Talk:Fox News/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Bias

Pew released a new study which pointed out the FNC is viewed as the most ideological news source between FNC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC. They also report that the others are viewed as more liberal than conservative and that MSNBC is viewed also as more liberal than conservative or neither. I don't have a problem stating the facts, but it is a little disengenious to simply point out the conservative feelings towards FNC without also stating liberal feelings towards the others. Comments on how to present the information in the most neutral form? Arzel (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the analysis is detailed enough to be helpful. What does "viewed by Americans in more ideological terms" mean? It is probably better to wait for a source that analyzes the various polls. And it would be incorrect to discuss the other networks individually because that would belong in their own articles. Here is a link to the Pew article: [1] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, I have no problem changing the second link to a more neutral source, there are dozens analyzing the same data. I do have a problem with the way you were personally twisting the data to conform to what seems like your own WP:POV. Specifically these two added lines:

• "CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all were viewed "more liberal" compared to "more conservative"

This seems to try to twist the data into making it seem as if all of those networks are viewed as 'liberal networks', when the poll[2] seems to indicate otherwise. ABC has a 36% 'Neither' rating and a 32% 'liberal' rating, to go along with a 14% 'conservative' rating. So a plurality view ABC as neutral, while you can take the numbers from either side and say 'most of America believes ABC is either liberal/conservative to neutral. The same goes with all of the other networks. Fox News is the only network listed that has one ideology a higher number than the other two combined. CNN and MSNBC are the only networks that has a higher 'liberal' rating than it has a 'neither' rating. Still, in both cases the combined numbers of 'neither' and 'conservative' outweigh the 'liberal' number. Now to the other claim that is inappropriate according to the data:

• "MSNBC being an opposite of Fox with 36% saying "mostly liberal", 27% saying "neither in particular, and 11% saying "mostly conservative"

While MSNBC does have a high liberal rating(36%, most likely due to it's prime time lineup of liberal talk show hosts)it's not the highest. CNN has 37% and NBC also has 36%. It's not the 'opposite of Fox' according to the data. MSNBC's liberal rating is at 36%, Fox News has a 47% conservative rating, that's a 11% difference. It's not as if the numbers are even close and one could err on the side of rounding the numbers, the difference is 11%. Not to mention that a plurality of respondents(38%) do not believe MSNBC is a 'liberal' network.

If you would like to clean up the wording a bit, that's fine. But let's not twist the data to fit a certain WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the most neutral reporting on the study I have seen. It offers no opinion on the matter, but simply reports the main points of the study in a comparrison form. As a side note, this doesn't really belong in the bias section. The study makes no interpretation of bias. It should go into the ratings and perceptions.

Also, you are incorrect about the definition of plurality. A plurality is simply the majority of respondants. MSNBC and CNN both show a plurality of respondents that view those networds as "mostly liberal".

On a statistical note you need to be more careful about statistical interpretation. The difference between MSNBC, CNN, and Fox are much smaller than you would think. The study has a +/-3.5 points margin of error, thus the difference between FNC and MSNBC is not 11% (A difference of X% is also not the correct way to describe the difference), there is a 95% probability it could be anywhere between 4 and 17 points, but it is statistical significant. Similarily, the difference between CNN and FNC has a 95% probability of being anywhere between 3 and 16 points. Addtionally, both FNC and MSNBC are viewed as either conservative or liberal from a statistical point of view. FNC's plurality difference is 23 points (outside the 7 points margin of error), MSNBC is 9 points (also outside the 7 points). CNN is 4 points, which is inside the margin of error. All the others are also inside the margin of error. Thus the only statistical measures that could be drawn are that both FNC and MSNBC are viewed as either idologicaly conservative or liberal by a statistical plurality of respondents. No other deduction about plurality can be made.

Additionally, it can be said that FNC is statistically viewed as more conservative than all other news organizations in the study. As a final note, the study is somewhat questionable as it only included landline phones which account for only about 80% of all households as of May 2009. Arzel (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You can only use the text that is relevant to Fox, 'viz.': "Fox News Channel is considered to be more ideological than other TV news networks, according to the latest Pew Research Center weekly News Interest Index. According to its survey of 1,000 adults 18-plus, 47% think of Fox News as "mostly conservative," compared to 14% who say it is mostly liberal, and 24% who say it is not particularly one or the other nets...." And you cannot provide any analysis not provided in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting such, only giving a bit of statistical interpretation knowledge (force of habit given I have been doing statistical analysis for 10+ years). The source I linked was a good summary of the survey without a political bent. Additional, I do think it belongs in Ratings and Perspectives. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, you need to stop reverting my edit about the Pew poll. You have shown no viable reason to do so and your posts on this talk page, along with your previous edits are slanted and do not make any sense. This page isn't about MSNBC or CNN, it's about Fox News. Also, you are purposely slanting the statistics to fit your own agenda. The statistical error ratio could just as easily make Fox News seen more of a conservative network than less of one. The stats are OUTSIDE of the margins, so you have no valid point. If you insist on reverting my edits, I will contact an Administrator and report you. DD2K (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Report me then, I made minor changes and added additional information from the source. You are not even discussing the issue, simply reverting to your point of view. Not to mention this is NOT about bias, it is about perception. Arzel (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the second sentence in YOUR edit is not supported by the source. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to bring down the level of the conversation a little by saying; Arzel is a doody head. I heard he and Bill O'Rielly go out for falafel's every other Saturday.

No, but seriously folk, as Arzel is clearly on the salary roll of FNC, I regard any suggestion of his with the most extreme skeptisism. That said, the poll data does seem relevant. I think the only to avoid bias is simply to present the raw number and not try to translate those numbers into statements like "FNC is viewed as the most ideological news source ".NickCT (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I go out fo falafel on Saturdays, BOR uses his falafel on Saturdays, get it straight.  ;-) Couple of points. I still feel this should be in the reception section right below the other PEW research poll on basically the same thing. This poll doesn't try to make any implications about Bias. Arzel (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The entry definitely belongs in the Fox_News_Channel#Conservative_bias category. The poll has absolutely nothing to do with ratings, and I've pointed that out to you already. You try to keep claiming the sub category is 'Ratings and Perception', when it is 'Ratings and Reception'. There is no way the results of this poll belong there. Also, to claim that the poll makes no implications of bias is disingenuous, it goes straight to the perception of bias. When viewers view a NEWS channel as either 'liberal' or 'conservative', bias is automatically perceived. When viewers answer 'neither' is when there is no implication of bias. And the tag line of 'Fox is viewed as America's most ideological network comes straight from numerous news sources reporting on this poll. Also, claiming that my edit's "second sentence in YOUR edit is not supported by the source" is completely false. The second sentence is 100% backed up by the source and you claiming it isn't shows that you seem to have an obvious bias and are WP:POV pushing. DD2K (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So I read your complaint and looked at that link and all I can say is I have no idea what you're trying to promote here. Forty-seven (47%) of Americans say FNC is "mostly conservative;" a HUGE jump from the 14% who say that CBS and ABC (tied) are "mostly conservative." COMPARED to those who say what is "mostly liberal" CNN barely edges out MSNBC with 37 and 36% respectively. To point that out and make some weird conclusion about liberalism is beyond me. Don't push a conservative bias please as you have a history of doing. A8UDI 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom, leave in the NPOV link while this is under discussion. Also, leave out the ad-hominen attacks. You don't see me removing the one you put in regarding the WH attacking FNC and you have yet to even make a single comment about it. Have you even read the study? FNC, CNN, and MSNBC all have pluralities of responses showing the idological view of those stations. While FNC is viewed as the most idological of the three by the respondents, both MSNBC anc CNN are viewed by respondents to be idologically liberal. Additionally, all stations (other than FNC) are viewed as more liberally ideologicaly driven than conservatively driven.

