Talk:Fox News: Difference between revisions

Far-right in the lead

So Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs), who last week edit-warred to remove "conservative" from the lead 1, 2, to add "left-wing" to MSNBC 1, 2 3 4, and CNN 1, 2, 3, now wants to add "far-right" to this article while leaving "conservative" in place. Thoughts? ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:POINT seems relevant, —PaleoNeonate – 13:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand on this, some sources do point out that Fox promoted far-right personalities, views and conspiracy theories. One source used in the article mentions it. The body itself doesn't really cover this more than indirect mentions and promoting Trump. The lead, as a summary of the body, cannot make such a bold statement in these circumstances, it is WP:UNDUE. —PaleoNeonate – 13:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

About this, IMHO I think because of how contentious and relative the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are (and how it has been used to attack media outlets like MSNBC), I believe that this term should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. I think mentioning allegations of media bias is good a bit further down in the second or third paragraph, but not in the first paragraph.

Political position is out of the question, and we strongly rely on "neutral point of view". We describe how academics and other reliable sources think of Fox News, just like we describe how they think of CNN or MSNBC in their respective articles. That does not mean that we make our own judgement and say that Fox News is liberal/conservative per Wikipedia:No original research.

I disagree with the actions of Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs), and if necessary, I think filing a report on the ANB is a good idea if you think they are being disruptive. Aasim (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Chimichangazzz has now been blocked for a while so possibly won't reply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I still have my belief that it may be a little unnecessary to have the word "conservative" in the lead. The second and third paragraph does a better job at explaining the allegations of bias, and while the cited sources for that word are reliable and independent of Fox News, having that word in there makes it seem that we, Wikipedia, think that Fox News is conservative because of those sources, not that these sources describe Fox News as conservative. My above comment mentions how these two words are often thrown around to attack reliable news sources.

If you look at CNN controversies, you see whenever there are allegations of left-wing bias, you see it describe it very carefully with appropriate attribution: "A 2019 Pew Research survey showed that among Americans who named CNN as their main source for political and election news, 79% identify as Democrats whereas 17% identify as Republicans. Among major broadcast news networks, the CNN audience displays higher levels of partisanship than ABC, CBS and NBC, but lower than Fox News and MSNBC." We are not here to say that one source is conservative or liberal. We are here to state how other reliable sources view the source. Which is why I am opposed to having that word in the lead. Aasim (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

As I've argued before, I think the solution here is to find reliable sources that characterize other outlets as "liberal" or similar, as there are reliable sources that characterize Fox News as conservative. Bear in mind that Fox News is the only television outlet created (as least through the 1990s) with an explicit mission to slant right to offset perceived left slant of other outlets. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well... MSNBC started out as a neutral outlet but then moved to the left. NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)

And Fox News, according to NewsGuard, frequently publishes conservative opinion NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)

And CNN has been found to post a lot of anti-Trump and liberal-leaning commentary as of recently. NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)

At least, that is according to my browser extension. It does a good job at flagging websites that may not be reliable. The only thing left to do is find reliable sources that indicate that indeed, MSNBC and CNN are liberal news channels. Aasim (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Per the above I don't think "far right" would be reasonable, but conservative is so defining and reported by so many sources; with the lead being a summary of the body, it does deserve prominent mention. It's possible that the lead repeats it too often, though... —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The "far right" inappropriate as was the addition of "far-left" to CNN - just a "boogeyman" label that violates neutrality.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I know it has been a few months, but is it okay to remove "conservative" from the lead or not? Aasim (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the multiple sources cited, both in the lead and the body, and given that this inconclusive discussion is months old, no, it isn't 'okay'. That would require consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how a matter of spectrum could be argued. in a world where sexuality has a spectrum, personality has a spectrum (autism), and the political agenda has a spectrum, how is citing a media article conclusive evidence as to whether or not something is true about another media source? (even with a mirror, you can't actually see your eye) in an attempt to be unbiased, i hope the wikipedia community can remove bias. it is becoming ever more prevalent. i think Fox News is conservative, but i know people who have left it for being liberal. my experience isn't the issue. the issue is that the article, in the first sentence, advertises that Fox News has an agenda. the other major networks don't seem to have that. this is what Chimichangazzz is trying to relay. AndyTheGrump seems to be the only person/user in this thread that doesn't think there is a consensus about bias. wikipedia is being polarized. in the years to come, this polarity will not serve humanity well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32ashu (talk • contribs)

