Talk:Fox News/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

How Many Times Does It Need To Be Said..?

There are multiple comments concerning the flagrant and blatant bias in this "article." Corrections are ignored. When Wikipedia allows, tolerates, and FOSTERS bias and prejudice, it becomes useless...another opinion giver, rather than a source of "facts."

When is enough going to be enough...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timber72 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Guy (help!) 18:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Timber72 and the many other editors who have noted the same on this talk page. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty reliable indicator that you're not competent to comment then. Guy (help!) 06:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have examples of bias then point them out. Simply saying it exists or that others agree gets us nowhere. Remember though, pointing out what you feel is bias does not mean it will be removed or changed. The bias may be on your end and not the article. Harshbarj (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Let these lemmings run Wikipedia as far off the cliff of reality as possible... 71.82.73.37 (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

IP user, you’ve posted this same exact comment elsewhere on Wikipedia. It seems most of your contributions consist of WP:SOAPBOXING. Which indicates you’re not here to build an encyclopedia. As other editors have said, if you have a specific argument to make about untoward bias, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, if you just keep repeating similar statements, the community or an administrator should review your on-wiki conduct, and you may be blocked again. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs to be restructured, particularly since the sources are biased in themselves. Totally not worth Wikipedia's reputation. Curivity (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, sources that supposedly "biased" are not excluded as reliable. Per WP:NPOV, If a preponderance of reliable sources state that Fox News is a mouth piece of the Trump administration, then we too have to state that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I will join the many others noting the anti-Fox bias of the page and I note that quotes from controversial sources like Media Matters should be directly attributed, if included at all. Edit5001 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, You seem to make the same mistake in numerous places.

Criticising Fox is not "bias". It's a reality-based response to the way Fox works. Fox was set up by a former Nixon media consultant who believed that the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and New York Times. Facts, after all, have a well-known liberal bias. Fox was deliberately designed as a conservative propaganda outlet and there is a substantial body of scholarly anaylsis showing that its influence on the US has been pernicious.

Neutrality does not mean pretending that propaganda is truth. Guy (help!) 10:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It becomes bias on the part of editors to include only criticisms and no defenses against those criticisms. Fox is no more a propaganda outlet than most other mainstream outlets like MSNBC, NPR, etc. Finally, facts do not have a "liberal bias" and to assert such preposterous (and frankly, funny) nonsense shows your own bias. Edit5001 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, your belief that Fox is "no more a propaganda outlet than most other mainstream outlets" embodies a category error (Fox is not a mainstream source) and is also incorrect, per multiple reliable sources. Mainstream is a term that denotes the shared body of empirical fact. Mainstream sources lean left (e.g. WaPo) and right (e.g. WSJ). But since 2015 Fox, specifically, has separated itself from the mainstream. It was losing ad revenue and social media share because it was publishing facts about Trump that were contradicted by the Bannon machine. During 2015 and 2016 Fox stopped doing that and got on the Trump train, reflecting the agenda set by Breitbart. This is all documented in Network Propaganda, with scholarly analysis. Many other academic sources make the same point. Your "rebuttal" relies on opinion polling, basically asking people who have been subjected to three years of "mainstream news if fake news" whether mainstream news is fake news.

Fox News leans right as much as CNN commentary leans left, but is about 25% less factually accurate. Fox commentary is way to the right, whereas CNN news is close to the center and ranks high for accuracy. You're offering your opinions as a rebuttal to these analyses from multiple sources which lean right, left or not at all. Guy (help!) 19:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I find your definition of "mainstream" odd. I go with Cambridge Dictionary that simply defines Mainstream Media as "forms of the media, especially traditional forms such as newspapers, television, and radio rather than the internet, that influence large numbers of people and are likely to represent generally accepted beliefs and opinions".