DD2K, That sections is part of the controversies and accusations of conservative bias. This study is not an accusation of conservative bias, and from what I can tell it is not even a controversy. It does fall into the general ratings and reception of FNC though. Finally, the current edit is not supported by the source. The addition of the sub-categories is an attempt to minimize the difference between the conservative/liberal split of the other news organizations. You and Tom are bitching about POV, I am simply saying state the statistics and let the reader make up their own mind. You don't get to just pick and choose what results to present to try and frame the issue towards your singular point of view (ie FNC is biased) when it is clear from the study that MSNBC is viewed just as statistically significant liberally ideological. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What attacks? A8UDI 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, he says that stuff all the time. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are an admin, try acting like it. Arzel (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my capacity as admin, I was merely warning a fellow editor about the patters of another editor whose behavior has been problematic in the past. In that capacity I will also use this opportunity to urge you to abandon those problematic behaviors and, as you implore below, "Discuss the ISSUE". Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't need to read anything. I saw the chart and you're making weird claims. There's no bias, and I have an incredibly hard time to not do anything but suggest you are pushing for a conservative bias... and it's getting old. I'm not attacking what I know to be true, so don't play that card either. A8UDI 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You accuse me of pushing a POV multiple times, in fact that is all you seem to be able to do. Discuss the ISSUE, not the EDITOR. WP:AGF Arzel (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, you are making claims that are false and not backed up by the data or the sources. The Pew poll specifically states(on their OWN website) Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network. And you can keep claiming that MSNBC is "viewed just as statistically significant liberally ideological" all you want, but it's just not true using this poll as a source. As a matter of fact, this poll specifically cites Fox News as the only network that had more people identify it as one particular ideology than both other answers combined. And here is what they state about the other networks and MSNBC-

• Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%

So please, quit making false statements and trying to twist the data in this particular poll to fit your own WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, Arzel, reword it if you don't like the wording but there is no POV. rolls eyes. A8UDI 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To all of the above. I started this section. I clearly stated I had no problem with the information being added. My primary concerns were that not only the view against FNC be presented to balance the section. I also didn't feel like this belonged within the Bias section but within the ratings and reception section since it is mostly about public perception NOT specific instances of Bias. Yet I am being attacked from all sides for supposed pushing a POV, and frankly I am getting a little sick of it. Discuss the issues leave the ad-hominens out of it. Arzel (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, there is no requirement to continue assuming good faith when there is compelling evidence to the contrary. I think my thoughts on your agenda are clear, and are quite well supported by a reading of your past statements and actions. It is quite probable that others are also coming to the same conclusion based on your recent attempts to (mis)characterize this study to fit your stated POV. I've remained silent in this discussion, but at this point I'd recommend the rest of us move away from arguing with POV warriors and towards finding a proper consensus of the best way to incorporate the study into the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you lost all good faith after you recent malicious attempt to get me blocked. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, you got spanked because you repeatedly misstate policy, ignore consensus, and bend over backwards to service your conservative ideology. This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of probably at least a dozen editors over the last few years. Indeed, you can't even honestly present a history of what happened -- I made no request to get you "blocked", I simply pointed out your inappropriate activities on ANI and asked someone else to look into it. Just because I call you out for your inane bullshit doesn't mean I'm operating in bad faith, it means that I'm not afraid to push back on you when you act inappropriately. I've given you several years to re-align yourself with policy and fact to no avail; make no mistake about it, when I request a formal action against you it will be in the form of a topic ban based on the points raised above. Until then, it is my sincerest hope that you have a "come to jesus" moment and realize that when this many editors raise objections to your blatantly biased approach to editing that perhaps the problem isn't with the other editors. I don't believe you're here in good faith, and I don't see productive value in continuing to debate bad faith points with you in the path towards consensus. WP:RBI in effect. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I second Blaxthos's recommendation. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, can any of you work with anyone that does not share your personal ideological point of view? Arzel (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I third Blaxthos's recommendation --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel - Stop POV pushing, and you may find people more willing to work with you. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, other than DD2K's recent edit (which I can live with really), I'm happy with the recent version. Soxwon (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I really wanted to put back all of the text you changed, but I thought my edit could be seen as a compromise. Really, the results of the poll should be noted about Fox News, but if some insist on adding the results of the other networks on the Fox News page there should be some kind of context involved. I can live with the new entry too. I really rather have a reasonable compromise than keep going back and forth about it. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following all the ins and outs of this conversation but I came here to note that the wording in the bias section seems a little goofy. If the objective is to demonstrate an honest conmparison of how Fox is viewed in light of how other networks are viewed then demonstrating the other stats is a good idea, but adding together the % of liberal and neutral doesn't seem to add to the objective and isn't as neutrally presented as the actual article which does not present the information that way. Peace & happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempted Censorship by the Obama Administration

Okay, let's discuss this. My edit of the title "2009 White House critisism of FOXNews" to "2009 White House critisism and attempted censorship of FOXNews" was reverted because "I was taking one side over the other. What do you call it when a single member of the White House press pool is singled out and told they will ot have access to a press conference? When said Administration had said for more than a week beforehand that it didn't consider the credentialed reporters part of a "news network" because they didn't like the words of the commentators on the network and even issued veiled threts about how other networks shouldn't follow the network's stories? When ALL OTHER NETWORKS stood up (to their credit) in a classic "all for one and one for all" moment? I'm not taking a side, I'm stating a fact. This was an attempt at censorship and every other network saw it, freaked out because they knew they could be next, and they all pulled together.Rapier1 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The White House has denied that this is the sequence of events, therefore it is not proper to favor one account over the other. Soxwon (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if true the White House actions do not amount to censorship as it is normally defined. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, both the White House and the other four news agencies stated that the FNC description of circumstances and events is wholly inaccurate. If your edit was intended to equivocate one view or the other (as it certainly appears to do, as does your commentary here), I direct you towards the neutral point of view policy. If your POV is based on a singular understanding and presentation of events (presumably the "facts" from FNC), I direct you towards some other sources that may present you with a more balanced viewpoint. Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I like what was put in there and will add sourced detail when I have timeRapier1 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