This discussion is long-over, and the user I referenced in the beginning was blocked 6 months ago. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fall of kabul

i believe that with the amount of coverage Fox News is giving the fall of Kabul i believe a new section should be added

Like their exhaustive coverage of the fake Benghazi scandal they invented? Nah. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

25 years

As of today. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This is shown in the infobox. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, i know that. It's updated now. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it was probably just a cache issue then. It updates automatically but sometimes needs to be purged. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

There is an undefined refname in the Pro-Republican and pro-Trump bias section. It was caused by this edit, that removed the auto1 reference while it was still in use.

The following:
<ref name="auto1"/>

should be replaced with:
<ref name="auto1">{{Cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house |title=The Making of the Fox News White House |first=Jane |last=Mayer |date=March 4, 2019 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |access-date=October 17, 2019}}</ref>

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Kelly Wright

He should be included in the list of former hosts and contributors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.154.136 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"conservative" in the first sentence

I'm not denying Fox isn't a conservative news source. It is. But for the sake of consistency, I believe the word "conservative" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Mind you, it's coming before even "cable news television channel". No other article for a mainstream, mass-market news channel, of which Fox is one, has mention of its political leanings in the very first sentence. MSNBC, for example, which I'd argue has a roughly equivalent progressive bias, only mentions accusations of liberal bias at the end of the lead. I am not advocating that any and all accusations of conservative bias should be removed from the lead, they shouldn't, but having mentions of political biases in the lead is completely different from having mentions of political bias in the first sentence. Mentioning biases in the lead is crucial for properly summarizing the most important parts of the article below but placing the word "conservative" in the first sentence right before "Cable News Television Channel" is tantamount to saying Fox is a conservative news channel, not that Fox is a news channel accused of conservative biases, despite the talk page stating the article takes no position on Fox's political biases. Unlike the article on Fox News, taking example again from MSNBC, the article does not state MSNBC is a liberal news channel, rather that it is one accused of liberal bias.

I looked through the article FAQ, as well as the linked RfC, and nowhere does it state "conservative" should be placed in the first sentence, only that mentions of conservative bias should be included in the lead. I am taking no political position here, I am not trying to right great wrongs, I am not even trying to defend Fox. I am trying to make the article consistent with what is stated in the article FAQ, where it is stated, the article takes no position on the biases of Fox News. In its current state, this article does. Brazenly. I am suggesting simply that the first instance of the word "Conservative" is removed from the lead. Nothing else would change, and the incredibly important mentions of conservative bias would remain.

I would appreciate if someone would be able to tell me why "conservative" is used in the first sentence of the lead, and redirect me to the appropriate RfC which mandates that "conservative" be used in the first sentence, not the RfC which mandates that conservative bias be mentioned in the lead.

• Addendum: In an above thread on the talk page, the user AndyTheGrump stated that a consensus would be needed to remove "conservative" from the first sentence. Why would consensus be needed to remove something which is contrary to the article FAQ, claims that Fox News is a news channel inextricably linked to an agenda, and which wasn't mandated by a consensus?

