e——C_ritical 00:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure I like your recent edit, but that's a separate discussion. Regardless, FNC is still the top rated network. Whether they've slipped or not, the others aren't even close at this point. Maybe others will see your point, but right now, I don't. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't like it. If there's one thing with less educational substance than a poll, it's a poll that attempts (I use that word loosely) to quantify an unquantifiable like trust. Hardly can be called info, certainly not lead-worthy info. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes of course but not liking something is irrelevant to Wikipedia. I'm hoping for responses which help us decide whether or not to put balance into the lead. We currently have:

In 2010, its programs took the top ten spots for most-watched cable news programs in the 25–54 age demographic, and the top twelve spots among total cable news program viewers.

I think noting how that has changed and the direction of that change is relevant. I would think so, for those who have already accused me of POV pushing, whether or not the change was negative. Also, why is it that we are quoting stats from only 2010? Maybe either get more stats from more years to show a trend, or get it out of the lead. B^e——C_ritical 03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe if you were a little less literal, you'd realize that "not liking" it is simply a way of expressing that there are some concerns about it. I mean if you want to act all confrontational, I can go that route. Or you can dial it back and actually discuss. Now, at this point, no consensus has been achieved, yet you've taken it upon yourself to ignore the instructioons on the lead and force your own changes in. I'm reverting your change until something gets achieved here. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit dated. Doesn't tell a reader about how things are today, or how they've typically been. I'd rather see that in the ratings section only. Hardly significant to FOX News, as a whole. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree there's no reason for the new poll as long as there isn't a discussion going on that needs to be filled out. As I edited it before Niteshift36's revert, it only gave the current and long-time status of Fox as the "dominant cable news network," without going into a discussion of viewership. If a discussion of viewership is included, it needs to be filled out, it shouldn't just be snapshot from 2010 without any update or context. Unless there is an argument that the 2010 stat is the most important overall fact and a summary. B^e——C_ritical 08:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Silence is consensus. I'll assume you guys agree and change it back pretty soon. B^e——C_ritical 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we agree on, but I've removed the 2010 ratings stuff from the lead, as it was outdated and, like you say, just a snapshot. Not particularly significant in the bigger (or current) picture. Tried Googling for an updated number of households it reaches (2009 is older than it seems), but failed. Some better researcher might want to try. So the lead is pretty balanced now, just a bit dated. Both bits would be fine in the Ratings and Reception section, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what we agree on (: B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Silence is consensus" is a dangerous presumption. That's primarily why I reverted your edit. It's not so much that it's a good/bad edit, but that you are misstating the "per talk page" routine. Just because you explain your point here doesn't make it a done deal. Secondly, not every interested editor will be on Wikipedia when you are. Just because you posted something and nobody immediately jumped in to object doesn't mean everyone agrees. If an article gets nominated for deletion and 2 weeks goes by with only one editor opining, it will probably get relisted because silence isn't always consensus. If you bother to look though the talk page archives, you'll see many who regularly edit this article and the lead has been a frequent point of contention, making the "silence is consensus" manner of thinking even more off-base. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Saying "silence is consensus" was used after the edit had been reverted, to spur people to post after waiting a day. Had things remained silent, then silence would indeed have been consensus. B^e——C_ritical 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I know when it was done. Try looking at what I'm saying instead of trying to get pedantic about pointless details. The notion that silence means approval, particularly when that "silence" is only a day or so on a very contentious article, is not sound decision making. It's also kind of disrespectful to those who did hash out an actual consensus before. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• No offense intended. B^e——C_ritical 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• About the size of the lead: it's quite appropriate per WP:LEAD as far as I can see. It's not really a "large" article, B-critical, it's just got a long list in it, section International transmission. That list is hard to summarize in the lead. I tried in fact to shape a sentence about it, something like "As of 20XX, Fox News is available in Y countries" but had to give up, because the list is surely not complete, nor is there any way of telling how up-to-date the text about each country is. (It says the poison word "currently" in the Canada subsection btw; please see WP:REALTIME. I just added a {{When}} template.) If some clever researcher out there can find more general information about international availability in a reliable and reasonably up-to-date source, I suggest you put a sentence about it into the lead. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC).

Tried Googling. Either I'm not a clever researcher, or Google's a stupid tool. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I regretted the heading and first post. Fortunately we were able to accomplish something through the discussion in this section anyway. B^e——C_ritical 21:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the three two-line paragraphs even look balanced now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good source?

