Talk:Fox News/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Strategy Room

I added the segment on the "Strategy Room" It's Not TV, it the "Strategy Room". 68.175.66.94 (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it -- a one-day electoral event doesn't warrant its own section in an encyclopedic article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "one-day" the news is that they've kept the program "Strategy Room" and have made it permanent.68.175.66.94 (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters

This is a liberal/progressive democratic party "media watchdog group". Can we agree to qualify Media Matters when the Fox News article refers to it?166.217.62.192 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters is every bit as credible as Fox News itself, maybe even moreso than Fox News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.241.122 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Talking points from Bush White House

The "controversy" of this matter is in itself controversial. Scott McClellan doesn't even stand behind Chris Matthews inference. 166.217.62.192 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection requested

FYI, I made a request for page prtection here [1].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Zogby Poll

39.3% of those surveyed trust FOX News most for the issues they consider most important, followed by CNN with 16% and MSNBC with 15%. 71.247.161.208 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a POV issue on this article as there's a reluctance to source and a couple of opinions that are presented as facts. 71.247.161.208 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

if the polls are accurate, could that also mean FOX news viewers dont question what they see. loyal viewers i would assume. Docku: What up? 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

About your POV concern: Your concerns where addressed before (and you can find more regarding this in the archives and FAQ's) but they're no reason to edit war over a long term established consensus. Sure, you can start a new discussion over it; That's how WP works.

Besides that, Zogby polls are not the only ones out there and their reliability is questionable. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What poll are we relying on for the POV issue in the introduction? 71.247.161.208 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we put in the Zogby poll? Who says the Zogby poll is unreliable and HOW is the Zogby poll any less reliable than the unsourced and biased opinion of the editors who insisted that the introduction reflect their anti-Fox zealotry?71.247.161.208 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Strategy Room

Why was this information removed? it's source, notable and properly sourced.71.247.161.208 (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CMPA

The tone of Fox News Channel's nightly "Special Report" is both more balanced and more negative than the broadcast network shows. On FOX, McCain and Palin combined have received 39% favorable and 61% unfavorable comments, compared to 28% favorable and 72% unfavorable comments about Obama and Biden. 71.247.161.208 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Fact Distortion

A worrisome application of informing the public is shown here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466048,00.html If one were to glace over the links on the FoxNews website, one would probably think that the oldest brain ever found is in Britain. I am not sure if this is a trend or just poor editing. I am aware that there is a second article for this same topic found here: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec12/0,4670,EUBritainAncientBrain,00.html However, that does not explain why they would keep such an article around that may misguide some readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkanian215 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation of Content in the Lead

The section regarding accusations of conservative bias needs to be cited. Per WP:LEADCITE, information that is likely to be challenged (which it has been several times) needs to verified. (Wikipedia:Verifiability) JenWSU (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction has been quite thoroughly vetted over the course of several years and dozens (if not hundreds) of editors. It has consistently been the community consensus that elevating any one (or multiple) sources into the lead introduces undue weight; all claims made in the introduction are thoroughly sourced and covered in the main body of the article, satisfying any verification concerns. Please read the FNC FAQ and the talk page archives if you have any questions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? No, never reached. Cooler heads prevailed as some kept claiming some sort of false victory. It worked out in the end.. Wikiport (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the idea that 100s of editors were somehow involved is fantasy. Even the idea of the "famous 18" who came up with the consesus is a stretch. This is all about telling a fantasy enough times it becomes reality. Anyways, Tom (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I don't think it's been hundreds, and I don't know if it is 18, but archives 14-16 show roughly that many editors involved in discussions about the lead. The fact that many of them fell by the wayside over time can be attributed to the lead being something they can live with (consensus) or maybe they were banned, or just got sick of this place and left. But I don't think claiming a consensus based on the discussion and subsequent dropping of the issue by editors is a matter of fantasy, but rather a logical assumption (that I concede could be wrong) based on editor behavior. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming that there was not some consensus formed, just the amount of it :). The story here has grown into bibical proportions, thats all. --Tom (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Council of Trent has nothing on Archives 14-16, ok. :). In all seriousness, I kinda understand your point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is a joke

First of all the article is about FNC not the alleged bias of FNC so the substantial-ness however full of it you are doesn't or atleast shouldn't make a difference in to what is or isn't in the Introduction

Incredibly in depth

Radio their network got big so they got one.