news v entertainment

There are credentialed members of the press from FOX News. They report on the news virtually all day until commentary shows take over in prime time. They are a news network. Rapier1 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they have a press corps doesn't automatically mean the assertion is exempt from challenge. Either we must mention the fact that there are substantial challenges to that moniker, or we must avoid using language that asserts one view over another. I'm fine with either using the neutral and correct "television channel", or with noting that significant critics have challenged the assertion that they are primarily a news channel. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They may highly editorialize the way they present the news (and, indeed, what news they present), but it is a news channel. Any study of television news in the United States would undoubtedly cover CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, in addition to the news operations of the broadcast networks. Significant criticisms can continue to be addressed elsewhere in the lede and in the body of the article, including any reliably sourced criticisms of the objectivity of the news gathering and reporting at Fox News. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of such, or mine, or that of anyone else is pretty much irrelevant. There are plenty of reliable sources through which we can verify that there are challenges of that primary designator by notable critics. As I said, I'm perfectly okay with using the "news" designator in the intro given that we also acknowledge that the point is contested; it sounds like you (J) are equally amenable to addressing that criticism elsewhere in the intro. However, if we are intentionally avoiding mentioning that contention in the introduction, than we should choose neutral language that avoids making a categorical statement of fact on that subject. I'll leave it up to the group to hash out which is more appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this is even debatable. They are a news network. Not only are they a news network, they are part of the White House Press Pool, therefore are as much of a news network as CNN, NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News. Arzel (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:Fringe to me. Bytebear (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, my statement clearly addresses why their press status doesn't equate to a blanket statement that "they are a news channel". This is clearly challenged by notable critics -- repeating "they are a news channel" ad infinitum doesn't speak to the issue, and isn't a rationale for shunting the criticism. Bytebear, how many reliable sources do you think it takes before you can no longer assert WP:FRINGE? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Blax, while I certainly think you're correct in asserting that there is major sentiment out there regarding FNC blurring the lines between journalism and entertainment, I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on this one. Granting the overt spin and bias, I don't think many would argue that FNC doesn't report on current events. FNC also obviously has reporters, anchors, commentators etc. Given this is the case, I think we can make the "looks like a duck, quacks like a..." arguement. What definition of a "news network" do you not think FNC meets? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a big difference between (1) noting a corporate entity ("television station") that has a news bureau; and (2) making the blanket statement that they are a "news network". Many, many notable critics (like, for example, the President of the United States) have taken issue with the assertion that they are primarily a "news organization", and many reliable sources (such as NPR, USA Today, etc.) have made note of that critical distinction. If we're going with the "looks like a duck" test,that blade cuts both ways -- there is ample evidence of both (1) unethical behavior, and (2) flagrant bias... both of which are incompatible with a "news organization" (which necessarily means an impartial presentation of news). In the end, I don't think we should make the call either way -- I tried to assert the neutral "television channel" which carries no connotation at all. However, if editors insist that we make a blanket statement that they are a "news organization", then we absolutely must also note that the assertion of that blanket categorization is significantly challenged by many notable critics. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) noting a corporate entity ("television station") that has a news bureau; and (2) making the blanket statement that they are a "news network". Agreed. (1) unethical behavior, and (2) flagrant bias... both of which are incompatible with a "news organization" Disagree. I've never read a defination of "news network" that states it must be free from unethical behavior and bias. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick, there is a very well codified and understood standard of Journalism ethics and standards that defines what constitutes a "news organization", and how that differs from an editorial or opinion organization. Journalistic ethics is of heavy emphasis in journalism college coursework and at serious news organizations, and encompass truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. If we're going to throw out "news organization" as the primary descriptor of FNC, we absolutely must note that there is much contention regarding FNC's embodiment of those journalistic standards. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's comforting to know that we can always depend on ol' Blax to discover whose ox is being considered for goring. This is the same user who has argued tirelessly, passionately, and thus far successfully, that Keith Olbermann's primary job description shoud be ... get ready for this ... news anchorman! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

( Nick, there is a very well codified and understood standard of Journalism ethics and standards that defines what constitutes a "news organization" )

This argument seems similar to saying that a Hipocratic oath defines what a doctor is, and further that any physician blatantly in breach of his/her Hipocratic oath is not really a doctor.

I think perhaps there is some point to be made there, but it seems as though your argument relies on a great number of dubious definitions and technicalities. I remain unconvinced. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While that indeed is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument Badminthonist, I also find the irony quite astounding. Soxwon (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see how some people might want to buy into the partisan attempt to censor a network that is successfully presenting a point of view that differs from many other media outlets during it's *commentary* shows (i.e. Beck and Hannity) - especially when the White House itself put the idea forth (I still wonder what people would have said had Bush tried that one), but how on Earth can a person assert that FOX News is *not* a news network, and still believe that MSNBC *is*? Sorry, epic fail on that argument right there. Rapier1 (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just ignore all the ad hominem bullshit espoused from Badmintonhist, the false dichotomy from SeanNovack/Rapier1, and the off-the-wall "otherstuff" assertion from Soxwon, and address only the numerous strawmen. I personally tried to go with the neutral language that avoided this discussion entirely, but let's be super clear here in that I am not asserting anything one way or the other -- be they a "news organization" or otherwise, you guys are missing the point entirely. If we make the blanket statement that FNC is a news organization, then the significant verifiable challenges to that designator must also be mentioned. If we go with a more neutral presentation (ie, a "television channel") then there is less of a reason to cover that challenge in the introduction. The two come part and parcel -- you can't present a contentious "fact" without also acknowledging that there are challenges to that assertion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "contentious 'fact'". Fox News Channel is a news organization. You may not like that fact, I may not like that fact, but it's still a fact. Rhetoric is one thing. Show me something from Pew or some other reliable source in the field of journalism that says "Fox News Channel is not a news channel" and we'll talk. Not political rhetoric, an actual reliable source in this field. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing what constitutes truth -- this isn't a self-evident "fact" as in "the sky is blue", this is a designation that has been challenged by notable critics. This challenge is plainly verifiable, and is not original research. The final remaining governing policy, WP:NPOV, mandates inclusion. Given that the criticism of the "news" designator is challenged by a Presidential administration and has been widely covered in plenty of reliable sources, I've yet to see anyone offer a content policy that justifies silencing that challenge. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my exact words for you: Show me something from Pew or some other reliable source in the field of journalism that says "Fox News Channel is not a news channel" and we'll talk. Last time I checked, that's asking for verifiability, not truth. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that "It's not a contentious 'fact'" implies that you believe it must be the truth. There are plenty of reliable sources that note many critics' challenges to FNC as a "news organization"; this talk page has previously linked articles ranging from NPR to USA Today; additionally the recent AFD surrounding the controversy listed somewhere around 40 sources covering Obama's criticsm alone. This isn't a singular event, as the criticism published by the USA Today article is from 2005. J, if you're honestly asking for sources to verify my assertions I will gladly take the time to link some, though it seems to me like you're trying to cherry pick sourcing to try and limit criticism; if you're going to go policy shopping once I take the time to re-link the sources that are easily obtainable by reading the archives or checking the Google, forgive me if I forgo expending the effort. Are you willing to accept said sources if they do indeed exist? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources from within the field of journalism? The sources I believe you're referring to are along the lines of "White House spokesman says..." That doesn't rise to the level of the lede (and certainly not the lede sentence), or else we'd be altering the lede here and at several other "news organization" articles every four or eight years. You need not allege "policy shopping," as the policies in question are pretty clear: wp:v, wp:rs, wp:npov, and wp:undue. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't know that any sources meeting your criterion have been presented that qualify Fox News as a "journalistic news organization", though Pew and others have certainly published academic studies that illustrate that FNC is far and away the most ideologically biased media organization (which only further illustrates my point that the "news" moniker is challenged). Fortunately for both of us, there is no requirement that criticism and challenges must only come from "within the field of journalism" (though those exist too!). It's getting hard to breathe in here with all the burning straw. I've actually addressed those policies each already, and showed how they actually require us to include both viewpoints. Again, I'm all for leaving it out entirely -- "television channel" or "media organization" are correct either way -- but if we insist on presenting them as an organization beholden to journalistic ethics, then we must also mention the critical challenges to that presentation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You should review wp:rs, in that case, since it clearly outlines the reasons why reliable sources with authority in a particular field are necessary, and also delineates sourcing a "statement of opinion" from a "statement of fact." The White House criticisms, however valid, are statements of opinion (political opinion, at that). They do not change the facts, however. If you have some proposal for including additional material in the article, you can make them here. Otherwise, I see no consensus for removing "news channel" from the lede sentence (or from further covering statements of opinion in the lede). user:J aka justen (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It says right on their website "FoxNews.com Fair & Balanced" which is prima facie evidence that it is a "journalistic news organization". If you disagree you must provide a reliable source that contradicts this. This same standards of course apply to all news organizations. Like eveyone else you are able to watch the Channel and form your own conclusions, but cannot put them into the article because it would be original research. If you want to include statements in the article that are critical of Fox News, you must use reliable sources. Comments by White House staff or items from other news organizations criticizing Fox's coverage of individual stories are inadequate. By the way the same applies to all news organizations. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To J, the opinion that FNC is news organization that adheres to journalistic ethics is challenged by plenty of notable organizations and individuals. WP:RS makes no requirement that opinions and controversy is only valid if it comes from certain sources. Nay, WP:NPOV clearly states that Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly and proportionately.

