[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Fox News/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

The FOX effect

I have tried to introduce a story about something that I have witnessed first hand, and it was rejected by other editors. Wikipedia is a non biased site that hold no political direction. The author writes that he is concerned about the effects of the network on his father, and that has nothing to do with "left wing" or politics. It is genuine and authentic. This is the link: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/i_lost_my_dad_to_fox_news_how_a_generation_was_captured_by_thrashing_hysteria/ and I feel and feel strongly that it provides a perspective from people like myself whom are loosing a generation of elderly to the ranting's of this networks staff and reporting style. Wikipedia should not concern itself with political posturing, as the user claims that the report and its author are "Left Wing", so what, does that mean that the authors concerns regarding the elderly and his own father should not be reported upon?????? talk→ WPPilot  18:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces (WP:RSOPINION) and biased sources (WP:BIASED). Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I am well familiar with (WP:RSOPINION) and biased sources (WP:BIASED) hence my comment regarding the prior users removal of the citation that reflected his own political bias. I hold NO political bias whatsoever and normally no not even bother myself with anything to do with Politics. If Wikipedia is truly unbiased it would be only proper that this be used, in the controversy section of the story. This story is one that many people I am close to are also experiencing, are you suggesting that it be swept under the rug and that the elderly and this new channels effects upon them do not deserve inclusion here? talk→ WPPilot  19:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting that this is not a widespread issue with recognition in scholarly, reliable sources or fact-based research articles. Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not wide spread??

This is more then enough to provide foundation for a section on this matter..... It is interesting the UC Berkeley is the first link. Is that scholarly enough for you yet?? talk→ WPPilot  19:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The first article is a very brief examination of the impact Fox News had from 1996 to 2000 - immediately after it launched. It found that towns with Fox News were between 0.3-0.7% more Republican in the 2000 presidential election than those without it, and that between 3-28% of viewers were convinced to lean more Republican. The study says that "The Fox News effect could be a temporary learning effect for rational voters, or a permanent effect for nonrational voters subject to persuasion" and that "These results suggest that the media can have a sizeable political impact". I would have no issue with such a well-researched and comprehensive article being used in the proper context (early 1996-2000 voting), but only for that reason - in no area does it suggest that Fox News is biased to favor views, however, but merely that it is to the right of other cable news networks. That is something this article mentions and that very few people would disagree with. As you explained above - being right or left does not mean you are biased.
All the other articles are opinion pieces, ranging from moderately reputable (The Nation) to laughable (Daily Kos is hardly a reputed journal). Nowhere does this back up your central claim. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The first one clearly lays out the game plan of the network and confers its objectives. The rest of them that you did not bother to read show that across the world elderly people are turning into angry enraged people that are mad about something each can do nothing about. Those were just a sample of the returns obtained in Google. You are clearly defending your political agenda here and oblivious to what these stories mention. It is sad to see that manipulation of elderly is the right way to obtain support of a political cause. Good luck. talk→ WPPilot  20:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you honestly think I am pushing a political agenda here, please take it to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Otherwise, I demand an immediate retraction and/or apology. Toa Nidhiki05 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you take this argument to Twitter, there's a fair chance an online news site will pick it up on a slow day. Then we can cite both your opinions in the article, and let disinterested editors paraphrase them. Only a half-serious thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I made an offhand edit summary about "Where's the beef?", but looked into it. Turns out, FOX really likes that question. I mean really likes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

New changers about O'Reilly age view

EnglishEfternamn, please read WP:EDITWAR. If you introduce a change into an article, and another Wikipedia editor objects to it with an explanation as to why, you don't revert that person's changes without addressing any of his concerns (like you did to me); rather, you discuss it with the person on the talk page. First of all, your change about the "white male age" group is unsourced. Second, that would represent only the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor – not the viewers of Fox News as a whole, as the O'Reilly Factor is merely one opinion show among many on that network. You spelled O'Reilly's name wrong, I pointed it out to you, and when you reveretd me, it's still spelled wrong. Googling your wording, I couldn't even find a source for the claim that you made that O'Reilly's viewers are white old males. Trere is one saying most of his viewers are over 70, but that is from 2014, not 2012, and it mentions nothing about race. As you've seen fit to revert my edit without addressing the numerous points I made, I'm going to undo your edit, and if you want to add it back in, please provide a source. On second thought, your edit might not have been synthesis, but it's still problematic nonetheless. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Should the lead paragraph about disputed bias refer to the accusers as "many observers" or "some observers"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moot based on elapsed time. Feel free to try another if you think it's needed. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Introduction : Over the course of several years, there has been a significant amount of discussion about how exactly to describe alleged bias on Fox News Channel. Recent debate has centered around whether the phrase "many observers" or "some observers" should be used in the lead. Please comment on which exact wording you'd support.

Previous discussions on the subject

When responding, please use the following format -

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil. Thank you in advance for your feedback!