There are clips of CNN field operation manager Patrick Davis saying "“Even though we’re totally left-leaning… we don’t want to admit it” and “We could be so much better than what we are… we’re supposed to be middle of the road.”" CNN media coordinator Nick Neville said "“Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN, has a personal vendetta against Trump… it’s not gonna be positive for Trump. [Zucker] hates him. He’s going to be negative,”

These staff members certainly disagree with you that CNN is anywhere near the center. Then combine this with the research we have that found only 3% of CNN host's questions during the election cycle were friendly to the GOP, compared to far more for Democrats. Edit5001 (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You continue to use Project Veritas videos when it is famous for making videos that have been deceptively edited and newsbusters.org founded by the chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee. You are doing this on multiple articles and you need to stop this. This is an encyclopedia. Frankly, your horridly sourced comments about Zucker violate WP:BLP O3000 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, do you actually understand what a reliable source is? I'm beginning to wonder. Guy (help!) 11:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that CNN – a for-profit channel owned by AT&T – has a left bias, when AT&T has billions of dollars to lose if an actual leftist (not Obama and the Clintons, who are closer to the center) gets elected and raises corporate taxes. More likely that they wish for elections to be between establishmend Democrats (so not Sanders) and establishment Republicans (so not Trump). Mainstream media have called proponents of European social democracy (soft capitalism; Sanders' policy platform) "far, far, far left" and the likes – meaning that when they say they're 'left-leaning', they might as well mean they support middle-of-the-road capitalism as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. Selvydra (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not using PV, I'm using Fox, who's reporting on them. You don't get to dismiss reliable sources because you disagree with their method of reporting. Edit5001 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, you can't make lies into facts by repeating them on a propaganda network. That's pretty much the entire problem, in fact. Guy (help!) 16:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a shred of proof that the videos PV recorded in this instance were lies? Edit5001 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, I don't need to: PV is known for lying, that's what they do, so the responsible thing for any news org to do in response to their actions is to ignore them. You can't make a batshit insane propaganda source into something reliable by washing it through a mostly-sane propaganda source. Guy (help!) 17:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the only batshit insane thing here is dismissing recordings and information outright without a shred of evidence. I doubt you've actually even listened to the recordings. Edit5001 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, as you cannot fail to be aware, Project Veritas is a right wing activist group whose modus operandi is to selectively edit videos in order to attack progressive-linked organisations and individuals. O'Keefe himself is barred from raising money for PV due to his criminal record, which was the result of entering Federal buildings under false pretenses. PV is best known for bringing down ACORN based on an entirely fraudulent case. The GAO found no evidence of any wrongdoing by ACORN.

PV is the canonical example of an unreliable source. A right-wing propaganda outfit repeating PV is a sign that the right wing propaganda outfit is unreliable, rather than, as you appear to believe, a sign that PV is reliable. Guy (help!) 17:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As I recall the only thing "deceptively edited" about the ACORN videos was that O'Keefe dressed in crazy pimp clothing on camera but then didn't actually enter the ACORN building in that pimp clothing. That doesn't mean what they recorded the ACORN employees saying was faked. If they edited words coming out of the employees' mouths that they didn't actually say, the investigations would've easily revealed this - they didn't. As for having a criminal record, basically any committed undercover journalist in this day and age is going to get one. There are a lot of laws across the country that severely undermine undercover journalism.

