Talk:Fox News/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Fox News. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

POV taken out on NOV. 1

I took out the chicken shack comment because it was an amatuer mistake, but I thought I should detail why I took out the DUI section under the alleged bias. The story itself was broken by a Fox affiliate, and not Fox news itself. Hope this clears that up.

Suggestions:

Put it in an article about that station or FOX affiliates.
Expand Wikipedias coverage of broadcast affiliates. We don't have them round here and I don't understand how they work. Doesn't FOX News still have to monitor affiliate output to protect its brand? Can affiliates be expelled from FOX's affiliate programme for misbehaving?

Tim Ivorson 08:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--> Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron broke the DUI story nationally. (10 November 2004 JansSport)

Breaking a national news story (however leaked by the Democrats) is never misbehaving. It doesn't matter if they disagree with the final outcome, they're still more concerned with money and viewers than their propoganda.--TheGrza 17:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Bush brought that on himself. (I had the BGH story in mind as misbehaving). However, I am still in the dark regarding the relation of FNC to "its affiliates." Tim Ivorson 21:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The relation is strenuous at best. There are 179 affiliates and NEWSCORP (which is as close to Fox News as you can get) only owns 34. It also doesn't own the one in Maine which broke the drunk story. As for the BGH (I didn't know about that one until you told me) I think it's a valuable peice of information that if anyone knows enough about (I clearly don't) they should put it in there. I might do some research tonight on the topic myself. As for the influence after that, I don't know how much influence is usually exerted or whether or not it comes in as much now after all the trials and publicity. Maybe the BGH trials allowed the Maine station to take down Bush for the drinking.
TheGrza 01:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Comment

In the view of opinion columnist Ann Coulter the three misperceptions were "deceptive," based on "liberal talking points," and "designed to falsely portrary FOX News viewers as ignorant" was in the section discussing the misperceptions of FOX viewers. I took it out because the comment was supposedly to contrast a major study done with research principles with the opinion of a woman who has no facts to back up her assertions on the study. If anyone can find some actual facts to back up her assertions please put them in. If not, these two statements are clearly not equal in weight.
--TheGrza 03:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of the report are certainly on point. A major study done with bogus assumptions still has bogus assumptions. Coulter is a major commentator and defender of FOX News, and this report should not simply be quoted with no rebuttal. Very Verily 03:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TheGrza is right. That's all there is to it. But VV will revert and revert, preferring bullying to civilized discourse. It was bullying from VV that led me to more or less give up on editing. The right has been so successful at bullying people into silence by claiming to be a victimized minority. I'm tired of the lies about right-wing victimhood. The right controls a good portion of the so-called mainstream media, as well as the congress, the senate, and the White House. How long before liberals start fighting back against hypocritical bullies like VV? If this election taught anything to those of us on the left -- it's that it's really time to start bullying back. 68.1.174.46 03:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is really on topic. Very Verily 03:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter defends her position that the "misconceptions" are not 100% false in the eighth through the tenth paragraphs of the linked article. Also, I think rebuttals are fair game if they are directly relevant to FOX News, which the Coulter article is. To rebut the PIPA study by saying "some think the director of PIPA is a sanctimonious left-wing twit" would not work because information about the organization's politics belong on its article, but to cite Coulter's opinion on the study is certainly permissible. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, stupid NPOV rule, it's prevented me from using the term "sanctimonious left-wing twit" on some very worthy subjects (PIPA and FAIR come to mind). Very Verily 05:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aguing about whether or not there should be a rebuttal, I think there should be. There should not be a rebuttal from someone who would disagree with (almost [added]) anything that goes against FOX news (regardless of fact[removed]). Perhaps there is a statement to be made about the disagreement with the three points without involving someone like Coulter, and even using another study to point out how this one is wrong. The website you pointed to also is just another biased treatment on the issue. Please try to find an unbiased source to rebut the article or challenge it's validity. --TheGrza 06:01, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