Comments

  • Support Many - This discussion has been rehashed many times, and consistently larger discussions have trended towards supporting "many" as the correct adjective. This is obviously a controversial subject, but support among RS is pretty strong for the "many" wording. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Some or removal of qualifier While many critics make this claim on regular basis, it is not possible to extrapolate this to general observers. Many supporters also say that FNC is not biased, but that same extrapolation to observers would not be supported either. The biggest hurdle is that their are no sources to back up the claim that "many observers" make this claim. Ultimately the inclusion of original research cannot be RfC'ed into the article. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Many per NickCT. The sources are plentiful and clear. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you or NickCT could provide some sources that actually say "Many observers" make this claim, becuase in over 6 years of debate I have yet to see such "plentiful" sourcing. Arzel (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Arzel: - You know darn well that the exact wording on a lot of WP articles isn't directly pulled from sources. If you'd like many individual sources which point to observers and/or criitcs that make the claim, I'd be happy to provide. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Could we have a separate section for the back-and-forth? I do it myself sometimes, so I know it can make the Comments part really long and off-topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - I'd be OK with you moving my comments to another section for clarity as you saw fit (and also deleting this comment once you'd done so). NickCT (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Some (and also fine with no qualifier) Estimating a percentage of these people relative to all the observers is virtually impossible, and without that, we can't even begin to agree on whether that slice counts as many. With "some", everybody wins. It can mean any amount between "none" and "all", without leaning toward the low or the high end. "Many" doesn't allow that freedom. It suggests a "big chunk" of the audience. Have even 10,000 observers said FOX is biased? That seems like a big number, but it's proportionately very few. Still some, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Many per NickCTCasprings (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Many or No Qualifier. Some makes it sound like an almost insignificant number. Many sounds not an insignificant number with no reference to proportion. I believe the wide array of sources suggests many would be accurate, some would be entirely inaccurate and no qualifier would be less informative but accurate. My real issue is what does "Observer" mean in this context? SPACKlick (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist? I see this is listed at Politics, Government and Law. Might be better at (or also at) somewhere about Journalism and Entertainment. This regards the channel as much as the observers. I don't know how to do it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither. Describe bias non-quantitatively as "Fox reporting has been criticized as..." Folow up in body with exemplary sources. No sane reader of this page expects a quantitation, and certainly not in the lede. It's context like financing and campaigning that counts (pun intended) To set up a semi-quantitative choice with some or many is self-defeating and to argue about it, with all due respect unproductive, gentlemen. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question How will we know when discussion has ended? Has it even officially begun, or will it still be listed "within 24 hours"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though someone jumped the gun and put "Many observers" in the current article, with citations that in two cases don't meet WP standards for encyclopedic sources, and even if they did, only document the views of TWO observers, not MANY, that Fox News "promotes biased reporting." I'd call that non-consensual action. loupgarous (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some or No Qualifier "Many" is WP:WEASEL AND WP:OR. "Some" indicates that the viewpoint that Fox News is biased is out there without lending Wikipedia's support to the perception. And even "Some" is WP:OR unless citations are produced in support of the statement AND the sources cited aren't Fox's journalistic competition or political speakers who have a non-encyclopedic motive for labelling Fox News as exceptionally biased compared to other television networks.
After all, "many" people believe that CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Al Jazeera America (formerly CurrentTV), and CNN also promote biased reporting. For Wikipedia to single Fox News out for this sort of observation is not NPOV.
Also, reference #7 cites Rachel Maddow as referring to Fox News as biased. Rachel Maddow is a commentator on MSNBC, which
(a) is a competitor of Fox News, so that she and MSNBC have a very strong economic motive to marginalize Fox News, and
(b) Ms. Maddow is ALSO viewed as being a politically biased news commentator herself by "many observers," on a news network viewed as promoting biased reporting by "many observers."
Reference #8 cites a footnote from The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton.
Reading not only Compton's assessment of Fox News, but other news outlets, it's pretty clear that Mr. Compton has a political viewpoint which is not NPOV. The Compton book isn't any more objective or encyclopedic than The National Review or The Nation.
Finally, NPOV issues with References 7 and 8 notwithstanding, they only support the viewpoints of TWO observers, not MANY observers.
The "Many observers" remark is, thus, unsupported by acceptable, objective sources. loupgarous (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus on the original "some" vs "many" question, but recent editors appear to have a small but unanimous agreement on the current alternative sentence with supporting citations. Alsee (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

The word "propaganda" doesn't appear once on this article. There are plenty of studies, some done by the UN itself, that could be used as a source for the claim that Fox News is a propaganda outlet and not a news outlet. The criticism of Fox News should play a more important role in its Wiki, as it is entrenched in the global culture as a purveyor of propaganda. It's citizen-knowledge at this point, and I don't think it's just a few young hippies complaining about it. Fox News will go down in history as a major player in one of the most abhorrent chapters of post-war American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Please provide sources to back up the claim of "Many Observers" in this area. The inclusion of this weasel word wording is currently based on the observation (Original Research) that there have been many critical of FNC alleged bias. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, there are issues with the references currently cited in support of the claim of "Many Observers."
Reference #7 cites Rachel Maddow as referring to Fox News as biased. Rachel Maddow is a commentator on MSNBC, which
(a) is a competitor of Fox News, so that she and MSNBC have a very strong economic motive to marginalize Fox News, and
(b) Ms. Maddow is ALSO viewed as being a politically biased news commentator herself by "many observers," on a news network viewed as promoting biased reporting by "many observers."
Reference #8 cites a footnote from The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton.
Reading not only Compton's assessment of Fox News, but other news outlets, it's pretty clear that Mr. Compton has a political viewpoint which is not NPOV. The Compton book isn't any more objective or encyclopedic than The National Review or The Nation.
Neither of the references currently cited in support of the "promotes biased reporting" statement are NPOV.
If "Many observers" is to be kept in the article, then the phrase "promotes biased reporting" ought to be removed unless and until an NPOV source can be cited in support of that claim.
In addition, "Many Observers" ought to be removed entirely unless and until an NPOV source can be cited in support of that claim. The NPOV issue notwithstanding, the citations only support the viewpoints of TWO OBSERVERS. NOT MANY. loupgarous (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If the source does not say specifically state "two" then it is original research. I can't verify the claim "some", "many", or "notable". QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Reference 7 is a report on MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow's opinion that Fox News is biased, no more encyclopedic than (say) Bill O'Reilly's opinion on the lack of objectivity of MSNBC. Reference 8 points directly to the author of a book saying Fox News is biased. Two opinions. Not many. And thanks for stating the obvious - that quantifying the opinions regarding ANY news network's objectivity is beyond wikipedia's scope. loupgarous (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Wording proposals

I removed the "Many" that was currently there and boldly tried this wording:

Notable criticism has accused Fox News Channel of promoting conservative political positions[1] and biased reporting.[2]

References

  1. ^ Memmott, Mark (July 12, 2004). "Film accuses Fox of slanting the news". USA Today. Archived from the original on November 22, 2010. Retrieved August 15, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Barr, Andy (October 11, 2009). "Dunn stands by Fox slam". Politico. Archived from the original on November 22, 2010. Retrieved May 13, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2.
"Some" is gone. "Many" is gone. Perhaps we can form a consensus that there is "notable" criticism? I didn't dig through the list of source options - I simply kept the movie and the book sourcings that were there. Books and movies seem a lot more notable than a typical critical comment. I dropped the Maddow sourcing. It seemed ...unhelpful... and criticism from a contra-aligned competitor didn't seem unexceptionably notable.

