Talk:Fox News/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Should we call it conservative?

There are multiple reliable sources that refer to Fox as a conservative-biased news channel, including the following: *[1] "That Fox News is, consistently and across all of its programs, offering a conservative ideological voice and doing so under the heading of "news" is, at this date, an undeniable point."

• [2] "Fox News primarily presents pro-conservative perspectives and very often reinforces conservative and Republican viewpoints, while MSNBC stresses pro-liberal perspectives."
• [3] (page 4) "...Fox News and other American conservative media have served to marginalize scientists in general and climate scientists in particular."

Are these sources sufficient to explicitly say that Fox News is a conservative news channel, or should we still relegate this view to the status of an "accusation"? Everymorning (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I ask because I previously added that it was a conservative channel to the first sentence, but this edit was undone. [4] But back then I was only using the first of these sources--maybe all 3 are good enough combined to support a flat-out statement? I would like to see "Yes"s from multiple editors before making this addition again. Everymorning (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Do we call MSNBC a liberal news channel? We don't (look it up), despite one of the sources Everymorning cites saying that MSNBC presents liberal perspectives in the same sentence that it says that Fox presents conservative perspectives.

My answers to Everymorning's questions are:

• (a) We should stick with presenting these accusations under the heading "Controversies", subheading "Bias". The third paragraph in our article already violates WP:UNDUE by laying particular stress on the idea that Fox News is notably biased up near the lede, then once more where our article MSNBC deals with accusations of political bias, much farther down in the body of the article.

Not only should we not call Fox News "conservative" in the lede when we don't call MSNBC "liberal" in the same place, we ought to also delete the third paragraph to make our encyclopedic coverage of cable news channels more professional and even-handed. All that material is down in the body of the article, where similar material is in our article on MSNBC. The disparity in how we cover the two networks is a definite WP:POV issue - this article is spattered with POV-pushing by repeating the same allegations about FOX in ways we don't for other news networks.

• (b) The sources you cite are specialized secondary sources suited to supporting statements in our article under the heading "Controversies", subheading "Bias".

In the interests of paralleling our coverage of Fox News and MSNBC, we ought to confine commentary on allegations of political bias in the same place in both articles. That would resolve the current WP:UNDUE issue and also shorten a much over-long article by only mentioning allegations of Fox News' bias and other misdeeds in one place, not two or three. At present, this article has strong evidence of POV-pushing against Fox. We ought to be paring references to allegations of bias against Fox News to the same level our article on MSNBC has, not adding still more. loupgarous (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm interested in parallel coverage of things on about the same level, but the amount and persistence of shit FNC gets way exceeds that thrown at MSNBC or CNN. This results from their parent companies controlling more of the sphere, making the minority view look like the exceptionally and memorably weird one.

Reflecting the stance of the majority view is not an attempt to harm FNC further, but merely to indicate it's more frequently subjected to heavier attempts at harm. And this indication is not to suggest MSNBC or CNN's parents are underhanded, cruel or trying to silence dissent. It's just the way the media bubble works, at this point in actual history. Every battle has an underdog, and it's natural to view that side in a different context, with different words and focus. Helpful, too, for those interested in how things are going. Nobody cares about equilibrium, and inventing one where it doesn't exist is particularly unhelpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

At one time in relatively recent history, the "majority view" was that African-Americans were "the sons of Ham" and had slavery and discrimination coming to them. The majority view of gays and lesbians is similarly biased with very little evidence to support the adverse nature of that view. We don't lend wikivoice to those views, I've noticed.

We're not just reporting the majority view if we reproduce every instance in which it's reported. We're weighting our supposedly encyclopedic article Fox News in a way we'd never consider doing with Jews by citing remarks from every anti-Semitic source we could find and giving each one space in a wikipedia article. Sure, Fox News has a conservative bias. Once we've established that by the very best WP:RS we have, we can stop. I'd say that the Social Science Journal article Everymorning cited which says "Fox News primarily presents pro-conservative perspectives and very often reinforces conservative and Republican viewpoints, while MSNBC stresses pro-liberal perspectives." is a good place to start.

However, another article Everymorning cited to condemn Fox News, [[5] "That Fox News is, consistently and across all of its programs, offering a conservative ideological voice and doing so under the heading of "news" is, at this date, an undeniable point." is demonstrably false. Fox News has always had very vocally liberal commentators working for it, including Lou Dobbs, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes. Colmes has passed away, Beckel had to be terminated for racist comments, and Dobbs and Williams are still there, as is Andrew Napolitano, a fierce critic of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, who works at Fox News despite his ardent criticism of both political wings' policies.

That's exactly the sort of statement, that if we include it, we ought to balance with opposing statements to avoid WP:UNDUE. We don't do that now and as a result, this article's a quivering mass of WP:UNDUE. loupgarous (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Aye, when to stop kicking a political opponent is itself a controversial topic. No easy answers. Further research is needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well, people, this is actually the most famous conservative news channel. There is nothing bad to be conservative. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My objection to labeling it a "conservative" news channel is that other news channels are not labeled by their political leaning. This implies that Fox is biased (which it obviously is), but other channels are not (which is obviously incorrect). If you want to include the political leaning in the first sentence, it should be done for all news channels. Natureium (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's because other news channels are not so over-the-top and so obnoxiously obvious about it. It's a difference between "leaning" and "taking a dive face down arms outstretched while singing Hallelujah". Volunteer Marek  18:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's entirely your opinion. MSNBC is well known to have a leftist bias, and perhaps less well known but just as partisan is the New Yorker. Natureium (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree: that implies a bias, and the bias should be noted if claimed in multiple RS. It should be included on this page and on other pages if reliably sourced and "due". And it is actually included on many other pages, see CNN controversies. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

But it's not noted in the first sentence of CNN. Of course an article on CNN controversies would list possible bias. Same as Fox News controversies. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Should CNN be defined as "liberal"? Not according to this chart, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty reading that chart because the dots are on top of the axis markers, but it appears to me (please correct me if you can read it better) that it is showing Fox and CNN as equidistant from the 0 point on opposite ends of the spectrum. Natureium (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, according to this chart, Fox is not as conservative as some other media, so this could be a matter of personal judgement. Whatever other contributors think. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A liberal newspaper such as the Washington Post is hardly an objective gauge of which other news sources are also liberal or conservative. The chart measures the Pew Research Center's assessment of how liberal or conservative the news sources' audiences are, which is at best an indirect measurement of their content.

Fox is markedly conservative, and was founded to be - in just the same way Huffington Post exists to provide liberal-biased commentary, and Current TV and Air America were. While MSNBC carries Morning Joe as a fig leaf to cover its tumescent liberal bias, I notice they also have Mika Brzezinski there making sure Joe Scarborough doesn't actually say anything of a markedly conservative nature without a prompt rebuttal - and according to our article on her, she and not Scarborough decides who their guests will be. Viewers of Morning Joe need never worry about a Trump spokesman like Kellyanne Conway disturbing their world view - Mika protects them from that. loupgarous (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the chart measures. And WaPo isn't particularly liberal. Centrist maybe. Volunteer Marek  19:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post article "Ranking the media from liberal to conservative, based on their audiences" says "Pew has basically taken the average viewer/consumer of all of these media outlets and plotted them on a continuum, trying to ascertain which outlets are favored by which side of the political spectrum." So the article's headline and lede paragraph contradict you. Sorry. loupgarous (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read what you just wrote/quoted again. Volunteer Marek  19:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You changed "Washington Post" to "Pew Research Center" as I was typing my previous comment. Surprised we didn't get an edit conflict. Volunteer Marek  19:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The level of fake news relied upon by certain editors indicates fundamental inability to recognize (much less practice) objectivity. For example,

• Do we call MSNBC a liberal news channel? We don't (look it up)
• we don't call MSNBC "liberal" in the same place

Yet per MSNBC (fourth graf of lede),

• Commentators have described MSNBC as having a bias towards left-leaning politics and the Democratic Party.
• MSNBC's prime-time lineup is tilting more to the left.
• the channel's evening lineup "has clearly gravitated to the left in recent years …".
• In 2011, Salon.com noted that "MSNBC’s prime-time lineup is now awash in progressive politics."