Online other networks are using the internet so they did to.

The slogan section seems like it should be under the controversy banner.

They have signature hosts and people watch them what makes them signature hosts? hell you can even nag about their evil right wing agenda in here a little.

Fox news channel HD... Put it into the Television sub in Outlets how does this even get its own section?

Ratings How did it do during the Democratic national convention? you mean to say all of fox viewers turned their sets off on that day? Its not important but if your going to talk of the RNC and Bush put something there for comparison.

"The show's total viewership was down 19 percent compared to the previous quarter. However, several weeks later, in the wake of the North Korean Missile Crisis and the 2006 Lebanon War, Fox saw a surge in viewership and remained the #1 rated cable news channel."

It does not follow -- Brit hume down 19 % + War = Fox back with good ratings? It makes sense that in a period of low news vewership of news would go down and in high news periods would have high news vewership. Was the channel in danger of losing its number one position? I admittedly dont know your article certainly implies that it was. Were the other networks booming in their lows? did all networks gain veiwership during wars? You really leave it up to the imagination

Controversy the one thing you guys got right keep it all add that photo doctoring thing i saw in the discussion it was good, i think the talking points thing is a load but its "controversial" right where its supposed to be 68.43.159.231 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)A Gawker

Faux News?

Why does it say "Faux" news all over the place? It should be "FOX" News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.112.74 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That was petty vandalism, quickly reverted. — TKD::Talk 06:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The map is wrong

The one at the bottom, under "Other Countries". Fox - as it says in the article - isn`t broadcast in Scandinavia anymore, some others (listed on map picture`s page) are also wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.175.78.244 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Are "allegations of political bias", as mentioned further into the article the same as "promotes conservative political positions", as mentioned in the lead, or is this splitting hairs? TIA Tom (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they are the same, yes. Originally I think the lead and body were consistently worded, but over the numerous (heated) discussions the lead got changed to a wording more acceptable to the FNC fanboys.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FNC Fanboys, sounds like a term for a progressive liberal...! Wonderful! Wikiport (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters - Political Bias

I editted this in yesterday, and someone removed it, giving no reason as to why. Can someone please tell me why Media matters arguement on Fox's Political Bias. Does not count under critiscm of supposed political bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.154.167 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's A) Not a reliable source and B) Something that wasn't covered by more mainstream media outlets then it really doesn't belong. Soxwon (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream =/= Truth. Or rather. Mainstream =/= A groups opinion. Or even Mainstream =/= Reliable. So am I correct in understanding that unless a big news company produces they're own take on videos then it doesn't belong? Then what about Viral Videos? They don't have a place on here Wikipedia either? I'd say this video is almost able to be considered Viral anyway. It's only been up 18 days and it already has 165k views. 82.47.154.167 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, Media Matters is not a reliable source. Soxwon (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want I can dig up the case and prove you wrong again:[2]. It is to be avoided whenever possible, especially on subjects like ::Actually, the reliable source noticeboard has consistently held that Media Matters is a reliable source. Not sure where you read it wasn't, but archives there (as well as here, and on the MMFA page) do not agree with your assertion. Don't misread my comments as an indication of support for including this in the article, but simply as a correction to Soxwon's incorrect statement.this. It is not a reliable source for facts, but perhaps for providing a liberal viewpoint. Soxwon (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the majority of respondents to the link you specified agreed that they do qualify as a reliable source. As several editors noted, by and large MMFA simply points out factual errors and misrepresentations. Most of their presentation is primary evidence with explanations -- in no case (that I've seen) has MMFA provided a factual statement without also providing the underlying evidence of such. It's unfortunate that reality seems to have a strong "liberal" bias, eh?  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fact-picking and concentrating on one side rather than the other is indeed biased. As for the "majority you claimed:

