Talk:Fox News/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Bias and Objectivitiy

User:Niteshift36 and User:Arzel, you can not simply revert information because you don't like it. This edit, [[1]] is placed in the correct section, and correctly sourced. One of Fox News main anchors/hosts speaking about a potential bias in Fox news is very applicable to this section.EzPz (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss this, then you need to NOT start with you bad faith allegations. While you're at it, mind the 3RR and stop abusing Twinkle. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable addition. I'm not sure why it's being removed. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it's worth discussing. But if this is going to start with bad faith crap that ignores explanations given already and just says it a matter of not liking it, then I don't see a reason to waste time with him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, I see you weren't really discussing it. My error. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36,I am minding the 3RR rule. Check the history page and you will see I reverted the removal of the sourced information 3 times, not 4. If your not going to participate in the discussion, then I ask that you not continue to revert my edits please. EzPz (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I warned you. You get warned at THREE. Then if you pass it, you violated it. Get with the program. The material was contested. I even explained why I reverted it. YOU completely ignored the fact that I explained it and fabricated a bad faith allegation that I just don't like it. Then you come in here and lecture me on the 3RR warning? No, I have to give you the warning. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am with the program, so I'll say it again, I did not violate the 3RR rule, and I wasn't going too, because I am aware of it. You say I ignored what you said? You are ignoring the fact that I am posting correctly sourced information in correct section's of said articles.
EzPz (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension. Nobody said you violated it. Get it? Warning you AFTER you violate it is stupid. I need to warn you BEFORE. So enough with your silliness. I haven't ignored the fact that you had a source. That's why my edit summary didn't mention "unsourced". Just because there is a source for something doesn't mean it belongs here. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Say it isn't so....bias in the news media? Must be a first...I mean, CNN, MSLSD, CBS, NBC, ABC AND the BBC have never ever never been biased.--MONGO 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the thing, this isn't even about bias or non-bias. This is about cherry picking a quote from a conversation by a single FNC host and acting like it was spoken to represent the entire network as some sort of official proclimation. The quote is not accurate. Wallace says TWICE "I think", showing it is his opinion. The TRUE quote is "I think we are the counter-weight....". What is presented here is "We are the counter-weight....". Why is "I think...." left out? Even if we had a reason to leave it out, the quote would be accurately given as "...we are the counter-weight". So what we've done here is take a 5 second quote from a 24 minute piece, present it incompletely, present it in a different context because the "I think...." part is left out and then act like it is the official position of the network.
• So I'd like one of you supporters to tell me why the "I think....." is left out and why it's ok for the quote to be presented without the first part and nothing showing that the quote starts in the middle of the actual sentence. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to move on from the 3RR discussion, as the page is protected and seeing as you did the same thing as me, 3 reverts it seems just plain silly to keep talking bout it. So back to the main issue at hand. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, attributing potentially biased quotes is fine, as long as you attribute them to the person who said them, and do not attempt to list them as facts. And I personally just don't agree with the cherrypicking assertion. The discussion between Mr. Stewart and Mr. Wallace in the video is on the very topic listed as where I posted this quote, bias in Fox News. And here is the real point, that I believe makes this quote acceptable, Stewart is making claim about non-Fox news sources, and a claim about Fox News. Chris Wallace is actually in agreement with Jon Stewart, in that Chris Wallace says that Fox is the counter-weight. It's not a debate about whether Fox is biased, Chris Wallace actually agree's with him. As for representing the whole organization, this is not meant to nor does it represent the whole organization. The subject/topic of the quote, again, is on the topic I posted it under on the Fox News page, it's not a slick or shadowy attempt to trick people. It is in context. Thank you for your time.
  EzPz (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• And yet you spend time still talking about the 3RR. Either you're moving past it or you're not. With all that answer, you still never addressed the very important point that the quote is incomplete and being presented as being complete. Why did you leave off the "I think...." and start the quote with "We are..."? Not only does that make it out of context, it makes it inaccurate. Context is lost when you remove the part showing it's his personal opinion (he says "I think..." twice and you fail to put either) and instead present it as a complete statement of fact. You can't remove the part showing it is personal opinion and claim it's in context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think we're just going to disagree on that then. With quotations, unless you post transcripts of entire conversations, you're always going to end up posting just a piece of the pie, not the whole thing. So the issue becomes whether or not the quotation posted is honestly in the spirit of what was meant when the author said it. That's where I think the quotation is correct, it is in the spirit of what Chris Wallace meant.
  EzPz (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not advocating the whole conversation. I am, however, advocating the whole sentence. Further, it is absolutely incorrect to start a quote mid-sentence and fail to indicate that this is not the start of the sentence. Even the essay on WP:QUOTES says "If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details)..." points it out. You removed part of the sentence, didn't show you removed it, then capitalized the word "we" as if it were the first word in the sentence. That is deceptive and presenting out of context. No college class would permit that sort of shoddy work and we shouldn't either. Your presentation changes the actual statement. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you know Wallace meant? You don't, yet you are clearly trying to imply what you think he meant. This is the very definition of POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The inclusion of third party sources covering this renders the cherry picking objection moot. If the quote does indeed begin with "I think", then I support including the full quote. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• If it does? The source video is on the page. He clearly says "I think" (twice) in front of what is quoted. So are you saying you restored it originally without actually knowing what the source said? Guess what? Mother Jones (an activist site) left out out the "I think..." in the opinion piece you added. That source should be removed. The Gothamist source does actually mention, outside of quotes" that "he thinks". The Atlantic Wire is the only one who actually presented it correctly and they said "I think we're the counterweight...". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes much difference either way, but in the interests of compromise and collaborative editing, I agreed with your suggestion that those two additional words be included. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "third party" sources are quite biased, but I cannot say I am suprised. You have been trying for years to "prove" that FNC is biased. Nothing like selective quoting on the behalf of MSNBC. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss this, then you need to NOT start with you bad faith allegations." Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please remove my quote as it is being used out of the the context I made it in....and I DO know what I meant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? I assume you object to all bad faith allegations, not just ones directed towards yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well your assumption is incorrect because the quote is being used incorrectly. I will ask you a second time to remove the quote. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer not to believe the uncharitable explanation that you object to some bad faith allegations but not others, so please explain or withdraw your request. Gamaliel (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, I won't play your game Gamaliel. You quoted me. I know my intent far better than you do. I have politely asked you twice to remove it as a quote. If you don't want to be civil, that's your choice, but you won't lure me into some silly exercise in trying to convince you that I know my intent better than you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea what game you think I'm playing, and I could ask you the same question. One editor made a bad faith allegation, I quoted an editor at the beginning of this section objecting to bad faith allegations. That's it. Anything beyond that is something you are projecting on to this issue. I haven't the slightest idea why you object to being quoted here, and I'm baffled why you are spending so much time objecting to the idea that you object to a bad faith allegation. This one is a head scratcher. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I won't waste time trying to offer an explaination that you likely won't accept anyway. All you had to do was remove the quotation mark. It would have been the civil thing to do, but you have refused to be civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why on earth is quoting you an uncivil act and why are you taking it as such? Your behavior is very puzzling. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Did I say quoting me was uncivil? No. I said refusing to remove it when I requested it was and I requested it because I feel it's being misused. If you're going to fake innocence, at least fake the right stuff. Bottom line: Whether you "understand it" or not, the request was made and you'bve refused. I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of expressing yourself adequately using your own words. I'll reserve my opinions on why you refuse. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see no misuse of your words, and no explanation from you on how they are misused. It is not a matter of incivility to refuse a strange request, especially one coupled with no explanation, only an increasingly bizarre series of accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing bizarre about the request. The request hasn't changed, so even if it were "bizarre", it couldn't be increasing. I know my intent better than you. I am the expert on it. For you to require an explanation is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to explain it. If you're not going to remove it, then don't. But don't think for a second that I believe you are so bewildered by the request that it requires an explanation. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I never claimed to know your intent. All I know is what your words say, and the words you wrote here were equally applicable to either bad faith accusation. To insist that the intent of your words is substantially different from their obvious meaning, to complain that someone took those words at face value and quoted them as such, to repeatedly insist that someone is uncivil for not immediately complying with your unusual and unexplained complaint, and to spend hundreds of words complaining about a minor matter without spending any of them explaining the core of your complaint, well, that's pretty bizarre. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing unusual in the request and frankly, it shouldn't require an explanation. It would have taken nothing for you to use your own words or even remove the quotation marks. No effort at all. If was the simplest of requests. Your refusal is intentional obstinance. You've spent hundreds of words trying to justify something you could have solved with a simple edit, so how that's less "bizarre" is a head scratcher as well. In any case, you can have the last word. I'm done hoping you'd actually be civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any use of the word civility which equates it to "doing exactly what you say for no explicable reason". I've been more than civil during your bizarre temper tantrum, especially in the face of your weird accusations, all of which could have been avoided with a simple explanation. But really, the only explanation for your petulant refusal to provide an explanation is that you support bad faith allegations when they aren't directed at you (as witnessed by your own bad faith allegations directed at Bishonen here and on his talk page, not to mention at AstroChemist.) and you don't like being inadvertently exposed as a hypocrite. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Niteshift, in response to what you said about using quotations, with [] brackets and ... ellipse -> That's exactly what I did do. Look at my edit and you'll see exactly those things. On another note, in the interest of moving on with life, I am willing to accept 'I think' being added to the quotation. My objection was never really with that. My objection was to my edit simply being reverted. It never should have been erased. We all could have saved each other time and effort, if you were more willing to compromise Niteshift and made suggestions instead of simply reverting. If anyone is being uncivil, it's you Niteshift. You are making rude remarks in almost every single post on this talk page, to either myself or Gamaliel. That's all I have to say at this point, that I'm willing to go along with a consensus of 'I think' being added on.EzPz (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, you did the elipsis AFTER the sentence. the omitted material is at the start. If the material is not there, it should appear "...we are the counter-weight...". This let's the reader know that there were words in the sentence prior to what they are seeing. Instead, you capitalized the word "We" and make no indication that there were words before it. That is wrong. It is still wrong and it will always be wrong as long as there is no elipsis in front and the word "we" is capitalized. This is simple stuff. Anyone who has written a proper paper knows this. You can deny your own incivility all you want, but it's there, so don't lecture me on it friend. Lastly, I love how you're "willingly" to actually make the quote accurate. Amazing. So we all agree that the version that is currently in the article is inaccurate? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can we abandon this series of accusations of bad faith and simply all agree that "I think" should be included in the quotation. Any objection to including this phrase? Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• After we fix it so it's at least truthful and not misleading, we can discuss if it belongs in the article and, if so, where. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:Gamaliel, I have no objection. EzPz (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting into an argument about this, just saying I agree with Niteshift about the misquote. That's not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Does it belong and where

