[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Fox News/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Poll on Content

This is a poll to decide which version should be used ([1]) Note: Neutrality's version would include the Coulter paragraph also, adding that "Noted right-wing commentator Ann Coulter disputes..."

Then why were you repeatedly erasing it? VV[[]] 06:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because I didn't see it. Neutrality 06:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's Version

  1. Neutrality 06:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily's Version

Neither

  1. See Comments below. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tim Ivorson 20:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Quadell (talk) 18:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC), and see comments.
  4. This is not poll material. Work it out among yourselves. Yath 04:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. They both need work. Shard

Comments

  • I agree with some aspects of NEutrality's version (especially removing the Ann Coulter Paragraph), and some aspects of VV's version (the minor wordings; "FOX" instead of "Fox", "Results in" instead of "Allows fox to have", "claims" instead of "found"). So, personally, I think VV's version should be kept and merged with some minor aspects of Neutrality's version. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. A compromise is when each side concedes or changes a part that the other party has an objection to. It's not acceptance or rejection of all the edits of one side.
  • Instead of VV's Allegations or N's Findings, I'd use "Conclusion" or "Statement". A Coulter quote is appropriate, but it should be a full quote, not a restatement of a quote. VV's wording in the first disputed paragraph is a little nicer. Mackerm 08:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we should split up the disputes and vote on them separately. For the record, I like VV's intro better, but I like Neutrality's "Studies and Analysis" (and attitude) better.

Content Dispute poll

This is a poll to decide which version should be used ([2]) Note: Neutrality's version would include the Coulter paragraph also, adding that "Noted right-wing commentator Ann Coulter disputes..."

Then why were you repeatedly erasing it? VV[[]] 06:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because I didn't see it. Neutrality 06:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since somebody suggested breaking it up, I decided to start another poll (and since 4 ppl voted 'neither')

Intro (0/1/0)

Neutrality's Version

VV's Version

  1. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Neither

Bias Section (0/1/0)

Neutrality's Version

  1. Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC) (Neither is egregious or inaccurate. But this one is better, IMHO)

VV's Version

  1. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tim Ivorson 10:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neither

Coulter Quote (0/0/1)

Neutrality's Version

VV's Version

  1. Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure the entire quote should be used. See comments below.

Neither

  1. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC). Like somebody said above, put the whole quote.

Comments

  • I don't think it's a good idea to try to use the whole quote, because the quote is a long, inflamatory essay that isn't easily sectionable. Here's one of many points she makes:
The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq ? by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

or

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" ? basically what you might see on an episode of the original "Batman" TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

I would prefer a less shrill example be used instead of Coultier, but I couldn't find one. (Bill O'Reilly bragged on Fox News "Well, I think Fox News Channel was lucky because we were less skeptical of the war, and the war went very well. So we won.", but I think that's more a likely target of satire than a useful counter-opinion.) Anyway, if a more thoughtful counter-opinion can't be found, I think Coultier's general drift should be summarized, much like VV's version does. Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

If you have anything else to add, add it above.

VV

Any way we could resolve these issues between your version and mine? Neutrality 04:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. My version is straightforward replacement with neutral language. Do not revert good edits and information. It is very obnoxious. VV[[]] 05:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Do you want to take this to quickpoll and let the community decide? I am willing to compromise — you are a great user and I wish no ill to be between us. Neutrality 05:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can do your thing if you want. I will continue to resist your efforts to suppress dissenting views and portray partisan attacks as neutral sources, as well as your reverting my work. VV[[]] 05:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment (in your changed text [3]); I am surprised. But just reverting me repeatedly is not kosher. VV[[]] 05:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
More to the point, reverting me in the first place was not kosher, and my unhappy response should have been predicted. VV[[]] 05:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have you two even talked about what you're in dispute over? Other than the Ann Coulter quote, everything else is small potatoes. Fuzheado | Talk 06:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IF you would take notice, that seems to be all anyone's arguing about lately. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's not clear at all what folks were arguing about, since there was no talking, they were just reverting. Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outfoxed