Thanks, KlammedyKlamKlam:^Nosh 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What distinguishes Fox News from others is that it was deliberately conceived to be slanted. The same is not true for MSNBC, CNN or network news shows. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that so? According to the first edit found including "conservative" in the first sentence, found [[1]], the original purpose of including "conservative" in the first sentence was to be compliant with MOS:LEADSENTENCE, providing a concise definition of the subject for the nonspecialist. However, if that were to be the case, and it seems to be given that "conservative" has been included in the lead since 2019, then "liberal" would be included in the first sentence of MSNBC, and other news channels with similar political slants. Also, saying that Fox was deliberately conceived to be slanted is not necessarily true. Wikipedia's own History of Fox News, under the "Launch" section, makes no mention of Fox being created as a conservative news channel, rather it was created to be a "fourth network". One will be quick to note that the article states Fox was created to be a republican centered alternative to CNN, but this is not cited, the only citations in the lead are of Fox's network placing, there are no correlating citations in the body as to be consistent with WP:LEADCITE, and the lead has a tag. Also, in multiple other locations, such as the History of Fox News article or the "fox" disambiguation page, Fox News is not referred to as a Conservative news channel, rather a normal news channel.

• Additionally, since "Conservative" was added to the first sentence without consensus, why would it need consensus to be removed, unless I was misinformed. If "Conservative" being added to the lead has been reaffirmed by some form of consensus or community discussion making it both standard policy that the reason for "conservative" being added in the lead is due to Fox being founded for the express purpose of being a conservative news channel and is now therefore unable to be removed without consensus, could you please provide me a link to said dialogue?

Thanks, KlammedyKlamKlam:^Nosh 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If History of Fox News does not include it was deliberately conceived to slant right, that article needs some work. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, where was it stated by a community discussion that an article regarding Fox news needs to regard it as a "Conservative" news channel or news channel deliberately conceived to slant right in order to be neutral?

• Additionally, none of the talk page archives linked in the FAQ, nor the RfC mentioned in the FAQ, discuss the inclusion of the word "Conservative" in the first sentence. All of the talk page archives and the RfC are also from before the addition of "conservative" in the first sentence.

I reiterate, I am only advocating for the removal of "Conservative" in the first sentence, not any mention of conservative bias in the lead. All my suggested change would accomplish would be to not accuse Fox of being an inherently politically charged news channel. I am not advocating for this edit due to any personal political bias, only a bias against bias on Wikipedia.

KlammedyKlamKlam:^Nosh 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Conservative" has been in the opening of the article for at least the last 2 years, Jan 21 andJan 20. That is what we call "established". If you want to change it, feel free to initiate that discussion, but the onus is on you for removal, not on other editors for retention. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

“What distinguishes Fox News from others is that it was deliberately conceived to be slanted.”

This statement is not fair or accurate. According to the 1996 New York Times article below, which contains several quotes from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes describing how they expect FNC to report news. Making up a reason why a description should or should not be removed is dishonest. I don’t think you should be the one telling others why a news outlet was conceived while ignoring the founders own reasons. If that is the reasoning from removing “conservative” from the lead paragraph or not adding “liberal” to the lead paragraph of CNN than you are wrong. Fox News definitely leans right, just as CNN leans left. Try again, why does one have that description in the lead and the other doesn’t?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/07/business/at-the-new-fox-news-channel-the-buzzword-is-fairness-separating-news-from-bias.html WhowinsIwins (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As you were told at the CNN talk page, peruse the talk page archives to catch up on past disucssions regarding this. Zaathras (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fun read...Joe Muto (4 June 2013). An Atheist in the FOXhole: A Liberal's Eight-Year Odyssey Inside the Heart of the Right-Wing Media. Penguin. ISBN 978-1-101-62420-3. OCLC 1156078891. The truth was, Fox had been conceived from the very beginning as a venue for TV news with a deliberate slant..Moxy- 14:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC about Fox being described as Conservative