I agree in part with Yilloslime: the first section of his analysis is correct to say that much of the time that Media Matters might be used as a source for some series of facts about a broadcast or newspaper article, it would be better to cite the original broadcast or article instead -Croctotheface

Mostly what MMfA does is simply publicize errors, mis-statements, and gaffs (real or preceived) by other media organizations. That being case, articles might as well just cite the original media rather than MMfA. -Yilloslime

I believe that they can be used if the incident was also reported in a more notable, mainstream source. Otherwise, like Zenwhat said, it is just advocacy. -MrMurph101

As such, there are limited instances when they are acceptable as a source of quotes (their transcriptions have not been found to be inaccurate) and very limited instances when their commentary is acceptable (as opinion, not news). -LoonyMonkey

I could go on, but the point is that the general consensus was that it was not a WP:RS (it helps to read) by itself. It should only be used if it gives a balancing perspective and/or additional opinions on subjects already covered by mainstream media. Soxwon (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but I don't believe your summary is an accurate representation of that consensus. It's also very unhelpful to bring phrases like "prove you wrong" during consensus building... for the bajillionth time, this is not a battleground. Treating it as such only gives credibility to the impression that you're simply here asserting an ideological perspective rather than trying to improve articles within policy. I'm not sure what the point of this section is -- I noted very early on that the proposed addition is inappropriate in its current form. Beyond that, there is no point in trying to make a blanket assertion that "Media Matters is not a reliable source". It's incorrect, but more to the point, it's moot (see the sentence immediately preceding this one). EOF. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's also very unhelpful to bring phrases like "prove you wrong" during consensus building... for the bajillionth time, this is not a battleground. Treating it as such only gives credibility to the impression that you're simply here asserting an ideological perspective rather than trying to improve articles within policy."

That statement is laughable considering it followed this: It's unfortunate that reality seems to have a strong "liberal" bias, eh?  ;-)

I'm not sure what the point of this section is -- I noted very early on that the proposed addition is inappropriate in its current form.

No, you entered this discussion with: ::Actually, the reliable source noticeboard has consistently held that Media Matters is a reliable source. Not sure where you read it wasn't, but archives there (as well as here, and on the MMFA page) do not agree with your assertion. Don't misread my comments as an indication of support for including this in the article, but simply as a correction to Soxwon's incorrect statement. It seems the sole purpose of your entry was to try and justify MMFA as a source, I'm just refuting that claim. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Heres an idea. Why don't we just forget that the source is MMFA, and just focus ON THE ACTUAL VIDEO THAT SHOWS FOX'S BIAS. If someone can translate the 100 days video, into Wikipedia's high standard text. (Sarcasm) And focus on what the video is, and not on what the video isn't. Then maybe we can get somewhere. If I didn't say the video was from MMFA, and just say "Oh the video's a compilation of clips from youtube". Then maybe there would have been less argueing and more focus on the goddamn point!? 82.47.154.167 (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegations section

It seems pretty shaky considering the only WP:RS sources are the quotes of fox DENYING allegations of bias, whilst the rest are a load of left-wing blogs and MMFA. Are there any reliable sources that report the bias? Soxwon (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone who's heard of Fox News would find this content unsurprising, but frankly, the inherent nature of the allegations are beneath what any "reliable" news source would cover. You can probably find plenty of Jon Stewart clips juxtaposing Fox rants with his "WTF?" looks and/or refutation. Keith Olbermann is sure to have sounded the alarm about it on multiple occasions in his "Worst Person in the World" segment. And then, yeah, Media Matters. Other than Stephen Colbert, I don't think anyone else this side of the Daily Kos (or Ku Klux Klan as O'Reilly calls them) pays attention to it. Zelnr (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but real life doesn't matter on Wikipedia. What matters is what is verifiable. Isn't there a SINGLE source that backs up these claims? Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Only people coming from the opposite side of the aisle was the point I was trying to make. Actually, I think one of the broadcast networks (CBS or ABC) did an investigation about one of the Fox controversies. Sorry to be so vague - I don't remember the details, only that Fox's response was to introduce Bernard Goldberg and proclaim it was part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy the true Americans or whatever.