If being a right wing activist group is an issue, Media Matters, a far left activist group, should also be subject to extreme scrutiny. They're cited on this page extensively. Edit5001 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, see Project Veritas. O’Keefe’s entire premise was a deliberate lie. Guy (help!) 14:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As I recall... Your recollection is incorrect. The Veritas video was heavily doctored and ACORN was cleared of malfeasance by multiple investigations, but only after they had been smeared out of business. Moreover, your likening of Veritas to Media Matters is bogus, because the latter does not doctor videos or otherwise engage in deceptive tactics. They just expose frauds and liars, such as Veritas, and that really upsets some people. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Reports stated that, at the very least, the ACORN employees taped engaged in "terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior". That suggests the videos certainly had truth to them. Considering Veritas has had over 300 retractions issued about them, and has won many lawsuits against them as well by this point, they're certainly more credible than you're giving them credit for. And Media Matters is known for taking people's statements out of context as well and attempting to ruin people's careers over simply having conservative political opinions. The two are definitely comparable. Edit5001 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And you read this where? What are the reliable sources? Seriously, they are a famously bad source. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters is known for taking people's statements out of context as well and attempting to ruin people's careers over simply having conservative political opinions. They don't take statements out of context, they expose people who do. They don't have a problem with conservatives, they have a problem with conservative liars. And that's why conservative liars hate them so much. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Veritas has had over 300 retractions issued about them. Where? I'll wait. soibangla (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Timber72, MaximumIdeas, Curivity, and Edit5001: Would you like to propose specific edits, or are we here for generalized statements? @JzG: I suggest keeping the discussion on a practical level. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, thank you for asking. The most obvious bias to fix is have "conservative" immediately in its description; that was added this summer and was done without any consensus on the talk page (not only no consensus, but immediate pushback on talk.) No similarly left-leaning outlets (as determined on Wiki's RS board) have a political descriptor attached to them in their lede. It should be removed. The organization's complex relation to politics (such as the separation of the news and opinion divisions, its self-described position, etc) are described in the article. The lede right now inaccurately summarizes that nuanced discussion, as well. So to answer your question: Remove "conservative" from the lede, which was added without consensus anyway. MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, Fox is a conservative outlet. It was the brainchild of Roger Ailes, a Nixon media consultant who thought the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and the New York Times. There are several books devoted to the founding and history of Fox, and it is absolutely clear from contemporaneous documents and third party commentary that Fox was intended to be a conservative counter to the perceived liberal bias of the press.

It is partisan. It was always partisan. That was it's entire raison d'être.

In recent times it has moved beyond partisan and into outright propaganda (see this excellent piece by Jane Mayer).

Arguing that it is somehow not conservative only works if you're going to argue that the Republican Party is not conservative. And I might be inclined to agree, since they are by now a fundamentalist libertarian party with virtually nothing in common with Reagan-era conservatiism. Guy (help!) 19:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but you didn't address any of the points in my above comment (how other known-to-be-biased sources are treated; how it was added without consensus.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Both Mother Jones and The Weekly Standard present the outlets' political affiliations in the second sentence, and in the first in the respective disambiguation page and hatnote, so that's an option too. François Robere (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree. It's not so much "conservative" as "right wing", promoting a hodgepodge of policies and politicians some of which aren't "conservative" in any real sense, but certainly "right wing" (eg. Trump). It was born as a conservative outlet, but isn't quite conservative at the moment. I would support changing "conservative" to "right-wing", "right-leaning" or "affiliated with the American (/political) right". François Robere (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

François Robere I think your Mother Jones solution that you highlight above, with the same wording, in the 2nd sentence, would be reasonable. Only diff is Mother Jones is explicit about its politics. Could do for Fox something like: Its political inclination is variously described as either conservative or right-wing, though the outlet itself defends its neutrality. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, the issue here is that MJ and The Weekly Standard are niche publications.

The proposal might have merit if Fox was the Mother Jones of the right, but it's not. MJ's position among progressives is analogous to Breitbart's position among conservatives. Fox News is the dominant news provider among conservative Americans. Fox has the position for conservatives that the NYT or WaPo have for liberals. That is a huge problem, because while it's reasonable to believe what WaPo says in factual reporting about a subject, Fox's "factual" reporting very often includes "alternative facts", according to multiple analyses. Fox is an opinion-driving engine masquerading as a fact-reporting one. Hence the particular levels of scrutiny and criticism, which is the dominant fact about Fox in a way that it's not when it comes to outlets like MJ.

There's also the problem that according to independent analysis, MJ is less biased and substantially more accurate than Fox News.