This is ad hominem. Either her defense is legitimate, or it is not. Whether she "would" disagree or not with anything is immaterial; all that matters is whether she offered valid criticism in this actual case. I feel her critiques are legitimate, and so does Rdsmith4 above. There doesn't need to be a whole other study to point out the flaws in this study, either; just noting problems with its methodology is adequate, and this is what Coulter does. At any rate, I'd rather have a flawed or incomplete rebuttal than no rebuttal at all, even if it's a stop-gap while you find something better (if you do). Also, you should not mark content changes as "minor edits", and should generally try to avoid reintroducing typos and the like. Very Verily 06:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--> It most definitely is an "ad hominem". Just a quick question, TheGrza: If Ann Coulter states something that is true on its face, does the fact that she is the messenger immediately discredit this truth? If Coulter says, "Today's sky is blue," and today's sky IS blue, does the fact that she's the one saying it make the sky red? 10 Nov 2004 (DJ)

-->No, it doesn't and that's a fine point. My point is that the evidence she cites in the...wait for it...OP/ED piece is the argument, not the fact that she disputes it. I don't care who disputes it, that means nothing. The point I was making is that the arguments should be in the article instead of just putting her name in. Also, the evidence cited should be backed up with more fact then she mustered in her piece, which assumed two points were true (and making an ad hominem attack on the democrats for the third). These facts are not to the par of the study itself. It has flaws, yes, and I pointed them out. But she has nothing to do with those flaws. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 05:35, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The typo that you refer to had nothing to do with the section of the article I changed or was reverting. It existed before and after I arrived at this article. As for the "minor edit" complaint, I do sincerely apologize. I have been making many minor edits lately I think I just did it out of force of habit.

As for the rest of your comment, my argument was not an ad hominem attack and to accuse me of such a thing while I have been completely civil is ridiculous. I was only suggesting that she was clearly not in any way in the spirit of NPOV and that her specific defense was not legitimate. To suggest that, for instance, the meeting in Prague took place contrary to CIA findings simply because liberals criticize the CIA and a single Judge found a link does not establish anything. Also, her own ad hominem attacks on NPR listeners or suggesting that liberals say that Halliburton had a link with Osama bin Laden degade any useful information she adds. Because she had a point has nothing to do with how she arrived at such a place and her defense of such a position is weak. I was simply suggesting that there are more valid and reputable critics than the far right, namely the facts on the issue. Wikipedia also isn't about balancing points of view, it's about eradicating them as best as they can. The points that they bring up are hurt and the tenuous existence of NPOV on this article is threatened by such an appearance. I put the actual argument into the article, instead of adding that one person or another disagreed with the findings. There are many "reputable columnists" (a completely meaningless term) who disagree with a lot of things but their opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. Next time, try to put in fact, not opinion. --TheGrza 07:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) (sorry I was editing and adding to my comment)

I was not accusing you being uncivil, as in making an ad hominem attack on me. Rather, my claim is that saying that because Coulter is a rabid right-winger who would defend FOX at any cost (uh, allegedly) that therefore her arguments should not be considered, is ad hominem (referring to the person Coulter instead of what she is saying). Wanted to clear that up. I'll look at the rest now. Very Verily 07:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're missing that the fact/opinion divide is not the operative one here. We enforce NPOV by saying, "Some assert X, but critics of this view assert Y." Whether these are opinions or not is immaterial, they could be disputed facts. Anyway, better yet than this is to name and cite critics, which is what is done here. You may not have been around for when I first put that rebuttal in in July, but I was more vague then, and it was other editors who insisted on simply referring to Coulter instead of "critics such as Coulter". The fact is, for better or for worse she is a prominent critic, just as Chomsky is and gets his inane opinions splashed all over Wikipedia articles. Very Verily 07:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand the fact opinion divide, and the use of differing voices in developing a NPOV article. I also realize that not all positions are equal and were I to say something and Ann Coulter to say something, she would get more precedence here because of her stature as a national columnist. But she is in no way an impartial observer, nor does she pretend to be. I feel that PIPA is somewhat un-biased and I think whatever you feel about PIPA they are LESS biased than Coulter making their two statements unequal in terms of validity. The facts in this case should speak for themselves rather then having one more impartial observer (and I know the "impartiality" of poll is somewhat suspect, but c'mon, they're more impartial then Ann Coulter!) and one less. As for Chomsky, he should also not be in these articles. It's silly to say that because of one case of unfairness we should have two. Take out Chomsky, Take out Coulter. Take out Zinn and Limbaugh too. Don't include one to spite the other because there is no way that's NPOV and lets agree to put FACTS into the articles instead of opinions. --TheGrza 08:09, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, Ann Coulter's comment does merit inclusion. It is relevant and the more information, the better. Wikipedia shouldn't express an opinion on the weight that her view deserves, but readers can hardly be confused about what she stands for. (I expect Coulter to say this sort of thing regardless of whether it is true, because it appears consistent with her agenda. However, if Noam Chomsky had said it, that would be very interesting, not because he is more important, but because he doesn't usually say this sort of thing. I expect that readers will take a similar view, but it might be a good idea to mention in this article that she is a neo-conservative, or whatever the hell she is, just in case readers confuse her with Noam Chomsky).