There were a couple mainstream stories about how Fox was positioning itself as the voice of the opposition, around the time Glenn Beck made his debut on Fox. But it was nothing about bias per se, just stating the obvious (that Beck + O'Reilly + Hannity - Colmes = conservative). Zelnr (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumors

Rumor has it that Fox will switch to supporting the Democratic Party, just as they switched in Britain and Australia to supporting Labor. Has anyone heard anything about this? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a venue for speculation... encyclopedias are generally better equipped to deal with events post fact rather than things that might happen in the future.  :) Regardless, talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the topic. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

...They do that and Bill O'Reilly walks off with 6 million viewers lol. Soxwon (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, since Soxwon touched on this, Olbermann was on Bill Maher a couple weeks or so ago and he said something to the effect of "I know for a fact that certain high-ranking people at Fox would switch sides in a heartbeat if they thought it would get them higher ratings." But as Soxwon said, they're doing just fine and if their recent line-up is any indication (Bill O'Reilly + Glenn Beck + Sean Hannity - Alan Colmes, not to mention Mike Huckabee got his own talk show and Karl Rove and Dick Morris are their go-to people for the political lowdown in any given situation. My personal favorite will always be giving Oliver North, a traitor to the U.S. government for all intents and purposes, a show about the military, but I digress.) I'd say the rumor is rather far-fetched. Zelnr (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a story in Accuracy in Media.[3] Apparently a change of management will occur in June 09, and I wondered if there had been any reliable news on possible changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting piece. I may eat my words in a few years. But I'd point out that it says "Chernin is himself a prominent Democrat" and "[Murdoch] hosted a fundraiser for [Hillary Clinton], and his New York Post newspaper endorsed her Senate re-election bid". All of this took place while Fox was veering further to the right. My personal instinct is that Hannity (since he's mentioned in the article), not to mention buddies and apparently ratings gold Beck and O'Reilly, would scream bloody murder if management tried to tell him what to say. It is a corporation in the end, and it does whatever makes it the most money. I just can't see it happening in the immediate future.

But the answer to the original question is, no, there hasn't been any such discussions to my knowledge. Sorry for my tangential, Beck-like rant on the inner workings of things I could ultimately be dead wrong about. Zelnr (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ailes Flap

I see there is is an edit war taking place over whether Roger Ailes's background as a Republican political consultant should be mentioned in the lead where he is introduced in the article. Could this "war" possibly be obviated by mentioning the fact in the "Accusations of bias" section rather than in the lead? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ailes has his own article, and details of his various affiliations can be viewed there. That's the beauty of wikilinks. I suggest leaving the extra mention of him being a political advisor for RNC out of any mention here, as it appears to be POV driven to somehow force a particular judgment as to his motivations, etc. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ZimZalaBim. Soxwon (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ailes's extensive and well-documented background as a paid political consultant is at least as important as his background with NBC. Conspicuous omission of this information from the intro reveals a particular POV. Inclusion of the information, on the other hand, is a relevant statement of fact. In short, why is Ailes's three-year history with NBC deemed more important than his 30-year history of active, partisan political consulting? To attempt to protect FOX from the perception (real or imagined) that it is politically biased certainly expresses a POV. Ailes is what he is. His background is what it is. Let the readers pass their own judgment as to whether they believe it was appropriate for Murdoch to name a known political operative as head of a journalistic enterprise. --Londonfifo

