Talk:Fox News/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Ratings

Ratings - Before my edit, the Wikipedia article said "April 2005, however, Fox viewership had dropped for the sixth straight month (to a total drop of over 58%). Well, not only is that information wrong, if you click on the link you see that it came from a CNN press release. What the press release ACTUALLY said was that Fox's audience between 8 and 10 pm between the ages of 25 and 54 (Prime p25-45) was down since November 2004. CNN doesn't mention in their press release that November 2004 was the 2004 presidential election, where all news networks were at record highs. Additionally, that information is outdated. Fox's ratings have surged since April, and there are new figures for May and June. [ http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp] [1] Fox now regularly doubles CNN both in primetime and total day ratings.

This language is relatively new. I can't say I agree with your version, but the topic is earmarked for discussion. Could we table this issue for now, come back to it later? crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

BigDaveDiode here -- Please point out the CUME ratings in your source so that we may more easily locate them since it appears that your source discusses share only. Secondly, your statement that the CNN press release only covered the core demographic valued by advertisers in prime time is accurate. But that's rather the key: the core demographic coveted by advertisers in prime time. [2]

Additionally, regarding your statement that November was the election and the ratings were at record highs, that is true. However, other networks did not see the steep declines that Fox had (and in April CNN actually increased primetime viewership). In a change of topic, for anyone who's interested in the economics of Fox versus CNN, you can see an interesting article here [3] Suffice to say CNN generates more revenue per head than Fox and according to the article Fox still hasn't paid off it's capital investment costs. This is particularly interesting given that CNN has three times as much staff as Fox.

LILVOKA--- In all faith, Fox does hold the title of most watched viewers in the United States. Ironically CNN is pretty much the leader in world news and mainly the most trusted. O'Reilly, Hannity, and Hume are true conservatives. Fox News always blame ACLU, Jesse Jackson, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the United Nations, The New York and Los Angeles Times, and of course you the media critic for speaking out against President Bush, or his policies, the GOP and war in Iraq. Fox News is a channel for the right-wing idiots who walk the water Bush is standing in. Pretty white women, conservative white men, Roger Agiles, Rupert Murdoch is what Fox News Channel's about. Alan Colmes, Bernie Goldburg, Michelle Malkin, Jeese Lee Peterson, J.C. Watts, and Zell Miller are suppose to be the liberals of Fox News Channel. Yawn. The Fox News Channel is nothing but garbage and ratings. If Natalee Holloway, UN Oil For Food, Bush's "Great" Economic/Social Plans, and support for a troubling war on two fronts were the "only" things I can find on CNN, MSNBC or the Three, then maybe I support the Fox News Channel. I watch it and get a gag bad.

Page Unprotected.

I've unprotected the page. Let's reach a consensus here and make edits according to it. If there's another revert war I may consider re-protecting. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Per the MoS, I'm moving it and changing all occurrences of "FOX" in the article to the proper case. If there is strenuous objection to such, discuss it on the new Talk page. —chris.lawson (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggest archiving this section. crazyeddie 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

UK perspective: the passions this topic arouses are unnecessary and pretty ridiculous

I'm British. I assume that the "allegation" that Fox News has a right-wing bias is basically true. For heaven sakes, so what? There are umpteen major media outlets in the U.S. with a clear liberal bias. Why be so scared of a bit of variety? In the UK we take it for granted that different media outlets have different biases, and that this is a healthy situation. Can't you all just get real and calm down about it?

The result of all this passion is a pretty awful article, which focuses far too much on clashing opinions, when straight forward facts should be all that are required.

The problem is that many liberal news networks fail to acknowledge their liberal bias, and it is nowhere in their articles, while the Fox news article must have 1/2 article section on its alleged bias which I'm not even sure they have. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a very serious problem across most of Wikipedia. Articles like the Minuteman Project tend to get stacked full of criticism by liberal Wikieditors. If you guys want to help me out, when I get free time, I'm going to add bias sections to the Associated Press, Outfoxed, and expand them in some of the Michael Moore video articles. Overall, Wikipedia is fairly useless when it comes to controversial political topics due to the overall bias that can easily be seen, but I think with some work, that can be changed. --Ar57 07:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view the Fox news article is heavily biased pro-Fox. most of the positive content upo front looks suspiciously like filler to push the bias issue further down the page. Sure the page on Michael Moore should have an allegations of bias section, there are plenty of people on the left who think he practices jackass journalism. The Air America page should also make it clear that it is a partisan channel.

I just took a look at the Michael Moore entry, there is a very comprehensive section dealing with allegations of bias. Looks to me as if it has been there for a long time. Looks to me as if this is yet another example of unfounded right wing claims of bias where there is none. Its easy enough to read the Moore article and find the section on bias. But we still get folk complaining that it does not exist...

The bias in Fox is rather different. Fox is run by a GOP political operative as essentially a propaganda organ for the party. Fox is not merely biased in the way that the London Guardian or Telegraph have clear political biases. Fox actively campaigns for the Republican party promoting the GOP talking points of the day in the same manner that a party newspaper does. The London Guardian is a liberal newspaper but it is not the Morning Star or Labour News. The Telegraph is conservative biased but it is nowhere close to be Fox News.