Now that the quote is no longer inaccurate, we can start the rest of the discussion.

1) Why does it belong as the second sentence in the section? Why is the most recent event, one that seems fairly minor, forced into a prominent place so early in the section?

2) Why is it here at all? We have a single FNC personality giving his personal opinion. He doesn't even say that they are boased, he says they're a counter-weight to a bias. Interpreting it as a bias is opinion. Why is his opinion more valid than any other FNC on-air personality? A couple of left leaning sources (and yes, Mother Jones is left leaning) decided to discuss it, but most did so in opinion pieces. This is being treated like it was a press release or the network stating an official position. It was one guy, making a remark about his personal opinion, and we're reading into it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not belong because it is impossible to interpret without POV pushing. It is clearly not an admission of bias as some would claim. One could argue that it is actually a claim that they are not biased. The only way to truly know for sure is to ask Wallace exactly what he meant. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick check of Lexis/Nexis will reveal that the Wallace statement is widely discussed among many different types of news outlets. I just threw in the first couple of google hits with my initial edit. I have no objection to moving the quote to later in the section, but the coverage warrants inclusion in some form. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The question is not how many outlets discussed it. That alone is not what determines inclusion. A hundred sources covered the fact that the new Miss America went to the beach yesterday, but that probably doesn't belong in her bio either. I think that the essay WP:RECENTISM provides good guidance here in suggesting the 10 year test. Note that most of the coverage was not recent at all. It got coverage in a news cycle or two then the world moved on. Where is the enduring coverage of it? Isn't it odd that an on air personality makes a single statement and it gets this much play in the article, a (now) complete quote and placed in the second sentence, yet when Rogar Ailes and Rupert Murdoch deny allegations of bias, there is a partial quote, further down in the paragraph. Even more interesting is that what Wallace says and what Murdoch said aren't really that different. Both said there is a liberal bias and they provide the other side. That doesn't necessarily mean a conservative bias. That is being read into it by editors here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Recentism does not apply here, and comparing Ms. America going to the beach to the interview is like comparing applies and oranges. Recentism, as stated in the essay is for articles overburdened with documenting events as they happen. Well, this is certainly not that. The second reason is articles created on flimsy transient merits, again obviously not that. Suggessting a 10 year-moratorium on posting this fact does not make logical sense. I can't stress it enough, the section is Fox News bias, and this quote is directly applicable to that section. It absolutely has a right to be in this article, and this particular section.
  EzPz (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is recentism, you arrived late just arrived late. The item was covered for a short window and then essentially fell off the map. Just because you came across it 2 years later doesn't suddenly make it new. And I'm sorry you missed the obvious about the Miss (not Ms) America use. It was simply an illustration that just because a number of outlets cover something for a short time, it doesn't immediately become worth including. It was not a literal argument against inclusion of this item. Further, I didn't suggest a 10 year moritorium, nor does the essay. Please don't put words in my mouth. the essay uses that as a gauge for enduring value. I have suggested that this single quote by a single employee doesn't really stand up well when compared to that gauge. The section is about Fox bias, however, this quote never says Fox has a bias. It says Fox counters a liberal bias. Please follow me for a second..... If I accused you of taking a bribe and knew it was false, it could be libel. If you provided video evidence that the charge was false, you didn't have to commit libel to counter it. You simply presented a different set of facts that brought the libel to light. Countering a liberal bias doesn't require a conservative bias. That is an assumption on your part. To say this has a "right" to be included is a stretch of the word, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Um, I very much understand it was an illustration, but it was a bad one. It still doesn't make sense from your perspective as an argument. And at this point, it's clear you aren't interested in an actual discussion. You are simply interested in fighting.
  EzPz (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see where my response indicated that at all. There was nothing uncivil about it. You still haven't explained where you see anything saying that Wallace said there was a bias from FNC, nor have you addressed why his remarks are given such precedence and weight. Just saying 'you just want to fight' doesn't absolve you from justifying why it needs included. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• And simply refusing to discuss it any longer doesn't make it right/included by default. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well I'm pretty sure an admin already judged it worthy of being on the page, during the editing a few days ago. And there isn't exactly a legion of people coming forward to say it should be taken off.
  EzPz (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