Beyond that, given the longstanding and wide criticism of Fox News having a conservative bias, I'd think that Ailes' background as a Republican operative is quite germane. If we mention Ailes' involvement in the lead, so should we mention that (important) fact. If we relegate details about Ailes to a subsection, there is (obviously) no place for it in the lead. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To resolve issues without acrimony compromise is sometimes necessary. If the compromise solution is quite logical in its own right, so much the better. I can certainly see where some would view the mentioning of Ailes's past Republican affiliations in the lead as being a prejudicial poisoning of the well. On the other hand, a reliably sourced mention of his RNC connection in an existing section which raises the issue of political bias seems appropriate to me. Obviously, Fox's or Ailes's refutation of bias, or refutation of the relevance of his Republican "pedigree" in a charge of bias, could also be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the history and on Aile's page, there is no need for it to be in the lead. A man's career in broadcasting is relevant since he is the founding CEO of a broadcast network. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well,if I didn't make myself clear, what I meant to say was that it should not be in the lead, but should be in the "Accustions of bias" section. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The bolded portion was for Blaxthos and Londonfifo, I was pointing out that it was already in the history section and agreeing with you that it shouldn't be in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, no one is disputing the relevance of Ailes's broadcasting background, but I think it's interesting you find his 3-year stint at NBC worth mentioning in the intro, but his 30-year history of paid political activism is easily relegated to a less visible section and/or page. As a working journalist with two degrees in the field, it's actually rather stunning to me Murdoch would name a person with such deeply-entrenched political ties to head a news organization. Like it or not, this fact is extremely relevant and essential to grasping the fundamentally unique origin of the FOX News enterprise. I would be willing to compromise per Badmintonhist's suggestions, but a first-mention of Ailes (whether it appears in the intro or further down in the article) should include a note about his distinguished and clearly influential career as a paid RNC political operative. Again, Ailes is who he is, and if a statement of fact regarding his professional background serves to "poison the well," that says more about FOX News than it does about the nature of this article. Londonfifo (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, 3 years in the proffession mentioned is more important to the article. If this were Aile's article, then yes, it would go in the lead. But considering he wasn't solely a political consultant, or that consulting didn't even take up the majority of that time, perhaps we should stick to what is relevant? Soxwon (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon: So if the newly-named Red Sox manager spent 30 years coaching basketball and three years managing a baseball team, the only relevant information regarding this person's professional background and qualifications is the three-year association with baseball? Got it. Any info about the new coach's 30-year basketball career in an article about the Red Sox would clearly be irrelevant and out of place in the article's introduction. Got it. Of course, if Mr. X were trying to insulate said manager and or the Red Sox franchise from justifiable scrutiny and/or criticism, I can see why Mr. X might want to bury the information about the basketball career. I also can see how Mr. X might mistake an objective effort to disclose highly relevant info about the new manager (by someone who couldn't care less about the Red Sox) for something other than what it is... especially if Mr. X's bio page is plastered with juvenile, extremist pro-Red Sox gobbledygook. Londonfifo (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That has to be the poorest analogy I've ever seen. During the twenty years or so when Aile's was supposedly just a political consultant he apparently found the the time to win an emmy, write a book, write several shorts for publication that were unrelated to politics, film several tv specials, produce Broadway musicals and off-Broadway plays, and even consult businesses such as WCBS-TV. His political consulting really didn't dominate his career after Nixon except for Reagan's campaigns (two years), Bush's 1988 campaign (that's one), and the 5 subsequent years (and even then he president of CNBC). So please stop trying to insert your POV into the article and yield to consensus. Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Londonfifo, what you are implying is a guilt by association, that somehow his previous stint within the RNC implies some bias. Ailes history at NBC is far more important since NBC and FNC are both television networks. Arzel (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Leave "Republican political consultant" and "NBC" out of the lead and give this context in the history section so there is no POV issue or spoon-feeding in the lead (or elsewhere); Or include that he "served" NBC for three years in the lead but w/o the consultant part.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon:

I never stated Ailes's work as a political consultant somehow precluded a legitimate career in television, but you simply cannot underestimate the significance of a 30-year political resumé that includes intimate associations with three Republican presidents, as well as a high-profile Republican presidential candidate in Rudy Giuliani. Ailes is widely credited with helping George H.W. Bush defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988, for crying out loud, and was even responsible for getting Rush Limbaugh on television! I can understand your opposition to referencing Ailes's political career in the Fox News intro, but don't minimize his influence and involvement in politics. It makes you look ignorant.