Therefore, certain haranguing statements are either amazingly clueless, or intentional outright lies,

Raises the issue, though, of why Rightists are so fearful of being identified as Rightists. Why the shame?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section

Think it's time to summarize the play by play sourced to news headliners and move most to main article. This blow by blow writing in not encyclopedic.--Moxy (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

News headliners? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

News articles that are just discovering the facts (headliners of the days discovery) By this point we should be able to finf good sources that cover the topic as a whole. Just need to look for real sources and move the play by play stuff to the main article on this stuff as per WP:DETAIL.--Moxy (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I follow. But if it's not encyclopedic, important or accurate while it breaks, why even bother summarizing and rearranging it? Just blow it completely out of existence if it seems a bit out of proportion, I say. Ask questions later. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian linking possible material for article text

US news sites linked and tweeted by Russians in 2016 presidential campaign. [6] SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson white supremecist slogan

RE: this edit: The cited source states "Carlson was pushing forward a meme promoted by white supremacists, and he was doing so exactly as they had intended him to do it -- That seems to support the deleted text, that Carlson was promoting their slogan. Could those who disagree please share their think as to why this should not be in the article? SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to get around to this but I'm busy with stuff. But yes, this should be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure because it is clearly trying to conflate that Carlson is racists by the sources and explanation picked to go together. He was not promoting but giving an objective explanation of what it is. The section header is kind of a joke "Neo-Nazi propaganda and slogans" which makes it look like that is what he was promoting. The source used in the second half is a blog post without proper attribution. Finally it's rather undue and silly especially as it was not a major controversy for the network as a whole. Not even enough of one to be used in the main article Fox News controversies. So undue, pov, and possibly against blp. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"He was not promoting but giving an objective explanation of what it is" - oh that's a bunch of hooey! He was too promoting it, as the source clearly states. And what in the world does "giving an objective explanation of what it is" is suppose to mean? Did he says, "oh, here's this racist slogan guys"? *That* would be an "objective explanation". But that's not what he did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh quit being so dramatic. It means he was giving a rundown of what it is. Explaining ≠ promoting, that is the difference. At this point only newsweek has been given as a RS on this and it is a stale event that did not get enough continued coverage to warrant inclusion as a major controversy for Fox News as a whole. About time to drop the stick and move on. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Who said it was a controversy? Newsweek states in its voice that he was pushing forward the meme as they had intended, so I think the article text is pretty straight. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It was placed in the controversies section. So I would assume he thought it was a controversy. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not, though. Not really. There's an inherent controversy when anyone does anything and someone objects, but this should be verified by independent sources. Shouldn't just cite one side's complaint and call it a day. Shouldn't cite the other side's to "balance" it, either. Should ignore all sources with a conflict of interest. If that's all of them, period, so be it. Things don't have to fit into Wikipedia somehow or somewhere. Tacking that extra bit about the history of the term onto the complaint is merely undue; nothing at all to do with Fox or Carlson. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "contoversies" sections in WP articles, but I think this text came up in the subsection on CharlottesvilleNeo-Nazi propaganda and slogans, which I took to be the controversy that justified all its text being placed in that section. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Section corrected 22:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not Charlottesville. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The subsection, the bit about Carlson and the bit about the slogan showed up in cahoots, each trying to justify the other as a legit Fox News controversy. I could just as easily cobble together Anderson Cooper, the civil rights movement and Moody's queer obsession with the darkness. At least in that instance, real organizations actually protested and effected retraction, prompting fairly non-partisan AdWeek to waste virtual ink on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It all came from the same source(s) though. There's no "cobbling together".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek plus Anti-Defamation League equals Newsleague. Not a thing. Just cobblework. There was an anti-defamation week, but it was called Spread the Word to End the Word and it ended five years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also a a genuine legal battle with real money on the line starting up, if anybody's interested in issues with legs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also going back to the Newsweek source. I am starting to question how reliable it is... With sources used being Rose City Antifa and itsgoingdown.org (another antifa like "digital community center") I do not think it meets the low bar of reliability, more like dressed up blog. PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But Newsweek is not using those outfits as sources for anything except their own quoted statements. Blog would be if the Newsweek writer stated her own opinions. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Her" name is Michael and she's full of opinion. Thinks Tucker is "preaching" this "typical" Fox News "fodder" with a "priggish" tone, straight out of the gate. I don't know what priggish is, but I know what objective isn't. Anything at all to with Nazis seems to be her typical fodder and FNC just happened to wander in front of that train of thought here, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Learned. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

One alternative approach would be to have a section about Fox News real-time echoing far-right memes and fake news. Then this could go in there for context and avoid some of the judgment that may relate to this incident alone. I looked on my granddaughter's Little Girl's Encyclopedia of the English Language website, and when I clicked on "priggish" a pic of Tucker popped up with a footnote to Newsweek, so? SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's all a put-on. If Tucker didn't want to be considered priggish, he probably wouldn't adopt that tone. Just like Bernie Sanders wouldn't pretend to be your trusted grandfather and Hillary wouldn't pretend to be crooked. I didn't think that tag was the main point of the article, but as I said there may be a better way to deal with this aspect of Fox in terms of article structure and text. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't an opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Rephrasing my remark. Tucker is priggish. That's his hook. In real life he might not be. He might just be condescending and smug and might not rise to priggish when he's on his day off. But it's a simple descriptive statement that on-air in delivering these remarks, he was priggish. I think we do need a section that deals with Fox's overall involvement in originating and promoting right-wing talking points and the agendas of far-right politicians. So details about what they are doing are more important than their style of presentation. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So I guess he must be truly priggish after all. That notwithstanding, I can't support any approach which sees one side of any conflict blow it out of proportion. If there's third-party work tying this crap together, that's another story, and a section about it could be viable rather than political. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a wild idea. Perhaps don't write Tucker Carlson promoted the white supremacist slogan It's OK to be white on his show, based on a single source. Perhaps read WP:EXCEPTIONAL while you're at it. I am opposed to this sentence being restored. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The same thing is covered by the ADL and Forward and Salon, among others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I still do not like the phrasing, for basically the same reason. "Promoted the white supremacist slogan" is extremely weasel word-ish. Did he himself say anything about white supremacy? That's the basic question. Did he know (or indicate) anything about the background of the slogan? The fact that other people might be using or pushing the slogan for their own purposes doesn't mean that Carlson was pushing this aspect of it.

It recalls to me Orwell's comment (in the late 1930s I think) that "pacifism is objectively pro-fascist". Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but I don't think it would be fair to phrase it like "pacifists promoted fascism". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The exact words being used by the sources are "pushed", "boosted", "help spread".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian, that is helpful. I think that it shows exactly why RS use that language and why WP must reflect it. They are not inadvertently promoting the right-wing in the sense that pacifists unintentionally might enable fascism. In Fox's case, they are promoting the interests of their viewers because that's their business plan and (like any successful business strategy) it continues to be profitable for them. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still opposed to the phrasing. Let's first distinguish between the headline and the article itself. From my usual practice elsewhere, I do not use headlines as sources. Headlines are frequently not written by the journalists who write the articles. I do not know the practice in this area, but see this discussion, for instance.

Let's look at the content of the Forward article. The way I read it, it is saying that the slogan/meme was perhaps created by some alt-right group, and it was creatively disguised to help spread it. I quote the third paragraph: Somewhere, “alt-right” trolls and meme posters cheered: One of their meme campaigns, conceived in the dark corners of an online chatroom late last month, was making headlines — and being defended on a prominent news network. Carlson’s defense of the “It’s Okay To Be White,” flyer was yet another example of how the “alt-right” creatively disguises and popularizes white nationalist ideology.

Maybe the slogan was created by some white nationalist group, maybe not (as far as I understand, nobody knows who wrote the slogan in the case Carlson discussed, nor did Carlson know of its provenance). The article does not accuse Carlson having anything to do white nationalism or white supremacy. The most which can be supported is that Carlson may not have been aware of the background of the slogan, and inadvertently was taken in by a nefarious meme campaign which was creatively disguised. This is much too tenuous a link, and the statement as phrased would fall into the category of guilt by association. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

All the sources I've read about Carlson, not just in the present instance but also wrt Daily Caller and other activities, portray him as a sophisticated media presenter who knows what he's doing and carefully hones message, presentation, and personal image. And the cited source states, like it or not, in an active voice, that he pushed this bit forward. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

With RS coverage on this being pretty short lived and not very widely covered is this a controversy that is really important to Fox News as a whole? I still say no, that it is undue for the whole history of Fox News. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's a placeholder until the whole history of Fox's promotion of right-wing memes and miscues is better crafted? We're not talking about Tucker in the lede, right? And by the way, if we believe he was "just explaining what this racist stuff is about" then do we also let him kill live animals on TV to just show how it's done, or ... Gratuitously broadcasting hate speech to 3 million fans on TV is hate speech. Carlson is not naive. In fact he'd probably be more offended to be called naive than to be called a white supremacist. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If such a section becomes warranted, I don't know at this point, we could certainly take a look at it again. I cannot comment on what he thinks, feels, or means inside. I don't even watch the guy. But it sounds like we are getting closer to agreeing rather than disagreeing. Perhaps we shelve this until it becomes more warranted. PackMecEng (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Anchors Should Be Separated from Program Hosts

There are only a few regular news anchors (e.g., Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith). The others—Hannity, et al.—host opinion shows or infotainment.