Somebody should add something about the movie Outfoxed. It's financed in part by MoveOn.org and the American Center for Progress and directed by Robert Greenwald, and it's main thesis is that Fox News is not imbued with a conservative bias but a Republican bias. That Fox News is the mouthpeice of the Republican party and not of conervatism in general. MoveOn has organized nationwide screening parties of the film, where people will screen the film in their home and invite others to join them. Afterwards there will be an online discussion. StoptheBus18 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we include the moveon.org movie about George Bush and Hitler on the George W. Bush article? Ilyanep (Talk) 23:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow. OK schmuck, first off it wasn't a movie it was a thirty second ad (I would try explain the difference but I'm not sure you'd understand). Second off it was for a competition where anyone could submit an entry. MoveOn.org did not make the add, some random people did. And what's more MoveOn removed and denounced the add. But oh I guess truth really isn't your strong point isn't it. While we're on the subject of Georgie boy let's talk about his ads comparing John Kerry to Hitler. Don't believe me motherfucker? Check it out here Der Furor: Bush plays the Nazi card. Geez you can't seem to win. Now not only is your pants pooping friend (O'Reilly of course) triviliazing the Holocaust, but so is your manchild demiG-d, little George. You make me sick, Court Jew. StoptheBus18 16:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who the hell told you I support bush completely? Unlike you, I don't follow blindly behind the people who I do support. I say that is overkill...which is more than you've done for anything that the democratic party (which is obviously who you support) has done. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
StoptheBus18 was strong in his words, but he told the truth about MoveOn.org. The two Hitler-movies were submitted by two persons to the contest website archive where there was about 1500 other 30-second movies. MoveOn.org I guess just made the blunder to not check and verify submissioned movies to the archive, which in retrospect was a disasterous mistake. So claiming that MoveOn.org compared Bush to Hitler is a lie. Claiming that a person who made a movie comparing Hitler to Bush and submitting it to the MoveOn.org movie archive is the truth.Mastgrr 10:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"...which is more than you've done for anything that the democratic party (which is obviously who you support) has done." Yeah I read that like five times and I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I love how every time I engage you and I prove some dumbass thing you said wrong you just ignore it and take some tiny little issue other thing and attack that instead. But I guess truth has never really been the strength of the right wing has it? Otherwise we wouldn't be in Iraq would we? StoptheBus18 18:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS I'm way left of Democrat ;)

Last week, Democracy Now! interviewed the director of this movie and played a bunch of clips from the film. [4] The evidence is pretty damning. Especially the memos and the reporter's little 'chat' with President Bush right before giving an interview. The "Kerry is French" clip was hilarious. The director was also interviewed on FAIR's CounterSpin show. [5] I haven't seen the whole movie yet, but just from seeing these clips, Fox News' credibility just went into the toilet. Moreover, here Bill O'Reilly spinning the 9/11 Commission's findings. [6]--GD 01:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I saw the trailer for the film, and I didn't find it impressive at all. It was quite clear that many of the clips in it were taken out of context and distorted to promote the movie's agenda. I checked the transcript of the full film, given on the Outfoxed website, and the clips seem to be the same. They might have some credible evidence, but given the deceptiveness of what I've seen, the credibility of the film is going down the toilet for me. There's an article on usatoday.com that claims the movie criticizes the FOX memos, but fails to acknowledge the numerous memos instructing reports to be fair in their coverage, and give each Presidential candidate equal time. [7] If true, that kind of deception is similar to others in the film. From the trailer, I noticed that much of their argument seems to be based on clips from debate and opinion shows such as Hannity & Colmes. They string together clips of Sean Hannity (a conservative), while removing Alan Colmes, thus making the views unbalanced. However, this movie does directly relate to FOX News, and is a fairly large issue, so it should probably be mentioned in the article; NPOV, of course. Another thing that should be mentioned is that FOX News has refuted several of the allegations in the film, claiming that some of the "former employees" interviewed were never actually employed there. - MattTM 09:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest you see the film in order to critique it appropriately. It's hard to take your points with full force otherwise. You are correct that the part of the documentary with the memos is clearly the most questionable, since they can all be taken out of context (ie. cherry picking the most juicy and incriminating parts). However, the most damning parts are the the on-air reporters, who cannot be dismissed as "never actually employed there" - Jon DuPre explains the inner workings and the culture of conservatism and Carl Cameron talkes about his wife doing campaigning for Bush before interviewing candidate Bush. The latter is simply unacceptable in other professional news organizations. As for Alan Colmes (or rather, alan colmes) leaving him out changes nothing. He's such an insignificant inflatable punching doll on the Hannity and Colmes show in the first place. :) Also, most of these comments should indeed be at the Outfoxed page. Fuzheado | Talk 06:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clearly, Outfoxed deserves mention in the bias area of this page, because it is a sufficiently relevant movie to this television network in particular. If any other news network had been the subject of a topical and critical documentary, especially one that had a wikipedia entry, a mention and link would have been made. This has due justification. Flying hamster 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

33 internal Fox Memos

MediaMatters.org has 33 internal Fox memos from John Moody. The memos give clear guidelines on how the network is supposed to handle certain stories (like Kerry "throwing away his medals). This has to be included NPOV of course. StoptheBus18 16:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are these memos published somewhere, I'd like to see those. Just curious. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right here. Not only are they published but Media Matters has the actual photcopies of them. This is some good shit right here. StoptheBus18 18:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Im going to add a section about this in the page. Any suggestions on how it should be written? StoptheBus18 18:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whining about Fox News

The Fox News Channel is accused of being "right wing" and "conservative" and a "mouthpiece for the Republican party" because they actually allow those to the right of Pol Pot to express their views.