The bias of Fox News, combined with its pre-eminent position as an information source for the right, is identified by very large numbers of sources as a pressing issue for civic discourse in the United States: 40% of Americans are effectively basing their opinions and decisions on Truth™ instead of facts. Liberals consume a much broader range of media, and the core of liberals' information sources is mainstream outlets with an incentive to follow facts, not ideology. You should read Network Propaganda, which sets out in detail and with compelling evidence the asymmetric bias between right and left leaning media. Guy (help!) 09:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Guy, thank you for sharing your thoughts in depth. Yes, Fox is bigger than MJ. Fox's size and influence should be noted, but that should not impact whether its politics are stated in Wikipedia's voice, or in the style we use for MJ and outlets in general. AdFontesMedia is, while one view, not an RS -- it also doesn't change whether political views should be stated in Wiki's voice or not. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, I think you missed the point. The single most important thing about Fox is that it is conservative. That is the reason it exists at all. That's what Ailes designed it to be. No other media of comparable reach was designed specifically to promulgate ideas of a certain political bent, and indeed no other media of comparable reach does so, whether it was designed to or not. Guy (help!) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's true that for Breitbart and The Blaze, for example, we note the political affiliation in the very first sentence, and we do something similar for church-affiliated publications. François Robere (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is why the political alignment of conservative sources is important, and more important than that of mainstream or left-leanig sources..

[The rest of the media ecosystem] imposes higher reputational costs on sites and authors who propagate rumor and provides avenues for relatively rapid fact checking, criticism of false claims, and rapid dissemination of and coalescence around corrected narratives. The insular right wing of the media ecosystem creates positive feedbacks for bias-confirming statements as a central feature of its normal operation. The rest of the media ecosystem comprises sites diverse enough in their political orientation, organizational culture, business model, and reputational needs to create impedance in the network. This system resists and corrects falsehood as its normal operation, even though, like all systems, it also occasionally fails, sometimes spectacularly.

— Benkler, Yochai. Network Propaganda (p. 74). Oxford University Press.

This is in addition to the documented fact that Fox was created to push a conservative agenda. Despite that, Fox News (rather than cable) was anchored tot he mainstream until 2015/16. That changed as Breitbart started stealing their lunch. Guy (help!) 08:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

under new zealand is says that "Fox News' former parent company News Corporation has a stake in both SKY and Prime" this is not true

since 2013 News Corp Has not had any shares and or stake in Sky and prime

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10869030

aslo Fox news is also on vodafone (nz) TV 47.72.239.145 (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please specify what you want to change. Brownlowe.2 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Re [1] @Snooganssnoogans:, how is this "nonsense"?

1. There are far too many quotes for an intro.
2. "... and spreading harmful propaganda..." The use of the word "propaganda" already implies it's harmful. It's also redundant considering "... negatively affect its members' electoral performances" comes right after. "Harmful" also falls under WP:LABEL.
3. "... former employees have said that Fox ordered them to 'slant the news in favor of conservatives'." Again, this quote shouldn't be in an intro, and we can easily just say "former employees dispute this." It has the same meaning, in less words, and it's not a quote.
4. "... observers have noted..." "Note" should only be used for objective facts. I personally believe this is very true myself, but I know there are probably plenty of others (including RSs) who would dispute it. See WP:SAID.
5. "... providing 'propaganda' and a 'feedback loop' for Trump..." Again, needless quoting, not to mention redundant. We've already established that Fox is propaganda, so why repeat it? The "feedback loop" is also heavily implied by "a 'mouthpiece'", which comes right before.

JOEBRO64 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64 - Agreed. That is why I undid Snooganssnoogans' Undo of your edit. His undo of your edit, which removed your neutral language to re-install inflammatory non-neutral language reflecting his POV is against Wikipedia policy. Further, his flippant response of "nonsense" regarding your edit was not called for. We don't need an edit war, though. Hopefully Snoog will address the edits here. GlassBones (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• ^This editor has been topic-banned from modern American Politics, so his comment should be struck. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You changed peer-reviewed academic research into "critics" and "accusations". That's nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, couldn't you just have explained that and changed that back, if you don't have a problem with the rest? JOEBRO64 20:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not support the following parts of the lead content: (i) "harmful" in front of "propaganda" and (ii) "Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall". But if some wants to remove the two bits, it should be preceded by a discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You got me topic banned from political articles; I am not banned from editing an article about a news organization. Further, I did not insert any political or non-POV language. So please get over it. On the other hand, you and others who share your POV seem intent to keep the biased language intact, which would seem to violate Wikipedia policy, at least to some extent.GlassBones (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Should competitors be cited as reliable sources for criticisms of Fox?