I won't object if my edit is reverted, I'm just hoping a new angle will sidestep the conflict. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, how are the authors of those three references notable? I've not heard of any of them, and I'm pretty up to date on political criticism in the United States of America. We're back to WP:WEASEL with "notable" replacing "many" or "eminent". loupgarous (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't verify the claim. I requested verification. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's clear from available sources that some people criticize Fox News for their lack of objectivity. I think it's important to provide a context for those statements. MSNBC, the three major broadcast network news organizations and CNN have also been accused of bias, and if you're going to put accusations of Fox News' bias in this article, you also have to report those accusations in context, or have this article be irretretrievably biased itself.
I'd support "some observers," with the Maddow and other quotes cited. That's fair. But I'd also include other quotes of the same sort which support the context in which those statements are made - a situation in which multiple political agendas are promoted by multiple broadcast and satellite news organizations. Even Reuters' US editor has been guilty of some really naked political comments, which raises real questions about how objective that once very respected organization is. I tend to rely on Agence France-Presse for political analysis of the US scene specifically because they DON'T have "skin in the game." loupgarous (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I changed "notable" to "some critics" because "some critics" is what the sources we have in the article will support. No evidence that any of the people whose opinions are presented in those sources are especially "notable" exists.
Further, "notable" is another WP:WEASEL weasel word. It lends undue weight to the sources cited. loupgarous (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "some" is still original research. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. "Some" is a neutral assessment of number - more than one, less than all. It falls under the "common arithmetic" exception in WP:OR. loupgarous (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a quote from the source to verify the claim. No original research interpretation is allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
From The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton:
"Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."
We have Dr.Compton's statement that the founder of Fox News Channel admitted he launched Fox News Channel as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal stance of CNN. He cites two other researchers in support of the statement. loupgarous (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The source says "Fox News, which says it is the "fair and balanced" network, has long been accused by Democrats and liberals of having a conservative bias. Outfoxed adds to that debate through interviews with former Fox correspondents and producers, as well as memos written by Fox executives."[1] The other source says "Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."[2] The original research was restored. The edit summary was "Unless you can demonstrate that all the cited critics and scholars are democrats, this is original research." That is a WP:SYN violation to put together all the cited critics and scholars are democrats to come to the conclusion "many". I also asked for verification for "some". So far no verification was presented. The source must verify the claim or it is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The USA Today article is not the only source for that section, so unless you can demonstrate all the critics and scholars cited in all the sources are "Democrats and liberals", then it is original research. The scholarly source I added states that "with a bevy of scholars showing its "fair and balanced" coverage is actually conservatively slanted". "Bevy" certainly qualifies as "many". Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence is sourced. Fox News Channel has long been accused of promoting conservative political positions[6]
You would have to delete the USA today source and replace it with the other source to say something like. Many scholars demonstrated that Fox News Channel "fair and balanced" coverage is promoting conservative political positions.
Putting together different sources to come to a different conclusion is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The word long is sourced. The word allegedly is unsourced while widely criticized is sourced. See WP:ALLEGED. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Per sources is an obvious SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely criticized as merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party. Is that that a preferable Alternate Wording proposal? Inside Rupert's Brain, page 5, ISBN 1101016590. Alsee (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the source for the text. See: James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2.. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Inside Rupert's Brain, page 5, ISBN 1101016590 was my source. Fox News is widely criticized for biased reporting, and it's hardly surprising that there's multiple sources saying "Widely criticized". Alsee (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Widely criticized as merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party." Does not verify the current sentence. The source failed verification. The other source passed V. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you seem to be misapplying Wikipedia policies. We are forbidden to WP:COPYVIO, this means we are expected and REQUIRED to paraphrase things and generate our own wording. wp:verifiability and wp:no synthesis means that we must summarize and report the ideas that exist in sources. The sources on that sentence explicitly confirm the use of "Widely criticized", and there can be no reasonable dispute that the idea conveyed is wide accusations of bias. There is no synthesis between sources here - we have multiple sources independently expressing the idea that Fox is widely criticized for bias. (Some sources can be dropped once we can stabilize the sentence.) "Widely criticized for conservative slant" is an accusation of bias. Widely criticized as "mouthpiece for the Republican party" is an accusation of bias. We are accurately describing the contents of Reliable Sources, not cutting-and-pasting fragments of CopyVio. And the mass of sources we have clearly supports this as particularly notable point when we summarize and report what Reliable Sources say. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"binging a mouthpiece for the Republican party" definitely does not verify the current text. There is no need to have a pile of sources that fail V when there is one or two that pass V. QuackGuru (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You would have to delete all the other sources and write something like "Fox News Channel has been widely criticized as an extension for the Republican party.[6]" QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree it should be trimmed to probably one or two sources once we get stable text. I'm hoping some of the other editors will weigh in here. We seem to have split into parallel discussions on different parts of the page. Alsee (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You did not disagree with this previous comment. Most sources failed V. I don't think there could be any reason for keeping sources that failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
*OPPOSE. The current wording has OR and WP:WEASEL in it that aren't supported by the sources cited, namely the modifiers "widely" and "many." Compton's book James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2. cites THREE sources. Three sources aren't "many." I can't see where "widely" is supported by the cited sources, either. "Widely" is WP:WEASEL. loupgarous (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This was previously explained the wording "widely criticized" is supported by the source. The word "many" was removed a little while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
*SUPPORT. I SUPPORT the current lede. It IMHO is accurate and verifiable via the ref's provided. talk→ WPPilot  14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Current wording without original research

The current sourced text without SYN violations or sources that failed V: "Fox News Channel has long been accused of promoting conservative political positions[6] and it has been widely criticized for biased reporting.[7]" I noticed the sources were not in the body. That was a lede violation. I added the text and sources to the body so that the lede suimmarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - Good lede sentence and fulfills my intent when I suggested elsewhere to have one sentence for Criticism-of-Fox and another for Fox's position. Making those into a pair of "and" clauses works really well. Side note - WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations definitely permits lede sources that aren't in the body. This is merely a side note, not an objection to the current version. Alsee (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
On that side not apologies for the speedy undo for the removal I saw it in isolation not as part of a whole I support the now current format. SPACKlick (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. The current wording has OR and WP:WEASEL in it that isn't supported by the sources cited, namely the modifier "widely." I can't see where "widely" is supported by the cited sources. "Widely" is also WP:WEASEL. loupgarous (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
See: "Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."[3]
We are not using three sources. The current wording is supported by the sources. The modifier "widely" is supported the source. The modifier "many" was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
loupgarous, you do not seem to have looked closely at the source. The citation link goes directly to page 204 of the book where it says "widely criticized". In fact we have multiple sources using the exact phrase "widely criticized", but we have guidelines against piling on multiple source-links. We went with "widely criticized" exactly to avoid OR or WEASEL. "Widely criticized" is a well documented and representative example of how Reliable Sources summarize the criticism that exists of Fox News. Fox News is famous for the level of controversy surrounding it. We don't decide if the critics are right or wrong, we don't decide whether Fox is widely criticized, we merely reflect the common reliable source description that Fox is widely criticized. Alsee (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC close & Stable lead