To TFD, I find it laughable that you've now twice made the assertion that "It says right on their website "FoxNews.com Fair & Balanced" which is prima facie evidence that it is a "journalistic news organization"". I will return later to point out all the logical fallacies involved in your statement, but suffice to say that I think you misunderstand the concepts contained in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) WP:RS says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed...."[3]. Also, "Self-published sources... may be used... [as] sources of information about their author"[4] and even "Organizations... that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe... may... be used as sources of information about those organisations...."[5] Ergo prima facie we can accept Fox's self-description in the absense of reliable sources stating otherwise. Incidentally I have got into arguments with people wanting to edit articles to state that the American president was born outside the US or his book was ghost-written, using the same arguments as yours. (PS - look up prima facie.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One, you're falling victim to petitio principii -- the essence of what you're saying is "it's true because they say it's true". It is the epitome of the bare assertion fallacy. Two, there are plenty of reliable sources that challenge that assertion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you do some digging into my contribution history you'll likely note why I find your assertion that I'm not familiar with legalese laughable.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If as you imply you are familiar with legal procedure you will be aware the courts generally do accept evidence that the other side does not challenge regardless of whether it is true, because they can only consider the evidence brought before them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to User:The Four Deuces, but I agree with User:Blaxthos that the petitio principii argument doesn't hold water. That being said, can we get back to the last concrete argument made here, by User:Blaxthos: that because some (any number) of critics challenge the "ethics" of Fox News Channel, that it somehow is not a news channel? Those are statements of opinion; unless and until the Associated Press or some other entity with authority in the journalism world says "we no longer consider Fox to be a reliable source of news," then this is nothing more than a section in the article. Source the fact that Fox News is not a "news channel" or you don't have a case, quite frankly. I'm going to let you all get back to your circular arguments from here, though, with the disclaimer that I don't see any consensus to change anything in the lede and no actual proposal to add anything to the article at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The main issues of contention regarding the supposed bias is already included within the controversies section, so I am not sure what additional statements are to be made. Clearly we are NOT in a position to state that FNC is NOT News. Furthermore the basic argument made by Blaxthos does not hold water. Historically, most press has been biased one way or the other, it has only been in the past few decades that this belief that the press should be objective has become the standard (not that there is anything wrong with that). However, even if the case made by Blaxthos was valid, this absurd argument that FNC is "...far and away the most ideologically biased..." is simply not backed up by any statistical facts. FNC was viewed as the MOST objective during the 2008 presidential election. FNC was viewed as the most (only) conservatively ideological network in an opinion poll, but that was not a scientific assertation that is actually true. Additionally, MSNBC and to a slightly lesser degree CNN were both viewed to have a liberal ideological position. Perhaps if Blaxthos had the same verocity towards removing the "News" tags from MSNBC I might have a more sympathetic view. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Justen, I am not using the petitio principii argument at all. I am merely saying that when no third-party reliable sources are available we would normally report what an organization says about itself. In this case it says it is a news source. So far Blaxthos has provided no reliable sources that contradict this. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TDF, no offense is intended persionally, but you obviously don't understand the concept of petitio principii -- even you should be able to recognize that the language you used is a verbatim example used in the bare assertion fallacy article. Which brings me full circle -- as I've previously explained, plenty of sources have been linked before, and I'm not going to go to the effort of digging them up and linking them for your amusement. I honestly don't believe that you'd be willing to concede the point under any circumstance; if WP:V were the only concern you'd have already done the google or bothered to read the archives and previously referenced locations. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you are missing the point of the syllogism. If I edited the Pig article to say that they could fly and sourced it to Fox News and you challenged it, I would have to provide evidence that Fox was a reliable source and could not use their website to prove it. If however I did prove they were RS you could provide better sources to show they do not fly. I am not stating that Fox News is a news organization, merely stating that you must provide sources that indicate it is not. PS - no offense taken! The Four Deuces (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No sir. What you said was "It says right on their website "FoxNews.com Fair & Balanced" which is prima facie evidence...". That is quite simply the most obvious argument based on the petitio principii bare assertion fallacy I've ever seen attempted. However, I don't think I'm going to convince of you of that truth any more than you're going to convince me that it is sound logic.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) I am not assuming that it is proven that Fox is a fair and balanced news station. There in fact is a difference between evidence and proof. I am merely saying that what they say about themselves is evidence and the onus is on you is to provide evidence that they are not. For some reason you are unwilling to provide any reliable sources whatsoever to support your claim, only original research to form a conclusion. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I need not provide evidence that they are or are not a news organization, because that point is a red herring -- what I need to do is provide reliable sources through which we can verify that there are notable critics who challenge that assertion. That I haven't done so already is clearly explained above; if I thought for a moment that by re-linking those sources would end the objections I would have done so immediately.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Media Bias and Fox News

We have discussed perceived media bias at Fox and here is an academic study from 2005 that evalutates bias for major US media, and is a reliable source for the article. The precis can be found here and the actual paper here. You can search for mention of this paper and other studies at Google Scholar. Later events and further discussion of the findings in academic literature and later studies may of course modify the weight to be given to the study but I think it would be helpful to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD. That paper has been discussed in the past, and unfortunately is basically rejected at hand by almost everyone on the left because it doesn't show the results they think it should. While it does show FNC to be to the right, it also shows most other media to be even more to the left. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the article Deuces; however, I think a quick analysis reveals the reasoning in this article is fallacious. The study suggests that if I start up a media outlet called "The ACLU and ACORN Suck", and simply talked about how stupid ACLU and ACORN opinion papers were all day, my media outlet would be liberal by virtue of the fact that it was heavily referencing orginisations presumed to be liberal. If you don't understand why that arguement doesn't hold water, I don't really feel the need to explain it.

Finding a paper that states that by some dubious yardstick, some lone researcher concluded X, doesn't really seem like a reference worth noting (particular. How much time do you and Arzel spend each day dredging up the scant papers that seem to support your warped views of reality? NickCT (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked through some of the archived discussion. It seems that a lot of the opposition to the report probably related to the terminology used and it would probably be difficult to phrase the information in a neutral tone. All major news media were found to be more conservative than Democratic politicians and more liberal than Republican politicians. Compare scoring: John Breaux 59.5 and Aaron Brown 56.0, Susan Collins 39.3 and Brit Hume 39.7. The average Republican was 16.1 and the average Democrat 84.3. Since 2005 the study has been reported in the literature. If we do not use this report then we need a later peer-reviewed report that comes to a different conclusion. but there do not appear to be any.