Cities and villages have been decimated in Iraq because the American people have been decieved into believing Saddam had a direct role in the 9/11 attacks and that he was about to attack the US again. As is pointed out in the entry, Fox News played a large role in duping people with this propaganda. As the word suggests, MEDIA is the medium through which people are informed of what goes on in the World around them. That the news media is corrupted by politicians is not something to be taken lightly. Amibidhrohi 04:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... it appears you need to be watched closely now for POV pushing in these articles. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone needs to be watched for that. Not many people who bother to look Fox up and then edit the article are without their personal bias. Most,if not all try to pretend they're unopinionated or absolutely unbiased. That's a problem with wikipedia that has no solution- there can be no expectation of a purely academic contribution free of bias. Amibidhrohi 03:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That is true... to a point. Some people have much more extreme views than others. The crazy, tax-happy, baby-killing leftists or the crazy, poor-hating, world-killing righties are the ones really needing to be watched. There are people in the middle who can look at things objectively. Your notes above show that you might not be as objective as some people. That's all I was saying. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The links dispute

There seems to be some confusion as to how the links should be organized to ensure an NPOV. In particular a series of right wing vandals have removed critical links entirely on the theory that critical links should not be listed unless 'balanced' by complimentary ones.

If people beleive that there is a lack of balance they should add some links that are supportive of Fox News. Simply deleting critical links because they are critical is supressing criticism. This is not coincidentally exactly the sort of bias that Fox is widely accused of, presenting only the ideas of right wing idealogues and claiming that this represents a NPOV.

If you want the links to be 'balanced' then find some links from credible sources that are complimentary of Fox. If you can't find them that might be because they don't actually exist.

So far the links have been removed and reverted 5 times and there has not been any justification given for doing so in discussion that I could find.

FNC's format significant?

the columbia journalism review points out (quotes and link below) that fox's format - largely 'non-news' is different from cnn,msnbc, and (i suggest) this makes the anchor/moderator/guest's personal stance more important as opposed to those on the other networks. the article itself is dated ('98). is there anything new on this? have other networks, for instance also changed format's more in line with fnc? -- Doldrums 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

In FNC's round-the-clock format -- unlike those of its competitors at CNN and MSNBC -- hard news, except for breaking stories, is mostly confined to a few minutes on the hour and half-hour, plus an hour-long newscast at 7 p.m. Most of the rest is chat shows, interviews -- discussions of trends, technology, health, entertainment, education, pets, as well as some old newsreels from the Fox Movietone archives.

If Fox's collective news hole -- small for an all-news cable channel -- offers largely untilted coverage, its discussion programs regularly and unabashedly convey a right-of-center sensibility, sometimes subtle, at other times overt.

- Television: Is Fox News Fair?, March/April 1998, Columbia Journalism Review

This is a good point, and should be noted in the Allegations of Bias section. Thanks for the link! I'm not sure if anything new has been covered on that front, but then I'm hardly an expert. Another link that bears looking at is this: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm I'm planning on working on a draft rewrite of my own on the Allegations of Bias section, and I'll incorporate these two links into it. crazyeddie 08:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The UCLA/ADA study is a rather bizarre one to cite. It has serious problems with credibility as it strangely "scores" groups opinions based on how often they are cited. For example, "the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely." and the "American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger." Citing this rather marginal study in an effort to show that Fox is somehow not biased, loses credibility. --Bigdavediode 01:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

a (proto-)rewritten Bias section

NOTE: __this is an inline comment__

Fox faces criticism that its reporting is systematically biased and that its editorial line and commentary is conservative or right-wing. Fox and __it's supporters__ deny this and assert that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. __Note about organisation of section: allegations first, rebuttals later__ Criticism of Fox is based on __some blurb required__

Ownership, Management and Talent/Personnel

Fox's owner, Robert Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. The CEO Roger Ailes' past activities include working for Republican Party, Presidents__(Campaigns?)__ and right-wing media projects. A number of Fox News Channel's anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by __who? the channel's critics?__.

Reporting and Editorial Line

Fox's format has a __far?__ larger share of commentary over 'hard news'; than cnn or msnbc. Critics allege the commentary is largely biased, that this format brings out the personal biases of the on-air talent to a greater degree. Fox is also accused of blurring the lines between news and commentary. All this brings into question Fox's claim and self-promotion that it offers "Fair and Balanced" coverage and "We Report, You Decide".

In the documentary film ''Outfoxed'', former employees of Fox claim that management exercise editorial control over the channels content and that the channel practises systematic slanting of its news and commentary to present views that toe the mangement's line. They present Copies of Memos from Fox executive John Moody to substantiate their claim.

Apart from broad policies and practises, individual stories covered by fox have been pointed out as example of bias and misreporting.

• Fox has supported the War on Iraq in its editorial line, along wth all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide.

• Fox and the New York Post, both Murdoch-owned, were the only major news organisation to heed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's request to use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber". __Similarly Operation Iraqi Freedom? bbc called it iraq war, al jazeera called it an invasion, i think ...__

• In October 2004, Fox published a news article by Carl Cameron, its chief political correspondent, containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Fox later withdrew the article, apologised and stated that it "reprimanded" Carlson.

• Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that a Fox News opinion piece by John Gibson had breached the Programme Code (which sets out editorial standards for commercial television services in the UK) in three areas: "respect for truth," "opportunity to take part," and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence."

• John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a Fox news consultant who was part of the team that recommended Fox News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, in the 2000 Presidential election.

Media Studies and Watchdog Groups

A study published in Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold misperceptions such as "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda", "Since the war with Iraq ended, the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" and "the majority of people [in the world] favour the U.S. having gone to war". Strikingly, Fox viewers were unique in that thier likelyhood of holding these misperceptions increased slightly with the attention they paid to watching news.