You're right, Ailes's television career also is significant, but in the end, there is no escaping his deep involvement in partisan politics dating back to his work on the Nixon campaign. Ailes is a hardcore RNC political operative, and even some of his work in television prior to co-founding FOX News was inextricably linked to his political activism. (SEE Rush Limbaugh.) There's no way around that. You can say his three-year stint at NBC or the Emmy award or his relatively brief foray into Broadway musicals are all more important than his political career until you're blue in the face, but it only makes you look dishonest.

In the end, for Murdoch to name someone like Ailes to head a news organization (remember, by 1996, Ailes was already credited with helping a U.S. president get elected) is absolutely stunning, and says a lot about the unique origins of the FOX News enterprise. The fact the organization clearly maintains a rightist slant (I will not respond if you challenge me on this assertion, by the way) only makes Ailes's appointment that much more compelling.

With that in mind, I will not back down from my position that Ailes's political career is at least as significant as his television career, especially since the two appear to be intertwined. In the interest of Wiki peace and harmony, however, and in order to avoid even the appearance of subjective posturing with regard to Fox News, I will not further engage in an editing war with you over this. Having said that, if any reference to Ailes's distinguished and influential political career must be eliminated from the intro, so must his less than illustrious association with NBC.

Londonfifo (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't like my baseball analogy? How about this one?

In addition to being an accomplished musician who has toured with several heavy rock bands over the years, imagine the newly-selected lead guitarist for Metallica is also a music producer who has worked closely with several well-known boy bands. (I'll call him John Smith.) Smith has only ever produced boy bands, and is widely credited with launching such groups as Wham!, Backstreet Boys and the Jonas Brothers. He's also known to be a close personal friend of Lance Bass ('N SYNC). Alas, it could be said John Smith's close association with boy bands and his career and accomplishments as a music producer dating back to 1984 are at least as important as his career as a guitarist, which included touring with Anthrax for three years.

Now, imagine you're revising a Wiki article about Metallica and you necessarily endeavor to mention the group's selection of a new lead guitarist in the introduction. Imagine you must choose from the following four descriptions:

A) In 2009, James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich and Rob Trujillo selected former boy band producer John Smith to join Metallica as the group's new lead guitarist.

B) In 2009, James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich and Rob Trujillo selected former Anthrax guitarist John Smith to join Metallica as the group's new lead guitarist.

C) In 2009, James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich and Rob Trujillo selected former boy band producer and Anthrax guitarist John Smith to join Metallica as the group's new lead guitarist.

D) In 2009, James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich and Rob Trujillo selected John Smtih to be Metallica's new lead guitarist.

If you don't like Metallica, or you're simply disgusted with the group's inappropriate selection, you might choose A.

If you're a big-time Metallica fan who's worried about how the group's selection of John Smith might effect the band's reputation and credibility, you will probably choose B.

If you're trying to paint a more complete and objective picture, you will choose C, even if it leads some folks (particularly rock and roll purists) to question Metallica's credibility and/or authenticity.

If you can't agree with others about how best to describe John Smith, you will choose D.