There are currently sections for "Program hosts" and for "Correspondents and substitute anchors." So, in effect, there is a section for substitute anchors, yet no section for anchors. I don't know all the people listed all that well, so I would hope someone might bubble up New Anchors from the list. Thanks! NjtoTX (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Streaming Media Providers

Fox News is also available on Hulu with live tv and DirecTV NOWLiamMcBride (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content

It seems like much of the content under the "Controversy" section's coverage about the Charlottesville rally is just reporting what commenters and guests on the network said. For example, "Fox News host Tucker Carlson also covered historical figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, Mohammed, Simon Bolivar and Plato, who owned slaves on his show, and said people who wanted to remove confederate monuments would want to remove statues of Abraham Lincoln next. Carlson also questioned whether it was a violation of the First Amendment for businesses to deny services to white supremacists. A guest on Tucker Carlson's show equated those who want to remove confederate monuments to "Weimar thugs" and the Taliban."

How is any of this encyclopedic or a "controversy"? It is just reporting what various guests and people said. There will be people who disagree with those positions of course, but the point of Wikipedia is not to document every single opinion said on a news and opinion network that someone disagrees with. Bias and false reports are controversies, these are not. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Biases and false reports aren't controversies either. Just things that happen. Potentially controversial things, but nothing more until someone actually disputes them. This section has a lot of pointless jibber-jabber about other things that happen to invoke feelings, but nobody's arguing. I imagine a fan of hot air on 24-hour news simply got so mad he forgot to check whether he was editing an encyclopedia before parroting these talking heads. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail now. The only way to know for sure is deleting what doesn't fit and seeing if it's restored by someone insisting utterances have to be here because an online source quoted them. That's how WP:V and WP:RS read to angry people, I've found. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree tit for tat news section reads like a play by play news report.....news spammers are not a good thing.--Moxy (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Carlson also questioned whether it was a violation of the First Amendment for businesses to deny services to white supremacists."

This seems like a Non sequitur. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically prevents Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech", it says nothing about businesses not affiliated with Congress.:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Our article Freedom of speech in the United States spells out an important omission in the United States Constitution: "The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government." Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The point of this article or Wikipedia is not to argue politics or argue with what Tucker Carlson said. There are plenty of forums for that. Marquis de Faux (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In interest of balance, there should be an addition to the third paragraph of the lede, after the bit regarding the point of view of critics (biased reporting, detrimental to the integrity of news). A Gallup poll shows that Fox News is viewed as the most objective source of news, so the critics' perspective is given too much weight. 24% of respondents, a plurality, named Fox News as the most objective source of news, while just 13% of respondents named CNN as most objective. Older Americans and conservatives named Fox News most often, while millennials and liberals chose CNN. Larger implications of the study in relation to partisan leanings, race, and education could go in the main article about media bias.

• http://news.gallup.com/poll/225755/americans-news-bias-name-neutral-source.aspx
• http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/who-do-americans-believe-is-the-most-objective-news-source/355232

Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I put the two sources at the end of the edit but the formatting didn't work I think. How do I add the sources properly? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Daniel Plainview:, the sources provided are only sources that demonstrate a proportion of the people surveyed think that Fox New is reliable. They do not demonstrate anything about the actual reliability or bias or otherwise address the lead paragraph. Asking to include them on the basis of "balance" actual would violate the core content policies on neutral point of view by providing a false balance. I hope this helps explain. 19:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone wants to suggest a trim, that's fine, but Fox News's actions during the white supremacist rally received extensive RS coverage and is highly notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Think It may be best to sum up all the sections full of headliner news move it to the main page on this topic this way we only have a couple of paragraphs here as an overview. I will try ro work on some sort of proposal. it's embarrassing to see this article use as an example of the worst of Wikipedia all the time the media.--Moxy (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support your suggestion, @Moxy:. @Marquis de Faux:, instead of removing all of the content regarding the Unite the Right Rally, would you be open to potentially adding it to a "criticism" section on the pages of the hosts? Given that both Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham are regularly criticized for their opinions, I don't know if it would even be notable for its own section, however. But I'm not entirely sure that any of this belongs on the Fox News main article, as the content really only cites three opinion hosts and guest commentators. The hard news division didn't receive any extensive criticism that I'm aware of, so it wouldn't make sense to have a section on the controversy on the "Fox News" main page. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, if it is worth mentioning at all, it should be on the History of Fox News page as a one sentence summary and not called a "controversy". It certainly should not be where it is right now. @Mr. Daniel Plainview:, would you agree with that solution? As you said, the hosts are regularly criticized for their opinions and I don't think this would belong on there either. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

History of Fox News is an absurd fork that should be deleted. The page is unreadable, pointless, and even if good solid content were taken from this page and added to the fork, nobody would bother to read or edit the fork again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Three opinion hosts? It cites Fox News' whole prime-time line-up, as well as the most influential morning show in the history of morning shows. 7 RS found Fox News' actions during the white supremacist march noteworthy enough to cover. It passes the WP:DUE test easily. The content should definitely be crossposted to the hosts' own Wikipedia pages, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

Responding to Marquis and Snoogans in the same comment. I don't know if I would put this on the History of Fox News page, either. I would think that would be more for seismic-type events like the sexual harassment scandals and organizational changes. Regardless I still don't see this as a "Fox News" controversy. Looking at it in more detail, source 184 cites Fox News hosts and a guest who all harshly criticized Trump's remarks, and source 185 cites two opinion hosts (Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity) and a guest. Nobody speaking on behalf of "Fox News" yet. Source 183 for the "alt-left" term doesn't specify an individual, but CBS reports that the term originates to Sean Hannity, yet another opinion commentator [7]. The phrase "Several of Trump's comments at the press conference mirrored those appearing earlier on Fox News" is an argument, not necessarily a fact, and isn't really controversial anyhow. If Trump gets ideas from watching Fox News and critics don't like that, that's a TRUMP controversy, not a Fox News controversy. The entire next paragraph cites Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham (both opinion commentators) and Pete Hegseth, a Fox News contributor. The final third paragraph cites an argument from a Fox News rival, CNN, and names the same opinion commentators listed above (Carlson, Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Dana Perino). Notably absent from this entire section are any hard news journalists at Fox News. This is not a Fox News controversy, but if one is so inclined, I think one could make an argument to add a line or two about criticism directed at Carlson, Ingraham, et. al on their respective articles. In the meantime while we decide what to do with all this content, the section title should be changed to "Unite the Right Rally" as that's the title of the main article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The "arguments" you refer to are "reporting by reliable sources". Fox News is not just "hard news journalists". If Fox News runs snuff videos and porn on its prime-time opinion shows, and receives extensive RS coverage over it, this Wikipedia article shouldn't cover it because the "hard news reporters" at Fox News played no role in the snuff videos and porn? This is absurd. You are essentially saying that nothing belongs (regardless of RS coverage) on the Fox News Wikipedia page unless it has to do with the "hard news" part of Fox News. It's just an arbitrary opinion of yours that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure about the Wired article. It really sounds like an editorial column to me, not a hard news piece. I could be mistaken though. Do we have any documentation discussing how to treat Wired? I think we're on the same page here in that Fox News in fact is not just hard news journalists. The entire prime time lineup is opinion journalism, as is "The Five" program. The sources are critical of specific opinion commentators of Fox News, not "Fox News." These people just say whatever is on their mind! That's why they have to be very careful that news chyrons read things like "TUCKER: IMMIGRATION IS OUT OF CONTROL" or "HANNITY: ROSENSTEIN MUST BE FIRED" to properly attribute it to the person, not Fox News. You might remember Judge Andrew Napolitano's suspension after saying this: "Fox News has spoken to intelligence community members who believe that surveillance did occur, that it was done by British intelligence." Shepard Smith, a Fox News hard news journalist later said "Fox News cannot confirm the judge’s commentary."[8] Napolitano was suspended for speaking on behalf of Fox News, which was not confirmed information. That's the difference. I certainly don't view my explanation as arbitrary, but I hope that crystallizes what Marquis and I are saying. Let me know if this makes a bit more sense now. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, an RS reporting something doesn't make it ENCYCLOPEDIC content or a CONTROVERSY. Even if it is noteworthy, the entire paragraph that was just reporting what various commentators on Fox said needs to be removed, and the rest of it moved either to history or Trump administration section. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry am running late.....will try summaries this weekend. Will move all the editorial news quotes etc.... to main page. Hard to keep up with news spamming....it's Wikipedia'a biggest problem as of late. Shit news articles like this are embracing.--Moxy (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