Wow. How very eloquent of you. You must be a writer. StoptheBus18 18:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the God damn way...

[An anonymous user here alleged that Rupert Murdoch supported Al Gore in the 2000 election, served as vice finance chairman for Gore's September 14, 2000 fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York, and contributed $50,000 to Al Gore's presidential bid.]

Unprotecting

At this point, I'm going to unprotect the page. I think the cooling-off period has lasted long enough. I'll make changes based on the consensus, as determined by the straw poll above. Quadell (talk) 13:09, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

A recent example of Fox bias:

As you probably heard today, Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, is accused of improperly removing classified documents from the National Archives related to terrorism.

Was Fox News lying when it made the following statement on its website.

"Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html

If Berger and his lawyer did not make such a statement Fox News has lied. At very least it is guilty of not checking sources when they agree with the Fox bias.

The guilt or innocence of Berger has no bearing on whether or not Fox news has made a false statement. Either Berger and/or his lawyer made the statement Fox claimed that they did, or Fox has distorted the coverage of this situation.

Analysis of the Socks story

Here's a quick analysis, courtesy of Google News. All this was found by typing in "socks Berger" for a news search (and surprised me that Google News would pull up some pretty odd news sources). Conclusion: no real source for the socks

The AP report says that AP was told by the lawyer he had placed them in his jacket and pants but no socks.
Washington Times also has the AP account but uses sticking them into jacket and pants, an interesting distinction.
Now, traditional news sources mention the "socks" story, but not anything like FOX's account. They say it was an unidentified staffer, and not Berger or his lawyer:
CNN, saying an unidentified archive staffer saw the "socks":
Guardian in UK essentially quotes CNN's account:
If you look at right wing news outlets, they have picked up on the socks:
Interesting that Limbaugh picks up the "socks" theme, without any sourcing:
WashingtonDispatch basically quotes the FOX News story:
GoodNewsAmerica.us has said Berger admitted to the socks, and labelled this "TrouserGate". However, the site appears to be quite right wing and there is also no sourcing:
So it seems that the "jacket" and "pants" comes from a credible source, the AP, and that might be corroborated by CNN, or CNN may just be using AP's account. However, there has been no substantial source on the "socks" aspect of it, so far. Fuzheado | Talk 03:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yes, I agree (and I'm quite right-wing). From what you say I don't see a substaintial source. But I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it and check it out myself. But what does this have to do with FOX news? Ilyanep (Talk) 15:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course check it out! That's what the Internet is for. It does not have much to do with FOX News other than they might have been the originator of the socks story. In fact I was about to post this to Talk:Sandy Berger instead. Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Actually, I think I heard it on the local ABC affiliate AM station (WLS-AM) before FOX news, but that's just me. Ilyanep (Talk) 16:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PIPA study

Neutrality, you recently made some changes to the PIPA section. I see two problems. One is the word "incorrect". This is tricky. Our NPOV policy says that if a large group of people believe something is true (e.g. creationism), then even if I know it's false, I can't say it's false on Wikipedia. Well, a lot of people believe WMDs were found in Iraq -- 50% of Fox viewers, aparently. And Coultier's diatribe lists several possible things that might have been found, and might be considered WMDs by those with good imaginations. With the other misconceptions, there's just a lot of wiggleroom. Is there a link between al-Qaida and Iraq? Not a meaningful one, but there are links -- a technicality Bush is currently hanging his hat on. Did the US get "wide" support for its war? How wide is wide? I just can't see how saying those things are "incorrect" is NPOV.

The other thing is, Coultier's essay doesn't say the report is full of "misconceptions". She says that what the report calls "misconceptions" actually aren't. Quadell (talk) 03:31, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


Mujahedeen and Jafarzadeh

following comments were initially on my talk page. I cut and pasted them here as this seemed more appropriate Refdoc 12:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC):

I restored the piece of information which you had deleted from the article FOX News about the fact that a high-ranking member of a terrorist organization, which is recognized even by the United States as a terrorist organziation, is a regular contributor to FOX News. This is highly important information considering FOX News is a major news network in USA and they are the loudest voice of right-wing politices in USA. Why did you not want this significant piece of information to be in the article? Michael Caggiano, Boston, USA.
Please do this kind of debates on the talk page of the article not on my user talk page. The initial reason to delete it was that it was inserted by a discredited source, a user who kept adding doubtful information and vanity links( and is now banned for 1 year following attacks on another user) . I have edited and re-inserted it. Change it if you are unhappy Refdoc 09:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This last edit by anonymous user is less clear and more POV. I have reverted Refdoc 11:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I think your change is the POV one and not the one that you reverted. MKO is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION by all accounts and the way you are wording that paragraph attempts to hide it somehow. The whole point of that paragraph is to inform the reader about this hypocritical behavior of FOX News and it seems for some reason you are "standing up" for them, and since you can't really deny that they are hiring a high-ranking member of a terrorist organization, you resort to playing with words such as a "proscribed organization". As an American I like to call a spade a spade.