All the admin did was protect the page. That is not an endorsement of any version. Arzel (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Astro, you are misreading that move. I've invited him to clarify that for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• You don't need to ask the admin to tell me, if you tell me thats the case and/or policy, I believe you.
  EzPz (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• This issue doesn't appear resolved. So far, the reasoning for keeping it appears to be because someone covered. Nobody has demonstrated any on-going/long term notability, nor has anyone actually shown that Wallace said there was a conservative bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

{{edit protected}} In the lead of the article it is stated that Fox News Channel had 17 million subscribers when it debuted. Although the {{cn}} template follows the information under "history", it is stated there that 10 million people had the ability to watch the channel when it debuted. I haven't researched the situation and don't really have the time, but these two statements contradict. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The 17 million claim is also unsourced. There is a citation immediately before it, apparently backing the launch date claim only, but it is dead. I suggest both numbers be removed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the edit protected template until a consensus is reached (or at least a few users comment). Rjd0060 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I know of one library where I might have access to the answers.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm there right now. Let me see what I can find.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles. I happened to find a small paper that justifies the 10 million figure, but the channel wasn't on the air yet. More viewers could have been added. Apparently by year end Time Warner Cable hadn't added it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted and ran out of time. I'll get back to that library in two weeks. Or sooner if my beach trip doesn't work out.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm back from the beach and I emailed myself a note to do this Thursday.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I found several articles that had the 17 million figure, but don't know what I did with the information. The 10 million number referred to one cable provider.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 22 November 2013

Foxtel (Australia's major cable TV network) is 50% owned by News Corp, not 25%. News bought James Packer's 25% in 2012. 210.84.18.79 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Meanwhile, I've tagged the section for citation and as-of date. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

I was wondering if anyone could explain why this criticism was removed. It's packed full of reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll just have to assume that you did not even read what you put back into the article. If you had you would have seen that most of that was already in the article. Not only was it already in the article, but it was an exact duplicate of what was in the article. The only stuff that was new was sourced to an array of non-reliable sources and full of BLP violations. It is really distressing that given your current ANI situation that you would make such an edit. Arzel (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If anywhere, the material (and discussion) should go on Fox News Channel controversies. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the material added is appalling. I looked at just one citation – Sylvester Brown, Jr.'s blog – full of SPS & BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's ok to have three answers, but why don't they agree?

Is this material already there? Does it belong elsewhere? Is it badly sourced? Pick a complaint. MilesMoney (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• 1) Some of the material was previously discussed here and there was no consensus to include it. 2) What you added was previously removed. Just reverting it isn't "being bold" or "stimulating discussion". 3) Much of it was non-notable, partisan sniping. Just because some partisan source got sand in their bathing suit about something doesn't mean it belongs in the article. 4) Some of it was poorly sourced. 5) There is a whole article about FNC controversies, so trying to force a laundry list of trivial complaints into this one doesn't work. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Prince ownership of Fox News

This article seems to be being kept sanitized of many things and jeopardizes neutrality. Take for example the lack of mention that the individuals that own Fox News includes the Saudi Arabian prince. And, that this ownership influences the decision of content on Fox News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.185.154 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? FNC is owned by 21st Century Fox, a publicly traded company. Maybe some Saudi owns stock, but anyone can buy it. the majority shareholder is still Rupert Murdoch. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Al-Waleed bin Talal is the second-largest owner of News Corp, with 7%. This is led to genuine controversy. MilesMoney (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is that 7 whole percent? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that 7% of a large number is also a large number. Given that Talal has a large share of the company than anyone other than Murdoch, we're talking about someone who can influence the board. MilesMoney (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh can we make that assumption? 7% of 10 and 7% of 10 billion is still 7%. It is the exact same portion of the whole. And your assumption about influence is speculation. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.dcbureau.org/20100203319/Trento-s-Take/trentos-take-fox-news-cant-upset-murdochs-saudi-prince.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/18/saudi-prince-alwaleed-bin_1_n_426891.html
3. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/10/right-rebels-foxnews/
4. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Prince-Alwaleed-Bin-Talal-Alsaud_0RD0.html Lots of RS. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Proving he owns 7% isn't the same as showing why it belongs. First one is an op-ed piece. Glad the guy has an opinion, but that doesn't make it notable enough to include. Second one say 5.7% and talks about several companies he has interests in. Is this interest noted in the Disney article or the Citigroup article? Third is Thinkprogress, a partisan source. It reports on comments made by the owner of World News Daily, a source that gets routinely rejected at RS. So how is reporting the opinions of a non-RS by a questionable source suddenly relevant and reliable? Last is Forbes. undoubtedly a reliable source, but it doesn't say he owns stock in FNC, let alone why it'd be relevant. On the contrary, it says that News Corp owns 9% of the prince's media company. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Better logo?