In this article, at least six competitors of Fox News are cited for criticisms of the network in the header paragraphs alone. These include Vox, CNN, USA Today, Media Matters, the New Yorker, and PBS News. Do these sources violate WP:RS due to being competitors of Fox, or are they acceptable regardless of that? If they're all acceptable, why? Edit5001 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you really stating that we can't use any news source for anything negative about Fox because they "compete" with Fox News? Because, for one, I can't really see how The New Yorker, a weekly magazine, competes with Fox News, a cable news channel. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see this is in relation to Talk:CNN#Opening_should_include_criticisms_of_the_network's_bias Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, the exact same standards should be applied to both pages. Edit5001 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Mainstream news organisations can be used as sources for criticism of Fox. Partisan left, not so much, unless it's substantial investigative work. The opposite of conservative is not mainstream, it's liberal. Mainstream media generally has an editorial position but fact-based reporting is neutral for all the trusted mainstream sources. And if we don't include criticism from mainstream outlets, we'll end up with a propaganda piece, as the right-partisan media lacks any element of self-criticism. Guy (help!) 18:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should avoid direct competitors like Fox vs. CNN. But, I don't see a problem with the other sources. O3000 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy What is the arbiter that determines when a source crosses from mainstream into partisan left? What if a mainstream outlet is a partisan outlet? Edit5001 (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You can take it to WP:RSN. But I don't think you're going to get much traction on having that entire list dismissed - Media Matters is plainly WP:BIASED (though it can still be usable as a source), but you're going to have a much, much harder time convincing anyone about the others. And the argument that we can't cite Fox's competitors is plainly absurd (by that argument no news source could be cited about any other news source ever!) --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, it's not hard to establish whether a source is considered mainstream or not. The usual suspects are Reuters, AP, ABC, BBC, NPR, CNN (news), Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, WSJ and the rest. WP:RSN and WP:RSP are useful guides. Guy (help!) 10:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

And don't forget Fox News (news), Edit5001. No matter what patisan people say, Fox News is a news organization and has broke many important stories. Curivity (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Curivity, it is a news organization which has, since 2015, changed its editorial policies, such that its news reporting is as biased as CNN's cable and comment, but less accurate, and its cable and comment is aligned with hard right propaganda sites like Breitbart, with Breitbart's levels of bias and factual inaccuracy. That is what independent sources say. Your rose-tinted view of what Fox is, is out of line with what has happened in the Trump era. Guy (help!) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing the news division with the opinion division. The problem is CNN does not distinguish between the news division and the opinion, which is the point. Maybe you should take your partisan glasses off and recognize this is the time we should be fighting for neutrality on Wikipedia, not throwing it aside. We can find sources that confirm our beliefs everywhere else, but Wikipedia was designed to be neutral and it should stay that way. Many people have expressed issue with the biased sources here (editorial biases) that have been thrown by the wayside. No editor dictates the article the way they want it to be. Curivity (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Curivity, consider that it is you who are seeing things through your biases. We are just following RS. O3000 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN, FNC and MSNBC are pretty clearly involved in the same cable news game, and should be barred from spreading any opinion on the competition here, even if it's positive criticism. Same goes for direct sister/parent/child publications. But unrelated newspapers, magazines and websites that just happen to lean Democrat or Republican are welcome here; they only seem like the enemy because American politics has no middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, they are mainstream news orgs so any factual reporting is fine. Opinion can be attributed and is subject to editorial discretion and debate here, but they are fine for facts about Fox (e.g. when Fox regurgitates Kremlin talking points). Guy (help!) 23:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Of all the examples of straight facts in the world, why would you pick one dripping in bear-on-bird vomit subtext? If those are the kind of loaded statements only a mainstream news channel's two competitors can be trusted to deliver, that's entirely the problem, in my opinion. How is any American news outlet supposed to know what "Kremlin talking points" even are, day-to-day? Find me an actual fact from one opponent about another that can't be found in an uninvolved watchdog's report, then maybe I'll see your point. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