False claims about Facebook

An editor removed[9] Fox News' promotion of false claims about Facebook. The content was reliably sourced, and was even so impactful as to lead numerous GOP congressmen to devote questions at the Zuckerberg hearing to nonsense related to Fox News' coverage. Other sources, such as the NY Times, note that Diamond and Silk's claims about Facebook were "heavily covered" on Fox.[10] The editor who removed it said that CNN could not be used as a RS, because CNN is Fox's "competitor", which is absurd. The editor also linked to a NPR article that did not contradict any of the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Snoogans, feel free to ping me for discussions about edits that I made. I don't bite! As I said in my edit summary, we can't put in every shot that competitors take at each other in their respective articles. CNN has said a whole bunch of awful stuff about Fox News, and Fox News has said a whole bunch of mean stuff about CNN. The Diamond and Silk Facebook Banning Controversy doesn't deserve an entire section in the Fox News article based on a lone CNN piece. It's like Aston Martin putting out a press release that Bentley actually isn't as luxurious as they claim it is, so we'll add that to the Bentley article under "False claims about luxury status". It's not in dispute that Fox and other conservative-leaning outlets covered the controversy extensively. The NPR source that I linked states the following:

"The CEO told lawmakers that any efforts to limit the duo's reach was an "enforcement error" on the part of the Facebook team but did not detail what Facebook had done — or why."

CNN's Oliver Darcy claims that the page wasn't taken down, however Mark Zuckerberg did not confirm or deny this claim. The NPR cites the statement that an "enforcement error" took place. What was this mistaken "enforcement"? This is unclear, and the CNN ignores the statement altogether. Conservative online news magazine The Daily Caller reports that Facebook regrets banning Diamond and Silk: "http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/10/diamond-and-silk-facebook-ban/". Time sources the sisters' statement saying that they suffered reduced engagement on their page before receiving the enforcement error message from Facebook and the mistaken communication that their content is unsafe.[11] Until sourcing on this topic becomes more clear and extends past one rival news outlet, we should hold off adding this to the article, and then have a discussion if/when the sources agree. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a RS. There is absolutely nothing in either the Time piece or the NPR piece that contradicts the CNN article. You have bizarre understanding of RS policy. You not only frequently cite ludicrously unreliable sources but you're now arguing that actual reliable media outlets can't be RS on matters related to Fox News because they are competitors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say leave it out. A whole section cited to a single piece that reads like an op-ed while ignoring Facebook's own comment citing a enforcement error. Comes off as fringy and POV. PackMecEng (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make things personal. I didn't insult you, and I ask that you maintain civility and extend the same courtesy that I try to have when speaking to others. Why do you not believe Daily Caller to be a reliable source? The statement has been reported in many other publications, so the point is a bit moot. That source was just one of the first to come up in a Google search. Also, of course competitors can be used as reliable sources for statements made about fellow news organizations. Otherwise where would we go for information about those sources? But if all we have is one source for the content, and that source is CNN? Well that's just not enough for me. If you can find more editors that support the inclusion of your proposed content, I may support an RFC. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

An interesting phenomenon related to The Daily Caller. Often it has been used as an example of the lack of reliability of Fox as a source. The response it that it’s not part of Fox News coverage, but just an opinion/talk show, and Fox’s reliability should not be rated by such shows. But then, people attempt to use it as an RS. Really can’t have it both ways. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm I can't speak for other people obviously but that doesn't really add up. Fox News is reliable because of its editorial process, fact-checking, and commitment to correcting stories whe necessary. Daily Caller has the same standards and regularly breaks exclusive stories, and has a conservative opinion division, much like Fox. Daily Caller has a fact-checking site that was recently welcomed into the International Fact-Checking Network to help platforms like Google and Facebook identify fake news stories.[12] Fox's prime-time opinion lineup should not be used as sourcing here on Wikipedia since those people don't report the news, just as Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell don't report the news. WP:BIASED is pretty clear on this, but I see no reason to declare TDC unreliable. Getting back to the topic, the deleted content still has no business being in this article in my opinion. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Fox's Daily Caller is going to fact-check Google? Pun not intended, but sounds like the fox guarding the henhouse. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

for entertainment purposes only

New to this part of Wikipedia. Hi. Shouldn't it be clearly mentioned on the first/main FOX News Channel article (in Wikipedia) that as of (April?) 2018, in the U.S., they are now required to show a disclaimer stating that FNC is for entertainment purposes only with a link to articles on that? That way when someone looks it up on Wikipedia they can clearly see it and click on the link easily. I'm new to this and not exactly sure of how it all works.

Matters to Know (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It works by finding reliable sources: WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Matters to Know. How it all works . . . well: (1) When you have a new suggestion, please post it at the foot of the relevant talk page. And title it. (I have done this for you.) (2) You say "they are now required to show a disclaimer stating that FNC is for entertainment purposes only". What's your reliable, independent source for this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, what's the alternative purpose(s)? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Programming on Fox Network =

May someone add a mention on the lack of programs Fox News produces for the Fox Broadcast Network? Some suggestions that could be added include the fact that the only program they produce for the Fox Network is Fox News Sunday. They also occasionally interrupt programming during a major event or a crisis breaking news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:CA88:900:88C5:5D65:B58E:FE6B (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Levitsky and Ziblatt

One editor removed[13] text on Harvard University political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's claim that Fox News played a key role in the emergence of hyperpartisanship in US politics and erosion of democratic norms. The editor claimed that the text is "undue". The text is obviously not undue. The text is of long-term encyclopedic value. Levitsky and Ziblatt are leading experts on democracy. This is precisely the kind of content that this Wikipedia article should capture. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What was the content/text? Linking a diff is generally better than linking a source. Another study shows that Congressional partisanship has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years. Hard to pin that spiral on a channel from 1996, but not impossible with the right phrasing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's the text. Note you don't say Fox News played a key role, but is only part of a right-wing media ecosystem that merely contributed. Perhaps this is more due at Conservatism in the United States. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also note your source here is about dinosaur bones, not Fox News. Your source for the removed text mentions neither dinosaurs nor Fox nor the rest. Maybe another page? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between hyperpartisanship/democratic erosion and partisanship/polarization. Pages 155-156 are the ones I meant to cite. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Google says I can't see 156-160. 155 says FNC commentators said Democrats lacked patriotism post 9/11, which should already be unsurprising enough to readers who've learned FNC commentatary is pro-Republican. I'd like to take your word on 156 saying what you say it does, but there's an old saying (in Texas, maybe) about not getting fooled thrice and another about dinosaur bones testing good faith. Can you share an exact quote? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A quote about a key role in emergence, I mean. I know I have the other two twisted. And I'm fine with that if you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have an EPUB ebook, so my page numbers are not the same as on Google Books or in the hardback. But here are some quotes (if it's too long and violates copyright, please remove parts of it from the talk page). Note that these quotes don't have full context, so it leaves out that Ziblatt and Levitsky put a lot of emphasis on the notion that ideological extremism and believing your opponents are traitors are crucial elements in hyperpartisanship and democratic erosion. The last two quotes are on pages 155-156 on the Google Books version:

