Talk:Fox Nation

Non-objective?

The second part of the last line of the "Criticism" section - about Fox Nation providing links to other news sites "for their viewers to read and make their own informed decision" - doesn't read like it has a neutral tone to me, but rather like someone putting their own personal take on it. If that's what Fox Nation claims to do, it should be worded as such, rather than seem to have it say "that's how it actually is".

Any other thoughts on this? I don't want to change it on the off-chance I might be jumping the gun here.(216.15.62.119 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I agree with you. The line in question was added by a non-registered (i.e., anonymous) user and has nothing to do with the section in which it was placed (about "Criticism"). I'll remove it. --Skb8721 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Word "Conservative" to Describe The Fox Nation

Someone (an unregistered user) has twice deleted the word "conservative" as a description of The Fox Nation. I have restored the word because I think it does not violate NPOV guidelines to state the obvious -- namely, that The Fox Nation is a conservative web site. The word conservative is used in the article, in my opinion, without judgement -- that is, it is used objectively and accurately, or matter-of-factly. I suggest the word be left in the article . . . especially if Huffington Post is to be described in the same article as "liberal." Both adjectives should be left in place, I believe. --Skb8721 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Kelsypedia, you have restored "conservative" in the lead of the article despite it not being supported by a reliable source. You have also restored "The Fox Nation has been criticized for posting information that promotes a conservative viewpoint" despite the fact that the source cited does not say that (plus you have left in the incorrect and therefore misleading title for the source). Please quote specific language in the article that you believe supports that sentence. Drrll (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

How is the Washington Post not a reliable source? Here are some quotes from the article that support the statement. The first one is the strongest, since it calls the website biased and states that its launch was to bolster its brand amongst conservatives. 1.) "Biased media are in the eye of the beholder, and with a site built around such high-decibel stars as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, Fox is hoping to leverage its brand online, especially among conservative true believers." 2.) "The launch comes as Fox News Channel is touting its aggressive approach to the Obama administration, which has led to rising ratings after eight years in which the network's top commentators often sided with the Bush White House. .... Night after night, Fox's top commentators are former White House aide Karl Rove, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris, the onetime Clinton strategist turned debunker of Democrats. Another contributor, Michael Steele, recently left to become Republican Party chairman. And while Democratic analysts hired during the campaign, such as former Hillary Clinton advisers Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis, have left the network, Fox is beefing up its conservative ranks, recently hiring National Review's Jonah Goldberg." 3.) "Fox has been losing the online wars. The new site would be linked to FoxNews.com, which drew 16 million unique visitors in February, trailing MSNBC.com (41 million visitors) and CNN.com (36 million).

Liberal outlets thrived during the last administration, when those who couldn't stand the president gravitated toward the strongest Bush critics. MSNBC gained in the ratings by moving sharply left, installing Air America's Rachel Maddow in the hour after Keith Olbermann last fall.

A right-leaning brand may be a similar asset in the Obama era."

You'll notice that the title of the webpage is in fact the title listed in the Wikipedia citation. Perhaps it was the original title of the article and the Washington Post failed to update the HTML to reflect that change. In no way is this an unreliable source, and it absolutely supports what the article says in its current form, and then some. Kelseypedia (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. I'm saying that "conservative" in the lead is not currently referenced by a reliable source. You're right that the webpage title reflects what's currently in the WP citation--I didn't see that. What I saw was the title in the body of the article: "Online, Vox Populi Can Roar." Since the webpage title says what it does, I think that that article could be used as a source for "conservative" in the lead.