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been a deceptively difficult RfC to close. A cursory glance of the votes (10 to keep, 5 to remove) might suggest that no closure is even required, the outcome is so obvious. However, reading those comments indicates that many of them do not even gesture toward addressing the question being raised by KlammyKlam and others, which is about whether to mention Fox News' bias in the first sentence. MOS:FIRST instructs: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is…. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. As Satellizer observed, the first sentence of this article is overburdened with unnecessary adjectives; American multinational conservative cable news television channel hardly makes for quick, easy reading. The question, then, is just how central Fox News' bias is to what it is. Some editors (particularly soibangla) have argued that Fox News' conservative bias outright defines it; however, it is not clear from what little evidence has actually been cited during this discussion that this particular claim (rather than the much less contentious claim that Fox News has a conservative bias) is widely enough supported by RS to constitute due weight in the first sentence, in the description of Fox News' basic species of thing. I thus find a rough consensus against inclusion, with the caveat that another, more-focused discussion may produce a different outcome; in particular, there may be more support for a first sentence that mentions Fox News' bias later in the sentence than the current version, or that describes Fox News' being considered conservative (rather than being conservative) as a defining trait. There is, of course, a very strong consensus that Fox News' bias deserves treatment elsewhere in the lead; consequently, another alternative that may find support is mentioning its bias elsewhere in the first paragraph. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Should Fox News be described as a "conservative cable news television channel" or should the word "Conservative" be removed from the first sentence without removing other mentions of conservative bias from the lead? KlammedyKlamKlam:^Nosh 20:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The following text was originally written by the author of this post in a preexisting talk page thread posted shortly before the posting of this RfC: I'm not denying Fox isn't a conservative news source. It is. But for the sake of consistency, I believe the word "conservative" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Mind you, it's coming before even "cable news television channel". No other article for a mainstream, mass-market news channel, of which Fox is one, has mention of its political leanings in the very first sentence. MSNBC, for example, which I'd argue has a roughly equivalent progressive bias, only mentions accusations of liberal bias at the end of the lead. I am not advocating that any and all accusations of conservative bias should be removed from the lead, they shouldn't, but having mentions of political biases in the lead is completely different from having mentions of political bias in the first sentence. Mentioning biases in the lead is crucial for properly summarizing the most important parts of the article below but placing the word "conservative" in the first sentence right before "Cable News Television Channel" is tantamount to saying Fox is a conservative news channel, not that Fox is a news channel accused of conservative biases, despite the talk page stating the article takes no position on Fox's political biases. Describing Fox, or any news channel for that matter with a political adjective is equivalent to saying that a news channel as a political bias. Unlike the article on Fox News, taking example again from MSNBC, the article does not state MSNBC is a liberal news channel, rather that it is one accused of liberal bias.

I reiterate, I am not advocating for scrubbing any mention of conservative bias from the lead. All I wish is for the first instance of the word "conservative" to be removed from the first sentence. Describing Fox as a conservative news channel is an example of the article taking sides, despite the article FAQ under the question "Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias" stating:

"Wikipedia takes no position on whether Fox News is biased"

This FAQ question can't be changed, nor can it be removed. Most importantly, Wikipedia cannot take sides, especially on something so subjective, and this is an example of taking a side, and it must be removed.

KlammedyKlamKlam:^Nosh 20:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal and your argument need to be split. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have split them; I am not a very active Wikipedia editor and therefore will not be able to easily voice my opinions. Therefore, I have posted a comment containing my reasoning. I was not under the impression that the poster of a RfC could not participate in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlammyKlam (talk • contribs)

Support for "conservative" before cable news television channel. Multiple reliable sources describe it as such. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