Incidentally the methodology does not seem to have been challenged in serious academic studies, NickCT's hypothetical fictitious example notwithstanding. And while you may think that examining academic research is a waste of time it is far better than searching for anecdotal evidence.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD- You've offered an "academic" study from one UCLA and one U. Missouri academic that basicly uses thier own arbitrary measure of bias to rate news outlets. The problem with this type of study is that one can dredge up any number of "academic" studies saying that by some measuring stick Fox News is infact the most biased outlets out there.

The problem is that bias isn't tangable or measurable. It's subjective. While you may be able to get some idea of whether bias exists using arbitrary measures, I think the only way to definitively infer it's existence is by polling (i.e. if everyone says it's biased, it's biased).

As to no one challenging the methodology; I think you'll find a number of minor studies out there that few bother to challenge. Note that you haven't addressed the basis of my criticism. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You do not appear to have read the paper or to understand how the academic process works. Papers are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, in this case the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Other scholars then use the papers as sources, write papers supporting or opposing them, and determine whether or not the results can be duplicated. Over time papers may become accepted or rejected by the academic community or be considered minority opinions. In this case the paper has been accepted by scholars and I can find no papers that question the methodology or the findings.

Parallel to this process are numerous think-tanks (like the Heritage Foundation) and popular media (like the Huffington Post) that are not subject to peer-review. Their papers often have flawed methodology and are not subject to academic scrutiny which is why there is resistance to including them in science articles, and why many of the articles on social sciences are not neutral. Many people defend using these sources instead of academic work because they believe that the academic world is biased.

It is original research to question the methodology used in sources, which again is why articles should be sourced to reliable sources. Let me reply to your argument:

• NickCT: The study suggests that if I start up a media outlet called "The ACLU and ACORN Suck", and simply talked about how stupid ACLU and ACORN opinion papers were all day, my media outlet would be liberal by virtue of the fact that it was heavily referencing orginisations presumed to be liberal.
• Groseclose & Milyo: Also, we omitted the instances where the member of Congress or journalist only cited the think tank so he or she could criticize it or explain why it was wrong. (p.1198)

• Polling: you argue that the only way to determine if Fox is biased is by polling the [American] public. WP should rely on what reliable sources state, not whatever the American public happens to believe.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Another policy misunderstanding by TFD... WP:OR is germane only to content published in the Article Namespace. It does not preclude editors from analyzing and discussing a source's relative merits and validity for inclusion... in fact, it is absolutely absurd to state that editors shouldn't examine sources for their appropriateness, as well as the best way to present it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies.[6] (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR is intended to keep editors from publishing their own thoughts, not to bar editors from discussing or analyzing the merits of a proposed source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

When we discuss the merits of a source what matters is how it has been received especially in the academic press. If we start analyzing the sources ourselves then we will never get anywhere. In articles about evolution and global warming, which cause extreme reaction among many editors, editors are constantly challenging the validity of the science rather than presenting academic literature that contradicts what is generally accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't agree with your premise, but to carry your point to its conclusion... you've repeatedly asserted that you could find no challenges to this study in other journals. Do you have other papers that use this paper as a source and supporting it? What evidence have you that it has been "accepted by scholars"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) See: WP:RS:[7]

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

Incidentally I began this discussion thread with a reference to a citation index, Google Scholar. There are 162 entries. Interesting that you would challenge this because none of the sources you have provided have met any of these standards. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This publication is currently discussed in the controversies article, in which you can see it has been mostly rejected. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the paper becomes part of the article, it remains the major study on perceived Fox News bias. We cannot ignore the study and substitute something from Media Matters. What the report shows is that the news presented on Fox differs very little from the news presented on other networks. Me must draw a distinction beween news reporting and editorial type programming. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Back on track

Okay, so let's try to get this train back on the tracks -- it seems like we've descended into a nebulous discussion instead of article improvement. TFD, how about a proposal of text that you believe accurately reflects the contents of the source material? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read the paper or to understanding how the academic process works. Papers are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, in this case the Quarterly Journal of Economics

TFD - Given that I've published academic papers (though admittidly not in this field) I think you assesment of my understand may be a little flawed. There is a plethera of "peer reviewed" data out there which is probably incorrect, but remains unchallenged due to lack of interest in the subject. (I should know. I've published allot of it).

What I find a little hard to swallow is that on these talk pages hundreds of polls and "peer reviewed" papers pointing to FNC conservative bias have been offered. You find one suggesting (in a rather dubious way) the opposite, and suddenly it becomes the "major study". Your position bleeds with so much POV it is beyond laughable. This type of cherry-picking is typical of those who have difficulties with reality.

WP should rely on what reliable sources state I'd agree when one is talking about objective content (i.e. did the holocaust happen, is the globe warming, etc... etc..). But as I said, bias is subjective.

NickCT (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead redux

It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning mind that the "promoting conservative positions" criticism in the lead is there because it is a red herring. Conservative bias is only one small part of the overall criticism found on the controversies page, the other part concerning the lack of journalistic ethics. Why is this not represented in the lead section? Most critics of Fox News dont't give a damn that they have conservative bias. What they care about is that they are incapable of reporting news according to basic standards of journalism. This is why they are criticized. If they are going to call themselves a news channel, then they need to follow the rules of journalism. Since they don't, and they have been taken to task for this in RS, this criticism must be represented in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary. I think that an awful lot of folks very much give a damn about Fox's conservative bias. However, if you have a number of reliable sources (not ones with obvious ideological axes to grind) that complain about Fox's journalistic ethics then by all means present it in the lead section. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, the reliable source policy doesn't require that a source be non-partisan -- it only requires that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I've pointed this out to you on multiple occasions, and I would appreciate it if you would be more careful to ensure you're not misstating policy. There are copious amounts of sourcing regarding FNC's lax interpretation and enforcement of "journalistic ethics" (especially more so over the last few weeks), so let's not pretend that sourcing is the issue. I've tried to enunciate the problems with the intro in the section above, so let's start working on a proper formulation and sourcing so we can fix the glaring omissions.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