As far as the other sentence goes, I see where something like "The right-leaning Fox Nation seeks to leverage the Fox News brand, especially with conservatives" could be supported, but not what's there now. First, Kurtz doesn't actually criticize Fox Nation--he just makes observations about it. He doesn't call it biased either--he's simply challenging Fox Nation's statement "It's Time to Say NO to Biased Media." He doesn't say anything in the article about Fox Nation "posting information that promotes a conservative viewpoint." For one thing, the article is about the launch of Fox Nation, so he would have no way of basing a statement like that on what the Fox Nation had actually done. The second quote you gave from the article has nothing to do with Fox Nation--it's completely about the Fox News Channel. The third quote simply says that a "right-leaning brand" online might be valuable during Obama's presidency. I say we replace that sentence with something that's supported by the article and move it outside the Criticism section, as well as add a reference to Kurtz's article for "conservative" in the lead. Drrll (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If this helps, here is a link to a subsequent Howard Kurtz article in the Washington Post from earlier this year in which he flat-out refers to "The conservative Fox Nation site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102338.html --Skb8721 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy: misrepresentation

One is a dot, two is a line, three is a pattern. Fox Nation has now reposted, for the third time, satire news by the Onion, without clear indications as to their true nature. Comments on the Fox Nation threads have shown that many have taken these reposts as authentic news. By selecting these particular items of satire news, Fox Nation reveals itself as catering to a specific audience with particular biases and ideologies. This suggests a form of entertainment, not informed news reporting.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/foxnation-com-repurposes-anti-obama-article-from-the-onion-forgets-to-mention-its-a-joke/ http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/11/23/onion-obama-outlines-moral-philosophical-justifications-turkey-pardon http://nation.foxnews.com/business/2009/06/22/onion-treasury-announces-cash-4-gold-plan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.170.107 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• All this may well be true, but we'd need another news source making that conclusion to get this point into the article. I mean, I know Fox Nation is a total joke, but I can't cite myself.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Mediaite link at least counts as a news source commenting on one of the three occasions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.170.107 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Impartiality in "Criticism" section

So far, the only criticisms come from sources whose agendas are as far to the left as Fox is to the right. Are there any neutral sources for this criticism (or can there be any neutral criticism any more?) Without unaffiliated third-party sources, the entire "criticism" section seems wasted. BHenry1969 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The Fox Nation → Fox Nation – Our article, other sources, and the website itself seem to agree that the name of the site is Fox Nation, not The Fox Nation. As far as I can tell, "The Fox Nation" seems to be used less commonly to refer to the community that gathers at the site, not the site itself. For example, from http://nation.foxnews.com/our-purpose: "The Fox Nation is committed to the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news...We invite all Americans who share these values to join us here at Fox Nation." Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support as far as can make out from sources vis Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment it seems that there should be a disambiguation page somewhere, since "Fox Nation" is something that frequently appears in fiction (and I don't mean the real Amerindian tribe, or Fox News) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Disambiguation is for disambiguating topics that are discussed in Wikipedia articles. If there are other topics discussed in Wikipedia that could reasonably be sought by the title "Fox Nation", then disambiguation would be necessary. I don't think that's likely to impact this move request, though, because I'd assume that the Fox News website would still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy support I note 65.94.76.126's position, good point. But until/unless we have need to avoid a disambiguation page, WP:THE is our guiding light. Red Slash 16:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. No need for an article here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Section Titled "Misrepresentation of Facts"

This section mentions only an allegedly false claim made by Fox Nation about Mitt Romney. I doubt this is the only time Fox Nation has allegedly misrepresented facts, particularly as the site is noted for using misleading headlines (linked to articles that do not actually state what the Fox News headlines claim). It therefore seems odd to me that the Fox Nation page on Wikipedia should list only this one claim about Romney. I suggesting adding more such instances of misrepresentation or merely deleting the section. (We already state that that Fox Nation has been criticized for being misleading; do we really need examples?) Skb8721 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Media Matters (cited as the only criticizer) is not a reliable source! However, leaving it there tells the readers all they need to know. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So the best remedy to alleged left-wing bias is right-wing bias? Nice try.Sy Incognito (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

we have been with fox nation for a little while our bill has been paid we just started to try to watch it again and cannot get it it says to sign in and we try but nothing if every time i want to watch it I have to sign in with my email and pass word I want to discontinue my fox nation but cannot find a thing on discontinuing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.231.37 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The Funny Factor

I understand the importance of appearing “unbiased” and all that, but it’s plain to see that we’re missing a very important piece of this puzzle: The Funny Factor. It would be very funny to let me be the sole editor of the page. Any thoughts? 2600:1700:F660:6D20:6194:6BB6:462D:420A (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)