• “This was particularly true on the Republican side, where the emergence of Fox News and influential radio talk-show personalities—what political commentator David Frum calls the “conservative entertainment complex”—radicalized conservative voters, to the benefit of ideologically extreme candidates.”
• “To his great credit, President Bush did not question the patriotism of his Democratic rivals, even when anti-Muslim hysteria in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks created an opportunity to do so. But Fox News commentators and influential radio talk-show hosts used the moment to imply that Democrats lacked patriotism.”
• “The 2008 presidential election was a watershed moment in partisan intolerance. Through the right-wing media ecosystem—including Fox News, America’s most-watched cable news channel—Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was cast as Marxist, anti-American, and secretly Muslim. The campaign even featured a sustained effort to link Obama to “terrorists” like Bill Ayers, a Chicago-area professor who had been active in the Weather Underground in the early 1970s (Ayers had hosted a gathering for Obama in 1995 as he prepared his Illinois state Senate bid). The Fox News program Hannity & Colmes discussed the Ayers story in at least sixty-one different episodes during the 2008 campaign. But what was especially troubling about the 2008 campaign is that the right-wing media’s rhetoric of intolerance was picked up by leading Republican politicians.” Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To me, it seems to credit the entire right-wing machine in the 2008 election as doing the notable thing, insofar as (hyper)partisanship goes. It does note Fox played a part, but not apparently the lion's share. So I still think this obversation is more due at a more general article. It could apply equally to every right-leaning outlet in the country, so seems a bit conspicuous only here. I'll leave others to weigh in further, now that the source is clear to all. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The authors do specifically mention Fox News and that it's America’s most-watched cable news channel. It's not a random aside, it's to emphasize the important role Fox News played. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Fox is the machine's top cable outlet, no doubt. My problem's more with whether cable television is as big a part of the media ecosystem as cable television would would have us believe. Radio and print media are only "dead" relative to their former glory, but still quite persuasive in sheer numbers, and the Internet makes even cable look like a bus station pamphleteer. The book itself seems focused on the bigger picture, as did your addition here, so I think I'd have to see something indicating FNC is more influential than the other outlets combined before I see the same importance and relevance you do. That's not to say I'll revert you if you want to readd it, though. I'll just mildly feel you shouldn't have. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions of language that could sooth your worries? Or would it be sufficient to add other similar sources that emphasize FNC's role in hyperpartisanship and democratic erosion? I'm pretty sure I've seen more... this is something that political scientists have covered a lot in recent years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Different sources can always make me think different things about different wordings. If you're genuinely concerned about my worries (and it's fine if you're not), you'll just stop trying to bend, twist and squeeze this idea into a narrow subchannel. I could rest easier seeing it fit comfortably at any of many political history or science articles about two-party systems rather than plugged into a business article about cable shows. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just want to note that the editor who made the revert, User:Dkspartan1835, has not even bothered to comment here on talk in the three months since the revert. I say just restore the text since it's encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

identify news division

Jon Stewart believed Fox News's viewers did not realize that there is a difference between the "news" and "opinion" programs and, even if they do, cannot tell them apart. I think it would be good to identify the news vs. opinion programs and hosts. Fox News has a list of employees, but puts everyone in a single list entitled "Personalities". The ones so far I've identified as news division are:

• Bret Baier
• Bill Hemmer
• Ed Henry
• Sandra Smith
• Shepard Smith
• Chris Wallace

The opinion hosts include:

• Tucker Carlson
• Steve Doocy
• Ainsley Earhardt
• Kimberly Guilfoyle
• Greg Gutfeld
• Sean Hannity
• Pete Hegseth
• Abby Huntsman
• Laura Ingraham
• Brian Kilmeade
• Tomi Lahren
• Jillian Mele
• Dana Perino
• Rob Schmitt
• Jesse Watters
• Juan Williams

I don't know if some do double-duty. E.g., Sandra Smith is in multiple shows. At least one is news division, but I don't know about her other.

Also worth mentioning is that Fox News produces more opinion shows than news-division shows.

Mdnahas (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We'd really need RS to help clarify who is opinion and who is straight news, and I'm not even sure such a divide is always clear-cut for these people. So, there are major hurdles to any such re-organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what Jon Stewart has to do with this. But, can’t it be argued that it is Fox that blurs the line between news and opinion? Folks at WP:RSN often claim Tucker Carlson is RS. Yesterday he said that Mexico was more responsible for US election interference than Russia. In any case, we can only report what RS report and itemizing such a list would seem impossible given our reliance on RS. O3000 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Front-paged Criticism vs. Backpaged on CNN

The controversies and criticisms of Fox News are listed directly on the main page for Fox News, in excessive detail that is even labeled as such by a warning banner, but the equivalent section for CNN is minimized by being shunted off to its own individual page. Either frontpage the criticisms of both, or marginalize the criticisms of both. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

They're not equal in this regard. Fox takes more shit than CNN does, devotes a good chunk of its own airtime to portraying itself as a victim of "the liberal media" and basically just asks for more. Controversy is a defining feature here, and a mere aspect there. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That's flatly untrue. CNN is repeatedly flogged by the President of the United States and has even been refused questions and kicked out of press conferences by members of his administration. CNN takes FAR more criticism than Fox does, devotes segments and interviews to Jim Acosta talking about his abuse at Press Conferences by the President, and this has been the case since Trump got elected. Criticism of CNN is a major issue in the current political climate, much moreso than Fox. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That's been about two years, from one guy, based on the sole issue of how CNN covers his presidency. It isn't nothing, but it's not long enough, varied enough or widespread enough to solidify the public perception like it has for Fox since the beginning. Anyway, both articles are different in many ways, reflecting many ways the channels are different; they were never meant to be the same, and there's never been a good reason to treat them the same. Unless you have one, I don't think I can get behind your idea. But I won't stand in your way, either. Good luck. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That may be a criticism of the administration. I don't see how it is a criticism of CNN. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No it's not "one guy." That's the President of the United States, including essentially everyone in his administration. On top of that, there's Fox News that hates them, the O'Keefe investigations, the entire Russia Today network which says their investigating of Russia is false and hates their guts (look it up), Wikileaks, getting booed out of rallies (look it up), the of dislikes CNN's videos on Russia collusion and related topics get on Youtube, and the huge number of "fake news" comments and chants they receive. To the point that, as I said, they repeatedly run stories and interviews to point out their victimhood, primarily with Jim Acosta. You seem unaware of all of this. An objective reference source isn't about whether or not someone who hates Fox and loves CNN can "get behind" criticism of CNN. It's about accurately representing criticism of both. Either front page the criticism of CNN, or marginalize the criticism of Fox by moving it off to its own section. Both or neither. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What I'm not behind is forcing either into the other's stylistic format, as if Fox is just the red-tinted mirror version of CNN, and is subject to some online perversion of the equal time rule. I've absolutely no objection to ragging on CNN where ragging's due, and am personally aware that the collusion storyline is a waste of time and effort for everyone involved (or at least unduly focused on shady Russian influence over public Canadian distortion). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to believe that CNN is not the "red-tinted" version of Fox. But there are also people who believe that CNN is worse than Fox, because Fox has had an adversarial relationship with the President in the past (Megyn Kelly etc). Both sides consist of very large groups of people and substantive arguments (the 2016 election and Trump's approval ratings show that). But people should be able to see the criticisms of both and determine for themselves what is actually valid. None of us are objective enough to exercise prior restraint in this regard. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What large groups of people think is not relevant. We use reliable, secondary sources. We have an entire article on CNN controversies as well as substantial criticism here. Any argument that we are exercising prior restraint makes no sense to me. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The argument was made that criticism of CNN should not be frontpaged because "it's just one guy." And wasn't long enough or varied enough to "solidify public perception." So mentioning large groups is part of a proper response to that. Also, as the topic line of this section states, the discussion is not about whether or not there is a criticism page on CNN, it is about whether the criticism of CNN should be on the main CNN page, as it is with Fox News. Keeping criticism of a subject to a far-less viewed area is a classic method of exercising prior restraint and giving undue weight to favored ideas. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have made a good case that CNN is the victim of a campaign by the administration, Russia, Fox, and O’Keefe. But, criticism sections, when they exist, are about documented criticisms by reliable sources, not YouTube dislikes, selectively edited videos by a political activist, a network funded by the Russian government, Fox (which claims all other sources are bad), and boos at Trump rallies. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim was that the criticism of CNN was from "one guy." That claim was answered, *directly*, with obvious evidence that it's multiple national governments, major television networks, independent investigators with very large audiences, AND Wikileaks. Which is without doing any additional actual searching. The response directly above is pure handwaving, simply refusing to change the page without even being able to list a good reason or counter-argument. The separate handling of the two pages is non-neutral and should be changed. I provided a suggestion as to how which will give an accurate impression of the criticisms Fox as well as the criticisms of CNN. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of that but it is very strange that all of Fox News's controversies are on the main article, and all of CNN's controversies are swept under a rug to a much-less viewed article. There should be consistency here. It's not a protected article, so feel free to start making changes. CNN's faux-dismay and playing the victim role for regularly reporting fake news, while getting very few viewers is certainly significant and should be in the lede of that article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"CNN's faux-dismay and playing the victim role for regularly reporting fake news" - please stop it with abusing Wikipedia talk pages with the WP:SOAPBOXing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea of "playing the victim" as a point was introduced previously by InedibleHulk as some type of justification for frontpaging criticism of Fox News, not the Jerry the Bellybutton Elf. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Where? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

First response, second sentence, sort of. The exact quote is a bit sloppy; I wrote Fox "devotes a good chunk of its own airtime to portraying itself as a victim". I think that's a fair reflection of Sean Hannity's April 17 opening monologue. Or his January 16 and March 23 whistle-blowing. If the channel's own star player chooses to lead with criticism and controversy about bias toward conservatism, Republicans and Trump, I think that's an admission of such things being fair game for our lead about the channel.