See https://time.com/5737098/trump-advances-russian-disinformation-campaign-in-fox-news-interview/ for example. Guy (help!) 20:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Time and CNN aren't sisters anymore, if that's what you mean. I'd consider it fine for opinions on Fox (the "uninvolved watchdog"). If there's a fact you want me to glean from there, spell it out, please; a lot of those sentences are factual, a lot are opinionated. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Neither Vox, NY nor MM are competitors of FN.
2. If it looked like these refs were biased vs. the field in general, then we could've considered removing them; but the field in general consistently provides the same reviews and critiques of FN as those, suggesting competition isn't much of a factor here. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Murphy report

I reverted the primary-sourced Daily Beast stuff, because Daily Beast. However, it should be fine once significance is established via secondary sources. Union Journal looks bloggy and low tier. Obviously we can ignore Gateway pundit. Any mainstream sources reporting this? Guy (help!) 13:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wemple has it now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/07/its-own-document-fox-news-rips-fox-news-host-sean-hannity/ soibangla (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roger Ailes, TV Titan 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning of "alternative facts" in the description/introduction of this article

As argued in the view history, this is a discussion whether or not "alternative facts" should be mentioned in the introduction. I plead for it as the context/devolepement of this term is connected to Fox News and because Fox News is indeed partly economical with the truth. In my point of view this term describes the self-content regarding that behavior towards "information regardless facts". People from Vox think the same. I guess this source is valid, as Vox has already been used as a source in the introduction.LennBr (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to explain a little bit. My concern with your first edits (diff) were how it changed providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump to providing "propaganda" regardless the facts and a "feedback loop" for Trump. The word 'propaganda' was wikilinked to Opinion journalism, which is very strange and I will assume was a mistake. "Regardless the facts" also didn't really make sense to me because, even if the grammatical error is corrected, saying 'providing propaganda regardless of the facts' strikes me as a bit redundant. You changed it back again and while it was definitely better than the first time, I still don't quite agree that the term "alternative facts" originates from Fox. Our own Alternative facts article bears this out pretty well - it originates from Kellyanne Conway, who first said it in an interview on NBC. Has Fox News has been guilty of spreading lots of 'alternative facts' the past few years? Sure, I think so. But for an encyclopedia article, we should be more precise and describe examples of alternative facts as what they truly are: falsehoods or half-truths. And in my view, the article does a pretty decent job of that as-is. –Erakura^(talk) 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• It seems gratuitous. The term is associated with Kellyanne Conway, not Fox. Guy (help!) 22:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  

Nevertheless I have linked it in "See also", because of the mentioned links to FoxNews. Although I think its better to have a link to "Alternative facts" within the text.LennBr (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Identification of political bias