On the other hand, I believe that Coulter is crazy and dishonest, but to say that without attributing it to anybody would hardly be NPOV (though if the general public, or someone important, thought that she is crazy and dishonest, that might be worth saying). Also, if her comment is being included because of who she is, then ad hominem attacks seem appropriate. If the opinions themselves are interesting, regardless of whether she held them, then she doesn't need to be mentioned. (I think that, even if the opinions are interesting in their own right, details of public figures who made high-profile voicings of them would be interesting). Tim Ivorson 10:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not cover other peoples' opinions. If an opinion is relevant to the subject of the article, and is attributed to someone else notably, that it is (I repeat) fair game, and is in fact desirable. I don't think we need to worry about her being confused with Noam Chomsky. Coulter's political preference (while obvious from the statements she makes) belongs on her article, as do criticisms of her that are not directly relevant to FOX News. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 13:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that NPOV does not cover other people's opinions. Tim Ivorson 16:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If PIPA's credibility can be taken up on a Fox News page (rather than on PIPA's page), then so can Ann Coulter's. Let's stop capitulating to the right. 68.1.174.46 22:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PIPA's credibility cannot and should not be taken up on the FOX News page, and it only is now in the context of Ann Coulter's comment, which is just as relevant to FOX as the PIPA study. Criticism of Ann Coulter is (I repeat) not relevant to FOX News. I protest your implied accusation that anyone who wants to keep Coulter's comment speaks from "the right" - I, for one, am interested only in creating a neutral but comprehensive article, not debating with people for the sake of debate. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I was pretty sure that the job I did of taking out the specific person and instead inserting the specific argument was something that was pretty much in the spirit of NPOV. I also see no agreement here as to whether or not the comment should be kept. I'm reverting it back to the way it was where the ideas were paramount instead of the critic.--TheGrza 06:57, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

If there's no agreement, then that's an indication that some compromise is needed. I don't see why we can't include some of each version. They both add interesting information (if true). Tim Ivorson 11:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To include only the criticism and not the critic is not in the spirit of NPOV, where attribution is everything. "Many conservative critics" is terribly vague. Criticism of PIPA is only relevant to FOX News because of Ann Coulter's column, which recieved a lot of attention at the time. Consequently it is necessary to include her name and a link to her column. I've attempted a compromise, leaving the majority of your text and adding "such as Ann Coulter." Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 13:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'm ok with that.--[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 18:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

POV removed 0100 Nov. 9, 2004

198.109.220.6 put in a lot of nice things that I had to delete for their complete and utterly blatant POV. However, 198.109.220.6 made a comment about Brit Hume admitting bias on Fox News. I deleted it because I couldn't find anything to back it up, but if anyone knows what 198.109.220.6 is talking about, put it back in. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 01:04, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Too much criticism

All the page on Fox News is a blast-fest. In almost every paragraph, reports of FN being 'conservative-based' and 'distorting the facts', although these are absent in it's competitors pages, namely NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.

This page needs a re-write. Too much criticism. Just because it's the only network without a liberal view doesn't mean liberals have the right to attack it here.