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.

now for some xplanation

1. somebody has to do the thankles job of defending fox. i feel that separating the allegations and rebuttals makes for a better case, rather than listing individual charges and following it with a rebuttal. (for one thing, it makes the allegers case more believable ;))
2. i do think that the entire section shld be drastically shortened, and a separate article created for this section, which can mention the often tedious details (eg. Clyde Dormouse is conservative bcoz he appeared on Teletubbies, said "Hot diggity doo" at the Hickster's Convention in '68, and is also closely involved with Ed Pussycat's Needlepoint Project". "No, he's not, 'coz he ..." ). the version i've written is not much shorter, but if some kind of agreement on wording is reached, then most of the details which are currently present only substantiate one view or other can be eliminated in the short version.
3. all the takes on fox's slogans can be put together in one place, it's all more or less name-calling
4. i've left out the sources right now. most of the info and characterisation is sourced from sources already cites in the article, plus the columbia journal review article i'd cited earlier. if anyone has an urgent need to look at any particular source, she needs to ask. i'm planning to put up a cleaned up version with citations sometime soon.

some xplanations abt my edits

1. re. WXYZ affiliate case, The appeal decision that is linked to in the article states that the court found against akre and wilson on all counts, except the whistleblower claim. so i think this needs further scrutiny bfor being accepted as an alleged instance of bias/wrongdoing on fox.
2. i have left out the part abt john prescott ellis being in touch with bush ... etc, since it does not appear to be relevant to whether fox is biased or not.
3. the Program on International Policy Attitudes study on misperceptions ... states "a modest in increase in likelihood ..." and think 'slight' is a better than 'moderate' to describe 'modest'.
4. FAIR appears to have conducted a number of studies (same study over the years?)of guests on fox shows, and i think they need to be put together to be added to the media studies and watchdog subsection.
5. apologies for the __bad__ comment notation. dunno what i was thinking.

-- Doldrums 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I plan on working on a rewrite proposal of my own Real Soon Now. The main feature of what I'm planning on doing is to break down the section into three parts: Allegations of Editoral Bias, Allegations of Bias in "Straight News" Reporting, Alleged Violations of Journalisitic Intergrity. The various discussions about the biases among the on-air talent and management would be crammed into a subsection in the "allegations of editoral bias" section, I would also try to tie them all in to an overriding thesis that the FNC staff as a whole is biased, not just certain individuals. The WXYZ affiliate case and the John Prescott Ellis case would both be in the Alleged Violations of Journalisitc Intergrity section. That section would contain the most extreme allegations, including ones that are essentially conspiracy theories. Even conspiracy theories are notable...

I also have read the FAIR reports, and I'll be referring to them mainly in the Allegations of Editoral Bias section.

"Slight" might be better than "moderate" with the PIPA bulletpoint. However, I'd like to save such minor modifications until after the rewrite so they don't get lost in the rush.

We'll have to see what we can do to keep the section as short as possible - but no shorter! Spinning off the Allegations of Bias section into a seperate article is constantly being brought up, but it is contraindicated because it would be seen as a POV fork, and might bring about retaliations against, for example, the CNN article.

The name-calling is notable, and we should make some mention of it. If we don't, somebody is going to put it back in in about five minutes.

I'd very much appreciate your input and feedback once I've gotten my proposal done. crazyeddie 08:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Studies Section

The studies section might as well be removed. It's littered with bias. Sure you can dress up the findings nicely with scientific sounding names and descriptions but it doesn't change the fact that the organizations that conducted those studies are liberal. If you think it's possible for a slanting organization to conduct a fair study well, think again. The "Program on International Policy Attitudes" is an interesting study because of the definitions they use for certain criteria and not just the questions they do ask but perhaps more importantly, the questions they don't. For example, the first two misconceptions stated aren't misconceptions at all. Saddam Hussein began an anti-US alliance with bin Laden in the early 1990s. The culmination of this was a meeting in Prague between suicide bomber Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials several months before 9/11. The second "misconception" that the US hasn't found WMDs since the war started is equally laughable. The US has found strains of bioweapon agents in the home of an Iraqi defense scientist, a prison lab that was used to test bioweapons on human guinea pigs and many more chemical and bioweapon recipes and equipment. Perhaps the least known piece of evidence of Iraqi WMD production was the sarin bomb that exploded in Baghdad in May of 2004. FOX was the only news organization to cover it. Interestingly enough the Maryland study only asked the liberal questions, none of the conservative ones. Why didn't it ask its subjects if they thought Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent" threat? Or if America's intervention in Iraq was unilateral? Take out this section, it insults the unbiased nature of Wikipedia.

Upon further inspection of the page, it actually kinda sickens me. The page seems more like an essay titled "Fox News Loves Conservatives" than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. I can barely read a sentence without something trying to point to bias. Talk about bias, there should be a page devoted to the bias of the Fox News page.

Your primary fallacy is that you assume a liberal cannot point out or observe conservative bias. Wikipedia articles may include descriptions of multiple POVs, including criticism, especially on controversial subjects such as Fox News. CNN has a bias section as well.

As for your essay, there are several blatant indicators that Fox News does love the political Right. They're listed in a clearly-labeled section, and are not in "every other sentence" as you claim. Shem^(talk) 02:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

regarding 68.239.212.244's contention that "first two misconceptions stated aren't misconceptions at all". while its always interesting to know what anonymous people of 68...'s persuation believe abt these issues, the conclusions of those better qualified to find out the truth of these issues are clear; that the misconceptions are, indeed misconceptions.

In section 10.3, "Phase Two" and the Question of Iraq of the 9-11 Commission Report. (emphasis mine)

Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

laugh all you want, 68..., but Charles Duelfer's Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD states (report dated 30 September 2004. text copied from the Key Findings of sections of the report dealing with Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons); (emphasis mine)

*Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.

*Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

* While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,

*In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.

Doldrums 04:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bias in article

For some reason, the article critizes Ailes for confusing a Fox affiliate with the Fox News Channel, yet two sections allege that Fox News is biased, and that evidence is backed up with events dealing with Fox affiliates. Why the obvious bias and hypocrisy in the article? --Avonsf 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is on Ailes' part, not this article's. Past editors included Ailes' "response to criticism" in interest of NPOV, a statement in which he claims the actions of Fox affiliates as Fox News'. Ailes cannot claim the actions of Fox affiliates as his own only when it reflects "balance" upon the network. Fox News cannot denounce Outfoxed due to its coverage of affiliate actions while also claiming other affiliate actions as their own. Shem^(talk) 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the article critices Ailes for trying to link Fox affiliates and FNC, yet the same criticism isn't not present in the sections where Fox affiliates are used to attack FNC (the section on Outfoxed until recently added, and WTVT). Also, FNC's criticism toward didn't just have to do with the use of affiliates, it's the fact that Greenwald lied and tried to pass off those affiliate workers as "Fox News Channel" employees. --Avonsf 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV revert war

Could the person who keeps posting the NPOV tag at least tell us whether he thinks that the POV is left or right wing? Do they think it is inaccurate to describe Fox as a 'news station' rather than a 'facist propaganda outlet' or would they like the phrase 'anti-american communist sympathizers' to be added in front of the word critics? --Gorgonzilla 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratings

It looks as if the most likely explanation for the ratings collapse is that the ratings were fake all along. Under the diary scheme there were plenty of angry poor white males who would say they watch Fox when they don't. NPR and Air America see a similar effect. In the early days of Air America they were outperforming O'Reily in places where they didn't have a station. So now Neilsen has moved to electronic monitoring and use of Tivo etc. The bubble ratings are collapsing. So the recent declines of up to 60% in Fox ratings is probably not going to be a trend. I found a citation in BusinessWeek but I have not seen an editorial on the ratings now they are out. So can't put that in the article yet under no original research. But I would expect Fox themselves to be making the same argument sometime, well unless they succeed in getting a bill passed to prohibit the new methods of measuring ratings. Incidentally the rate card for Fox has always suggested that the advertisers suspect something of the sort is going on. --Gorgonzilla 00:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A Measure of Media Bias

This is a study that was linked to from the article a while back. The bulletpoint was removed because it was grossly POV. This is what I've come up with after reading the linked study. This proposed bulletpoint is a bit long, and probably could use other forms of polishing (not to mention getting vetted by others in order to prevent a possible edit war!) So, for your consideration... crazyeddie 01:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A December 2004 study, entitled "A Measure of Media Bias", by Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri.[4] In this study, the researchers investigated congressional citations of think tanks and other policy groups. Based on the scores of members of congress assigned by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the researchers estimated the ADA scores of the think tanks and other policy groups that these members of congress cited. Based on journalists' citations of these think tanks and other policy groups, the researchers then estimated the ADA scores of 20 major American news outlets.

The researchers omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor, and focused on the news stories of the outlets. The researchers ignored instances of legislators or journalists citing actions taken by policy groups (focusing instead on citations regarding the perceived views of the policy group), citations that were performed for the sole purpose of rebutting the policy groups' views, or when an ideological label was assigned to the policy group. The purpose of this was to focus on instances where "the legislator or journalist cited the think tank as if it were a disinterested expert on the topic at hand."

Based on this methodology, the researchers estimated Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume to have an ADA score of 39.7. This places Special Report to the right of the average American voter, who the researchers estimated to have an ADA score of 50.1. (Higher ADA scores indicate a liberal slant, lower scores a conservative slant.)

Out of the twenty news outlets investigated, Special Report was the fifth closest to the center, following PBS's Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America. (The Drudge Report came in fourth, but the researchers believed this to be an anomaly.) This study lends support to allegations that American media as a whole has a liberal bias, since, aside from Special Report, only one other news outlet had an estimated ADA score less than 50.1 (the Washington Times, with a score of 35.4). The study also lends support to allegations that American media has bias towards the center, since only one outlet, the Wall Street Journal, with a score of 85.1, had a score that was less than the average Republican member of Congress or greater than the average Democratic member of Congress.

---

• Looks good. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put it into the article, sit back and wait for the fireworks... crazyeddie 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, besides the prose being a little unreadable at points, and the link being busted, is this study very NPOV. People can quote studies all day long, but if the people performing the studies are biased, the study itself tends to be biased. (Just look at who did the scoring, the ADA) I don't really care one way or another, but I would like to see the full study if it is going to stay in the article. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the @#$% link. The researchers were in no way, shape, or form affliated with ADA - they were only using the ADA scores to rate the conservative/liberal nature of the various entites. The ADA is openly liberal, ADA scores are a measure of how well congress-critters agree with the ADA's stance on issues. So you could say that ADA scores are not so much a measure of liberalness or conservativeness, but of pro-ADAness and anti-ADAness. Fortunately, the ADA is liberal enough that this just so happens to be a good measure of location on the left-right spectrum also!