If political bias is going to be used in the leading description of a news network, that practice should be consistent for all news networks. Fox is indeed conservative, just as CNN is liberal, MSNBC is leftist and Bloomberg is -at least currently- overtly biased toward the Democratic party. Either the identifier should be removed form the description of Fox or the appropriate identifier should be added to the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.206.75 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If Fox News is clearly conservative, Wikipedia should describe it as conservative. MSNBC is progressive (or liberal), but CNN is closer to the center, while the latter's columnists generally lean left. Can you tell us how it is biased to call conservative media such as Fox News conservative? Are there faults that can be concretely demonstrated in the studies? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 20:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365, this is a recurrent problem. Yochai Benkler's Network Propaganda explains the problem: there is an asymmetric polarisation of news sources in the US, with a continuum running from the WSJ leftward, with strong cross-reference and cross-sharing, and a history of fact-driven analysis that identifies and excludes conspiracy theories and other bullshit (e.g. the "Trump raped a 13-year-old" story that went nowhere); there's then a gap and an increasingly homogeneous conservative media bubble that is almost exclusively self-referential, does not reach across to the mainstream, and punishes factual stories that contradict the conservative narrative. Guy (help!) 13:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The leftist media has been proven to lie constantly. JzG, it is clear that you are a partisan hack. As long as lying, egotistical far-left administrators like him control all content on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia will be forever biased and full of conservaphobic smears. You leftists and your fake news media don't even know how many genders there are or the difference between a man and a woman. You deranged, lying lunatics completely reject biological science and reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.22.113 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, well, your kind tend to lack diplomatic tact. If you want to toughen up a snowflake in the real world, you don't bring heat and pressure, do you? Play it cool, like a scientist. A scientist who believes warming melts ice, I mean. Leave the geneticist gimmick at home, at least for the first encounter. It's too hot for TV. And in the real world, isn't that all Fox News ever was? Just good old mainstream television, like mom used to watch while dad busted his ass and little Suzy and Billy went to normal school on time without any lip? You want to save America/Wikipedia/whatever, make like a Kyle and save the damn living room first. The whole human family was simply not designed to chill together online, and a part of your reptilian brain knows this, so start rationally acting like it, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I love the idea that people who reject evolution and climate change (and don't understand intersex, by the way) are somehow arbiters of what constitutes valid science. Guy (help!) 10:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Change from Fox News (officially Fox News Channel and abbreviated FNC) is an American conservative[1][2] cable television news channel. It is owned by the Fox News Group, To

Fox News (officially Fox News Channel and abbreviated FNC) is an American cable television news channel. It is owned by the Fox News Group,

Per NPOV 71.254.10.141 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see: Talk:Fox News/FAQ O3000 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 coverage

@Snooganssnoogans: Hey, there was an edit conflict. I merged the two bits, so now there's only one mention in a separate subsection. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, yes, I think I can see why the first one was reverted but the latest edit looks pretty solid to me. Guy (help!) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

On the reliability of the final lead paragraph

The following discussion 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 attest we restructure the final lead paragraph for citing unreliable sources, as defined in the Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing here: WP:Reliable Sources, particularly concerning the definition of neutral tone. At the most, the paragraph of concern should be removed. At the very least, it should be restructured to attribute those claims by their respective authors of each publication.

Example 1: The New Yorker: "Fox’s hostility toward the Obama Administration grew increasingly extreme."
Example 2: VOX: "It certainly seems like Fox News has essentially become state TV. So how concerned should the average American be?" This should be attributed to the scholar's opinion.
Example 3: Media Matters: "Fox’s internal critics deserve few accolades."

These are just 3 examples I could find quickly to make the point. In my opinion, and I seek consensus, we should be careful to attribute these points to the respective authors and highlight any bias on their part as to not confuse the layman reader.

If we reach consensus, as it seems by the questions before, we should remove this paragraph from the lead and revert any changes as needed that do not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. --Curivity (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The content in question is reflective of this section[2], which includes a plethora of RS, including peer-reviewed research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm for removal of the paragraph in the opener. It uses partisan sources and doesn't even contain a counter-argument portion to bring some semblance of neutral POV. If people want to read about criticisms of Fox, there are sections already within the page for that. Edit5001 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can find high-profile independent reliable sources defending Fox News, add them. If you can provide definitive evidence that the studies finding Fox News to be generally subpar are unscientific, bring it here and we will reconsider the studies. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 07:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• The sources cited there are all high-profile reliable sources and appropriate places to cite for a common, relatively mainstream opinion; at the very least completely removing it seems unjustified. And more broadly, the lead is a summary of the body of the article, which goes into more detail on who is saying what - we do need to go into more detail further down, but it is appropriate to summarize roughly in the lead in this fashion and detail 'who is saying this' in the body. If nothing else, though, you need to slow down on a fairly dramatic change to the lead - propose alternative wordings and reach consensus on them, first. --Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• The paragraph summarizes important content in the article, and without it, the lead would not be properly written per WP:LEAD and would violate NPOV by not including properly-sourced criticisms which are in the body of the article. At Wikipedia, the "neutral" in NPOV does not mean without bias or "No POV". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• What's the problem exactly? FN by and large isn't considered a reliable news source by RS.