Should we use the ref logo or this better version? Justinhu12 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

why aren't we hearing about whats happening in Connecticuton on their gun regestration problem? Don't we print the news that other news channels won't talk about? Is Fox News under a gag order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.121.190 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not Fox News, we're Wikipedia. We only print things other channels talk about. As for gun laws in Connecticut, that's the place for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

Lines 5 and 6: "Many observers have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions[6] and biased reporting.[7][8]" "many observers" has no scientific evidence; The three supporting citations only show the opinion of the people who wrote the articles. This sentence should read: "The Fox news channel, which founder Rupert Murdoch claims was started to "counter balance perceived liberal bias" of other news networks[8], has found itself under attack by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn and commentators such as Rachel Maddow as being slanted toward conservative positions[6][7]." the claim liberal advocacy group came directly from the citation already given. Unlike the original sentence the new sentence accurately fits the citations given. 68.59.18.183 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go that far, but changed "many" to "some". Again. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "many" is not appropriate here. It is not scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verkle (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "many" still appears in the lead paragraph, without having citation supporting the use. To argue that "many observers have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions..." is meritless, as there is no explanation of what "many" constitutes. Many is defined as "a large number of" when used as an adjective, and as such promotes the idea that a majority of(the definition of many when used as a noun) people agree with the statement. The word "some" is much more appropriate, as it is defined as "an unspecified amount or number of" when used as a determiner. As the specific number of people who believe that Fox News promotes conservative political positions is indeterminable, the use of "many" is inappropriate and I request that it changed to the more appropriate "some."Execrated (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Changed again. Keeps popping up in between what my watchlist sees. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdated info in Personalities section

There is a lot of old information in this section. In the list of Program hosts 4 hosts, Alisyn Camerota, Juliet Huddy, Mort Kondracke and Terry Keenan, don't work at the Network anymore. Sandra Smith and Harris Faulkner should be added to the list of hosts. In the correspondents section Ed Henry, Will Carr, Elizabeth Prann, Peter Doocy, Garratt Tenney, Leland Vittert and John Roberts should be added. Jeff Goldblatt, Julie Kirtz, Doug Luzader, Andrew Stack, Caroline Shively, Greg Burke, Katharine Cochrane, Erik Liljegren, Carol McKinley, Reena Ninan, Steve Brown and Brian Wilson, should be removed. I won't even begin to go over the list of Regular guests and Contributors Because it's a Mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesinMinnesota (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is I want to request an edit for this section. JamesinMinnesota (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)JamesinMinnesota — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesinMinnesota (talk • contribs) 21:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

50.150.39.57 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

US Powergrid

I would like to see the report by Judge Jeanine Pirro on Lights Out the Danger to the US power Grid. I believe that the American People need to be reminded of the problem that we face if something is not done and soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansjd (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the right American citizens are going to take notice via Wikipedia. Plus, this is not the proper forum for you 'soapbox'. I hope you vote in the Nov.elections. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's not the US power grid, it's North American. If you're planning to do something drastic soon, consult your upstairs neighbours. We don't need another one of these. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

Alisyn Camerota left Fox News in March of 2014 she is still listed under personalities section. 74.124.129.209 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC) She joined CNN in July of 2014 and co-hosted New Day later that month filling in for Kate Bolduan who is pregnant.

 Done - I have moved her into "Former hosts and contributors" Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

| language = American English

95.90.190.1 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No clear request. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: That request was mostly a copypaste from the article's lead section. I've removed those lines where the content was identical, plus most of the blank lines. Only one line was actually different, so I've left that above: from that, I deduce that the desired change is from |language=English to |language=American English. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. Thanks. Request sounds good, too. They sometimes report on trucks, never lorries. Done InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed this. It is original research. I have not seen this used for other English speaking networks. Arzel (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this could be moved to some sort of "criticism" section?

"Some observers have said Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting. Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other and have denied any bias in news reporting."

I think that this would be better suited in a section specially meant for criticism, instead for being in the introduction for some odd reason. Jonosbro (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The "odd reason" is this criticism's mainstream acceptance. It's become a highly significant part of FOX's brand image. Google "Fair and Balanced" (with or without quotes) and see if you can spot the result that isn't criticism. There's an entire controversy article for FOX. So it's fair to give it two lines in the lead. We also mention that it's highly successful, don't forget. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the "Many observer" language was subject to extensive extensive debate in the past. Please don't change it without discussion. NickCT (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, in the past. But further discussion has happened since 2009. Looking at the last couple of archive pages, more editors say "many" is vague and pointy. How many is a many, aside from a lot? A lot relative to what? "Some" is just "not all". "Stated that" is undoubtedly wordier than "said". The article's been like this for months. Until you convince (at least) one current editor with a new discussion, I'm reverting your bold edit. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd reverted your bold edit from earlier this year.

Anyways, we have a pretty clear establishment of consensus on the archive page I pointed to. Was there another clear discussion I missed since then demonstrating that consensus has changed? Can you point to it? NickCT (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly clear, it was long-winded and Arzel made a lot of good points before getting exhausted. There are shorter, more unanimous discussions in Section 11 of Archive 33 and Section 7 of 34. But yeah, you're determined, I'll give you that. Not sure I want to bother. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be up to us to determine what should be segregated into a "criticism" section? Either a RS is making some comment about some aspect of the subject that falls under some existing section or it's not notable. Hcobb (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - Hey. I'm open to conversation. Don't make me out as some kind of fanatic here. Remember, it was you who originally ignored the comment (and the FAQ) to change the wording. I'm happy to consider that consensus may have changed here, and wouldn't mind if you wanted to post an RfC to test it (heck. I'd even help). My only point is that this exact wording really was subject to a good deal of discussion (hence the note and FAQ). It would seem wrong to just change it, no? NickCT (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I just said you were determined. I didn't see the FAQ till after, but that has nothing to do with preferring "some" or "many". Just says the weaselly part about "many" is alright. Both weasel words are alright by the same rationale: singling out specific observers would be undue. If you mean the hidden note in the article, that's pretty vague. If someone saw the talk page for discussion in 2009, they'd have seen consensus for "many". If they'd checked more recently, they'd have seen it for "some".

If I'd just changed it on my own whim, that'd be wrong. But I changed it per multiple edit requests, general comments (mentioned above) and other bold edits (like the 2011 one in Archive 31.8). If we need to get opinions together at once in a RfC for them to count, that's something I'll save for another day. But if anybody else wants to pose the question sooner, I'll answer it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Determined" in the same way fanatics are "determined"? Sounds like a euphemism. But that's OK. Being "determined" is a good thing. ;-p

Yeah. I think the issue is that the 09 conversation had a lot of participation. I haven't seen as substantial a conversation since. You're certainly right that a couple people have recently pointed to "some". But the problem is that prior to the 09 conversation a couple editors wanted "some" and it led to the extended debate which was the 09 conversation, which led to "many".