Londonfifo (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ENOUGH ALREADY! Let's make points specifically related to a proposed change. This isn't a forum on the construction of analogies. What,exactly, is the disagreement, if any at this point, over how Roger Ailes will be introduced into the article? Badmintonhist (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The main issue is that Ailes' 30+ year background as a political operative is at least (I would say much more) important as his brief NBC stint (or anything else he's done), especially given the widespread general belief and numerous academic studies that FNC exhibits conservative bias. I'm agnostic (better term, "undecided") about where in the article it occurs (is that what this discussion is?), but I can't get okay with excising that critical detail entirely. What is mentioned on Ailes' biography article has no relevance here. Wherever Ailes is mentioned in this article, be it in the lead or body, so should this detail. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the recent change that I made, Ailes is first mentioned in the very brief (eight line) lead simply as the person that Rupert Murdoch chose to run Fox. His Republican and NBC backgrounds are mentioned the next time his name comes up in the longer History section, the first section after the lead. Is that a fair enough compromise? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I removed all references to Ailes's background from the intro, since Soxwon couldn't accept that Ailes's 30-year political career was at least as important as his three year stint with NBC. In other words, to use my analogy above, I chose option D. Soxwon wanted B and I wanted C. Option D was the best compromise! Londonfifo (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, the analogy was relevant and essential to defending my position regarding Ailes. I'm not sure if Soxwon got it, but I gave it my best effort. Since including information about Ailes's background in the introduction is out of the question for now, I propose it be worked into the Controversies section. What's more controversial than naming a hardcore RNC political operative and close associate of numerous Republican presidents to chair a NEWS organization? Now consider Ailes is widely credited with getting one of those presidents (GHWB) elected! Talk about a conflict of interest and a major breech of journalistic ethics! Londonfifo (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR?

Ok, here is the Canada article(reprinted in entirety).

CALGARY -- Some Canadian television viewers still steamed over the country's military being trashed on a Fox News show two months ago will be able to keep the channel out of their homes.

Fox News is beamed into the homes of about 700,000 Shaw Communications customers.

The Fox News Red Eye show, which in March featured a group of pundits taking turns trashing Canada and its reliability as an ally, caused a national uproar, with the Canadian government calling it `despicable' and `disgusting.'

Shaw Communications President Peter Bissonnette said customers now will have the option of having Fox News removed from their programming and replaced with another channel at no extra cost.

He said although viewers don't have to watch it, for many it has become a `moral issue' and they don't want it coming into their homes.

Host Greg Gutfeld, who said Red Eye is a satiric take on the news, issued an apology after controversy swirled around the talk-show segment, which was taped just before four more Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan.

Ok, so why is Canada as an ally being replaced with Canadian military and their role in the current conflict in Afghanistan when the first is clearly mentioned and the second isn't even implied. Also why is panelists on the Fox News Red Eye show being replaced with several regular Fox News panelists. Shouldn't the article reflect what was actually said in the source? Soxwon (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable third source commenting on this issue? if not, it is not notable. As it reads it does seem to be a POV commentary on events, rather than a report of events. Bytebear (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No this got some coverage and is notable. Just google Canada Fox News and you'll get something on it. As for the Afghanistan bit, if you can find a couple of sources for that, I wouldn't object to it. I think Afghanistan was a part of Canada's reaction, rather than what Red Eye actually said. Soxwon (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Canadians (incl. the government) react to what is said about them. Still missing the whole airing or transcript of the show as youtube is just not (and I know I'm repeating myself) a RS. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• See also this [4] conversation which should've been placed here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I assume Soxwon's youtube clip [5] is genuine although I don't know if the posting (youtube)-editor left out some important things (to keep it in context); It is nothing more spitting "trailer trash like" opinions [Honestly, can anyone take it as serious?]. Yet the response of the Canadian government speaks for itself (in the article's citation). Yes, we should find more RS's to back things up as one source doesn't do it. Let's go from here and find more sources as Gwen (and I) suggested. Still, I think the basic point is genuine and has enough weight and reliability to keep it (while working on it). There is no deadline and we're talking about only a few days [remember, it's week-end time so we can't expect much before Monday).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, considering the article is dated May 14th, you may be waiting awhile. This isn't hot off the presses. Again, I think Canada was made b/c of their war effort, but that wasn't what the commmentators were talking about. I think that's how it should be reflected. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thinking or talking about "new" news but rather finding some more sources to back up certain claims.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)