IIRC, roughly a third to a quarter of the entire report is dedicated to analyzing possible sources of bias in the report itself. I find it to be very NPOV. Interestingly enough, the person who first mentioned this report here was very much pro-Fox. They interperted the report as saying that the New York Times is 8 times more biased than FNC. True, but a gross distortion. crazyeddie 21:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to tinker with the prose! This is the Wikipedia after all. Just be prepared to work out a consensus if someone disagrees. crazyeddie 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested move

The correct title of this should be FOX News, not Fox News. FOX is a network. The news channel connected to it is FOX News. We don't write Cbs News, or Abc News. If this page were moved, there would be many double redirects that would need fixed. Any thoughts? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Look in the latest archive - I think somebody just moved the article here from FOX News to Fox News. I really don't care either way, but I would like the article to stay put for two months runnings. AFAIK, FOX isn't an acronym, like Columbia Broadcasting System, or American Broadcasting Company. The all-caps FOX is just a marketing thang. According to the last guy to move this article, in such a situation, the rule is to only capitlize the first letter. Again, check the latest archive for the details, I'm just working from memory here, and I wasn't too interested last time either. crazyeddie 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The network's name is "FOX", not "Fox". I'm not sure if it matters if it an acronym or not. Any respectable publication writes it as FOX, not Fox. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) After some research, it turns out I may have spoken too soon. Looks like it's about 50/50. Oh well, I guess it can stay. It's not hurting anybody. Sorry to bring it up. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You demonstrated a willingness to do some drudgery. Kudos! crazyeddie 22:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Blah, Blah, Blah... Fox News Is Still The Here

I do like Fox News. Their bias is off the chain! But I still like watching it! It's entertaining! I mean what channel can brag more than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News combined for their primetime line-up! Right after CNN beated the Fox News in the coverage of the two major hurricanes, Fox decided to prove that they still are the #1 in primetime. Oh what happen to the first half of the day? Did Fox News replace David Asman with Bill Hemmer? Did Linda Vester get replaced with Juliet Huddy? Did Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity get more louder since President Bush's rating plummet down once again? Does Fox need to be a little more fair and balanced? LILVOKA

What? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

'FOX News Channel' and 'FOX News' separated

I'm sure it's been addressed before, however there really should be a split in articles - one pertaining to the FOX News Channel (cable channel) and the other being FOX News (local affiliates), as they are separate divisions, headed by different personnel, and are very unique in terms of content. --Mrmiscellanious 21:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that this article is mostly about the FOX News Channel. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Checkup

So...how far are we here on the to-do list? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hell freezes over: Fox worried about trees

Right now www.foxnews.com is carrying GREENPEACE advertisements that protest against Kimberley-Clark treeloggings. Is the hell freezing over or the treehuggers obtained mind control devices to brainwash oil-neocon cabal?

Few things: 1) Fox is run by capitalists... they run ads for who is willing to pay. 2) TINONC. 8^) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sickening

I can't imagine how long you liberals have slaved over this article.

The amount of schemeing and weaseling to make it pejorative is unbelieveable.

Every possible angle has been added to make Fox news look horrible.

Way to go.

Another wikipedia triumph!--Capsela 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a little bit strange, especially because of the fact that the Dutch article, which i've created, has never dealt with any vandalism or POV pushers and is now even a featured article. Geograaf 15:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be due more to this being an American Institution that many Americans have strong feelings toward. Either that, or you might just not recognise POV pushes within the Dutch article. ;-) Congrats on the Featured Article, BTW. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry folks, this entry smacks of the same bias it accuses FOX News of sporting. Clean out all the subjective trash and just leave the facts. BTW, the CBS News entry doesn't discuss Rathergate, Bernard Goldberg, etc. Drill down the changes if you want this thing to be taken seriously.

was this article written by Ted Turner?

wow, just wow. I made a few changes, but this article still has major POV problems. compare this article to the CNN article and it is night and day. someone needs to do some serious work here. could the controversies and bias section possibly be any bigger? it's worth noting in an encyclopedia that one reporter gave a "soft interview" to Rush Limbaugh? wow, and Larry King has never given a soft interview in his career? not sure how that is a controversy. this article is laughable in just about every way. RonMexico 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that if I remove 3/4 of the bias section I'd get attacked — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

point taken. i already made some changes. if people think what i did was okay then maybe in a few days i will do a little more. i am still relatively new here and wikipedia has gotten in trouble lately, so i want to be careful not to overstep my bounds or put in things that people think are wrong. for now i'll see if my current changes withstand scrutiny. RonMexico 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to say this for 2 years! The bias section can not be 1/3 of the article!!! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a separate article detailing the various controversies surrounding Fox? Or would the mere existence of such an article be POV? I'm just asking, but one has to admit that there has been a rather large amount of criticism leveled against the network, and it should probably be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Similar articles could be made regarding the other major news networks as well if necessary. Just a thought. Thebogusman 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well doing that is probably against the forking policy and the NPOV policy. I would say simply cut down the criticism to the big important stuff. It does need a mention here though. I don't know if a separate article would be good. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

will do. I'm working on it today(slow day at work). RonMexico 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar articles would have to be made for the other networks in order for it to not be a POV violation. That's been the biggest problem with the FNC entry all along: Accusations of conservative bias are considered so important that its discussion is allowed to be the biggest part of this article, yet the entries for other networks do not even contain a single mention of accusations of liberal bias (except the CNN page, which has one tightly-written, concise section). That makes no logical sense in a country where the public overwhelmingly sees a liberal bias in the news media. Anyway: Ron, you're really doing yeoman's work here. Every edit you've made so far has been exactly what this article needs to get closer to a true NPOV. Thank you for taking it on, and I hope your changes last. Aaron 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It might seem illogical, but you must realise that Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, is also a medium that could be biased. :-) Editors here may have their own bias they have included within WP. But to really study POV here on WP, you would need an overarching, independent study over a wide variety of articles. Well, I am off to NOT do a grand study on Wikipedia. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the info could be incorporated into the article media bias in the United States and removed from here. Thebogusman 17:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Separating Fox News from Fox News Channel