Just a question, is Tvnewser on mediabistro.com quoting Weekday Ranker a good source? What is that Weekday Ranker? I didn't find anything immediately, so just asking[www.themediaaudit.com/media/30535/ranker_report.pdf]. B^e——C_ritical 09:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is Bulls & Bears, Cavoto, Forbs on Fox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.22.206 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add to #Israel section

i dont know why i cant edit this paragraph, so please add it for me:

"FNC is broadcast on channel 71 of the cable operator pay-TV HOT. "

also, fix the type of the YES operator - should read "satellite operator" instead of "cable operator". --81.218.79.200 (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed your Wikilink, and found your source. Guess it only makes sense now to make your edit. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The YES in the article was a completely different American cable channel. So it was technically correct and incorrect. Thanks for noticing! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reposting old survey

And old issue resurfaced again with the reposting of a survey done by Fairleigh Dickinson University.[3] That issue was already discussed here [4] and here [5], with no consensus to include it. Re-inserting it would require a new discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me from that discussion that while there was no consensus to include, there was no consensus to exclude either. Here's my current view on the subject: we should give the most weight to the best sources. The article currently includes a lot of sources, for example "Timothy Noah stated in an editorial in Slate Magazine that Fox News had a conservative bias." All well and good if notable. However, Wikipedia is an academically biased encyclopedia. As such, it should give the most WEIGHT to scientific studies. We have scientific studies, by two universities each broadly confirming the other at different times and including a wider followup study, so three studies of the effects of Fox News on the electorate seems to me to require us to give them the greatest WEIGHT in the article, above all opinion and above general news sources. B^e——C_ritical 18:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Polls are generally crap. If you poll a hundred people with at least two questions, you're always going to get some sort of correlation. If I find more cancer victims checked YES on "Do you like disco?", it doesn't mean disco causes cancer. If more check NO, it doesn't mean disco prevents cancer.

These things suggest whatever the pollsters want to conclude. If they don't get the conclusion they want, they rephrase the questions and find a hundred different people. There's no rule against choosing which draft of a survey you want to publish, or acknowledge ever existed. Even then, the conclusion always boils down to "Disco may cause cancer" or "FOX News may blind viewers". What good is a maybe in an encyclopedia? Save it for the newspapers. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet, when we're deciding between pure opinion that happened to make a stink, and a poll, we give the poll the most weight. B^e——C_ritical 19:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If an opinion causes enough stink, we point out who holds the opinion and describe the stink. We don't use words like "confirmed" and "found", and we don't put them in the Recent History section.

If we were to use the poll at all, it would be in Ratings and Reception, cited directly to the study instead of whichever outlet has based a story on it and clear that "99% of Americans" means "99% of the polled". Extrapolation from a few hundred to a few hundred million just doesn't work, especially in a diverse country like the US. A few of our existing polls need the same work, don't think I'm picking on yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but no offense intended that's your personal opinion of polls and their methods. You may be right, but still these are the most reliable kinds of sources around (academic and scientific) and we try to emphasize them. Citing huffingtonpost isn't necessary- we could cite the original studies but that's peripheral. And one of the studies seems only available through a huff post article. Let me put it another way. We all know about crack babies, right? Well maybe not. But for all that, we still use academic sources here, even if we think they may be wrong. B^e——C_ritical 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I may be right, but they're still the most reliable kinds of sources? If I'm right, they're among the least and we don't even consider them, let alone emphasize them.

The difference between a study and the news stories it spawns is significant, starting right at the biased headline and continuing throughout. If we can't find the actual study to cite, that would be the end of the decision (if I ran Wikipedia).

I don't mind if the study's conclusions are actually true or not. The important thing is stating them here as the conclusion so-and-so reached, based on a sample of people he asked certain questions. When we say a study "finds" or "confirms" something about a population as a whole, or a causation, we're straight-up lying.