  1. This RFC has been open 9 1/2 months, I believe due to RFC maintenance software being confused by a fictional 2252 comment date someone created. I have removed the fictional date, and I will post this on Administrator's Noticeboard for a close.
  2. Late in the process several editors came up with an alternate well sourced wording. That alternate has been stable for 7 months. I suggest a close that leaves the stable alternate in place. Perhaps "No consensus on 'some' vs 'many'", and a non-binding comment that the current alternate appears to be stable. Alsee (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to close this one. But I am going to offer my opinion: using the word "widely", as is currently used in the lede, is what I consider to be WP:UNDUE, especially as it's relying on just a single reference (whose NPOV is challenged upthread). Changing that sentence in the lede to simply, "Fox News Channel has been widely accused of biased reporting," without the word "widely" is unquestionably an accurate assessment, and should be satisfactory to both the pro- and anti-FNC factions. --IJBall (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I like the logo ,  I think it's creative been nice I think they did a good job . WP.NICKNAME.22 WP.NICKNAME.22 10:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP.NICKNAME.22 (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fox News Channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


Fox News Channel → Fox News – Despite the official logo, this seems to be the most commonly used name. Unreal7 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Umm, no - Dropping "Channel" makes the title inaccurate and/or ambiguous, regardless of commonality. WP:COMMONNAMES discourages inaccurate and ambiguous titles, no matter how commonly used the proposed title is. As for "Fox News", it may also refer to segments of news programs by the Fox Broadcasting Company. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Fox has other news assets outside of this TV channel. If you were American, you'd know that the Fox TV network has news broadcasts, with news assets spread across the country. And from a historic standpoint, there's also Fox Movietone News which is completely unrelated to television -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
User:70.51.44.60. Stay on policy and avoid personal attacks. Don't bring up the race of contributors, thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I think the conduct of some editors above was poor. Be civil and avoid personal attacks. I could see issues with the proposed move, however I could see positives as well. Few people actually refer to it as "Fox News Channel" and Fox News is likely the primary topic. AusLondonder (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

edit request

please add julie roginsky to the list of commentators. Thanks. 2606:A000:7D01:3F00:E82D:E5C1:B740:E2DB (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Source Corkythehornetfan 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

Request to update the infobox with the following IPTV provider details, thanks. 

| iptv serv 2 = [[Southern Fibernet]]
| iptv chan 2 = 578 (SD)<br>1578 (HD)

216.66.32.34 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done clpo13(talk) 20:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove discussion of bias in lead

While we're debating some vs many in the lead, why don't we remove this from the lead entirely? MSNBC which is more biased than Fox has no such mention of it's bias in the lead. Perhaps this is an example of bias at wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.37.127 (talk) 18:40, May 28, 2015‎ (UTC)

Do you have reliable mainstream or academic sources that support the claim that MSNBC is more biased than Fox? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If you are unhappy with the MSNBC article, you should discuss that at Talk:MSNBC. Gamaliel (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
MSNBC (and the rest) all have their own biases, but theirs aren't as largely perceived by the general media as a defining feature of the channels. When you Google FNC's own slogan, "Fair and Balanced", the results are overwhelmingly something to do with FNC not being that. This article is by far the least biased result on the first page. But we are meant to reflect the real world, so need to reflect some of its bias against FNC, too. That doesn't make it Wikipedia's idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
News reporting aside, even FNC agrees that it leans conservative in commentary, which makes up a lot (maybe most) of its programming. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Read The Fox Effect. It is an objectively established fact that Fox News exhibits gross political bias, frequently to the point of stretching the truth. More to the point, it was founded precisely because Ailes wanted to present a hard conservative standpoint. That was its market niche. It is Rush Limbaugh for television. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
And not just metaphorically, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The Fox Effect is itself political advocacy reporting. It can't be considered in isolation from other WP:SOURCE-compliant sources on the subject of Fox News' alleged or actual bias.
The original poster does, however, have a point, and it's not solely with our article on MSNBC, but with a range of news sources including CBS News - which, according to Bias by Bernard Goldberg (formerly with CBS News) also has a very strong institutional tradition of political partisan advocacy.
No "NBC-General Electric"-type disclaimers appear on CBS News's reporting on the Obama administration or Barack Obama himself, despite the fact that CBS Corporation's main holding company, National Amusements Company, contributed US$305,770 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and US$350,276 to the DNC in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics]. According to the same nonpartisan source, Barack Obama got a total of US$579,098 from National Amusements' corporate PAC during the 2008 Presidential election cycle, and $264,900 to the Obama Victory Fund in the 2012 Presidential election cycle.
I'd say this was a massive potential source of bias and journalistic conflict of interest which is entirely undisclosed by CBS's news and entertainment divisions - the owners (Shari Redstone and Sumner Redstone) and employees of National Amusements, which is the holding company not only of CBS, but Viacom, the corporate parent of Comedy Central network, home of The Daily Show cover political news collectively in various products such as CBS News's news programming and Comedy Channel's The Daily Show while having undisclosed funding relationships with Democratic Party operations in general and the President, who is a member of the Democratic Party.
Our article on CBS News has no discussion of its own political bias, despite the fact that there are significant allegations of such bias going back to their reporting on the Vietnam War, most notably The Uncounted Dead, which alleged Gen. William Westmoreland deliberately underestimated Viet Cong troop strength during 1967 to maintain troop morale; Gen. Westmoreland sued CBS News for libel, and settled out of court with them for an apology.
Home Box Office and Cable News Network, both of which carry journalistic programming which is at times very openly partisan in its slant (such as HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and much of CNN's morning show commentary) are both owned by Time Warner, which donated US$554,920 to all of Obama's 2014 Presidential cycle campaign committees through PACs and was the top corporate contributor to the Democratic National Committee in 2012, giving them US$650,673, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Neither HBO nor CNN divulges this corporate/PAC funding relationship with the President's campaigns or with the Democratic National Committee in its news programming.
Nor is any mention made in our articles on Home Box Office or Cable News Network of allegations of political bias in either network's journalistic product, even though John Oliver takes what are arguably very strong partisan positions in his news show (before that, he was a writer for Jon Stewart's The Daily Show). Any political bias passes without comment in those articles.
So, Fox News is indeed being singled out among comparable news networks in our article Fox News for significant mention of alleged or actual bias. I can't think of a rationale in Wikipedia why this ought to be so - just the practical fact that there are more editors willing to suppress the mention of political bias in articles on other comparable networks than not. We have an NPOV ethic that goes by the side when a preponderance of editors decide it should be so. loupgarous (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Fox News is internationally known for its style of reporting. Here is a 2013 debate in London, UK between Lawrence Krauss and Hamza Tzortzis in which Tzortzis compares Krauss' discussion of Islam and Sharia Law to "A Fox News Narrative". Link Gabefair (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Every big media outlet is crooked, FNC is just consistently at the forefront of presenting and projecting it. High visibility in the real world warrants prominent placement in the Wikiworld. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The two sources are a book whose purpose is to attack fox and the liberal Boston Globe not neutral sources.KirinD (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Communications researcher Jim A. Kuypers of Virginia Tech has described in some detail (and many published papers) the way in which all news organizations "frame" news stories to fit in a preferred political perspective. To some extent, the practice may no longer be a conscious decision. :However, the degree to which the Obama Administration was actively hostile not just to Fox News, but to Sharyl Attkisson when she pursued stories unflattering to the Administration - and CBS News's unprecedented backing down from the White House were remarkable. Only a few years before, CBS News allowed Dan Rather to base a story on then-President George W. Bush based on forged documents in an attempt to influence the 2004 Presidential election and prevent George W. Bush's re-election. That episode and Ms. Attkisson's experience after she tried to report on the Obama Administration's alleged failures of policy are both remarkable indications of institutional bias at CBS News. CBS News supported Rather when he was wrong, and failed to support Attkisson when her reporting was arguably less embarrassing to Obama than Rather's was to Bush. If we talk about Fox News Channel's bias, it needs to be in context of prevailing practices throughout national news organizations.
Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the New York Times, and not known for her conservative leanings at all, also remarked publicly on how the White House had become more secretive, less open, and more actively hostile to reporters who did not "toe the line" in their reporting since Barack Obama took office, contrasting it unfavorably to her experiences with the George W. Bush White House.
Thus, assertions of widespread press bias in almost all news organizations aren't a matter of partisan politics. We have a former award-winning investigative journalist with CBS News and a former executive editor of the New York Times both saying that journalists on the White House beat (and by extension, their employers) are under considerable pressure to report favorably on the Obama Administration or not at all. The problem of bias is by no means confined to Fox News. Any news organization with good access to THIS White House has to be "playing ball" - because we have two world-class journalists testifying about what happens when the Obama White House is displeased with a reporter on their beat.
If we single Fox News Channel out by allegations of bias, when academics and reputable news professionals point to evidence of widespread press bias committed simply to gain and keep access to the current Administration by a preponderance of national news outlets, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV become real issues with this article. loupgarous (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
loupgarous, We are not here to discuss WP:Truth. Your multiple walls-of-text about the Obama Administration and countless others are unhelpful. Please try to limit yourself to discussion of this article, discussion of Wikipedia policies&guidelines, and discussion of Reliable Sources on Fox News. Alsee (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
This is a substantial portion of the article and obviously warrants a lead mention. Walls of text discussing of whether it is Truth do not belong here. Fox is exceptionally noted in Reliable Sources for this. We have multiple sources saying Fox is "widely" criticized on this. Alsee (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Mary Katherine Ham and Amanda Carpenter