I think we Wikipedians have to look to the "clearest" consensus (i.e. the one with the most participation and the clearest answer), and at the moment that still strikes me as the 09 talk. Though, I'd be happy for you to demonstrate that consensus has changed, and again, would be willing to help you do that. Everyones' opinions count, but you're making an assumption that a new consensus exists because of a couple comments from a couple editors scattered over different archive pages. That seems like a tenuous assumption. An RfC is a nice clear, clean cut way to test consensus. NickCT (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a few comments from a few editors, scattered across sequential archives, during a long period where nobody (as far as I see) said anything to the contrary. Clearly suggests a trend. They're shorter, but the brevity helps the clarity. Your chat five years ago had about twice the participation, but it went all over the place (figuratively). Mostly back and forth, but plenty of sidetracking, too. I'll admit, if I managed to read the whole thing, it might be crystal clear, somewhere. But a summary would be nice at the end of anything you plan to later point to as evidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How does one help someone with an RfC, anyway? Asking the question isn't a two-man job, and you'd clearly be my opponent. Clarify? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Inedible: - We might not agree on what the wording should be, but I'm sure we can both agree that the right way to resolve these things is through measuring consensus. No one really needs help drafting an RfC, but two heads in putting these things together are often better than one. NickCT (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I think a fair question is: Should the lead paragraph about disputed bias refer to the accusers as "many observers" or "some observers"? If you'd like to start a new section and add the Wikimagic to that, that'd feel like teamwork. If you'd rather have the "some" option first (or another minor edit), that's fine by me. Let's try to keep it cordial and concise. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - Yes. I think that is the fair question. I'm not going to debate which option should be first. That would seem pedantic. Could you look here and tell me what you think? I'd especially like if you added to the "Previous discussions on the subject" section with past discussions you felt were relevant. NickCT (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I could do without the instructions on how to comment. Notwithstanding the subtle implication that "some" is the only weasel word, I just don't see them around. If any instruction is needed, it shouldn't be more than "State your position in bold, give a rationale and sign your comment." Pretty basic stuff. Per WP:BEANS, we might end up with badgers here if we suggest too much.

I'll add those discussions (such as they were) soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - Better? NickCT (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - Ok. Looks good to me. You got any final comments/edits? I will launch after 24 hrs if I don't hear back from you. NickCT (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Facts

I added some statements and sources to "Misreprentation of Facts" putting Media Matters' statements about Fox in the context of their declaring a "War on Fox" in 2011, trying hard to get Fox's advertisers to abandon them (their "Drop Fox" campaign) and their substantially complete support by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If this article is going to allude to Fox's support of the Republican Party and the inaccuracies they've committed (and that all needs to be mentioned), then let's be even-handed about it and say where their most strident critics are coming from, too.

From CBS News's Walter Cronkite's counter-factual comments regarding the 1968 Tet Offensive to the libel lawsuits CBS News has lost over "The Selling of the Pentagon" and other documentaries, to CBS News's Dan Rather's uttering of an evident forged document to attempt to damage George W. Bush's reputation just before the 2004 Presidential elections, and NBC News's editing the sound clip of George Zimmerman's cell phone calls on the night of Trayvon Martin's death to make him sound a racist, it's pretty clear that Fox News has distinguished company in occasionally misrepresenting the facts to its viewers in support of a political agenda. And before anyone says all that is WP:OR, check Wikipedia's rules. OR is allowed (within reasonable limits) in talk pages.

Perhaps the fact that several network news organizations have misrepresented facts (sometimes as determined in a court of law) to advance political agendas ought to be treated in a separate article, with "see also" links to it in articles on Fox News and its various competitors in the network news business. But implying that Fox News is alone in pushing a political agenda among news networks is a disservice to the readers of this article. loupgarous (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit heavy for simple context, like someone's trying to sway an opinion. I'd figure the Wikilink to the organization and its mission statement should suffice to let viewers understand it's ideologically opposed to FOX. All sourced claims, of course, but the presentation begs the question of why it was written like that. Not a huge deal, but I'd cut it. More relevant to Media Matters than FOX. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the issue is why Media Matters mostly criticizes Fox to the exclusion of the other news organizations I've mentioned above. You can search in vain through mediamatters.org for ANY criticism of Democratic Party-positive news reports. So, here in Wikipedia, if we quote them, we also must cite important facts about WHY they're so strident against Fox News. Otherwise, we're being a megaphone for Media Matters and the Democratic Party. I see your point, but the presentation of Media Matters' agenda was soft-pedaled before my additions. Now the reader understands the context in which Media Matters' criticisms of Fox News were made. loupgarous (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And yes, it's a bit heavy. What do you find most objectionable, the references to Media Matters's funding by wealthy progressives, or their "War on Fox"? I really think their "War on Fox" is relevant. If wikipedia repeats their comments about Fox News, we need to let the reader know what's going on - that Media Matters is very biased against Fox News and once sought to destroy it in their own operations - scarcely the stuff of objective commentary.

If we have to not mention Media Matters' explicit campaigns against Fox when repeating what they say about Fox, then it'd be better not to mention what Media Matters has to say about Fox at all. If we can't identify partisan comment as such in wikipedia or give the reader information on why it's partisan, is wikipedia in the business of shilling for Media Matters for America and the Democratic Party? I'd like an administrator to chime in on that. loupgarous (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find any one part objectionable, just the bulky sum. It should be clear enough already that they're enemies. The War on Fox stuff is mentioned in the Wikilink, and the Progressivism in the United States link explains that it's opposite Conservatism in the United States and corporatocracy. In any reaction/criticism/controversy section, those who say things say them for reasons, often political ones. We don't normally tack on three qualifiers to paint the picture of say, why Russia doesn't like America or how police are anti-criminal. If they were cohorts, they wouldn't be saying the things we say they do. The situation paints its own picture, doesn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. "Progressive" has several meanings in US English - some of them laudatory (from 'http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive':

a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress

b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities...

...2 of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3 moving forward or onward : advancing)

Simply repeating Media Matters for America's self-description as "progressive" (which, used in a wikisearch, brings you to a large disambiguation page here in wikipedia) doesn't necessarily mean readers will think "Political Progressive," then read our article on Progressivism in the United States to understand that he or she is about to read items which were developed by political operatives working against their perceived enemies. The link to the Progressivism in the United States page is halfway down a list in that disambiguation page of links to various pages describing political meanings for the word "progressive," so that it's actually not very likely it'll be selected and the reader will comprehend that Media Matters is an informal arm of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that actually "declared war" on Fox News in 2011, thus necessarily bearing great animus toward Fox News. You're positing an unrealistically sophisticated reader.

Wikipedia has an obligation to be reliably encyclopedic. Letting itself be a megaphone for one side of a political fight isn't encyclopedic; it's partisan.

I've deleted the information about Media Matters for America's funding sources. The main issue is that these people actually declared a "War on Fox" - so ought our readers to rely on them for information about Fox News? They deserve to be heard, I agree, but let's give our readers an idea of what's going on, here - that they're singling Fox News out for attention, instead of combing through every word its competition broadcasts, as well. Media Matters for America was punishing Fox for criticizing the party whose wealthy supporters support Media Matters for America very lavishly. If we repeat what they say outside of the context in which they said it, we're culpable in misleading our readers. loupgarous (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The beautiful thing about Wikilinks is the reader needn't check the dictionary or Wikipedia for the linked word. Just click it, and go directly to the sort of progressivism (in the United States) we mean.