Neither the New Yorker nor Vox bits are "opinion columns".

I submit the following as additional sources. François Robere (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Just an opinion, if this is a part of Conservatism in the US, CNN and/or MSNBC (which both have clear and obvious democratic leans) should be put under the category of Liberalism in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.161.76 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for WP:OTHERSTUFF. The problem with this argument is that it does not take into account the availability of high-quality sources describing them as such. While MSNBC at least clearly has a progressive slant in its editorials, CNN is somewhere on the center-left or at least closer to the mainstream center. If you feel that the sources are treating Fox News unfairly, at least find sources from top-quality and peer-reviewed sources. By that, I mean sources from researchers or scientists, not from columnists. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 23:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Any liberal leaning of mainstream media is an artifact of the kinds of people who are attracted to working in a journalism, combined with the truism that "the facts have a well-known liberal bias", whereas the conservative bias of Fox is entirely by design. Guy (help!) 13:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"the facts have a well-known liberal bias" is just you stating your own opinion. Wikipedia needs to fair to all viewpoints, not just those popular in this limited circle. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, no it's not, it's me quoting The Colbert Report. But it's also true, in as much as the facts show a number of core planks of conservative ideology (including trickle-down economics, climate change denialism, "abstinence only" sex ed and the supremacy of the white male) to be bollocks. Guy (help!) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Literally no conservative advocates for something called "trickle down economics". What you're referring to is supply-side economics. And it definitely has created large economic growth in the United States (though not without its downnsides). That's a fact that definitely doesn't have a liberal bias. Also, Fox News most certainly doesn't advocate "the supremacy of the white male". Fox News isn't the Daily Stormer. Edit5001 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, yes, conservatives still do advocate trickle down (even if, as witht he Trump tax scam, they don't always say the quiet part out loud). Brownback is the perfect exemplar. You remember him: the ambassador for Christian supremacy^w^wreligious freedom who bankrupted Kansas with his trickle-down bullshit? And yes, the "supremacy" of the white cis male is core to the conservative agenda. There are exactly two African-American Republicans in congress, and one of those is retiring. Immigration policy is run by a white nationalist. Guy (help!) 01:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you show me any source where Brownback used the words "trickle down economics" to describe his economic policy? I'll wait. Also, the Kansas' government's problems came because they cut taxes without cutting spending. Yeah, that tends to create a deficit. And it's important to point out it was the government that was being drained, not the businesses in Kansas, who were doing just fine. As for the white male stuff, I highly doubt the extremely powerful Jewish wing of "conservatism" agrees with you that that the supremacy of whites is a core conservative belief. When the Charlotesville Rally happened, Fox News gleefully attacked all the right wing people involved. Edit5001 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

they cut taxes without cutting spending. Really? By early 2017, Kansas had "nine rounds of budget cuts over four years, three credit downgrades, missed state payments" and state revenues had fallen by hundreds of millions of dollars, causing spending on roads, bridges, and education to be slashed. it was the government that was being drained, not the businesses Really? By 2018 overall growth and job creation in Kansas had underperformed the national economy, neighboring states, and "even Kansas’ own growth in previous years." soibangla (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We're really getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory at this point. They didn't cut the budget initially, they cut the budget after they were forced to when their deficit increased. And "underperformed" is such a vague phrase, the point is, the economy wasn't drained like the state government was - plus, even the sources you're quoting don't attribute that "under-performance" directly to the tax cuts. They simply say the tax cuts didn't create the growth they were expected to. Edit5001 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Starve the beast. The Kansas experiment was an unmitigated catastrophe every way you look at it. And I've looked at it every way, I followed it very closely, I ran the numbers. Really. soibangla (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Conservatives don't advocate the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term? Really? soibangla (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's why I had long left conservatism. Ronald Reagan is too liberal. Oh wait, I thought that was Obama? No, that's Reagan. Obama is a libertarian. I thought conservatism was supposed to be for small government, yet Trump is called "conservative"? Whatever, I side with the objective and scientific libertarians like Obama. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 07:49, 14 January 2020 (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.

lol EagleFan (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)