[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Fox News/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Untitled

Since the controversy seems to have died down a little I thought it was a good time to archive the debate Note that rather than copy and paste - I moved the Talk page so that the history will be preserved with the things being discussed. Trödel|talk 18:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the controversy has died down or just gone into slo-mo. I was waiting for Silverback to return - he didn't have any contribs in his history after the revert skirmish except one, so I was waiting to see if he had any further objections to the level-of-attention language. It looks like he's back. So if he doesn't have any further objections to the level-of-attention to language, I'll go on to the next point on my wish list. crazyeddie 18:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adjusting for other factors

Okay, moving on to the next item on my wish list...

  • A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[1] (PDF),
    • 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
    • 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
    • 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.

Any objections to the inclusion of this point? Any comments on the language? Etc.? crazyeddie 02:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fine by me. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:47, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be an objections... crazyeddie 18:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

PIPA: Individual Percentages vs. Overall Percentages

For the PIPA report, I'm proposing replacing the percentages of what other networks had on the misperceptions with the general, overall percentage. The current, individual percentage, version takes up quite a bit of room, and doesn't give additional information that tends to prove or disprove the central thesis of the section. The anti-Fox POV isn't trying to prove that Fox is more biased than all other networks, only that it is biased. Does anybody have any objections to this change? If not, I'll go ahead and do the math, and put what I find up on the talk page for doublechecking. crazyeddie 21:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I would say that it would be more appropriate to not include fox in the sample for overall, as that would be assuming that fox is not biased. it should instead by a comparison between fox and news sources besides foc (this would also make it less of a change from the way it is now) If fox is not more biased, than the figures should be the same. If not, that biased wouldn't put diminished by using it as part of the baseline. It should be fox vs. not fox. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:03, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Well, we have already mentioned that Fox scored highest on these misperceptions. I think removing Fox from the overall score would skew the results too much. That's assuming the difference would be noticable at all. Why give the pro-Fox POV something to complain about? crazyeddie 17:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

just a matter of standards: really a logical regression would separate "fox" and "non-fox", and thereby calculate the information present in the "fox or not" binary variable. insofar as what we are concerned is "fox", that is what we are concerned with. If there was a news channel that had a left-wing bias, i would argue for the same thing. but in that, as you said, it probably wont make too big of a difference and people might not understand the rationality, it's not too big of a deal for me. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:03, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

It would be most disturbing if the difference between the overall difference between the overall average percentages and the non-Fox percentages was large. It might be interesting to see what the difference is, but for the sake of a quiet life, I think we might want to just use the overall average. If the readers wish to see a logical regression, they can read the report. crazyeddie 17:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

FAIR liberal

Warzybok, I oppose labelling FAIR as liberal here. As a non-Americans, I find this usage of liberal confusing. Not calling FAIR a liberal organisation is not the same as calling it a non-liberal organisation. Let's leave it to the readers to realise that the report is not above criticism and that FAIR is biased. If they want more information, then they should click some links. Sorry for reverting. I meant to click on next edit, but only the rollback link was there. Tim Ivorson 12:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with this: first of all, labels like this are not neutral; secondly, it assumes the reader is an idiot and will believe whatever is written without placing it in context etc. Trödel|talk 13:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Its flat out wrong to present a group as a unbiased party conducting study's, when wikipedia itself admits the group is a "progressive" front. -Warzybok

Perhaps, but the term "liberal" is probably not the best which can be found; it be verz ambiguious and vague for reeader who do not live in the United States of America, and seems to have gained some sort of vaguely pejorative connotation in the recent years. FAIR describes itself as "offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986" and their "About us" page offers a number of descriptions which could be used. Or the term "progressive", which is used without quotation marks, in the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting article. Rama 14:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The link to the group should be enough. There it is sufficiently explained. Trödel|talk 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Quite agreed. Rama 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

On its "About Us" page, FAIR self-labels themselves progressive. I have no problem, in principle, with including this label in the bullet point - but only if there is clear consensus for the change. Given the above comments, there doesn't appear to be such consensus.