glaring omissions? According to whom? --Tom (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To address Blaxthos's concerns, there are problems that he may not taking into consideration. Using heavily biased, anti-Fox sources, especially in the lead, even if they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", brings in concern about WP:UNDUE. This is particularly true when the question is about "journalistic ethics", which by its very nature tends to be quite subjective. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources must be used properly. News media are a reliable source for current events but not for analytic judgements. They are a reliable source for persons' opinions but those opinions themselves are primary sources. In order to evaluate Fox in terms of its credibility or bias acceptable secondary sources are academic journals or books. If there is no evidence in the academic world to support any of this then there is no reason to include it. Text must be verifiable. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided such secondary sources in these threads (see archive link below), for example, Stuart Allan's Journalism: Critical Issues (2005:ISBN 0335214754) does exactly what you describe. In one of dozens of examples of how private interests influence the content of news, Allan quotes the Financial Times which describes Murdoch's commitment to "openly biased media" as a business decision based on market demand.(9) The book also quotes The New York Times which describes Fox as "opinionated news with an America-first flair". Fox, the article says, "takes a new approach to television journalism" that "casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent, and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core." (11) I can go on like this for days. The essays in this book are written by academics. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol. We've sorta drifted from Viriditas's original point. Viriditas I disagree you were main contention. It seems to me that when you look at most pages critical of FNC they usually center around allegations of bias, rather than allegations of reporting ethics (though I'm not saying allot of people haven't critized FNC for lack of ethics, usually in relation to biasing) Re: Reliable soures I think I'd tend towards Bad/Deuces's arguement here. In the more "subjective" statements on Wikipedia, we should try to stick as closely as possible to "mainstream" opinion, and not be a mouthpiece for those who are most critical of FNC.NickCT (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_23#Lead_is_entirely_unsatisfactory. The evidence in that discussion concerns and focuses on multiple examples of alleged breaches of journalistic ethics. All allegations of bias come out of these so-called violations. Please try to look at the problem, rather than the symptoms. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that there are significant criticisms of FNC's lack of journalistic ethics. I also assert that it is a logical fallacy to simply equate "Republican bias" with ethics criticism. We certainly aren't being intellectually honest by disregarding the academic criticisms of questionable ethics because there happen to be more media sources that only deal with the micro-issue of Republican/conservative bias. The two may be related, but as several editors have pointed out they are two distinct issues, and a solid encyclopedic treatment of the subject should treat the ethical criticism with at least as much gravity as the secondary issue of outward bias. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but most of the criticisms we have here (i.e. the sources used), are violations of ethics to promote a bias, which makes Viriditas point (while well taken) redundant. I've seen/read criticisms of ethic in regards to objectifying women, not disclosing conflicts of interests with their pundits and using FNC to seek donations to private concerns. These clearly are not related to the bias controversy, but I've been hesitant to try to add this kind of stuff because simply I think it will receive tremendous blowback, and I don't have the time or desire to get into that kind of brouhaha. That being said, I think they are encyclopedic topics that could be broached in the body of the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More folks again tinkering with the section in the lead about "observers" saying that Fox News "promotes conservative political positions." I'm changing back to what was more or less agreed to in earlier discussions. Somewhere along the line "have leveled concerns" replaced "say" and a recent editor changed "many observers" to simply "observers", apparently feeling that "many" had not been demonstrated. However, "observers" could be interpreted to mean "all observers" so the fellow was really defeating his purpose with this change. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those would be my edits. User:Splanck made a somewhat obtuse edit to the "Accusations of conservative bias" section which I reverted, but the point leveled seemed to be a valid one. Considering the sourcing used for the "Observers" sentence in the lead, it was consistent with the observation Splanck made, so I tried to apply a more neutrally-worded change that reflected this.

I'm certain everyone here is familiar with working with these kinds of lead sentences. Any time that a sentence where detractors of an article's subject are quantified by Many/Some/Few will tend to be controversial. However, it seems to me that some of the sourcing for this sentence is inappropriate, or does not support the statement the sentence makes. Three of the four sources are unquestionably left-wing (Slate, Outfoxed, Anita Dunn); frankly, if a similar sentence in the article for MSNBC were to be sourced back to Beck and O'Reilly, it would be dishonest not to label the criticism as right-wing. Due to this trend of left-wing sourcing, it seemed appropriate and consistent to note the political orientation of the observers in question. I don't care to get too embroiled in this discussion, but I thought I should explain my position.

User:DD2K spoke of a Pew poll where viewers described the network as conservative; it might be appropriate to replace those three citations with the single Pew reference to keep things neutral and consistent. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your points, however, the reason that I (originally) recommended "Many observers say" rather than something like "many observers have leveled concerns" (that Fox News promotes conservative political positions) is that "say" is basically neutral. After all, many of the "observers" who say Fox is promoting conservatism aren't upset by this a bit, just as many of the observers who now say MSNBC is promoting liberal causes are delighted by this development. I think you will find that the lead in Wikipedia's MSNBC article makes a pretty much parallel statement about that network. I agree, however, that in both cases it is better to use reliable sources with no obvious axes to grind, even if the language in the Wikipedia article itself is neutral. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. MSNBC's sentence is well sourced, citing organizations like NY Times and Huffington Post which do not cross partisan lines to make the observation. Such is clearly not the case with Outfoxed and Anita Dunn in this article, however. For that reason, I think it would be best to replace the above-mentioned sources with the Pew survey. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Joke

The opening line states that the channel is "commonly referred to as Fox or The Joke". There are no sources for either of these statements, and nowhere in the rest of the article does it tell us who calls the channel "The Joke" or why. Surely it is more commonly referred to as Fox or FoxNews? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and accusations of misrepresentation

From an encyclopedic view of this issue, anybody who is reading it may not have any idea who Media Matters for America is, or that its stated purpose is to "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". The only reason this group exists is to act against what IT PERCIEVES as bias and disinformation. In my opinion, this alone disqualifies this source as reliable in this argument and it should not be allowed...however, since we are using it, (and I've limited all sourcing in this section to MMFA material) is is extremely fair to state in the article that the source of this material has a self-stated bias. Rapier1 (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. They have an agenda, there is no reason not to state it. As a side note, how many places do we need to include the admitted mistake by Hannity regarding the use of footage from the 9/12 protests during the 11/5 protest? It is currently in the Hannity article, this article, and the FNC Controversy (now protected) article. Arzel (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. There is absolutely no valid reason for you to spoon feed readers an opinion regarding critics' "agenda". The only reason you guys are trying to do so is to shade the criticism before it's presented. Since (a) that same description is already given previously, and (b) Media Matters is wikilinked, where so inclined editors may click to read, the description is of no value here.
2. Why are you "limiting all sourcing to MMFA"? Since the criticism is much more widespread than MMFA (I've seen it covered on the local news, and on MSNBC at the least), there's no reason to actively attempt to try and characterize it as a MMFA vs. FNC circumstance.
3. Arzel, the fact that other articles also contain criticism of Fox for yet another video "mixup" doesn't mean it shouldn't be included here as well. As part of a long and repetitive pattern of misrepresentation, it's quite germane to the ongoing criticism here. Even if it was the first time FNC had done something like this (and it's not), the argument to exclude here based on the fact that it's covered in other articles is invalid.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Blax: I am a conservative, yes. I flatter myself to think that I can be intellectually honest about the world around me. FOX Commentators are by and large conservative (with the exceptions of Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, and Alan Colmes), and they have large viewerships that are very critical of the Obama administration and the Left in general. MSNBC commentators are by and large liberals - come to think of it, I don't know of any conservatives that have their own shows on MSNBC - let me know if you know of any, and they have large viewerships that were very critical of the Bush administration and the Right in general. All FOX commentators are very open with their conservative or liberal bias. None of these facts seem to me to be very controversial. That said, if Sean Hannity were to state that "the liberal XYZ is constantly distorting the truth and faking reports", I think most people on the Left or supporters of "XYZ" would want it made clear that while there may exist accusations of critisism of "XYZ", the person making the accusation has a definite bias against the thing he is talking about. This is not trying to "poison the well", it is an attempt to put into context the source. Also, nowhere "previously" is any mention made of MMFA, much less it's mission statement. Finally, yes...we've all taken Logic 101 and received our degrees. While I appreciate your attempt to clarify your point by citing what you perceive to be logical fallacies in other peoples arguments, what you are doing (I believe unintentionally) is diverting the argument away from the point being discussed to whether or not the argument itself is a fallacy. If I didn't know better, I would say that your attempt at proof by assertion and affirming the consequent are an effort to obscure the issues, but I know that you wouldn't do that because I am willing to assume good faith. WP:AGF Rapier1 (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All FOX commentators are very open with their conservative or liberal bias Out of curiousity, when O'Rielly calls his segment the "No spin zone" would you say that's being "very open"? NickCT (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. O'Rielly consistently identifies himself as an "Independent", and has been attacked by both the Right and the Left at different times. He often uses terms such as "Left-wing Loons" and "Pinheads on the radical Right". Whether or not he statistically calls out the Left or the Right and sides with one side over the other more often is a matter for discussion and debate, but his bias is stated. Rapier1 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How interesting! I took Latin as my foreign language when I started college back in 1989, and here I thought it was dead. I'm a little rusty, and because you didn't add any further statements, but I presume your point to be that I have demonstrated that FOX News Channel is not a news network by stating that the various commentators (including the liberals) are open about their bias (since bias has nothing at all to do with proof of misrepresentation of facts, which is what this particular section is about - let me know if I'm wrong there). This may prove that there are more conservative commentators on FOX than on the other networks, as it's easy to count them and see that they are outnumbered, but I daresay that is not an issue here. You have argued that Fox News Channel is not a news network, and that their News division (which is as seperate from their editorial department as any other media outlet, like the New York Times for example) does not qualify as news. You have used as your evidence the fact that various sources (from the left, you must admit) state that because the commentators on the channel are biased - and entertaining (i.e. they get good ratings) then FOX News is not a news channel. To quote your logic, that is a classical strawman.