An accusation of a source of a political bias should be taken with a grain of salt. Such accusations are prone to influence by the author's own personal biases, and therefore any mention of them should really only be used to state that a network has been accused of political biases. The sources used after the word "conservative" are written by a total of eight people, and to the best of my knowledge, are written offhandedly and are not incredibly connected to the actual research at play. The offhanded statements of eight people cannot possibly be enough to state that Fox is a source with conservative bias, it would be enough, however, to state that Fox has been accused of Conservative Bias. KlammedyKlam:^Nosh 21:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fine as-is Fox News is a conservative outlier in mainstream media, they pride themselves on this and it is a part of their branding. We do not need to say "MSNBC is a progressive-leaning news network, because pointing out the norm is not useful. It'd be like saying water is wet. ValarianB (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but in its current state, the first sentence insinuates that Fox is a conservatively biased news channel. That's taking a side. The FAQ page states that the article does not take a position on the bias of Fox News, and the WP:NPOV page clearly states that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Just because it is backed up by a reliable source doesn't mean we should present it as fact, especially with something so objective and charged as political bias in news. KlammedyKlam:^Nosh 21:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NPOV is a little off. It's true Wikipedia doesn't take sides, but what we're not taking sides on is the content of reliable sources. Since reliable sources describe Fox as conservative, that is what Wikipedia must convey. If we don't go by what the sources say, then we are going by our personal bias, and not staying neutral. This even comes down to the wording presenting it as a fact: per WP:WIKIVOICE, we must not present as an opinion what reliable sources call a fact. ––FormalDude talk 09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So by that metric, even the political opinions of reliable sources are eligible for statement as fact in a Wikipedia article? KlammedyKlam:^Nosh 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If they are indistinguishable from fact, then yes. There literally is a fairly common situation in politics where one side is on the side of facts, and the other side is lying or pushing propaganda. A good example is Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election. Fox News and its talking heads have pushed that Big Lie quite vigorously, to the point that a couple honest hosts have left the channel, for example Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the determining factor is whatever the sources say. There are three sources connected to the reference in the first sentence. If these say Fox is a conservative cable news channel then conservative should be kept in. I haven't checked these sources yet. And if there other sources in the intro that say this is a conservative cable news channel, then that is further evidence for saying it is conservative. It is not up to us to say an editor is biased by writing that into this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Remove. Of course Fox News is conservative (and this is supported by reliable sources), but this doesn't need to be stated in the first sentence. It's fine to cover it later in the lead. The current first sentence gives the impression of editorial bias, especially when juxtaposed with the current first sentence of MSNBC. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Mx. Granger, you do realize that many Fox News viewers consider Fox to be middle-of-the-road and neutral? They, therefore, accuse CNN and MSNBC of being far-left, communist, sources. -- Valjean (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've heard things along those lines. I don't see that as relevant to this RfC, though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Remove from lead sentence per Mx. Granger. While KlammedyKlam is correct that technically WP wouldn't be exhibiting a bias because an overwhelming number of RS describe Fox News as conservative, and Fox New self-describes as such, even other Wikipedia editors don't get it, so we cannot expect our readers to understand the policy contortions required to get at "this is not really WP being biased". It comes off as blatantly biased, and that is what matters. WP is written for readers, not for internal policy wonks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Let's ignore policy and dumb down an article so the yokels won't get mad" is not a valid argument. ValarianB (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bingo! Fortunately, SMcCandlish added "from lead sentence" later, so their intention was not to eliminate it completely. It still belongs. NPOV is also for internal policy wonks, governing how editorial bias should not affect editing behavior, but the results are still viewed by the public, so following NPOV means we are required to document ideas and biases that are often far from neutral, are repulsive, and false, and frame it with the bias and tone from the source. We do not cater to the feelings of readers, and yet, the placement is certainly a legitimate consideration, as long as it's not an attempt to bury the objectionable content. Such motivations would violate NPOV. In that sense we sometimes move shocking words to later, but "conservative" is neither shocking nor negative. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: not only is it adequately sourced, it is the network's defining characteristic as it was deliberately designed from its inception to be conservative, while none of its competitors were designed to be slanted, at least not until Newsmax and OAN came along, the slants of which are also noted in their first sentences. MSNBC adopted its current format several years after it was created. soibangla (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong keep. And please let this RfC be the end of it. It's quite ridiculous that we continue to entertain the idea that we should throw out our policies to accommodate the possible perception of bias on Wikipedia. What matters is if this is biased, and it's clearly not. I found a comment from 2006 (yes, 2006!) that is just as applicable to the consensus on this now as it was then: Since the perception of Foxnews having a conservative bias (whether the perception is accurate or not is irrelevant) is sufficiently widespread, to leave it out of the article would violate NPOV. This perception is also one of the factors that makes Foxnews notable, so it should be mentioned in the introduction. Also, since the perception (again not any actual bias just a perception) is so widely known to exist it need not be cited at all. However, to show that said perception is not being pulled out of thin air, there is a citation to a study showing the pervasiveness of the perception. ––FormalDude talk 16:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep in first sentence. Fox News was created by Roger Ailes to be a conservative, unofficial Republican Party, news channel. Burying the word seems to indicate the word is seen as embarrassing or negative. State it up front and own it. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Remove from lead sentence - there's no need to state the obvious. People don't need to be told the sky is blue. It's adequately covered later in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If you don’t live in America then this most definitely isn’t obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Using that logic, if you don't live in America then it isn't obvious that CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, New York Times, Washington Post are all liberal biased, but that description is not featured in any of their lead sentences. But if it is a conservative media outlet, you will most definitely find that description in the lead sentence of their respective articles. I still believe it is adequately covered in the lead of this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources exist to prove that or are you just relying on a speculative WP:OR WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Are you forgetting that Fox itself is RS and regularly accuses others (e.g. CNN) of having a liberal bias? Not dissimilar to what CNN does to Fox. We don't need to cover all the political shit-throwing that happens between the news orgs or at the least should be tactful about it. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:FOXNEWS for political topics, while CNN is considered reliable. ––FormalDude talk 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Fox News is considered mostly reliable for topics other than politics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep multiple RS describe Fox as being conservative. This is clearly one of it's main features. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Remove from lead sentence. All news organisations have biases. AFAIK Fox does not brand themselves as conservative - it has only been accused by others of having conservative bias, and the wording of the lead should reflective this. In this regard, the current 3rd and 4th paragraphs are sufficient. (As a comparative example, MSNBC which openly embraces its progressive slant including with their tagline "Lean Forward", does not have their biases mentioned in the lead at all.) Not to mention having unnecessary adjectives in the lead sentence is generally bad form and unprofessional to start with - a lead sentence should only define the article subject, and that's that. E.g. look at the lead sentence of Donald Trump - only states he served as the 45th President of U.S., makes no mention of his political leanings or whatever despite it being a common media talking point. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  The difference between MSNBC and Fox is that Fox was created by conservatives, for conservatives, and has remained that way since its inception. MSNBC only recently became liberal in the past few years. ––FormalDude talk 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: I don't if thats a justifiable argument against calling MSNBC liberal. RS is pretty clear about MSNBC having a liberal bias. If were going to describe Fox as conservative, an action that I support, we should also describe MSNBC as liberal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. It's its most distinctive feature, and the fact it might be obvious to an American Wikipedia editor does not mean it is obvious to a global encyclopedia reader. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per FormalDude, BobFromBrockley, Valjean, and over a decade of consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep “Many consider Fox News to be middle of the road and neutral" is an unsupported assertion for illusory purposes and should not be considered. Like, he couldn’t even have thought to survey before stating such. --CreecregofLife (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of last paragraph in lead

The sentence "although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to 'slant the news in favor of conservatives'" is based on a 2004 article referencing a documentary from the same year. Is it not reasonable to either remove the last paragraph altogether or include more elaboration? Seems to be highly misleading to the average reader, especially with it being a pretty serious allegation. Oebelysk (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like WP:RS/QUOTE isn't being followed, that is, there's a direct quote that readers might think is a quote of Fox or a quote of former employees, when in fact it's a quote of Mark Memmott in USA Today. And I'm not sure what he's paraphrasing, I thought that former employees said slanting was encouraged according to the documentary, but if that's all then it looks like "ordered" is just opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)