I didn't say all of CNN's criticism is from one guy, though. Was only talking about the one guy brought up in the complaint I responded to (Trump). There might also be some mild confusion in what 100 inferred I implied about tints. CNN is widely and wrongly perceived as the blue-tinted mirror version, though of course it's fine (even wise) to not think of it in any contrasting colour. The whole idea of a two-sided contest is a cooperative scam meant to encourage election of Democrats and Republicans, alternately and equally, in collectively-agreed opposition to third-party and no-party candidates. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Inedible, the substance of your reply seemed to be that the criticism of CNN was from one guy, and as you said, that means it wasn't long-term or expansive enough to justify inclusion. Which to me does imply that CNN's criticism is from one guy, since that's the basis of the argument. Note, I added an extra indentation to the above comments as it seems one was missing and it should make things easier to read. Re: Changes, I imagine (?) it would be easier to migrate the criticism page of CNN to the main page rather than create a new page for criticism of Fox. But that may not be the case. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

When it was a general question, I replied that Fox is shit on more than CNN is, implying CNN is shit on by some (vaguely implying more than one). When it became about Trump and his recent administration specificially, I called "one guy" like I saw it in context. When you (presuming you and 24 are the same physical being) switched the focus to RT's ire, you didn't see me telling you that group was one guy or that it wasn't clearly shitting on the relatively small but already established pile of shit CNN has built up through telling people things they don't want to hear and asking questions some find best left unanswered.

I've indented your reindentation, not as an online attack on your competence to reshape discussion, but as a show of good of faith in our common pursuit of the truth behind whether we don't both want the same things out of this meeting (deep down) or are just failing to communicate harder than a fake EMS truck. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump was brought up as a response to the idea that Fox takes more "shit" than CNN, Trump has shoveled more feces on CNN in the last two years than any person has publicly shoveled on any news source. Trump isn't the sole source of criticism (and would still be a notable source if he was). I assume though that we can agree that there are many sources of criticism of CNN, including official sources, national governments and journalists who have reached large audiences, and that there is a strong public perception (about half the population) that is critical of CNN. That's varied and noteworthy. I'm not sure what "indenting my re-indentation" means. The intent is to make these many comments easier to follow, since it can be difficult to recognize by eye the proper number of colons to use, not to reshape discussion or question anyone's competence. 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Shoveled harder than any one person on any one outlet, but not as much as the combined efforts of the anti-Fox crew. That's not because CNN sucks less, but because it's relatively uncharismatic, and people generally don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. When Trump's gone, its heat will fall back to normal, and it'd look weird in hindsight to see it presented as Fox's equal in controversy. Kind of like that weird point in history where Colby Covington was briefly portrayed as comparable to Conor McGregor. And like me assuming the MMA press bubble is representative of the wider world, you're assuming half of the US news audience represents a general strong public perception. We both need to take a step back from the TV and see the forest for the trees.

You did well adding and removing colons for the most part, but missed a few, and ended up directly underneath my comment, rather than a bit to the right. That's all I literally meant, and the rhetorical part was perhaps a tad foolish on my part. Wasn't knocking you, to be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm commenting on changes to the article's content, helping to build the encyclopedia. You're stalking me from page to page, disrupting discussions and attempting to right great wrongs, showing that you're not here to build the encyclopedia. Please stop the harassment. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to cast aspersions, WP:ANI is a proper place to discuss behavioral issues. —PaleoNeonate – 00:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he's crossed that line just yet but if he keeps doing this I will keep that in mind, thank you. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• It is odd that Fox and CNN report so much about each other source. As a Canadian it's very puzzling that's so much American news isn't focused on news but rather reporting opinions of other news agencies. In no way should one news source br use against another news source. really should be looking for academic analysis. Asking IP address for sources that they clearly know exist makes us sound bias off the bat.--Moxy (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Be happy you live in Canada. The US press was actually not unlike this in the early days of the Republic. It got better. But, these are strange days. This is not your father’s Walter Cronkite. O3000 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Our fathers were generally influenced by six different national journalists-turned-anchors during Cronkite's CBS run. Hard to draw an analogous allusory aphorism here. But no worries, we children raised on cable and satellite know what you mean more than your children know what we mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative facts about Denmark

In August 2018 Trish Regan aired with a lot of misinformation about Denmark. She started with Venezuela, claiming socialism will never work. She compared Venezuela to Denmark, indicating Denmark is a failed state where people only open cupcake restaurants. Her alternative facts have since been debunked by politicians, scientists and journalists. Denmark ranks better in the international comparison than the USA and is considered the least corrupt nation and ranked as one of the best nations to do business in. Denmark has lower unemployment than the USA, higher productivity according to OECD studies and are graduating faster than Americans. The statements by Trish Regan are considered falsehoods by the Danish ambassador in the USA, who published a list with actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albin Schmitt (talk • contribs)

Yes, but I think you have the wrong channel. I believe she's on the Fox Business Network, not the Fox News Network. Also, as dumb as the claims may be, it's a bit lengthy and could be more neurally worded. That is, we don't need to use terms like "alternative facts". O3000 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Albin Schmitt: I think that I should add that I don’t believe this is WP:DUE even on the article for the correct channel. If we added a section every time someone made an ignorant comment on TV, articles like this would become unreadable. You have added it to the Trish Regan article where it belongs because it’s a short article. I would suggest you revert your addition here in two days (as it’s currently protected for another problem), or request a revert here, or just post that you agree to a revert and I’ll request it. Alternatively, you could go to Talk on the Fox Business Network article (which I haven't read). But, I think it wold be considered UNDUE there.O3000 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Double negative

Double negative in section on Obama administration conflict: “According to the article, Anita Dunn claimed in an e-mail to have checked with colleagues who ‘deal with TV issues’ and had been told nobody was instructed to avoid Fox.” The claim was that everyone was instructed to avoid Fox. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits ) 03:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup o' Java (talk • contribs)

The current text appears to follow the source correctly. There are two claims here. O3000 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You're both wrong. The source says Dunn said her mysterious colleagues said they didn't tell anyone to avoid Fox. That's not the same as saying nobody or everyone was (or wasn't) told by somebody or anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Most-watched

Grayfell removed the Nielsen ratings comment citing poor source here. If it helps there are plenty of sources stating this fact The Hill, Fox, and Business Wire. Why not just update the sources for the non-controversial claim? PackMecEng (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A promotional claim like this should be supported by reliable, independent sources, and for the lede these sources should emphasize that this is a defining trait. Only one of those three sources you link are independent, (one is Fox News directly, and another is a press release from Fox News). If only the one source supported this, it probably wouldn't be a lede-worthy trait. I'm sure plenty of other sources mention this however, but figuring out how to contextualize this should be based on those sources, not Fox's public relations. Even if we replace the links, if we repeat the context provided by a bad source, we would still be using a bad source in the lede of an important article. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Hill says the streak is at 65 quarters (195 months), not 197 months. Not like a betting man wouldn't bet Fox won the last two months. But it's still technically not the same claim, so not technically uncontroversial. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent"

Is not "arbitary," as an editor asserts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&diff=856135197&oldid=856104848

It explains the rationale for the purported warning, which was previously not present, leaving readers to speculate as to a different rationale. The edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Arbitrary" wasn't quite the right word, I'm sorry. You had your reasons. But they're your reasons. Nothing in the source indicates the "cherrypicked" part was particularly noteworthy. Normally, the reporter does the picking from quotes obtained from newsworthy or otherwise relevant people. You can't work a reporter's job on the reporter, then present your own report based on what you found interesting or fit to print from what he said as reflective of a source's view. If we handed editors the journalistic power to pick and choose, the potential for complete ridiculousness would be staggering. So WP:OR applies to everyone who isn't a WP:RS equally. It's the only way to stop the madness.