And as a British English speaker I call a shovel a shovel... . I have used the term I am used to. And this is "proscribed organisation", which is a British legal term, in common use in the UK and in other British English speaking countries and perfectly well understood. "Terrorist organisation" sounds in my (British trained) ear populist, POV and not helpful to clarify the exact position. But I see where you are coming from and I found in the meantime that your SoS uses the term "designated as a foreign terrorist organisation" I have tried to incorporate this. I believe it is extremely important to not make value judgements but report facts - which is the proscription/designation rather than your (or my) particular view of the organisation - which is actually the same - if you care and look at my edits of the MKO article.

Leaving this particular aspect aside I still prefer my particular paragraph as it is more detailed. Please do not simply revert but incorporate the additional information.

Finally wrt to Fox - I could not care less. I find most American TV - as far as it is visible here ridiculous and hypocritical - but again, this has nothing to do with writing encycploedia articles Refdoc 20:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the page to end an edit war. The parties are now encouraged to discuss the content here on the talk page. 172 00:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutralization

Hi! Sorry for the delay; I was busy with some Global Warming zealot.

OK, folks. This Fox News page is getting neutralized! That requires the following:

  • Deleting user opinions, attacks, and speculation
  • Deleting all FAIR garbage
  • Deleting wacko conspiracy theories
  • Correcting a couple minor factual errors
  • Correcting subjective wording

A couple examples:

Regardless of the biases of FOX or its competitors, there is no question about the success of the channel. It currently dominates the cable news market, earning better ratings than its chief competitors CNN and MSNBC combined.
will become:
Fox news currently dominates the cable news market, earning better ratings than its chief competitors CNN and MSNBC combined.

and

Former "Fox News Sunday" host Tony Snow is a conservative columnist, radio host, and former chief speechwriter for the first George H. W. Bush administration. This perceived bias may have led to Snow's replacement by Chris Wallace in 2004.
will become
Former "Fox News Sunday" host Tony Snow is a conservative columnist, radio host, and former chief speechwriter for the first George H. W. Bush administration. In 2004, Snow was replaced by Chris Wallace, who currently anchors the program.

This article will, after our collective input, more closely resemble the CNN article, which is simpler, more cleanly worded, and substantially more neutral. As a conscillatory gesture, I propose adding a section on "Allegations of bias" to the CNN article rather than deleting it completely from this article.

So that's it! Sorry to end the party, but we've got to look out for the kids! Let's leave the pointed blather and innuendo to the blogs and media pundits. Regards. ~thejackhmr

I agree with many of your sentiments: that FOX is pounded excessively here in a way that CNN (with its liberal bias) is not, and that FAIR is a neo-Marxist organization I wouldn't trust to tell me the time, which people here want to see cited as gospel. And the wording you noted is in fact biased and in need of correction. However, the tactic of erasing half the article with little comment just won't fly. Many, including me, have invested considerable effort into that section, and the allegations of bias are frequent and pervasive enough to warrant documentation. There are many ways out of this, of course. One is to acknowledge that FOX gets hammered with accusations more heavily, and so its coverage on this will be naturally larger than CNN's. Another is to author a corresponding section on CNN to make life fair (although I fear such a section would be swarmed by anti-Americans). Finally, another is to fork off the "criticisms" section into a separate article, just as we have Criticisms of War on Terrorism [sic] and once had Criticisms of Mother Theresa; it seems there's enough material for that to be a standalone article. Thanks for bringing this issue up - I've been afraid to do anything but mutter about it - but be aware that your way of doing so is more likely to provoke than be productive. VV 22:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind some of these suggestions, but I do mind you deleting half the article along with all critical opinion of FOX News--particularly that from FAIR. They are a media watch group that does extensive studies of news organizations. Their allegation of bias is not mere innuendo, but based on actual studies of FOX's guest list. [8] This is an encyclopedia article which is about FOX News and well-documented criticisms have every right to be included just as they are on John Kerry and George W. Bush. Your reference to the CNN article is completely irrelevant. These articles are independent from one another. If you see something missing--it should be added, not taken away from other independent articles.--GD 09:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well said. Apart from deleting FAIR "garbage," the suggestions are good. However, the edits by 65.101.36.19 (Thejackhmr?) were, at least partly, a bad idea.
Tim Ivorson 11:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_2&oldid=1136736341"