Premise. Fox News Channel is a news channel

Given: FNC News Channel follows that standard media model of having seperate News staff and an Editorial staff

Given: Fox News commentators (editorial staff) have a clearly stated bias

Given: Fox News Channel has Conservative commentators that are open about their bias

Given: Fox News Channel has Liberal commentators that are open about their bias

Given: Biased Fox news commentators are entertaining (as proven by high ratings)

Conclusion: FNC is not a news network because it's biased editorial staff (liberal and conservative) is entertaining.

See, that's where I lose you. I think the problem we have here is that there exists in all media a seperation of News and Editorial sections. To claim that FNC is not "news" because its editorial staff are majority conservative, you must claim the same of the NY Times, Mpls StarTribune, St. Petersberg Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and scores of other papers along with MSNBC and CNN because their editorial staffs are mostly liberal. Rapier1 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say any of that? You've now twice gone to elaborate lengths to construct strawmen arguments to attribute to me, all-the-while ignoring the points I actually raised. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So Fox News is run by conservatives like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, and has an overwhelmingly majority of it's commentators being conservative, but you want to eliminate criticism from Media Matters because the people who run that organization are liberal? How much sense does that make? Also, making edit remarks like this: No way. If you want to change this, join in on the discussion. I'm not letting some anon do it. No way is not the best way to communicate with other Wikipedia editors. Also, you may want to read WP:COI, and stop editing articles you are deeply involved in. It could cause problems. DD2K (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Look more closely at the matter at hand before you make accusations friend. One: I didn't remove or advocate the removal of any critisism from MMFA, all I have ever done here is ask that the source be stated. In fact, I even added facts and links from MMFA. Two: My comment on the editing has nothing to do with this article in particular, but everything to do with the practice of annonymous editors making edits to controversy sections without first checking the history. When a topic has already been discussed ad nauseum and someone comes in blind and trys to wipe it away, I have a problem with that. That is one of the primary problems on Wikipedia in general. Join in the discussion, don't start editing to push a point of view blindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. MMFA has an agenda, and if we're going to use them as a RS, their agenda should at least be noted in the article so the casual reader knows who's talking. Shlomke (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

An obvious attempt to try and color the reader's perception (and thereby neutralize the criticism). That is called poisoning the well, and it's a violation of WP:NPOV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above Blax, this is not "Poisoning the well", this is putting the source in context. If Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity were sourced in a "controversial" section, then they should be sourced as being "Conservative" sources as well. This has been put up on the WP:NPOV noticeboard and we'll get a consensus formed since obviously the two of us disagree. Rapier1 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard I am restoring my edit of this section regarding Accusations and MMFA's bias. Please discuss here before changing. Rapier1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting link on this topic, a very recent release from a Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) study. It could be a potential counter view to add. [8] Martin0001 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The recently added second paragraph under Accusations of of misrepresentation of facts about questionable on-screen percentages takes up more space than the weightier accusations in the first paragraph (WP:UNDUE; WP:Recentism). It's really something of a tempest in a teapot and should be pared down. Actually, it should probably just be briefly listed along with the other accusations in the first paragraph. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats because some of the Fox Fanboys here kept delating it and then reducing its size. If you like to re-edit the first part back to its full size and context that would also work. --Marlin1975 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content not contributors. I agree with Badmintonhist, it's not really worth that much space, I think it could be pared down somewhat. Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong agree with Soxwon here, this detail has no place in the primary article on FOX News, if you want to go into this kind of detail, it would more appropriately would go in the Fox News Channel controversies article. Rapier1 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only does it represent undue weight but, after reading the paragraph a couple of time, I simply can't follow it, and if I can't follow it there are probably a lot of others who can't. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ratings and reception" section

From my standpoint the Ratings and reception section of the article is b-a-a-a-a-d; overly long, detailed with factoids that fall under WP:Recentism, and confusingly written. The difference between "ratings" and "cumulative viewership" is mentioned but not explained. Some competent and motivated editor should rewrite it. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead Rewording

Hey guys and gals. But anyways.... down to business. I have two things in the lead I want to reword.

1) the United States' number one cable should be reworded to the United States' most watched cable The term "number one" is ambiguous.

2) says there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming This really has to be reworded because it is vague/ambiguous/meaningless. Any suggestions?

NickCT (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your first recommended change is a good one and and why you shouldn't change it in the article right now. I also think you second point is good. As for a new wording here, one has to hew closely to what Fox spokesmen have actually said according to the sources that we're using (or new ones that we could use). Perhaps something like Fox spokesmen have said that its critics are conflating Fox's political commentators with its news coverage. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating Bad's idea I move for a change from says there is a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming to says its critics are conflating Fox's political commentators with its news coverage. I'm still a little worried b/c 1) "conflating" is tough vocab & 2) this statement still implicity suggests that Fox's political commentators are conservative. I guess I don't like the "implicit" nature of it. Can we just say says its critics are conflating Fox's conservative political commentators with its news coverage NickCT (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Nick, when you say that that the Fox spokesman's statement only implies that Fox commentators are conservative. It might have been nicer if he had just come out and clearly stated that they are conservative, but he didn't. I've made this point before. When we represent what someone says we should do it accurately. We can't fill-in what we wish they had said or what we would have said in their place. Public relations people are masters at saying things in a slightly murky way. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way, we should also note that the critics say that there is no distinction between their editorial and news programming (or that the line is often blurred or ignored) -- basically, that FNC's justification/explanation is not unchallenged (forgive the double negative). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that's getting a little out there Blax. Soxwon (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that others have challenged the supposed "bright line" between FNC's "journalists" vs. "commentators" is out there? Please explain. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a crack if you don't mind, Blax. Sox probably doesn't want the lead to devolve into an extended tit for tat between Fox and its critics. If we add that critics say that there is little or no distinction between Fox's news coverage and its news commentary then we are obliged to give another rejoinder from Fox. Then, perhaps, an editor such as you will suggest that critics' evidence of Fox's biased news coverage be included in the lead. Then perhaps I will suggest that Fox's statements disputing those assertions be included. Do you get the drift? However, perhaps this kind of tit for tat can be avoided with something like this assuming that reliable sources support it:

Critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its news commentary promote conservative political positions. Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its news reporting and political commentary operate separately from each other. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I misread his comment and missed the critics part and read it we should also note that there is no distinction between their editorial and news programming..." I'd agree to Badmintonhist's suggestion however. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to revert, because of previous consensus and the citation stating not to change the wording. I will state the same objection to the change as I did previously, with a caveat. It's not only 'critics' that have stated that Fox News is as conservative outlet. Many of FNC's own viewers view the channel as 'conservative'. This has also been stated by conservative commentators as well as politicians. The caveat is this. Adding the words 'reporting and its news commentary' lends more credence to the change in wording(many observers to critics). DD2K (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. In fact, I had made that observation earlier and didn't adhere to it when I made the edit in question. How about making it Some observers have asserted . . .? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That does sound better than 'many', imo, and covers the fact that it's not only critics that view the station as a conservative outlet. DD2K (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This point has been hashed and rehashed several times over the last several years, and it has been made clear that the consensus was the wording found in the article today. Without new information that is sourced thoroughly this should not be changed. Rapier1 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, I think that some is better. Soxwon (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second... how did we arrive at this "critics" language again. We need to revert to the "many observers" language. This point has been mulled over more times than I care to recall.