Now if you wanted to paraphrase his work, that'd be legal as hell and I suggest you try it. Or if that's too hard, at least attribute this supposed explanation to Peter Nicholas in-line. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Judicial Watch

Soibangla I noticed you added this to the content section. Why does that deserve to be in the article at all and why at the top of the section? It reads like Judicial Watch screwed up on something they said on Fox so that is a Fox controversy? PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a screw-up. JW is absolutely notorious for this, then they go on FNC to amplify it, it gets picked up by the right-wing blogs and away we go, then Trump tweets it. This is a quintessential example of how Fox News has operated for many years. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Only one source in the whole addition even mentions fox (besides the Fox video), something that might be important for the Fox News article. That is the The Gateway Pundit and they do not make the connection that you do, they basically said it was reported on Fox. So again the text and sources do not make a clear connection that Fox news is the issue with this controversy. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Unite the Right

My attempt to remove this section was reverted. I wanted to remove it because it is just run-of-the-mill coverage of a short-term news story, WP:UNDUE here.; Snooganssnoogans objected, claiming defending white supremacists and feeding the president lines which he then parrots is notable and had a real impact. it clarifies for readers what this network is about, and how influential it is

I don't see that as a reason for including a separate section. That may be reason to mention it briefly in a section about Donald Trump (probably titled "Relationship with Donald Trump", which is really separate from their longterm GOP bias); other information (Trump's calls with Hannity, secondary coverage of how often Fox News lines appear in Trump tweets) would be far more useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I support the separation of pro-Trump and pro-Republican bias into two separate sub-sections, and I agree that this content belongs in the pro-Trump sub-section. I could support a condensed version of the rally text in that sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

Add under Journalistic ethical standards the following: For a conflict of interest to exist there needs to be a some kind of direct or indirect financial interest. There does not appear to be any financial conflict of interest in the fact that Cohen is Hannity's lawyer. Bill hunts (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Fox News

Why this article has an entire paragraph at the introduction with criticisms about Fox News, and there’s nothing similar in other articles, such as the one covering CNN? --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

CNN is WP:OTHERCONTENT. Search this page for FAQ and you will find links to past discussions on this subject as well as the current consensus. O3000 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019

Change "United States" to "American" in the opening statement because it makes Wikipedia appear bias when all of the other Wikipedia pages regarding American news begin with "X" News Agency is an "American" pay television news channel. The opening statement for Fox News should read as follows: Fox News (officially known as the Fox News Channel, commonly abbreviated to FNC) is an "American" pay television news channel...

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC 
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC 
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLN_(TV_network) 108.7.216.221 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way about this change (I certainly don't object to it) but I would like to know why you think the current wording has an appearance of bias? I really can't see where you think that arises. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Done I see nothing biased about US; but changed it as American sounds better O3000 (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Rain Water Runoff

I seen on the Fox news this morning about New Jersey wanting to tax rain water run off.This is not the only State that is pushing this.The state of penna. is also talking about taxing run off.The townships of Codorus and North Codorus are also talking about doing this.This is where I live.Just shedding some light on this subject to let people know about this subject.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:984:4100:FBFA:65D6:7DB2:FAF4:DE9D (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Strange citation

One of the two citations for "Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall" is to a book about Ethnomusicology, by an Ethnomusicologist who obviously has no professional expertise on american politics. If there's no objections, I'd remove that citation. - LilySophie (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

I asked for the word "conservative to be removed as below. It was. Thank you.

REMOVE the word "conservative" from the "...is an American pay television conservative news channel..." That or ADD the word "liberal" news channel to the following pages: CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, CBSNews, NBCNews, NPR, and the New York Times. RonLevitt (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: Very well sourced. The other articles are WP:OTHERCONTENT, and not relevant. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Same reason as stated by Objective3000 - FlightTime (open channel) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

web site starting in December 1995

The source used doesn´t say anywhere that it was created then, a new source needs to be put there 12.153.26.234 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Acquisition by The Walt Disney Company

Here is the news: https://www.foxnews.com/updates The Walt Disney Company owns Fox News now. Any objections to including this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The source you cite does not say it belongs to Disney: "21st Century Fox and The Walt Disney Corporation have completed a corporate transaction. As a result, FOX News is now part of the newly formed Fox Corporation."

The Fox Corporation was spun off from 21st Century Fox, and covers the assets which were not sold to Disney. Dimadick (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Disney owns ABC. It is illegal to own two of the four major news networks. Therefore, as a part of the deal, Fox News was spun out of the Disney purchase into its own company, Fox Corp. I believe it's traded, but still held mostly by the Murdoch family. O3000 (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla and User:SportingFlyer This link calls it a "merger" and an "acquisition", and it is sourced by Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-corporation-becomes-stand-alone-company-as-disney-deal-set-to-close --Diligens (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was an acquisition. But, Disney did not get all of it. Fox News was spun off into a separate company named Fox Corporation which is not owned by Disney. O3000 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that goes contrary to the very concepts of acquisition and merger. Do you have a source that says clearly what you are saying? --Diligens (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Spin offs are not uncommon is M&As. [14] O3000 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I found: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2019/03/20/what-the-disney-fox-deal-means-for-rupert-murdochs-fortune/#306a25bd312e and it looks like Murdoch owns a major share of Disney as well as the newly created Fox Corporation, not owned by Disney. Interesting that Murdoch now owns a major portion of Disney and Fox Corporation at the same time. --Diligens (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting as that may be, it doesn’t support your assertion that Disney owns Fox News. soibangla (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I know, I just wrote, "not owned by Disney".--Diligens (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It clearly says in the article, "Fox Sports and Fox Broadcasting join Fox News as assets that will help make up Fox Corporation — which is officially a stand-alone, publicly traded company." and [15] makes it clear the company is NOT owned by Disney. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that there's a fair amount of sourced info at Fox Corporation which should have cleared up any confusion before adding incorrect info to articles. This includes the name of the NASDAQ stocks. (Well not sure about the sourced bit but you can easily confirm the existence of the stock from the linked primary sources.) Also if the info was already in the article proper, then this is even more reason not to modify the lead with incorrect info. Remember the lead should always reflect what's in the article, so people should only be modifying the lead if the article is modified (whether by you at the same time, or someone before) or it's otherwise contradicting the info in the article proper. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The label "conservative" is so low and not professional

so anti-wikipedia. This site is becoming more and more leftist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:19b:214d:6824:1c16:cadd:38f9 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Recentism & omissions in article's scope

The article tends towards focus on 2012 and forward. However, it had been evident, some would argue, since at least Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed, 2004, that the channel was systematically biased towards Republican views well before then. So, the instances of misinformation and bias from prior to 2012 need attention.Dogru144 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Only if you intend to do the same thing in the CNN and MSNBC articles. WBcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The statement below is subjective. Not noticed on other news channels wiki pages

->Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations and conservative causes while slandering the Democratic Party and spreading harmful propaganda intended to negatively affect its members' electoral performances.[9][10][11][12] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[13][14] Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently<-

Above from page. Does not appear to be objective or in similar format to comments for to other news channel cnn. Wpow (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Some perceive a failure to overtly support their guy’s agenda as overtly supporting the other guy’s agenda. This is a logical fallacy. soibangla (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement is totally subjective and should be removed from the article. Can I get other people to support.

I completely agree. WBcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk) 01:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.30.84 (talk)

Fox News is labeled as "conservative," yet CNN and MSNBC appears neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.245.197 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Notable personalities

This whole section needs to be updated. Specifically, Lis Wiehl hasn't been on Fox News in a couple of years. She should be moved from the Regular guests and contributors section to the Former hosts and contributors section. I don't think Dennis Miller, Bernard Goldberg, or Dennis Kucinich have been on the channel for some time, either. I'm sure there are more. Quite frankly, couldn't that section be trimmed and maybe split into another article? 216.163.247.3 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

John Gibson, former host of "The Big Story" is not mentioned in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3AF0:7A00:FDF5:EF16:85F0:5C24 (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) See here. 216.163.247.3 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

"In order to give a more neutral and unbiased tone to the current statement, please CHANGE: Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party.... TO: Fox News has been described by Democrats, liberals and leftists, as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party... "

"In order to give a more neutral and unbiased tone to the current statement, please CHANGE: Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall. TO: "Those same critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall." Wokitoki (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done. Per WP:UNDUE, we do not need to enumerate all the reality-based sources which have identified Fox's issues with accuracy and balance. Guy (help!) 16:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The above comment by "Guy" is smug, arrogant, and condescending, and does not reflect the neutral-tone policy of Wikipedia. I agree with the edit request. Timber72 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Article needs to be cleaned up.