I think the time has come to end the redirect of "Fox News" to "Fox News Channel". Fox News is expanding; they have a rapidly-growing talk radio network, now offer a full radio news service, and are expanding their reach into broadcast television ("Geraldo at Large" airs only on broadcast TV stations). All of these subjects deserve inclusion on Wikipedia, but none of them truly belong on a page about the cable news channel. Thoughts? Aaron 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Thebogusman 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

lawsuit Monsanto

I am looking for info on 2 employees of Fox13, who were fired when they did not want to air a falsefied reportage on Monsanto. It resulted in a law suit by Jane Akre, where (in appeal) whistleblower-status was denied because "lying in the news is not a crime". Who can help?

ah, I see at Jane Akre that the story is there. Why not here? Is Fox not equal to Fox13 ? :Mick2 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Netherlands)

No, it isn't. "Fox 13" is just a little local TV station that happens to be owned by the same company that owns Fox News Channel. Putting anything about Jane Akre in the Fox News Channel article would be like putting accusations of dangerous rides at Disney World in the entry for ABC News. Aaron 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if ABC would have been directly involved...

Does anyone know whether or not FOX was involved (behind the scenes) in this lawsuit? /Mick2 14:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, despite their (false) denials, Fox News headquarters was directly involved in that case. The Fox affiliate was located in Florida, not Atlanta, however even the most cursory examination of the court documents shows that 1) Fox head Ailes was the one contacted by Monsanto (and he claims to know nothing about it) and 2) that the court documents show that the lawyer of record (Carolyn Forrest) actually works from Atlanta. Fox may be perceived poorly because the facts are biased against it. --Bigdavediode 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversies and allegations of bias edits

I removed the 'liberal critics' phrases. They imply that only liberals, not moderates or moderate conservatives, feel that Fox News is slanted in their reportings, which is not arguable without references that prove that to be the case. "Critics" would suffice.

NPOV

Well over half of the article is devoted to criticisms, controversies and allegations of bias. Even the sections that aren't specifically about controversies discuss the "conservative bias". If you want to see how this article could be better written, just look at the CNN page. CNN has a controversy and bias section but it doesn't take up the majority of the article like here. Even the minor changes I and other people have made keep getting reverted. someone please make this article fair if Wiki wants to be taken seriously as a legitimate encyclopedia. again, i'm NOT saying to eliminate criticisms, i'm just saying currently it is taking over the entire article and people are resisting any change whatsoever. RonMexico 13:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting, so the fact that the criticisms outweigh other facts about the organization reflects what is known about Fox. If you disagree with any of the segments, give reason and reference for that and modify the article accordingly. It's not right that the NPOV sign be used as a first measure against the article. Amibidhrohi 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting..." ....says who? Obviously, this is an opinion, not factual. What methods to you propose to scientifically establish your hypothesis? On the other hand, if you stated some groups or segments of society FELT that Fox News was biased, that would be a factual statement, but it should be put in the under an appropriate topic.

Fox News' website has carried false quotes from a presidential candidate on its website, which it later said was a "mistake" from a reporter. After the London bombs Fox News host Brit Hume, "speaking about the reaction of the financial markets, the channel's Washington managing editor, said: "Just on a personal basis ... I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought 'hmm, time to buy'."" Another Fox News host, John Gibson, said before the blasts that the International Olympic Committee "missed a golden opportunity" by not awarding the 2012 games to France. "If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?" Now, your definition of bias may differ from mine, but in my opinion any of the above in a systematic pattern as Fox has shown (and there are plenty more quotes) may indicate a slight bias away from impartial news reporting. --Bigdavediode 07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash- if the West Virginia coal miner story teaches us anything, it's that EVERY news source makes mistakes. Nothing unique to Fox about this. And of course it is easy to cherry pick a bunch of random quotes from any news channel to create any impression that you want to make. Colmes, Hannity, O'Reilly are paid to give their opinion. Some of those opinions are conservative, and some are liberal. I could find a bunch of quotes from Hannity to show a "conservative bias" or a bunch of quotes from Colmes to show a "liberal bias", but i'm not sure what the point of this would be. I don't see any reason why CNN, Fox, Nytimes, CBSnews, et all should be treated any differently from each other in terms of the length of the controversies section. RonMexico 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

wow, I just checked wiki for CNN and they don't even have a controversies section anymore... apparently amibid, the same guy who resists any change whatsoever on the fox news page, deleted the entire CNN controversies section. It is apparent from comparing the CNN page to the fox news page that wiki cannot be taken seriously as an impartial source. maybe it is time to delete the controversies section here too? thoughts? comments? RonMexico 15:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for deleting that section of the CNN entry in the CNN discussion page. Try reading it. Someone with a yen against CNN is editorializing based upon his/her own opinions. I don't mind a section on controversy in the CNN page, so long as that section is based on real sources. And quit this "comparing CNN to Fox" nonsense. CNN was first created with the sole intent of providing a 24 hour news service. Fox News was created by Rupert Murdoch, according to this very entry that I didn't pen, with the intent to 'balance' what Murdoch believed was an ideological imbalance in journalism. To our knowlege CNN doesn't print out memos dictating the 'cause of the day', Fox does.CNN is a news service. Fox News is deliberate propaganda. The two are not the same.Amibidhrohi 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What was said above re: Fox is correct "paid to give their opinion." By mixing opinion, editorials and news together the results are that 67% of Fox viewers leave with misimpressions, such as "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization." and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 73% of Fox News stories contained opinion. That is the very definition of bias. Even Roger Ailes himself has said that to achieve balance "We're going to provide straight, factual information ... with less 'spin' and less 'face time' for anchors," as you can tell by watching Fox, they spend a disproportionate time on "face time" (to use Ailes' words). You may argue with the wording of Fox bias and how its presented in this article, but it cannot seriously be argued at this point whether Fox has a bias.