It is listed that Amanda Carpenter and Mary Katherine Ham are listed as Contributors when they don't work for Fox they are contributors and commentators for CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.87.98 (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016


Darkkat44 (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Mary Katherine Ham, and Amanda Carpenter they don't work at FOX News Channel they are contributors and political commentators for CNN.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. st170etalk 14:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Programming

I will post here what I've posted on Doglover159's talk page:

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, which is why I've reverted their edits. There is no need to list the personalities, either, since they are in the section below.

Corkythehornetfan 21:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

Amanda Carpenter and Mary Katherine Ham work at CNN as Contributors not at Fox News Channel. 64.39.87.98 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Fox News Channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I need clarification

So the 3rd paragraph in the "above the fold" section accuses Fox News of bias in favor of the Republican Party. Not disputing that, but why is there no similar accusation made on the pages of CNN; MSNBC; CNBC; CBS; etc.????

Wikileaks revelations have called into question the integrity of said organizations. Also many organizations inside and outside the USA have accused the aforementioned new services of bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondianwolf (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article. Alsee (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. After over 2 weeks, we have consensus that Fox News, which already redirects here as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, is the WP:COMMONNAME. The hat note for Fox News (disambiguation) will remain for any readers who are looking for other topics. Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Fox News Channel → Fox News – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The previous move request failed due to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments, which are invalid as long as Fox News is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. If consensus at this discussion is that this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Fox News", the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title. SSTflyer 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Fox News is the common name, but the primary topic is the channel. I completely agree with George Ho's comments in the last request. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrong http://www.foxnewsgo.com/--Moxy (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
What's "wrong"? It says Fox News (Go). This is the actual home page —Musdan77 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Musdan77 Yes good link ..to the website ...but if you want to see the channel that's another thing ....as seen here . Perhaps this NEW article will help Fox & Friends Celebrates Fox News Channel's 20th Anniversary. Just like TMZ on TV vs -TMZ..- Moxy (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The first link shows the schedule for the "channel". The second talks about the anniversary of the "channel". So, of course, it's going to use "channel". But that doesn't say that Fox News is not what is most often used as the name today. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
RIghT! This article is about the "channel" so why would we name it after the website? Very odd RfC I think. -- Moxy (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The website is named for what the channel is most often called now. In my opinion, the introductory sentence should say: "Fox News, also known as Fox News Channel (FNC),..." —Musdan77 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tucker Carlson

Hi, I'm new here, shouldn't "On the record" be replaced with Tucker Carlson Tonight in the Outlets\ Television section? Greta van Susteren was canceled and replaced by Carlson. JanJasinski (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

Shouldn't the last paragraph on the introduction on Fox News being biased, be put into the Controversy section? Also, in MSNBC's introduction, there is no such criticism of the news network. Billybob2002 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant. We have an entire article on Fox News controversies, several of which are about its bias.

The article on MSNBC controversies, also mentions bias. But whether it should be mentioned in the main MSNBC article, is a matter for that article. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. I would encourage you to start an RfD to settle this matter. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" misrepresentation of facts

Using the title 'Alleged misrepresentation of facts' seem to be an WP:NPOV violation. Ironically enough it probably comes from a misguided attempt to apply NPOV. There is nothing 'alleged' about Fox new's frequent misrepresentation of facts, it is a verifiable, true and perfectly factual to state that Fox News has misrepresented facts on several occasions (the recent scandal over it's fake story about Sweden being a case in point). By saying "alleged" in Wiki-voice, we make it sound as if this is just an opinion, not an actual fact. Could anyone imagine us talking about the "alleged Holocaust", the "alleged Rwandan genocide" etc. NPOV is not about being neutral between fact and opinions, it's about representing facts in a neutral manner. That being the case, the "alleged" should be dropped, as it can easily be sourced that Fox News has misrepresented facts on several occasions. Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

==================

From Ireland

Agree with above poster. This is the worst so-called news channel for factual news, thus far. Countless times we've noticed stuff they put out has had to be corrected and /or mysterious sources used that leads to never really getting to the core of something they report. Some of their guests (after the opposite being verified on other news channels, or it could be something you already know not to be true) are just as bad. One guest said that in Birmingham, UK, there were "No-go" areas...NOT true! That is just one of the many bewildering things they / some of their guests come out with. They come across to us as more opinionated in what they deliver / put their own kind of spin on it, more so than just reporting in a professional manner. Again, a couple of them (Sheppard Smith - don't know if that's spelt right) seem more centered and straight-forward in how they deliver.