-- If you actually read the entry, you'll see that each and every criticism describes an instance of biased or distorted presentation of facts laid out as facts. Such behaviour surely deserves to be recorded here because it is an egregious breach of journalistic ethics, and is as such noteworthy. Therefore I don't think you need to show a specific "right" to be able to record it, though maybe your invocation of rights-language is rhetorical. Moreover, bias is bad in of itself so the criticism is hardly "just because it's the only network without a liberal view"

If you can dredge up cases of other news channels deploying opinions as facts, that would be good. --- Dan W

-- Even so, you must admit the other networks don't have a blast-fest as much as this one. Why does FOX need over 10 paragraphs stating of "Allegations of Bias"? Do you see CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC with one? I certainly don't, and I see no purpose of there being such a section.

If you haven't noticed that the name FOX News inspires heated commentary around it's supposed bias, and some by major independent sources, then you have been living in some strange hole-type vortex. Those who talk about FOX News in any context will have to talk about the bias issue, and so do we. I agree with Dan W, if you can find a specific example of some "left-leaning media bias" I urge you to add it to their page. However, this section is clearly relevant to FOX news. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 03:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

-- Then maybe it's time I start allegations of bias pages for CNN and the others.

Feel free. I personally think CNN has a slight bias toward the right, so maybe you actually have something there. crazyeddie 19:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My removal

I removed "It markets itself as a uniquely neutral news source, using the mottos "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide."". If we aren't going to have allegations of bias in the lead, neither should we have their marketing. Compare to New York Times' lead section. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good edit. I should have removed it. --Doctorcherokee 05:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that

It markets itself as a uniquely neutral news source, using the mottos "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide," but has been variously accused of right-wing, conservative and Republican bias.

should be included because it's the kind of thing that might help readers to understand FOX News and distinguish it from other channels. All of the most important points should be mentioned in the lead section. Tim Ivorson 21:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it's not consistent with our articles on other media sources. As a stylistic matter, I think it's best to leave the opening uncluttered; but if you'd rather have mentions of bias in the lead, I suppose we could look at other prominent bias-accused papers (New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Post, etc) and adjust them. I, however, prefer the simpler lead, while letting the body speak for itself. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Conservatives accuse the NYT as being biased, and liberals accuse Fox as being biased. Liberals view the NYT as fair, and conservatives view Fox as fair. The allegations of bias section is sufficient, in my opinion. I actually think it's too long, but if it's based on studies, polls, etc. (and most of it is), then it's not as big of a deal. --Doctorcherokee 00:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would make sense for somebody to say that FOX News is biased in favour of his point of view. If all of the people who say that FOX News is not biased have some controversial belief in common then that is evidence that FOX News is biased in favour of that belief. Tim Ivorson 15:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All news sources are biased. What makes FOX News different is that it appears to be less sophisticated. I think that this makes FOX News less dangerous than its competitors, but also that this makes it easier to criticise. Allegations of bias against FOX News are so widespread that they deserve to be mentioned in the lead section. Allegations of bias against other news organisations should be that widespread and should be mentioned in Wikipedia if they are. (I believe that bias is only a real problem if it is dishonest. There would be no point in accusing FOX News of a bias that it was open about. The perfect news organisation would still be biased). Tim Ivorson 15:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These "so widespread" allegations of bias are found where? Left-leaning news sources? It's very difficult to claim with a reasonable doubt that the allegations of bias vis-a-vis Fox News are any more widespread than, say, NYT or some other left-leaning news organization. I have absolutely no problem with a thorough section detailing all the allegations, but there's no point in flagging it as to imply that it's perceived by everybody as biased and as somehow less valid than supposedly more balanced news sources like CNN and the NYT. I don't believe that's true, by far. --Doctorcherokee 02:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amen!TDC 05:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, left-leaning means left of the mainstream. I believe that it is a mainstream view that FOX News is dishonest. Here in the UK, the only people that I know of who won't ridicule FOX News work for Rupert Murdoch. The news I get from the US is fairly scathing about FNC too. [1] [2] [3] Where are all of the people who think that it's a real news channel? Tim Ivorson 11:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll be honest in that I can't speak to the general sentiment in the UK.

I have to admit that I am by no means an expert on the media of the US. I haven't even visited the US. I only know anything about it at all because I couldn't really follow British current affairs without finding out a little about US politics and Rupert Murdoch.

We'd probably both agree that the UK is generally more liberal than the US.