As for citing enemies, we cite Russian sources for American topics and police sources for criminal topics. Not much different. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Since "research" is now being added to the lead to declare that "scholars" accuse FNC of being biased it should be noted as well that compared to it's peers FNC was the least biased. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, thanks for the article - it certainly belongs in the article somewhere. Perhaps a section upwards from "MIsstatement of Fact," in "Objectivity and bias," where it would add balance to our article's presentation of Fox News Channel's actual "objectivity and bias," as opposed to the chatter on the subject. loupgarous (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of this section of the article. It is way too bloated for what ends up being allegations from a partisan organization. It should really be distilled down to 2-3 sentences. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No one's less a fan of Media Matters for America or its right-wing counterparts than me. However, the Fox News Channel has been accused of bias and misrepresentation of facts. An encyclopedic article ought to air the allegations in the context they were made (viz, by an organization which had "declared war" on Fox News Channel - that's extreme enough evidence of bias to warrant inclusion in this section of the article as needed context).

It's possible, I suppose, to condense the narrative of the allegations without actually hiding what the partisans had to say. It's just as much a part of the Fox News Channel story as the rest of the story. I'll take a whack at it, I guess. For what it's worth, I agree with you about the bloat, some of which seems to me voluptuary delight in Fox's missteps. Probably worth a peek at our articles on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc. to see what the wikipedia standard for reporting on alleged misstatement of facts is. Until I've done that, I'll leave the "scholarly criticism" of FNC alone in that section. I just want Fox News Channel to be treated just as wikipedia treats other news networks accused of misrepresentation of facts.

Which reminds me - does anyone else think NPOV requires we retitle that part of the article "Alleged Misstatement of Facts"? The reader's intelligent enough to gauge for his or her self whether misstatements were actually made if he or she read the article. I'll await some consensus before I make that change. loupgarous (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's not about being a fan of MMfA or not. There is an undue weight issue here. We can say that MMfA has had issues with the accuracy of some of FNC's broadcasts such as....then list a single example. We can then provide the path to the rest via source citations. To enumerate examples to the extent we have is undue weight, especially when there is a separate article about FNC controversies. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with Nitshift36? I have to admit, it's a good argument. And, as Niteshift says, there's that separate article on Fox News Channel controversies. Other networks commit factual errors without wikipedia listing that many of them out in our articles on the networks themselves. loupgarous (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not, its been edited down over the years as is and it more then brief enough for the issues they have had. Its already a small blurb and seems people trying to edit it more are using their POV in the process. This section could be much bigger but is very brief and hits on the big topics that are more visible. I say leave it alone, esp if ones bias is showing while trying to edit it. Resaltador (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just took a look at CNN and MSNBC. Fox has three screenfulls of controversy and a link to a controversy article. CNN has two screenfulls of controversy and a link to a controversy article. MSNBC has four and a half screenfulls of controversy, and a link to a controversy article. If anything, I'd say Fox's controversy section is undersized. They are famous for being controversial. (I'm taking CNN's in-between position as reasonable explanation for drawing less controversy.) Alsee (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangent discussion WP:LEADCITE

User:Alsee, where does WP:LEADCITE say you can use sources in the lede that are not in the body? It will be a lede violation to use sources that are not in the body because it would more than likely if the sources are not used in the body it would not summary the body. WP:LEADCITE gives general information about using sources (or not using sources) in the lede. The best way to repeat or generally summarise information from the body is to summarise the sources used in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, From WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". That indicates two valid desires to apply in balance. In principal a proper Lede should never need cites at all. The Lede is supposed to be a summary of the article body content, which itself should be supported by all of the necessary cites. On the other hand including Lede cites are often a Very Good Idea to avoid good faith challenges. Using a new cite in the Lede could bring useful diversity of sourcing, or it could be useful for bringing in summary-type information from Reliable Sources. "Widely criticized" is a good example here - the body itself may never have directly hit upon that point, so we can cite it in the Lede without having it in the body. Alsee (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I was correct. WP:LEADCITE does not explicitly state an editor can usually add text to the lede or use sources in the lede that are not in the body first. Redundant citations in the lede is a separate issue. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body - Usually means not-always. Information that isn't in the body requires sourcing. There's no reason it has to be a previously used source. In general a lede should not duplicate exact text that's in the body, it's supposed to be a summary. As a reader, whenever I see duplicated text it's very jarring... like someone didn't realize they accidentally duplicated existing text. But we're wandering badly offtopic here. I'm refactoring this into a separate section. We have a good lede, we just need others to (hopefully) confirm support so we take down the RfC notice. Alsee (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The usual way to summarise the body is to summarise the sourced text in the body. There are many problems with this article like most articles on Wikipedia. See Fox_News_Channel#cite_ref-8. One ref has three refs. Are these refs used in the body? I fixed one little thing in this article. That was enough for me for this article. I'm going back to my regular topics. Too much mess to fix. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Fox News Channel has been accused by critics and scholars..." - Request for Comments

The first line in the third paragraph of the article's lead begins "Fox News Channel has been accused by critics and scholars... "

Another editor tagged this phrase for "improper synthesis," one of the editorial sins related in WP:NOR.

I agree with that assessment. Adding the appellation "scholars" to the list of the people who think Fox News Channel is biased in its reporting comes far too close to WP:WEASEL in addition to possibly being an improper synthesis (the editor who added that might have thought "well, some of this criticism was made by sociologists, and that's got to count for something."

There's a whole section in this article called "Objectivity and bias." THAT'S where we ought to get into the scholarly qualifications of the critics or supporters of Fox News Channel. In the lead paragraphs, I think we ought to stick to referring to critics of Fox News simply as "critics." Not "many critics," "some critics," "eminent critics," or "scholars."

Comments? loupgarous (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No changes should have been made before the RfC above concluded. But since it was apparently never listed where it was supposed to go, maybe it can't conclude.

Without the word "some", this reads like all critics and scholars say this. That's not true. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Critics of Fox News Channel, regardless of their political orientation, uniformly accuse it of biased reporting. They just don't agree on the WAY in which FNC is biased (one set of poll results cited in our article on Fox News Channel showed approximate equal numbers of respondents saying FNC was biased liberal as biased conservative). Now, we can't say THAT in the article without committing WP:OR - it'd be improper synthesis, I think.

But the people who want to say "Most (critics, observers, scholars, commentators, what have you) accuse Fox News Channel of promoting Republican Party politics and biased reporting" won't let us say "Some critics accuse Fox News Channel of... " without edit-warring with the folks who prefer "Some critics... " or the variant I wound up choosing, "critics".