The article contains highly controversial statements in the opening paragraph about FOX News' perceived bias, they're support for Republican candidates, and accusations that they attack members of the Democrat Party and left-wing politics in general. Similar claims are routinely made about CNN and MSNBC for the other side, yet their pages do not show this information in the opening paragraph. All three articles should get the same scrutiny for their bias and politics, and this information probably should not be in the introductory paragraphs. Once this article is cleaned up, it should be locked from editing by anyone other than the Wikipedia team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.187.153 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. 2001:5B0:4BCB:5F48:91E8:1785:F035:3EEA (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Do I ever agree. WBcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wholly agree. The opposite is not said about MSNBC in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.91.30.232 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Completely and totally agree. Wikipedia embarrasses itself and renders it irrelevant. Timber72 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agreen with this change 192.148.197.11 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Buck Bigley 192.148.197.11 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) 13:10 ET 31 October, 2019

And Wikipedia wants me to donate money when they allow this kind of crap to exist. Until they clean this up I will not donate anymore. Mikenbridge (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are we using The New Yorker as a source to cite apparent bias on Fox News' Wikipedia page? The final paragraph of the lead should be restructured. As others have mentioned, there are other magazines that could claim the same for CNN or MSNBC. Curivity (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with those here like @Curivity: and @Mikenbridge: that the final paragraph of the opener should be restructured. It is not evenly applied that MSNBC, CNN, face nearly identical criticisms that Fox does yet they do not have those criticisms in their openers. OP made a very strong point. Edit5001 (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What other Wikipedia pages do is irrelevant. If you want to change those pages, go ahead and do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to make edits to rectify the problems you perceive. soibangla (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker, Media Matters, and/or VOX are not portraying the reported information in a neutral tone, as defined by Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines. I would attest most everyone here is against your argument in this regard, Snooganssnoogans. I suggest we attribute the claims in the final lead paragraph to their respective authors, or we do not include them at all. Curivity (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems there is consensus here on this issue. The final paragraph of the opener, or lead, is biased as determined here and does not follow neutral tone. I will be reverting the paragraph. If there is still a dispute, I will escalate the issue to the dispute board.

As stated on Wikipedia's section guide here, the section should be neutral in terms of point of view.

"The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."

The sources are biased to the left as noted on Adfontesmedia, here.Curivity (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead is required to summarize the body of the article. It is not a puff piece or hagiographic presentation. NPOV is clear that neither sources nor content must be neutral, as in "no bias". It is editors who must be neutral and accurately document the various biased POV in RS. Whitewashing is not allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

By your standard, BullRangifer, which is incorrect as I quoted above for lead paragraphs, then CNN and MSNBC's pages should equally detail biases in reporting as done here with Fox. The problem is, when we edit those in, they are removed for not being neutral in tone as argued here. You can't have it both ways.Curivity (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Each article is different. WP:Other applies here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why on earth are there comments now in this old thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably because the issue was never resolved and people like myself continue to show up here and notice the same exact problems with the page that all those previously did. Edit5001 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, thank you for fighting the good fight. Wikipedia should never be biased but it seems like it's heading that way fast. This is sad and completely beneath the work of previous editors to establish the company as a place to go for facts presented in a neutral tone. The editors here that are reverting, intimidating, and pushing their own narratives are beneath the dignity this work requires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:CIVIL. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should never be biased" it should, and reflect the bias of reliable sources, that is what WP:NPOV is about. —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't understand the point I was making. The article is editorially biased by allowing only one viewpoint to form a narrative about the respective content. Simply search CNN and MSNBC, go in with an open mind, one not blinded by prejudice or your own personal biases, and you will see the problem. If you don't, go back and examine whether you really are hiding your personal biases. Curivity (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Biased article, lacks neutrality and substitutes opinions for facts.

Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations and conservative causes while slandering the Democratic Party and spreading harmful propaganda intended to negatively affect its members' electoral performances.[9][10][11][12] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[13][14] Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives."

This is not a factual paragraph. This is the writers opinion and entire paragraph needs to be re-written to present facts about the network.

5/6/2019 Walkerklw (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Walkerklw: please read the FAQ at the top of this page. clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is not factual and should be reverted from the talk page. [[User:kozak4512|kozak4512] (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.30.84 (talk)

I agree with Walkerklw Timber72 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an opinion article and should not be on here. Mikenbridge (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Curivity (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

You cannot place the adjective "conservative" in the opening description of the Fox News Channel without placing "liberal" in front of the same for CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Huffington Post... need I go on?

You are showing your liberal bias and ruining any semblance of credibility. Please correct. RonLevitt (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

This has been discussed many times, as you can see by using the Search Archives box at the top of this page. Also, what occures on other pages is WP:OTHERCONTENT and must be discussed on those article pages. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with RonLevitt. Furthermore, this change that violates POV was just added recently; the change itself requires consensus before adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with RonLevitt. Timber72 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

FAQ

The FAQ can be accessed from this talk page up above. It is the sixth box down from the top. It says:

Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information. WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.

and then

Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.

That should address the concerns of this revert by @MaximumIdeas:, which also violated active arbitration remedies. Volunteer Marek 21:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I am confused by your reference to the above. I agree with it. The lede does NOT mention a "major controversy", rather it takes a political position and mentions no controversy. Did not violate policy as far as I am aware; was past 24 hours, per the rules. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2019 (U TC)

Somehow you missed the "allegations of bias" part. And you violated the remedy by not engaging on talk. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I did engage on talk; I wrote "I concur with RonLevitt" on Sept 28 on Ron's complaint in which he and many other editors already noted the same thing as I. At any rate, please see how the FAQ section you quote here says a controversy should be mentioned in the lede, and yet the lede mentions no controversy; rather it takes a position on the controversy. Edit: Also, the lede does NOT mention allegations of bias, rather it declares that a political bias exists. I hope we can agree that this is in violation of the page's FAQ. :) MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not engagement that's an excuse to edit war. And your splitting semantic hairs here. Look. You've been reverted by three different editors. Obviously consensus is against you. Please stop the edit warring. Volunteer Marek 00:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think that this is a situation (comparable to eg. Evolution) where we should go with experts even if some readers might find their conclusions to be objectionable or offensive - casual discussions tend to have very divergent views about what left / right / conservative / liberal mean, while academic ones are more precise. (Comparable to the long-running objections to the academic definition of fascism as right-wing on Fascism.) And academic sources seem to almost unanimously describe Fox as taking a conservative point of view. --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. News media sources are much more likely to be partisan than academic ones. We should give analytical academic sources more weight. I added two. Guy (help!) 06:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

See here for a peer-reviewed academic study that found Fox News news reporting not to the right: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/120/4/1191/1926642/ Furthermore, the FAQ says controversy should be mentioned; to be in line with the FAQ for this page it needs to be changed. I hope we can all agree on that. MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

From the study you have linked:

"In Table III we list the estimates of cm, the adjusted ADA scores for media outlets. The ordering of the scores is largely consistent with conventional wisdom. For instance, the two most conservative outlets are the Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report, two outlets that are often called conservative (e.g., see Alterman [2003])"

In any case it is not our place to interpret academic studies, we should rely on secondary sources as per Wikipedia policy. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, if there is an overall academic consensus, it is not supported by the citations on the page; on the contrary, the body of the article notes the differing points of view about Fox, while the lede takes a position on the issue. MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Took a stab at making it in line with what the FAQ requires (discussing the controversy.) Note that the wording of simply calling it conservative outright was only added a month ago without discussion, and immediately received pushback on the talk page from many editors. We should make sure we have consensus for *that* add before labelling a self-described news station with an ideology. One other option would be to go back to the August stable version which follows the template on other news pages and does not mention where studies find them on the political spectrum. MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, you're carrying out a drawn out edit war against multiple users and you're doing so by observing the letter but not the spirit of the 1RR restriction. That means you're heading for a block unless you stop. Before making any changes to the lede, please get consensus first. Volunteer Marek 02:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)