I often find myself confused by American use of liberal and conservative. I try to get by without using them in discussions with Americans. The UK seems to me to be a little to the left of the US. The media of the UK seems to me to be a lot to the left of the media of the US. (I wouldn't go as far as to say that either country has good news. As a libertarian, I find even the most flattering media portrayals of left and right on both sides of the pond quite unattractive. Systematic authoritarian bias everywhere annoys me a bit).

Anyway, you've cited two hacking-related websites and fair.org, a left-leaning media watchdog organization. So, yes, it is a mainstream liberal view to view Fox News as biased.

Perhaps it's a right-wing view that it's a left-wing view that FOX News is dishonest. Don't all of the left-wingers, right-wingers and others form a real American mainstream? Are you saying that such a mainstream doesn't view FOX News as dishonest? (I would be interested to hear about current affairs reporting, other than FOX News, that you would describe as conservative which could be conveniently experienced in the UK. I listen to the ones that I mentioned, and other leftist/libertarian programmes, because they can be downloaded in a useful format. I read Bill O'Reilly's column and have listened to KSCO's MP3 stream of his radio show, but I find him unconvincing, apart from his overstated criticisms of the rest of the "elite media" and the Democrat party).

I'm not saying Fox News isn't biased, by the way. In fact, EVERY news organization is biased somehow. The fact that Fox News is probably the least liberal news source is hard to deny. Does least liberal or most conservative necessarily mean right of center? No.

I wouldn't dream of accusing FOX News of being right-wing. Bias is inevitable, as you say, and therefore it seems to me that FOX News is behaving entirely reasonably if it is a right-wing news broadcaster.

I don't believe it's fair to peg it as some sort of wacko, right-wing mouthpiece when you've got CNN, the NYT, etc. who are, in my opinion, way left of center. They don't get nearly the same objective scrutiny. --Doctorcherokee 23:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CNN and the NYT may be left-wing, but I would expect the real left to call them dishonest, just like it calls FOX News dishonest. Tim Ivorson 14:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as someone on the left, I must demur. CNN is not "way left of center." At most, it is center-left or soft left. And even then, it depends on the issue. Yeah, CNN is likely to favor the pro-choice rather than pro-life angle. But like most news organizations, CNN loved the Iraq War during the lead-up to that war, since it meant huge ratings. You'd have to have been deaf and blind not to notice the patriotic graphics and drum-beating theme music. Frankly, CNN's true bias is for ratings. Despise CNN, sure -- I do -- but not for being "way left of center." 70.181.48.112 02:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

War with BBC?

Am I being paranoid, or is there a nasty campaign by Fox against the BBC for being biased? Look at the following (factually incorrect) diatribe from the Fox archives about BBC hosting a "Question Time" special prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The report strongly implies that show's panel was filled with nothing more than anti-war liberals (Michael Moore, et al). [4] The actual panel was far more balanced than suggested. It included Bush's speech writer David Frum and Richard Littlejohn (Outspoken right-of-center, pro-war British Journalist who works for the Murdoch empire). [5] Ade Myers

That sounds like business as usual to me. The BBC is a competitor to News Corp, which owns FOX News. Tim Ivorson 22:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fox isn't the only one. There is a widespread perception among American conservatives that the BBC is anti-American - somewhat akin to the perception among American liberals that FOX is overly pro-American. — Dan 02:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was aware that CNN was calling British anti-war protesters anti-American [6] (when, of course, it meant anti-the-American-government). Regardless of the truth, if the big US news broadcasters were enthusiastically pro-government, but didn't accuse the BBC of anti-Americanism, then the BBC's American audience might get the impression that they are just cheerleaders for the government. Tim Ivorson 12:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I don't mind Fox News being biased. Its the hypocrisy of describing themselves as “fair and balanced” that annoys me and that they have the audacity to attack an internationally respected organisation like the BBC. --Ade myers 19:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of Fox News (separate entry)