Is there another way of saying "some, not all critics say that Fox News Channel... "? I'd like your thoughts on the matter, because I hope you have a more original and less contentious way of saying it, one that won't start another edit war.

Now, I was under the impression the previous RfC HAD concluded. How, exactly do you tell whether you have consensus on a really contentious issue? I'm not the only editor who commented who wondered whether or not consensus had been reached. And in saying that the RfC wasn't a "vote," it seemed to me that the last RfC may have been a formality, anyway. loupgarous (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As you say, even among the critics who raise the point at all, there's disagreement on which way FOX leans. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to imply there's a critical and scholarly consensus that FOX is "promoting conservative political positions".

I'm pretty familiar with English, and some words are simply the only words for some jobs. Not all, or even many. But more than none. It's not about being original, it's about using what works. The war is unfortunate.

An RfC usually ends when an uninvolved admin weighs the cases and decides. Or decides not to decide. But yeah, when one side wins, the other feels like losers. Compromises are ideal. But again, no idea on a suitable synonym. "An unspecified number" sure doesn't work, can we agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page RfC's are typically informal. If editors find an acceptable way to move forward then the RfC tag can simply be removed. In this case the RfC was phrased as some vs many, and I think the outcome will be consensus on a different direction.

I belatedly realized that loupgarous and InedibleHulk have been having one discussion down here, while QuackGuru and I have been having another discussion further up the page. Chuckle. I cited a source for "Widely criticized", and QuackGuru noted another source of "Widely criticized", and both sources are are clearly accusing Fox of bias. The article currently reads Fox News Channel has been widely criticized of biased reporting. Quack isn't happy yet, but any chance you guys can get on board with the current wording? Or if not, indicate your idea of a way forward? (I just realize the lede no longer indicates the direction of bias, but perhaps a separate sentence can indicate Fox is associated with conservative/republican views.) Alsee (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We now have three SUPPORTS for the current lede. Please weigh in at the bottom of Alternate Wording proposals. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The cited source for "widely", is just a book that links to 2 other opinion pieces from 1998 and 2000. I would say, that is most definately not "widely". Just "criticized" should be used especially as a lead in. NeoCloud (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Saying "critics and scholars..." does make it sound like they all do. "Most" isn't helpful either if you can't prove it. Frankly, I'm ok with "some" and I think the weasel word guideline gets misused a lot. The word isn't forbidden and, in a case like this, it is the best choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute with the Dish Network

This dispute is definitely notable based on the ratings decline alone let alone the cause of the dispute with the Dish Network. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Relationship with the Koch Brothers" section

I'm not sure that I see the relevance of this section, or why it is a section at all. What is the purpose of including the information that several people who work for the network attended some sort of Koch Brothers event? Further, if this information is essential in some way that I've missed, perhaps an entire section is inappropriate. Wouldn't it make more sense to include it as a subsection under "Controversies" or perhaps "Notable personalities"?-RHM22 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a certain subculture that treats the Koch brothers as something unusually special in politics. Seems one of them is trying to make a point with this. Shouldn't warrant its own section, and unless they spell out what's controversial about this association, instead of assuming general readers get the point, it doesn't make sense in Controversies. Notable Personalities is for those who actually appear on the channel. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've retitled it to reflect we're talking about Americans for Prosperity instead, and added a questionable importance tag for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I generally dislike tags, but in this potentially controversial case I think it is quite appropriate. Unless there is something I'm missing, this information is irrelevant and probably belongs in the articles for those individuals mentioned, if that. Unless there is some reasonable objection, I'll remove the material in a few days' time.-RHM22 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything's potentially controversial. That's why FOX (and other channels about the the exact same stories) can run 24/7. The tag was more for the "something missing" part. If nobody notices something isn't clear, they have no reason to clarify. I make it a habit (or something did) to at least glance at every article I read's Talk Page, but some people have busy lifestyles. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be no opposition, and there is no discernible reason why this information is relevant, so I will be removing it from the article.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO this content should be moved to Fox News Channel controversies, and should not be given weight in this article. If it has not already been removed/moved, I would support such a move/removal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, it doesn't belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

sourcing

[2] and [3]

add the following to the lead:

Fox News Channel has long been recognized as promoting conservative political positions and it has been widely criticized for reporting that is biased, misogynistic, and racist. Employees of Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other and have denied any bias in news reporting.]]

The only source for " long been recognized as promoting conservative political positions is [4]. That source states Outfoxed, which is being promoted by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn, charges that Fox News executives order their cable TV anchors, reporters and producers to slant the news to be pro-Republican and pro-Bush administration. and is about that film. It also states Fox News, which says it is the "fair and balanced" network, has long been accused by Democrats and liberals of having a conservative bias. The source makes no claims in its own words that Fox has "long been recognized" for anything, and thus is an invalid use of a source.

The claim of "racist" has catenated sources.

1. [5] has zero places where it calls Fox "racist". The footnote on page 204 makes no statement remotely supportive of the claim for which it is used.Zero.
2. [6] The Guardian cite has a headline Fox News presenters mock female pilot who took part in campaign against Isis . It says there was a "sexist joke" on a single program, and says nothing about "racist" at all, and is not even a good cite for calling Fox News "sexist".
3. [7] The New Republic seems to have an editorial stance involved in here. Ignoring Fox News' Racism is Good for Democrats but Bad for the Country is the head for an editorial piece "Rich's point here, as far as I can tell, is that because the channel is fading in importance, and has an aging viewership, its racism, Islamophobia, and disgusting fear-mongering should be ignored by liberals." Which is the source being used to assert in Wikipedia's voice "it has been widely criticized for reporting that is biased, misogynistic, and racist"? This source makes an editorial comment which is clearly such innature - and is not a valid source for the claims made.

Sorry - misuse and misattribution of claims, and using a single clearly editorial source which does not even make the claim it is asserted to support is not impressive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm having some issues with that too. Additionally, I'm not too happy with the word "widely" being used in the manner it is used here. I'm removing it until we can discuss further here. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Judging by those it would be more accurate to say that "Fox News has been criticized by liberal and Democratic critics, who argue it supports a conservative or pro-Republican agenda". Toa Nidhiki05 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's Fox's style, not Wikipedia's. This is about politics, but not a political thing. Non-voters see it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Logo