We also noticed that some of their anchors (not all of them) come across as angry and calling the other party (or whatever - Democrats) things like "snow flakes" - or the "(insert some kind of insulting word here) leftists" and the likes. Just so unprofessional. We often look through them all - CNN, etc. and never see them calling Republicans names and the likes. They, along with some others, just present themselves more professionally and seem to get a certain item of news (not from some kind of mysterious "source".) but often from where it actually originated - and usually have access to actual docs they are referring to, and /or an actual guest who IS the source. Just seems more transparent / easier to verify what they deliver. Fox is generally just not like this.

There's a guy called Hannity (if memory serves us well) and he goes on like this. He is a total Gob-shite and also seems to have a negative, unhealthy obsession with Barrack Obama - even after he has left office. Took a short while for us to notice all of this about this news channel, when we started checking it out, some years back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.180.228 (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

Change

to

References

  1. ^ Feldman, Josh (March 1, 2016). "Fox News Contributor Mary Katharine Ham Jumps to CNN, Makes Debut with Tapper". Mediaite. Retrieved March 12, 2017.

—216.249.253.191 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend copying and pasting Ham's entry from this diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=769989945
—216.249.253.191 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

Please add "citation needed" tag to mentions of "Fox News Group" in article, as there is currently no known reference to/confirming entity's existence. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:1995:CAEC:D28:5C3F (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong name in the infobox

It's Brazil, not Brasil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.74.233 (talk • contribs)

Already done by Niteshift36 (talk). regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill

This article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill.

Try to trim to max 3 cites at ends of sentences.

Observation: It appears that there are cases where more than 3 citations are effective for demonstrating the pervasiveness of behavior. Example: 5 unique instances of significant legal action against Fox News.

No need for 7.

That is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Sagecandor (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Wiretapping Claim

This section needs to be deleted or completely re-written. Firstly the claim that Napolitano was suspended for it is false, he was never suspended despite what the LA times editorial page may have claimed. And second the story about the British wiretapping for Obama is not a claim it was a confirmed fact by the wikileaks as a result of the Snowden whistelblowing regarding the project code named "Tempura" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Pre-Launch Question

Did another network occupy FNC's satellite transponder prior to their official launch and if so what channel was it so I can added a Replaced to the InfoBox or was it simply an unused transponder?. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Accreditation

Should we start listing news media accreditation information on Wikipedia pages? With all the hoopla over fake news these days, I think people should know which are actually accredited and which are not. It's a fairly straight forward process. Here's a link: http://ask.metafilter.com/65063/What-counts-as-an-accredited-news-publicationSnackattack68 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake news in the lead

diff. Shall we add that CNN is fake news too? They also have fake retracted stories that spawned lawsuits and mainstream coverage, including the NYT. As I have already mentioned in edit summaries, please see how retracted stories are treated in other articles. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The disputed text is that "Fox News Channel has been accused of [...] publishing fake news." The three sources attached to that text show that a former Fox News contributor is accusing Fox News of publishing fake news, so this is a cut-and-dried corroboration of the text in question. This is not just a retracted story; it is a lawsuit from an insider at Fox News who is explicitly accusing Fox News of publishing fake news, supported by multiple sources. Your random bringing up of CNN reeks of whataboutism. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The CNN story I am referring (see the link) was a case of people accusing CNN of publishing a fake story, just as with Fox News, which was retracted, just as with Fox News, which generated a law suit, just as with Fox News, which got just as mainstream coverage saying it was false as the one by Fox News. Yet, you don't see that in the lead of the CNN article, not even on the controversies section, only in a "CNN controversies" article. Why? Because the story was retracted and life went on (except for the lawsuit, these things take time). Just as with Fox News. I'm not asking "what about CNN?" as a way to avoid discussing the subject, but rather to show you an example of how this is usually dealt with in other articles. Do you have any reason for the treatment to be different here? Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that Fox News is being accused of publishing fake news by its own insider. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
And how is that more relevant than the NYT and others, in the CNN case (which, by the way, also involved a dispute with one of their editors)? Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It is more relevant because it is an insider directly implicating the organization. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how, and there was also, by the way, criticism (and a law suit) from an insider in the CNN case.Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As always, check the sources. I'm seeing two sources here, both from the Hollywood Reporter. By itself, that's probably not enough for the lede, though it can be put in the article text. Are there more sources to corroborate this claim? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There are indeed three sources there; the USA Today article is in between the two Hollywood Reporter articles, so it's probably difficult to see in the large amount of text. There are three additional sources to corroborate the disputed text as well: one from NPR, one from NBC News, and another from the Daily Beast. The disputed text is overwhelmingly corroborated by sources. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing is not the issue, the point is that the story was retracted and there is not much about it afterwards, apart from the lawsuit, exactly the same with the CNN case. This is definitively worthy of inclusion in a controversies section or article, but not on the lead, specially in the way it was worded. See also WP:RECENTISM. The tear gas stuff from CNN also made a lot of headlines, specially after the retraction, but... life went on. It's not making headlines 10 years after the fact, it's not worthy of lead inclusion. Will this be making? Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not the story was retracted is not the issue. It is the fact that a formal accusation against Fox News was made by a Fox News insider; this is highly notable material. Just because the sources are recent does not automatically mean the disputed text is recentism. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was made, and yes it's relevant for the criticism section. Something that happened a few days ago is relevant for the lead of a 20 year old company? Maybe, and although it may seem so given the amount of recent news, it's probably not, given the retraction and the nature of the controversy. If we were in 1998, the exact same case could be made for the Operation Tailwind scandal. Just because the sources are recent does not automatically mean the disputed text is recentism. that is not what I said.Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
What differentiates Fox News from others is that its anchors and personalities regularly accuse other outlets of being fake news. The fact that Fox News itself has been accused of the same thing is what makes it more notable than others in this context. Thank you for your input. I will supply sources from farther back in time so that it is not just recent events. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
We should handle the Fox controversies the same way we handle the Bush-service-record story in Dan Rather (which we refer to in the lede as "a disputed news report") and the staged gas tank explosions, indisputably "fake news", in Dateline NBC (which we don't even mention in the lede.) This rush to include every potentially damaging claim, five just from 2017 despite the organization's 20-year history, smacks of WP:RECENTISM and undue weight. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottsville coverage

