[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Fox News

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.148.145.135 (talk) at 03:36, 11 February 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Uh, that's getting a little out there Blax. Soxwon (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disagree, I think that some is better. Soxwon (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I removed that last bit of sentence. It is redundant, gratuatus and wordy. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... Was Arzel quoting me...? Is he trying to butter me up for something? Thanks Arz NickCT (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree.
Doesn't consensus feel nice?
NickCT (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

New poll on "trusted" news sources

[1] <--- Should probably be mentioned in this article, seeing as their main competitor (CNN) used to claim this in their tagline for 10+ years... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is included, it should also be noted that they are the most untrusted also. (In other words, don't do how Fox will report on this poll.)

The poll is basically worthless because it falls between party lines. I personally find it hard to trust a network with the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is clear that they have a conservative/Republican viewpoint. --76.235.200.246 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This poll was done by a Public Policy Polling, a source often cited by the left as being highly reliable. It states that not only is FOXNews the highest ranking network when it comes to "trust, it is the lowest ranking when it comes to "distrust". In fact, it was the only network that scored positively in this regard. The margin of error on this poll is 2.8%, and is from a reliable source. You may not agree, but unless your opinion is backed up by fact, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on. Rapier1 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sections ot the politico article reporting on this read Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday. A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network. Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html#ixzz0eQdYin7D) This states clearly that the numbers for Fox show that they were highest among "trusted" and lowest among "not trusted", in fact they were the only network with a positive overall rating. Please do not post false information. Any further reversts will violate 3RR. Rapier1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

With any polling it can be deceptive. Here are some things that skew this poll: A large portion of the 49% favorable came from Republicans who voted 74% in their trust of Fox News. It should also be noted that only 14% considered themselves liberal compared to 39% conservative. Also, to be noted is that 63% were 46 or older. If your sample is not a true sample of the general population, then you cannot make true conclusions from it.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any polling can indeed be deceptive, but I shall inform you that the %'s you list are fairly close to the American standard - far more Americans call themselves conservative rather than liberal (even 25% of democrats are conservative). Also, as for the age, not only is news watched more by older Americans, but the 46+ age group is actually bigger than the adults under it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the percents are not fairly close. I never made a claim about the comparision numbers between conservatives and liberals, only that the survey was not a representative of the whole, which it isn't. Lets just say that 21% of voters call themselves liberals. That is a 7% difference compared to the results in the survey, or 50% of the survey results for liberals. You are trying to tell me that a 50% is not going to skew the results. No where in the survey is an opt out question where the survey ends if they say they do not watch news.--99.52.157.254 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically speaking, if you look at the crosstabs, you can see the skewing.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By continually reverting good-faith edits regarding this poll, you are edit-warring and in violation of WP:3RR. Please restore the last version. Rapier1 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is clearing biased (not done on purpose, but the participants are not representative of the whole), therefore the conclusions are worthless. And therefore, they should not be included in the article.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[2] For reference--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered WP:OR to add your own analysis of the information into the article. That said, the crosstabs are not that far out of line. The Con/Lib breakout is pretty close to the Gallop reporting of this (40% con, 21% lib, 35% moderate). The Dem/Rep breakout is higher than I would expect for Rep. The breakout has Obama voters at 48% and McCain voters at 47%, which isn't too far out of line. PPP is often considered a democratic pooling outfit as well, so I would find it difficult to believe that the poll is intentially biased. Even if your assertation about the breakouts did show a bias it is dificult to believe that when adjusted for small differences that the results would be much different. Arzel (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7% may not seem like that much, but it is a significant amount when "the other side" is at 40%. The percent of who people voted for is again skewed towards Republicans/Conservatives. It is like that throughout. On the surface it may not seem like a lot, but when combined it does. The fact that there is already polarization (74% of Reps trust Fox), means that little differences can have a big impact.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the page suppose to be NPOV, so why allow something that isn't, even if it is questionable.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this so important that it needs to be in the article?--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section should go back in and the ip blocked for edit warring--Jojhutton (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to remove the warning from my talk page, Jojhutton. ThinkEnemies (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the poll is non-biased?--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I just did an updated crosstab on my own assuming a breakout of 39% Dem, 25% Rep, and 36% Ind and get 45% favorable and 40% unfavorable with 15% unfavorable. I would be quite suprised if the real difference between D's and R's is that great. DATA - Based on the poll percentages there were ~414 D, ~403 R, and ~403 I. My adjusted numbers are ~449 D, ~288 R, and ~414 I. So, it wouldn't really matter. Arzel (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the N and all of the percentages for each cell you can go back and see how the overal numbers may change if the base numbers were different. I assumed that if there were more D's and I's and fewer R's that they would respond in the same percentages. Many pollsters adjust there raw numbers to present what they believe are the true breakouts for political polls. I used the breakouts that CBS often uses for their polls. Arzel (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user has been blocked, I've restored the contect regarding this poll Rapier1 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I suggest that we close this discussion and mark it as keep the section--Jojhutton (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about more than just the political party breakdown, but the other breakdowns also show a skew (compared to in real life) to Conservatives/Republicans. And considering the polarization that we see, it becomes significant.--69.209.98.241 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are that you are removing information from an article without consensus and you are evading a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to hear a solid argument from you. Therefore it still is non-NPOV.--69.209.98.241 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one other way the results are skewed: The election results for popular vote were: Obama: 52.9% and McCain 45.7%. The survey results were Obama 47% and McCain 46%. The only way the survey results are viable is if "all" the don't remember voted for Obama. Statistically speaking, that is not very likely (also considering that McCain was a more popular vote of the elderly who would be more likely not to remember.) I explained the skew in the liberal/conservative above in a response to another user. 50% difference of the surveyed results of liberals compared to what the actual number of liberals. The last one I will go over is the skew in age. I had to search a little but I found from the census bureau the breakdown of age. According to them, 50.3% of the voting age is 46 or older, while the survey results were 63%. And if you at the age comparison for trust, you can see that these individuals have more trust in Fox News compared to the news of the other networks. Therefore, by having more of these individuals than the actual percent of the population, you are going to skew it in favor of Fox News. Now please don't imply that I am saying that previous surveys on trust of news were impartial, I'm not, I'm only saying that this survey was biased and therefore should not be included in the article.--99.52.157.254 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News&oldid=343283436"