However, like the conventional wisdom, you ascribe this difference to a misimpression instead of the alternative logical explanation: That Fox viewers are more aware of the presence of al Qaeda members in Iraq before and after 9/11, and feel that this is enough that they were working together in someway - even if, like any good intelligence organziation they only fed each other information on a need to know basis.

Let's ask this another way. "Do you believe that there is clear evidence that the FBI and CIA were working closely together to fight terrorism prior to 9/11?" I think most would have to answer yes even though the 9/11 commission ruled that they failed to share vital information with each other prior to the catastrophe. If you say yes to this question, then can you see how it is reasonable for competent minds to differ on the survey question above without such a difference being called a "misimpression". The labeling of such an opinion as a misimpression is itself a POV that a neutral party could reasonably find that the preparers of the survey were promoting. Trödel•talk 19:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If the survey alone were the entire argument regarding bias at Fox and there weren't a preponderance of evidence from all sides that indicates Fox has a bias along with direct quotes from Fox anchors and editorialists, then we could try and slice this argument finer. As it is, it's pretty clear. The only response (which the paragraph above shows) is the claim that the the messenger of this news is biased which, when without support, is "argument to the man" or "attacking the messenger."

Another issue here that is repeated often is that CNN's entry and Fox's is different. This fallacy is that there is some sort of equivalence between the two topics when, in fact, they are different topics entirely. Any discussion that CNN needs a larger "bias" entry should be confined to the CNN entry and shown with appropriate credible citations. It should not be argued that Fox's entry shouldn't have a well documented bias section solely because some other entry doesn't. This is a faux balance.--64.180.102.14 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting, so the fact that the criticisms outweigh other facts about the organization reflects what is known about Fox." do you have a source for this statement? "If you disagree with any of the segments, give reason and reference for that and modify the article accordingly." I don't disagree that some of the criticisms should be documented, but to swamp the article with every little grievance people can scrounge up is way overboard. again, look at the CNN page to see how an encyclopedia article can discuss criticisms while in the context of an informative encyclopedia article. this article, by comparison is a giant hit piece. "It's not right that the NPOV sign be used as a first measure against the article." It hasn't been, there have been numerous complaints by multiple people on the discussion page as well as changes people have made to the article that keep getting reverted. Obviously, Fox is criticized by some as having a conservative slant, and that should be documented(just as the CNN page mentions CNN's alleged liberal slant) The fact that these criticisms have basically overtaken the entire article creates a POV problem. Hence, the NPOV tag stays. RonMexico 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

CNN isn't known to run host after host who speaks exclusively in defense of the Republican party and the conservative agenda. As for 'proof', google FOX NEWS. Almost every website that isn't either Fox or marketing it or its affiliates speaks to its bias. Anyway, the burden of proof that Fox ISN'T recognized for its bias is on you since you're the one who wants to post that sign.Amibidhrohi 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Google is not a proper citation. The results can be manipulated. Popularity does not equate to truth or true facts.

Fox News is notable for being a television channel. Its main notablility is not that it is biased. It's main notability is that it is a TV channel. The bias is a secondary notability. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

glad to see you weigh in here, and i agree with what you say. i'm unclear by your post whether you think that an NPOV tag here is justified or not. If you feel it is not warranted i will defer to your judgment since you are a long-time user/editor of wiki. clearly Amib has an axe to grind with fox news. if you feel that an NPOV tag is not warranted than i would at least like a little leeway to make the mammoth and ever-expanding criticism section more concise and to keep the conservative bias editorial comments (that Amib and his pals seem to want to put all over the place) within the criticism section where they belong. in other words, i'm looking for your guidance, Lord. I've never felt the need to use the NPOV tag before but this article seems to be crying out for it. RonMexico 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it has been a little bit since I've actually read this whole article, so I don't feel I can make a judgement on whether or not it should have a POV tag. However, if you think it is POV, I'd say keep the tag as long as you specifically explain why you have applied the tag. Then work with others here to find consensus about article content. I will check out the article and check back in here in a little bit. And don't defer to me just because I have been here a little longer than you, I am just a lowly editor trying to make the world a more NPOV place. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"I'd say keep the tag as long as you specifically explain why you have applied the tag." I thought I already did that. As you said, the main notability of Fox News is that it is a TV channel, a secondary notability is a perceived bias. The article should reflect that. I see no reason why the bias section here needs to be 10 times longer than every other news channel. If it were up to me, i would write an article modeled after the CNN article with a concise section making note of the perceived conservative bias, with maybe 6 or 7 solid examples. The current lengthy laundry list of grievances can be modified while still hitting the main points. I also think that the conservative bias claims should be restricted to the criticism section as opposed to being sprinkled throughout the entire article like they are now. RonMexico 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

alright i will try again. specifically, i am going to move all complaints/comments about a conservative bias into the controversies/bias section. and i'm going to follow the example of the cnn page in terms of the size and the scope of the "controversies/bias section". hopefully this will not touch off an edit war(although i'm not getting my hopes up for that).RonMexico 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