Hello. I uploaded the file (File:Fox News Channel logo.png) because it is the network's logo. Obviously, someone disagrees. FoxNews.com uses this logo, but with ".com" at the bottom instead of "channel". Their Facebook page uses this logo (yes I know it is red), and they use this logo on their Twitter page with ".com" at the bottom. The logo the other user uploaded (File:Fox News.svg) which is outdated. When you right click on the logo on the website and either save it to your computer or open the image in a new tab, it says "logo-foxnews-update". Which clearly means that is the newest logo. The website also has "Fair and Balanced" under it, but I don't think the logo needs it. My question is what are you thoughts? Should Wikipedia use the newer logo that is used by the Network whether it be in red or have ".com" instead of "channel", or the other logo that the other user uploaded? I would be fine and even putting the ".com" at the bottom if that is what it comes down to, but I think the logo I uploaded is the correct one. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again we need to use what is coming from the "Television channel", not the website, twitter, etc. This article is about the FNC channel. You can put that logo on their tweeter article. We've had this discussion with other editors in the past, and have concluded to use the current one. - Curioushavedape (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Curioushavedape: Please look at this video. It is dated Dec. 19, 2014 -- in the Fox News Channel YouTube channel. Here is another one dated Dec. 20, 2014 -- except it used ".com". (Which I said I would be glad to change it if that would make y'all happy.) So if they use it on their own set, why shouldn't the logo I've placed be used and yours should? As for the Twitter logo, how can other twitter users change Fox News Channel's picture? It isn't like just anyone can change the picture. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Both logos are reasonable. Fox has used both a simpler flat 2-D style logo (File:Fox_News_Channel_logo.png), and a more complicated logo with more of a 3-D effect (File:Fox_News.svg). I'm inclined to support the simpler 2-D version, because it's more difficult to accurately recreate the look-and-feel of the more complicated 3-D version. Alsee (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Leave the current version up for a few days to see if anyone else weighs in. We don't want to instantly flip it on one tie-breaker comment, and then flip it back if (theoretically) two people are about to disagree with me :) Alsee (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the point in using the logo that says "Channel," not "Fox News.Com." The YouTube product of Fox News is Internet-based, so it has the "FoxNews.com" logo, but this article's primarily about the broadcast product of Fox News, which is Fox News Channel. I have no strong preference between the "2-D" and "3-D" logos for Fox News Channel. loupgarous (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So what is the decision, here? The 2D logo or the 3D logo? Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the 2D. The 3D logo gets that effect from being portrayed as bigger than Earth. It's subtle and implicit, but still a lie, and one with deeper implications for public perception of Wikipedia's own twist on the globe (see top left). If FOX is bigger than the puzzle, how can it also be a piece? Not the sort of question people came here to ponder. Many won't, of course, but why risk it for the few? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup, I just tried a Google Image Search for fox news channel logo. It rather heavily favors the 2D version. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The only source that can be used is the only for from fox news, essentially a screen shot. again this is about the fox news channel, not fox news dot com. Curioushavedape (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Curioushavedape: That video is three years old and outdated. If we use the only source from Fox News like you say, then it is clearly the 2D logo. Fox News no longer uses the Earth in the background. If you saw my videos I linked above, then you would realize that. Whether you Google it or Yahoo! search, it favors the 2D logo. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you take a screen shot (Jan. 4, 2015 video) from the stations website, it uses the 2D logo as well. So if you want to take a screen shot, then make sure you use a most recent video instead of using one from two to three years ago. Obviously, a most recent video is going to be more accurate. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's this from the 2015 New Years Eve [8] and special report [9] bottom rotates through "LIVE "Time" and "Channel" (these are two current 2015 images) ; Your avoiding the point here, this is about what is or is not used on the channel. This not a popularity contest, we have to use what is from them. Curioushavedape (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely saw what you posted. Based on the outcome that has been said by the users who have commented here, the 2D logo wins. It doesn't matter about the ".com" or "LIVE", it matters that it has Fox News and Channel happens to be on that logo. If you google search it, if you look at the social media sites and their website, no where do they put the logo you have. What should be used is the logo that is most common throughout the Fox News network. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan' a google search, is not a source to be used, Curious has it spot on. The only source that can be used in this case is from Fox News. There only two choices are either screen shot which is to white against a transparent background or [10] one that is visually correct Austinrex (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Austinrex: My point was that it doesn't matter where you look for the logo, the 2D logo shows up in many places. The only time I find the logo with the "Earth" in the background the Curious uses is on Wikipedia and old videos dating back a year or two ago. I just used google search in general, not really saying that it was a source. You'll find the logo many other places that are reliable sources. I'm very well aware about Google not being a source. If Fox News wanted the globe in the background for their main logo, then they would have put it on all of their websites they use, not just some videos. Most other times, they use the 2D logo. Therefore, we should use what is most common. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 04:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I must also add that if Austinrex and Curioushavedape want to continue this discussion, they should at least check back everyday to get this thing resolved. If they don't want to do that, then we'll just leave it as is and leave the 2D logo which is more favored. Reverting/answering and then checking back a week or so later is not going to cut it. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 01:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• regrettably my job keeps me from spending to much time here Austinrex (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Now your generalizing the point here, the logo from Facebook to Twitter to their website site all vary in color with some having dot com. And the place you have retrieved your logo is from a self published site. That is NOT allowed see WP:SELFPUBLISH Please note that the most recent videos referenced by Curious are from Jan. 2015 and O'Reilly Factor 1/7/2015. Also the show Outnumbered shows a logo that is not some flat generic logo. (Please stop removing the proper logo) Austinrex (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)at

Like I've said before, It doesn't really matter that they vary in color and use ".com", what matters is that it is the same logo used. Here is a video from Feb. 21 that uses the 2D logo (although it uses ".com".) Here is another one. -- The "Earth" in the background is outdated, like I've said before... This video at the 2:32 mark uses the "channel" logo on the microphone for the reporter. This video of Bill O'Reilly from Feb. 20 uses the 2D logo. Maybe we shouldn't have a logo on the page until one can be decided on. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 22:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before "the white logo against a transparent background" will not show. The videos are not out dated Jan. 2015 and O'Reilly Factor 1/7/2015. If you want to use that logo, than write article about there Fox's multi-media. removing something that was there in the first place is not the answer. Austinrex (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, you haven't said anything about the white transparent logo until now. All of the most recent episodes I've seen show the 2D with ".com". The blue is the most common color for Fox News and therefore should be used. I honestly do not think a logo should be put in this article until we can come to a consensus about it. That is why it was commented out. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No I mentioned it on Feb 15, 2015 you need read whats being said. At this point, you need to find a "current" source, from the Fox News Channel that presents your logo. Austinrex (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What about this page? It is from the FoxNews.com Media Relations page. Oh wait, it probably isn't good enough for you. I guess I'll keep looking. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And, you are telling me that the video I posted up there earlier today (This video) isn't a source? Shit, I even said at the 2:32 mark they are using it on their microphones the reporter uses. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully my input isn't too late on this but this one is much better. However, it is WAY too big to satisfy the non-free image rationale. Try to shrink it as much as you can without loosing any quality. Strafidlo (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strafidlo: It was decided here that it failed the threshold of originality and in the PD, which is why it is as large as it is. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)