For what it's worth, I never believed crack should shoulder the most blame for poor, uneducated and neglected idiots. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

IndelibleHulk, We can find the original studies, the second study confirmed the first, that is standard terminology, and if you want to attribute the study to the researchers that's fine with me. BTW, what do you think I was quoting, but the original study? B^e——C_ritical 21:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There was plenty of opposition to including it and certainly no consensus to include it. The reasoning brought up before about limited scope, subjectivity etc hasn't changed. You've brought forth nothing new. All your doing is rehashing the same polls from the same people. The FDU poll was limited solely to New Jersey residents and Hulk is absolutely correct about your use of things like "confirmed" (whcih I mentioned the first time I removed it). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the new addition. I think you are under the impression that nothing happened after late 2011. B^e——C_ritical 21:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

From the look of the above comments: please read the new addition, here so we don't waste time on things that are out-dated. B^e——C_ritical 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course I read it. Assume some good faith. 2/3 of what you posted was the same old crap (including the one limited to NJ). An "update" of barely more than a thousand people isn't going to change the basic issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then I must ask you to base your objection to inclusion on something more solid. These are excellent sources. B^e——C_ritical 00:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't about "excellent sources". If CBS news mentions that Justin Bieber bought a green hat today, that doesn't give it an express ticket to be included in an article. None of the reasons to oppose have changed. I provided the links to the previous discussions. You have my reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Criticism Section

There are criticism sections on several articles on Wikipedia. A controversial article like Fox News needs more than a sentence for criticism. I can help build a Criticism section here with several sources if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.188.177 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you serious? Have you even looked at this article? Not only is there a whole section on controversies in this article, the subject has its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a controversy section (and article). Most of the controversy in it stems from someone criticizing FOX, and FOX firing back. What, generally, would a criticism section add? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Niteshift, edit conflict. Didn't mean to repeat you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Marking As Propaganda in Critic Paragraph

I believe Fox News should contain the title propaganda in it's critic section and is in fact a textbook case example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model >Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

'Obama administration conflict with Fox News' section removal

This section is ridiculous and contains opinionated words like 'snub'. I may take this argument to higher wikipedia authority if this is not addressed. >Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fox claims it is not news, so why are we listing it here?

In court cases Fox claims it is not a news organization. Fox is entertainment. This should be noted. >Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit

Sorry, but just throwing a link out isn't going to help you. SOME OF US actually read them. And in your case, the word "Fox" doesn't even appear at that link. Try again.Tgm1024 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "entertainment" doesn't appear anywhere in that article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting really irritated at this sort of thing. I've tasked myself with actually looking through the citations that people drop here and there and I'm starting to become very dismayed at how many of them are just assumed to be related to the subject. I'm convinced that the number of folks dropping citations down without even reading them is on the rise.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• No matter how irritated you get or how many conspiracy theories you invent, the word "entertainment" doesn't even appear in the link, so it sure as hell doesn't support your claim. Don't misrepresent sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

List of studios and shows broadcast in them

I had a list of FNC studios and the shows produced in them that was removed. It was not a TV Guide style list so I'm wondering why it was removed and if I can add it back?(IceManNYR (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

You mean this? [6] For a start, it cites no source, though frankly it looks like trivia - why should it matter to the readers which studio is used for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly crucial, but seems like something people might want to know. Maybe more appropriate for the individual show articles, though I sort of like how this makes it easier to group them (idea-wise, the formatting could use work). But yeah, with sources, in any case. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Andy. It's trivial. Some people might want to know the shoe sizes of all the on-air personalities, but I'd consider that trivial too. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not with Andy nor you. The OP is right: A list of the shows of a network, complete with production locations and personalities is perfectly appropriate here. Fox news, as all networks, is big. What's not ok is the lack of a credible source, and I didn't like the way it was formatted. But I don't believe that your shoe-size analogy "fits".Tgm1024 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

I protected the article for a week because of the ongoing edit war. User:Niteshift36 has now asked me on my talkpage to remove the disputed material while it's being discussed, and told me s/he thinks a week's protection seems overly long. I'll answer here. It doesn't have to be a week, I'll be very happy to unprotect if and when the conflict is resolved and people are able to form a consensus here on talk. The recent editing of the article is a sad sight, and I must say the thread above isn't very encouraging either. I hope people use this editing lull for some constructive discussion. As for me reverting the article back to a different version, no, that won't happen. Please see The Wrong Version. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

• I thought my request was polite and not unreasonable. I don't think it warranted the sarcasm. thanks for your input. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Another edit request on 16 September 2013

{{editprotected}}

Please add "I think" to the beginning of the quote by Chris Wallace in the "Objectivity and bias" section per the consensus above. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Please replace the infobox logo with File:FoxNewsChannelLogo.png, as this is the official logo, and not the rendering we currently use. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)