Snooganssnoogans the text seems well sourced, but it doesn't really read as a controversy (apart from the last paragraph), moreso as a description of the coverage itself. I haven't checked the sources to see what they are saying, but if they do treat it like a controversy perhaps the text should better reflect that? Currently it reads like a description of the coverage and just one critical remark by a guy from CNN, on the last paragraph, which doesn't seem like a controversy from the reader standpoint IMO. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We can't treat every article that disagrees with something someone said on Fox News as a controversy. Especially detailed descriptions that are not encyclopedia like "Fox News host Tucker Carlson also covered historical figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, Mohammed, Simon Bolivar and Plato, who owned slaves on his show, and said that individuals who wanted to remove confederate monuments would want to remove statues of Abraham Lincoln next.[144][145][147] A guest on Tucker Carlson's show equated individuals who want to remove confederate monuments to "Weimar thugs" and the Taliban.[145] A guest on Fox & Friends equated the confederate flag with the rainbow flag, saying they "represent the exact same thing," and the hosts of Fox & Friends did not provide a response to the guest's remarks." Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The content is well-sourced, and the controversy is the whataboutist coverage and defense of Trump's rhetoric and the white supremacists. 10:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
But the text doesn't read like a controversy. It reads like "Fox News did this". Ok, so what? Where's the controversy? I'll see if I can get some time to read the refs in details this weekend and improve the text if it's not done by then. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point; it's criticism not controversy. Regardless I don't think the criticism lasted more than a day or two which doesn't meet the standard of "lasting significance." James J. Lambden (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
How exactly could any Wikipedia text read like a controversy??? On Wikipedia, all text should read like "X did this", not "X disgraced itself by defending white supremacists and attacking the people who stood up against the neo-nazis". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
con·tro·ver·sy noun
disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
As I said when I removed this section initially, it got hardly more than a day's coverage. If that were the standard this article would be hundreds of pages (screens?) long. The standard is enduring notability, which hasn't been demonstrated. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate on that definition, a disagreement becomes "prolonged" when the criticized party rebuts the criticism, when it's no longer just A disagreeing with B, but a disagreement between A and B. Needs some "back and forth", "tit for tat" or "ebb and flow" to be a proper controversy anywhere and needs independent coverage to be a noteworthy controversy on Wikipedia. If we parroted every tit that merely flowed forth without repercussion, most famous article subject would be swamped by one-sided steamblowing. Even the various Seven Wonders of the World, generally agreed as wonderful, have (and had) their haters. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" in lede

I removed conspiracy theories from the lede. Of the sources that supposedly support it [4] (in regard to Hillary Clinton's health) two don't call it a conspiracy theory [5] [6] and the third is a Vox opinion piece, not usable for statements of fact [7]. And if "Hillary's Health" isn't significant enough to be included in the body of the article (it isn't) it does not belong in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree just horrible fact conclusion based on news headlines....would be nice if our editors could use academic sources...but some really think news bashed articles are ok.--Moxy (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously several other editors believe this is note worthy of inclusion. And despite what some claim it wasn't just a "one time thing".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Lambden in not seeing the claim in any of the four sources. At most, there's an implication among them, and even that only touches upon one theory. It'd be fair to say the network perpetuated the weakening of the Democrat candidate's image rather than perpetuated theories in general, and that's already part and parcel of "promoting the Republican party." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It's in this source, this source, this source and a whole bunch more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There seems to an implication by Volunteer Marek that there are " several other editors" that have talked about this (I dont see that here). Perhaps best to get some others involved here....hard to promote a talk when the dispute tag is removed a few times. Thus far 3 have voiced a concern with the sourcing used for a blanket statement for the lead. --Moxy (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, there are User:RetiredVet1946 and User:Snooganssnoogans just after a quick lookee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And to be clear, there's at least three conspiracy theories they've promoted and that's just off the top of my head. Clinton's health BS. Seth Rich murder BS. Protesters at Charlottesville paid by Soros BS. I'm pretty sure there have been more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

All news outlets have had this said about them at one time or another ......adding 3 or 4 incidents to concluded a pattern that is not stated in the sources and in a wiki voice is a problem WP:SYNTHESIS Wikipedia:No original research/Examples There is also a MOS:INTRO and WP:BALASP problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Have they? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about "Conspiracy theories" in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seems to be a snow consensus that the sentence has it's problems related to issues of due weight and shall be certainly excluded from the lead.Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Do the following news sources support the blanket lead statement "Fox News Channel has been accused of .....perpetuating conspiracy theories". Does this merit inclusion in the lead?

--Moxy (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose looks like WP:SYNTHESIS...not one mentions long term problem....cant add up news stories to state a fact WP:PROPORTION. --Moxy (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose sure, they have been, but it's undue emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, the sources are weak, and no, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose maintaining a sense of consistency in MOS and lede summaries is important. All of MSM is guilty of propagandizing, editorializing, and creating conspiracy theories, many of whom use "anonymous sources" that can't be verified - pundits are paid to push political agendas - MSM uses bait-click headlines as revenue generators. Have we consistently included such information in all the ledes of MSM articles? The lede is a summary of RS facts not a soapbox for criticism and the opinions of biased competitors. The latter belongs in the body of the article under "Reception", keeping UNDUE under consideration, and if the statement is likely to be challenged, use inline text attribution. Atsme📞📧 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose while Fox to me, as a foreigner, is a ridiculous channel and it's hard to imagine anyone taking them serious, the sources do not justify such a statement, especially in the lead. I hope you find some better sources. In the mean time, i watch an occasional item from Fox when I'm bored with comedy channel and i want a good laugh. But that's irrelevant here. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose Undue emphasis for lead material with questionable sources. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any three things can suggest a pattern, if you look at them consecutively. Might as well mention their fear of Halloween. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - fails WP:WEIGHT. Seems an too rarely mentioned. An occasional complaint is said about any media, and occasionally 'conspiracy theory' is said about CNN, Washington Post, etcetera. I think all of them simply provide for their market niche, so instead I take it as POVs and any POV has some conspiracy theories. Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

Author shows bias - bad move to accept this, Wiki.

The third paragraph of the Fox News article reads, "Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting, perpetuating conspiracy theories,[6] and promoting the Republican Party.[7][8][9] Research shows that Fox News increases Republican vote shares among viewers.[10][11] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[12][13] Fox News employees have responded that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting.[14] The network has also been accused of permitting sexual harassment and racial discrimination by on-air hosts, executives, and employees, paying out millions of dollars in legal settlements.[15] The company is currently under federal investigation for its harassment settlements and other alleged misconduct.[16]"

The author has clear bias, as every major news channel has been similarly accused and has dealt with their own investigations. CNN and MSNBC have been equally accused of bias, but this is not stated in the opening of their articles. The above-noted section should be removed from the Fox News article; or this subject should be equally discussed for other networks in Wikipedia.