or not....someone just protected it. anyways, i've just looked at CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.(yes i have alot of time on my hands today) and none of them come even close to the controversies, criticisms, and bias section that this article contains. This article needs a drastic overhaul, does anyone (besides Amibidhrohi) disagree with this? American domestic political squabbles and point-scoring don't belong in Wiki. Bring the Fox page in line with every other news source.RonMexico 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have looked into having it unprotected, at least for a little bit. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay... it's done. Do your best. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove information that has a source and is relevant to the article. Anything that is inaccurate, and any point that is derived from one's own judgement should be removed. No disagreement there. There's no logic that you've given that justifies using the CNN entry as a template for the Fox one. If there's insufficient criticism on the CNN page, edit THAT. So long as the information provided in the Fox entry is accurate, they should remain. If how Fox runs itself warrants criticism and that criticism has been voiced by referable sources, it's entirely natural that an encyclopedia would reflect that. Do not confuse being fair or balanced with being deceptive by excluding facts. Amibidhrohi 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I echo Amib's sentiments, however, I would put a slight caveat there as well. Unencyclopaedic information can always be removed, even if it is factual. Non-notable info can be removed as well. Things must be cited and verifiable. I'd say start slow and discuss potential big changes here first. Be bold, but don't be reckless. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"If there's insufficient criticism on the CNN page, edit THAT." Your standard is absurd. there are dozens of political websites which chronicle every single thing said on every news channel/agency in the world looking for "bias". so your opinion is that I should go on some right-wing website devoted to attacking cnn, cbsnews, etc and cherry-pick a bunch of quotes/random media research studies(ie:FAIR)/management info and spray it all over Wiki? I would hope that most people could see how ridiculous that is.RonMexico 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RONMEXICO, you're repeatedly placing political label adjectives such as 'liberal' or 'left wing' before groups that have criticised Fox. If you can conclusively prove that they are categorically 'liberal' or 'left wing', provide the sources. If you can't, stop adding them. These adjectives are your own perceptions of those critics' biases, and therefore POV. To demonstrate what I mean, I added one such adjective which you're welcome to delete for the same reason...or LEAVE there if you feel your actions are reasonable. Amibidhrohi 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

if you look on the FAIR wikipedia page they refer to themselves as a progressive group, therefore I think it is fair to identify them as such. I did not label the other 2 groups who performed the media research studies in this article. As for mediamatters.org, i hope you are not seriously saying that that is not a left-of center website. As for the new NPOV, fyi, i was not the the one who put that on there. RonMexico 03:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't see the new NPOV sign until now...Whoever put that up needs to justify it, and at least try to correct inaccuracies before putting it there. I'm taking it off. If FAIR characterizes itself as progressive, use 'progressive', not liberal. As for mediamatters, its bias is no more obvious than Fox News' own. I say we steer clear of all these adjectives, since from the opposing side's point of view they are inevitably pejorative. Amibidhrohi 04:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Straightforward removals

I understand there is alot of controversy on this topic, though I'm not sure why. The answer is simple. If you were writing a research paper, you would want your statements to be factual and supported by sources. If you were to demonstrate a persons viewpoint, you would have to provide direct quotes from that person to establish an argument for that persons POV or why that person did something. And IF you decided to put forth some editorial content (which is fine) you would place it in the appropriate categories. History is not an appropriate category to editorialize.

The following line in History should be removed or moved to a more appropriate topic:

"Rupert Murdoch established Fox News to counter a news media that he claimed was predominantly liberal.[2]"

First of all, the source cited does not in any way support the statement. Just on the face of that one could say the statement is fabricated. That doesn't mean that it isn't true, but merely an opinion as presented. There are other appropiate categories that the statement could be placed under but it should also have correct citations to actual quotes from Murdoch. Or it could be rephrased to to show a POV of a segment of the public and placed in an appropriate topic like Controversy.

Who is having this conversation? Please sign your posts; otherwise it's almost impossible to tell who's talking and where one comment stops and the next comment begins. --Aaron 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use HTML comments to talk

Someone please remove the comments for the ratings section and can we please discuss this on this page? —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter?

I don't believe Ann Coulter ever worked for FNC. She was added to the personality list and removed, and now she's under "Former Personalities."

Did she just recently join and leave the network or did someone add her to make them seem more conservative?

71.100.36.139 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; I can't find any evidence she's ever been employed by Fox. I'll pull it. --Aaron 04:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Don't Count Us Out" removed

I have removed the following paragraph from the Ratings section:

News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, has campaigned against plans by Nielsen to change the method used to compile ratings from the traditional 'diary' method to the electronic 'people meter'. A longstanding criticism of the diary method of compiling ratings is that consumers may misrepresent their viewing behavior in order to 'vote' for prefered programming such as PBS or Fox News. A grassroots campaign financed and organized by Fox, Don't Count Us Out has alleged that the new method of compiling ratings is biased against minority viewers pointing to dramatic falls in the viewing figures of network TV programs aimed at minority audiences. Supporters of Nielsen, including Jesse Jackson, have noted that the Nielsen sample actually over-represents minority viewers and that the dramatic falls in viewing of broadcast programming are matched by a rise in the ratings for cable programming, in particular Black Entertainment Television [5]

This may belong on the Nielsen page, but it has no direct relevance to FNC. --Aaron 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill O Reilly admission??

Well an IP added this. I listened to it. I am not sure if he is admitting that FOX news is right wing or he says that NBC thinks FOX news is right wing. I have a feeling that the latter is more correct. In either case, I feel that it may be taken off the site soon, if anyone wants to listen, there you go. Docku^Hi 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking from the perspective of NBC. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)