The content of the "Allegations of bias" section have been moved to a separate article Criticisms of Fox News (originally called Fox News Bias), but the link there from this article was reverted after about thirty minutes. This leaves an orphan article, which is now in Votes for Deletion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticisms of Fox News. I place this notice here so that people who have edited that section can voice their opinion on whether the subject is best dealt with in a separate article; if not then the new article should be deleted and the subject of bias should continue to be dealt with in the main article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question of bias is fundamental to any discussion of Fox News. Fox News itself keeps the question on the table. That said, I agree that this section is too long and too querulous (even though I also agree with most of what it has to say). So this section should be made shorter and more neutral. If you want another article to discuss bias at length, I recommend the more general topic of bias in American television news. Of course Fox could have its own section in that article. --Greg Kuperberg 13:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of people's (and Wikipedia's) bandwidth, I believe there should be a separate page for the allegations of bias. I by no means say we should exclude it, just it seems to me that it is too big in size. Also, I like Greg's suggestion above. A much-needed neutral article for FNC, plus a general bias of American media. --MrMiscellanious 4:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fox News in Canada

I added more information about the Fox News situation in Canada. I don't think people have all the facts needed to form an opinion on any perceived political nature of the situation.--Ben 00:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outfoxed Link

The revert of the "Conservative Bias" change was necessary, but the Outfoxed link should stay. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 03:55, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Why exactly? I understand a see-also link to Outfoxed, which should include an external link to the documentary's website, but external links on this article should be limited to those directly relevant to FOX News. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The film is specifically about FOX News and it's relevant to the page as seen in the oft-argued about bias section. --User:TheGrza 04:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Trying to fix some accidental section deletions

A recent edit seems to have resulted in the deletion of most of the Personalities section and 'all of the Allegations of Bias section. I've performed one revert and one restore, but I'm sorry I think I may have lost some intermediate edits. If you have added material today and I have inadvertently deleted it, my apologies. I have tried to restore what I could but tehe deletions were pretty radical so it's too difficult for me to deal with by myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Gibson: Propaganda master

Just a suggestion, but John Gibson's recent comments were over the top, regarding how Karl Rove should get a medal for his alleged actions in the recent scandal, and especially the "This is why I think the Brits should have let the French host the Olympics..." in regards to the London bombing. That's simply over the top and has to be mentioned somewhere in this article and not merely in his own personal article, as Cavuto's apologist stance for Bush was documented. Just my suggestion.

Viewership

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Well this is my fourth attempt to try to get this note. Footnote #2 does not support the statement for which it is cited. This website does, and should replace #2 http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=2&media=7. Thank you Biccat (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. For those who haven't looked, the current Footnote No. 2 is from 2004, and is being cited as a source for which network has the most audience currently. Urzatron (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it outdated, but the link (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214) doesn't even reference viewership, but is a survey of journalist perceptions. Could be a formatting issue that got mixed in.Biccat (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Biccat's point is well taken and the citation should be changed. Also, I think the most recent debate has died down and maybe unprotection is in order. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for unprotection would be more helpful? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That, or Stifle's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected; edit as needed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right-wing"

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

Someone keeps on removing "right-wing" from the section about the slant that critics have accused FOX News of having at first claiming that it was redundant or unnecessary. I don't think it is, since neither "conservative" or "republican" are exactly the same as "right-wing" something that FOX has been called (and I even added a reference to it, but the main entry that goes with that section describes these criticisms in more detail). Now I've been reverted again with a dictionary.com link in the edit summary. Please explain what the problem seems to be. These words are not redundant or synonymous and "right-wing" is something that Fox News has been called. I see no reason for removing it. Please also see the main entry Fox News Channel controversies and the relevant Wikipedia entry on right-wing politics.PelleSmith (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN have been accused as being left-wing, should we change that on those pages as well? Also according to dictionary.com, conservative and right-wing are synonymous[7][8]--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline about "other crap exists" also applies to "other crap doesn't exist." Please do go to those entries and have a field day, but that has nothing to do with this one. Did you look at the main entry for that section or the "right-wing" entry? We all know that "right-wing" is a term used to describe certain types of "conservatives" but it is also not something used to describe all conservatives or all members of the republican party. I'm afraid dictionary.com does not end a dispute simply because it states what we know ... that "right-wing" is a phrase used to describe certain conservatives. The phrase is cited. You should merge the entries for "right-wing" and for "conservative" if you truly think they are simply synonymous and then maybe you have some ground to stand on.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because some people use the words "right-wing conservative" does not mean they are gramatically correct either. It's like saying a person is "a conservative that leans right", it's not necessary. Why add in another word that means the same thing? We get the point.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Although each word has different connotations globally, I think there is an important distinction here. "Conservative" is often understood to mean an association with conservative economic principles. "Right wing", at least in the U.S., is more often associated with the socio-conservative Republican party. In my opinion, the "social conservative" and the "economic conservative" movements came together in what we now refer to as the "right wing" in the U.S.. I don't know if this is helpful in discourse, though I will say that I personally think that "right-wing" more embodies the allegations made. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "right-wing" is much closer to the criticisms being made than simply "conservative" and if one of the two words needs to go its the latter and not the former. The two do not simply "mean the same thing." There are plenty fiscal conservatives that would never be considered "right-wing." I think we should change it to say "right-wing conservative or republican." Mitch can you please answer two rather simple questions here. 1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong? 2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms? It is not quite right to say "why add another word" when this word is pretty apropos to the subject matter at hand (criticisms of Fox in terms of political slant) and when the word was already here, and the matter is one of you removing it, not someone else adding it.PelleSmith (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to get involved here, but I decided to google left-wing conservative and right-wing liberal. Seems they don't necessarily entail one another, but are definitely synonymous. --Ubiq (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to get this serious. The only thing I was concerned with was getting too wordy here, nothing more. We could go on and on saying Fox News has been accused of having a socially conservative, fiscally conservative, neoconservative, economically liberal (which is embraced by american conservatives), christian right, right-wing, rightist, right-leaning, and liberal conservative bias or we could just keep it at a bias favoring Conservatives or Republicans.