-Nicole Clune, September 10, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.146 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nicole Clune. If you look at the discussion above this one, we were already discussing removal of 'conspiracy theories' when you posted. That portion has now been removed. However just because all networks have been criticized, does not make them equal. At Wikipedia we try, as best we can, to summarize information published by reliable sources. We try, as best we can, to stay out of debates about which side is right or wrong in various debates. One of the most noteworthy things about Fox News is how extensively reliable sources have described their reporting as biased and promoting the Republican party. Alsee (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi,Alsee. Reliable sources also refer to how MSNBC's coverage of news is biased (toward liberal perspectives), and yet this bad news about MSNBC appears in one section, down in the body of the article. Our article on Fox News is vulnerable to accusations of political bias specifically because allegations of bias aren't dealt with in the same way when the cable news channel is MSNBC. That's the point Nicole Clune seems to be making, and it's a valid one. This disparity in how we present allegations against cable news networks seems to be politically-based and POV-pushing. The third paragraph needs to go, because it lends WP:UNDUE weight to allegations covered elsewhere in the article. loupgarous (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
loupgarous, I have not studied the MSNBC article. Due weight says we cover things in proportion with depth and breadth of ReliableSource coverage. The depth and breadth of such coverage about FoxNews is rather extensive. If you are aware of an equal depth and breadth of ReliableSources addressing such concerns about MSNBC, then perhaps you should raise those concerns and cite those sources at the MSNBC article. Alsee (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
We run into an source reliability issue here in that some of the many, many sources we have alleging Fox News has a political agenda have political agendas themselves. That includes some of the news outlets who are commercial competitors of Fox News. In our article on GMC trucks, we wouldn't consider using material published by RAM Trucks or Ford Motor Company as WP:RS to support statements about GMC's trucks unless we followed the guidance in WP:BIASED. I don't see us acknowledging that other news agencies and other people attacking Fox News have their own political agendas.
To cite a very recent example of this, what was once reported by most of the press as conclusive proof that the Trump campaign had Russian connections is now being downplayed as "opposition research" in the press, after material such as the "Trump dossier" has been revealed to have indirectly been paid for by the DNC - just one example of most of the press being WP:BIASED on a given topic.
The problem, of course, is we weight some accusations more than others in this article. I happen to believe that our article MSNBC is correctly written. I don't see how a reading of my previous statements could have led you to any other conclusion.
We're lending excessive weight to allegations of Fox News's political bias, not MSNBC's, and we ought to pare the sources we cite back to those scholarly articles which deal with all political bias in the press, such as the Social Sciences Journal article "Selective exposure to partisan media: Moderating factors in evaluations of the president" which makes statements regarding Fox News within the context of how other news sources like MSNBC also have partisan bias. That's the encyclopedic approach. What we have now is a partisan article which violates WP:NPOV by erecting a wall of text asserting Fox News' bias, essentially lending wikivoice to even the most biased sources' statements. loupgarous (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
"what was once reported by most of the press as conclusive proof that the Trump campaign had Russian connections". Jesus Christ on stilts. If you're going to rag on "most of the press", you should actually bother to read the press. Literally every RS that covered the Steele Dossier hedged their coverage of the Dossier with repeated disclaimers that most of its contents were unproven. Way to go to discredit yourself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I did bother to read the press - and a disconcerting number of mainstream press outlets managed to, while citing disclaimers (thus covering themselves against actions for libel), repeat Steele's claims - giving them every bit as much public exposure as though they'd stood behind them. The Canons of Journalism deprecate such behavior. Going on to your language, if you can't observe WP:CIVIL, I understand The Daily Beast is recruiting. They would pay you to write that sort of attack. loupgarous (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fox News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Republican Vote Share study in lead is undue

Talking about research about Fox News increasing GOP vote share does not seem like something that belongs in the lead. The lead already discusses bias, this is undue elaboration.

There are other studies for example, that found The Washington Post increases Democratic vote share, yet that study was kept in the body section of the Post article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If it were only one study and it didn't fit with any broader claims of bias, then yes, it would be undue. But what we have here are five studies in top econ and poli sci journals. These studies also fit with the broader claims of bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This isn't essentially about bias at all, it's an effect (real or imagined) on other people. Yes, that effect is associated with the Republican cheerleading aspect of the programming, but there's other stuff on that channel, too. Even the staunchest critics see it, sometimes. Colours, shapes, sounds, words and timing have all manner of persuasive effects (intentional or not). Potential or swing American voters only have two things to choose between. Absolutely anything can influence someone on the fence about absolutely anything.
The bit in the lead, as it's written today, is a comment (true or untrue) on American voters' quirks, not on FNC's. Don't let the titles of the sources and its placement in the article distort the claim itself. Studies don't "show" things, though, they suggest them. I'll change that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if it is not about bias, it does not merit it being in the lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this point. Whether or not you want to consider it biased, it still doesn't belong in the lead. Natureium (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

Why is the bulk of this article focused on "controversies" related to Fox News? This is undeniable overcoverage. Natureium (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of it should be moved to Fox News controversies, yes. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

You should REMOVE the statements concerning bias, whereas, ABC, NBC, CNN & CBS have been accused of bias, also. Only, you pitiful excuses for objectivity show bias of your own by only reporting accusations of bias against Fox. I have just viewed accusations against all aforementioned networks. And you want me to donate to you???????????????????????????????? 146.126.51.51 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Described by Rupert Murdoch as "conservative"

http://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-sexual-harassment-allegations-largely-political-2017-12 

 "But that was largely political, because we're conservative," Murdoch continued. "Now, of course, all the liberals are going down the drain. NBC is in deep trouble. CBS, their stars."

Given that the owner of the network describes it as conservative, we should consider changing the description of the network to "conservative" rather than describing it as an allegation. Drsmoo (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The allegations are about news bias. He doesn't say the news is biased, he's talking about the editorial stance. As the article says, Fox claims news and the editorial shows are separate. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
He said "we're conservative", there was no distinction brought up about news vs editorial in the article. Thats not how Rupert Murdoch described Fox News. He described it as conservative. Drsmoo (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
In context, "we" sounds like management, not the network. Those behind it. Murdoch, Ailes and whoever investigates these sorts of things. That's not to say the on-air news or opinion isn't conservative, just doesn't say so here. "We" should be assumed to mean multiple people, by default. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_35&oldid=1142761381"