Additionally, I want to remove this despite both being aired on the same channel. It's a gratuatus and wordy. NickCT (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey ladies. I just wanted to make the point that we debated for weeks about the "many observer" language. Let's not back slide now. This lead edit shouldn't have been made so quickly. Perhaps we should revert to what we had before and try to build consensus again..... NickCT (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed that last bit of sentence. It is redundant, gratuatus and wordy. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Was Arzel quoting me...? Is he trying to butter me up for something? Thanks Arz NickCT (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that they are supported by the sources, I am happy with the last two sentences of the lead as they now stand. I think they state the situation accurately and without bias. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

Doesn't consensus feel nice?

NickCT (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How many allegations of conservativism need there be before something is deemed "conservative"? The number of allegations are by no means few. Similarly with MSNBC, how many allegations of liberalism need there be before it's deemed liberal? Conservative and Liberal are perceptions of society so I argue that since such perceptions are by no means in short supply, we should just make that apparent right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guantranamo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guantranamo, thanks for the comment and suggestion. This point has been made before in many different ways. I think most would agree that political orientation is somewhat subjective. I think we've demonstrated through references that in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the public & press FNC is firmly in the conservative camp. The problem is, if an entity or person is unwilling to accept a subjective label, it is not encylcopedic to unequivocally apply that label to them, even if the an overwhelming majority think it appropriate.

I think we've arrived at acceptable wording here. It explains that there is a significant sentiment out there which believes FNC is conservative, and that FNC asserts that they are unbiased.

If you want to suggest some rewording, we'd be more than happy to consider. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this "many observers" wording. Surely 4 citations alone does not count as "many observers", which is why I changed it to passive voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.19.66 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon. There was a very long debate about this. To summarize it briefly we came to the conclusion that a "considerable majority" believes Fox News promotes conservative values (as supported by polling). Saying "some observers" or "it has been asserted" seemed to a number of editors like WP:WEASEL . We decided that "many observers" is most NPOV. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For a more detailed explanation, as well as links to the years' worth of previous discussion, visit the Fox News FAQ.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.[3][4][5][6] Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other.[7][8][9]" What's the point of even discussing /liberal news? If they're (news outlets) credible, they should be objective / neutral. Also, do the Wikipedia definitions of all other other news outlets describe any political opinions of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.196.220 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This point has been discussed ad infinitum. Public sentiment that FNC is biased is so widely held, that the bias is notable, and ought to be mentioned in the lead. Other news outlets which are notable for thier percieved bias/political opinions are so noted in thier articles (e.g. MSNBC)NickCT (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The current FOXNEWS wiki is a perfect example of why one should not spend much time reading anything on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.212.15 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

68.55.212.15 - Suggest an improvement! NickCT (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia owning large share of Fox News

Noticed that there is no mention of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia owning a large part of Fox News. Since this is a news organization with a highly political focus, it seems rather odd that this is not mentioned within the actual article. Thoughts? 69.148.145.135 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there some reliable sources to explain how/why that should be significant? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, twice in a decade that I agree with Blax (oh, guess not, the last time was last decade *grins*). If this guy owns Newscorp stock then as a shareholder he has voting rights, but that doesn't mean he has control of daily operations. Please explain why this is important. Rapier1 (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the "Fox News Controversies" on Wikipedia, Fox News administration "suggests" things to cover. If the source of the News is top-down, the top is an important aspect of the article. I could be wrong. Excuse me for pointing it out if I am. 69.148.145.135 (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I could see more than a few reasons for it being significant. Yet, I was expecting that the fact would be a self evident need. Being the second largest shareholder and having a personal/political agenda, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud seems to deserve recognition within an article about Fox News. I'd rather not suggest reliable sources as I fear POV's and such. When such a small, easily verified, detail should be able to be added without fuss. I believe it is a fact of the article that could inspire others. And, as such, is definitely useful content. I have no intention of editing the article myself. Nor, a desire to inspire a "debate" as to the good/bad of the fact. I just thought it had equal; or, greater value than much of the material presented. 69.148.145.135 (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be new to this party, but I don't see General Electric being mentioned on MSNBC's page. This would be significant considering MSNBC's positions, as they relate to this current administration. Obviously, I don't need to point out a conflict of interest in regards to government contracts. If we are to play crystal ball, let's hang them all out. †TE†Talk 07:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, GE gets a mention in MSNBC's lead: "the names MSNBC and msnbc.com were founded in 1996 by Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, which is now NBC Universal." This does nothing to change my point. We're not in the business of 'outing' the sponsors and/or owners of cable channels. As controversial as you see them. †TE†Talk 07:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"'outing' the sponsors", implies that the ownership of Fox News is a secret or some kind of point of view. I suggest neither. Just a statement of the fact. 67.66.111.111 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but how are the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia and GE on the same level?--76.235.208.230 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding feeding the battlefield mindset of "MSNBC vs. Fox" -- though they both participate in the same industry, there is absolutely no Wikipedia requirement that their respective articles must be foils. This discussion should have nothing to do with MSNBC or GE. What I'd like to see is some reliable sourcing that verifies the facts as alleged (I have no idea if it's true or not), and why it's significant enough to note in the article. While some Wikipedia editors believe it's significant, the real requirement is what is said about such in reliable sources. If you can present some sourcing, I think it would help move the conversation forward. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point Blax. That's the first time I've seen that DoNotFeedTrolls icon, pretty cool. Looks like it's a moot point, though. The Prince is mentioned in the News Corp article as a 7% shareholder. I suggest he says there. †TE†Talk 00:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty apparent that he has nothing to do with the stories they do because of various statements Fox commentators made about terrorists and the boarding of planes, various statements they have made regarding Muslims, and views regarding Israel/Palestine.--76.235.208.230 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason for this coming up is a recent ThinkProgress article. Soxwon (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this is not the point of the article, but it does show that Fox News has a conservative bias. Secondly, Fox News has nothing to do with the government, but is suppose to report news. I don't see the correlation of how it somehow compromises national security. (You know that if this Prince had a stake in MSNBC, they (Fox News) would be all over it.)--76.235.208.230 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If he was a part of the corporate structure then it might be something worth including, but if he is simply a common stock holder then it means nothing other than he probably gets a ~7% vote in who is on the board of directors. Arzel (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Arzel -- shareholders (even in the case of majority ones) are far, far removed from those making the editorial/content decisions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I actually agree with Blaxthos on this one. Sign of the apocalypse? No, unidentified user with 76 at the start, MSNBC is the one that covers FNC like flies on rotten meat, not the other way around. Beck is the only one that even mentions the pundits on MSNBC and it is always to mock them much better than Olbermann mocks him. PokeHomsar (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)