For your 2 questions-

1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong?-- No because political conservatism is an ideology while right-wing refers to a place on the political spectrum. Often when many people use the term right-wing, they actually mean radically rightist or far right. It's the same for many people who use the term left-wing as well. Right-wing is like an umbrella term that refers to the entire right side of the political spectrum. There is no reason to put right-wing in with conservatism unless you are really trying to think of a nice way of saying far right which is basically facism which Fox News simply does not advocate.

2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms?-- If you are refering to the very begining of the article where it says "Critics and some observers of the channel accuse it of political bias towards the political right" I think the language is correct. In fact I think we should change the sentence we are arguing about to "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality." Would you agree?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but I want to point a out a couple of important things here. As you explain yourself in point one "conservative" and "right-wing" are not the same, and given your explanation it should be clear that the accusation of a "right-wing" bias is more extreme than simply a "conservative bias." Removing "right-wing," again given your own explanation, therefore seems like toning down the criticism in a way that is out of sync with the reality of this criticism. Also, the idea that "Fox News simply does not advocate," something or other is moot in this particular section which is not about what they advocate at all, but about what critics claim. To your first point, above your answers, I would say that whatever your intentions were, this explanation is a bit of a straw-man argument. No one was advocating using hundreds of descriptors--only three were present in the text and only one was being haggled over. That said I think your compromise is fine with both wikilinks: "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is more than one strawman and at least one logically false argument made by LuckyMitch. That being said, I do think that the proposed version is fine... let's just avoid the false absolutes and strawmen arguments. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: conservative and right-wing are different. Proof: G.W.B. is right-wing. G.W.B. is definitely not a conservative. Many republicans that I have spoken to have echoed this assessment. extreme right wingers tend to be neoconservatives, like G.W.B. and most of his appointees, and traditional conservatives agree that neoconservativism is quite far from traditional conservative values. I've heard people even go so far as to say they're considering voting democratic because some democrats are more conservative than right-wingers currently in office. right-wing is generally held to be synomymous w/republican, but conservative and right-wing are not synonymous. Kevin Baas^talk 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although the definitions of right wing and conservative overlap quite a bit, they are not exactly the same. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

what term do the sources say. Do they say "Conservative," "Right Wing," or both? Bytebear (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. The "sources," a good number of which can be seen on Fox News Channel controversies use all three of these descriptors. "Right-wing" is commonly used within these, however, in case that's what you were wondering. The reason why I preferred what was there originally before Mitch altered it was because all three are used in the sources--"conservative," "right-wing" and "Republican." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OP, you are wrong. Right-wing denotes extremist conservative views, i.e. on the fringe. All conservatives, though liberals believe otherwise, are not extremists.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)