On another note, this discussion has caused me to browse the original FAIR report. There does appear to be a lot of meat there that isn't included in the bullet point. In fact, what is mentioned in the bullet point appears to be mentioned quite far down in the report. Also, a lot of the report covers editorial bias, not reporting bias. Perhaps we should break the Allegations of Bias section into two subsections, Allegations of Editorial Bias, and Allegations of Bias in Reporting?

I would personally like to finish up with my PIPA wish list first though. crazyeddie 18:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please let's not go there - I prefer a concise summary though I am open to a modified summary I think this FAIR report already gets too many words. Trödel|talk 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not just FAIR. Currently, the section is supposedly about bias in reporting. A lot of our bulletpoints don't support this thesis, but do support a thesis of editorial bias. The FAIR report deals mainly with editoral bias. The idea that FOX is editorially biased is probably more widely believed and less controversial than the idea that Fox is biased in its reporting. It also has less serious implications. The FAIR bulletpoint (along with the PIPA bulletpoint, which actually is about bias in reporting) is one of the most contoversial bulletpoints. Placing it in an "editorial bias" subsection might allow us to construct a more faithful summary without getting dragged down into bare-knucks POV wars. crazyeddie 17:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Foxnews.com hard to search?

Is Foxnews.com hard to search for articles?

The section about the liberal/conservative backgrounds of anchors is a little clumsy- POV only means considering all viewpoints, not presenting viewpoints of unequal credibility as equal. It is almost universally agreed among all disinterested parties that the majority of anchors on FOX are conservative. Therefore, I have reworded the section intro. somewhat and removed the absurd claim that Greta van Susteran is liberal. She may have contributed some money to a liberal group, but she isn't identifiable as liberal in any meaningful way.

PIPA Finale (I hope)

Since nobody seems to be bringing up many objections to my proposed changes (to the PIPA bulletpoint) so far, I'll go ahead and lay out the rest of the changes I would like to make. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Percentages

Now for the math...

According to the page marked 581 of my printed out version of the report, here is the breakdown of the survey respondants by news network:

  • Fox: 520
  • CBS: 258
  • CNN: 466
  • ABC: 315
  • NBC: 420
  • NPR/PBS: 91

This gives a total of 2070. According to the text, a total of 3,334 people where polled. 80% of these said they got their news primarily from electronic sources, 19% got their news from print. 80% of 3,334 is 2667.2. I'm assuming that the difference is created by eliminating those respondants who rely on more than one primary news source.

So the overall total of 2070 consists of respondants who primarily rely on a single television news source. It does not include respondants who mainly get their news from print media.

"US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"

  • 67% for Fox * 520 = 348.4
  • 56% for CBS * 258 = 144.48
  • 49% for NBC * 420 = 205.8
  • 48% for CNN * 466 = 223.68
  • 45% for ABC * 315 = 141.75
  • 16% for NPR/PBS * 91 = 14.56

Total = 1078.67, or approx. 52% of 2070

"US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".=

  • 33% for FOX * 520 = 171.6
  • 23% for CBS * 258 = 59.34
  • 20% for CNN * 466 = 93.2
  • 20% for NBC * 420 = 84
  • 19% for ABC * 315 = 59.85
  • 11% for NPR/PBS * 91 = 10.01

Total = 478, or approx. 23% of 2070

"the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.

  • 35% for FOX * 520 = 182
  • 28% for CBS * 258 = 72.24
  • 27% for ABC * 315 = 85.05
  • 24% for CNN * 466 = 111.84
  • 20% for NBC * 420 = 84
  • 5% for NPR/PBS * 91 = 4.55

Total = 539.68, or approx. 26% of 2070

Overview

Does anybody have any bones to pick with my math? Does anybody want to dive into the appendices and drag out some figures that have less accumulated rounding errors?

If not, here is what I propose:

  • A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[2] (PDF),
    • 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization", compared with 52% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
    • 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended", compared with 23% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network.
    • 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq, compared with 26% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network.
Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.

I'm open to less clunky language. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

CBS out, PBS in

I'm proposing removing the following sentence: "However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers."

Here is the relevant passage from the report, on the page marked 583 (disregarding typos – I'm typing this in by hand):

Variations were much more modest on the perception that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. As discussed, the view that Iraq was directly involved in Septemeber 11 is not a demonstrable misperception, but it is widely regarded as fallacious by the intelligence community. In this case, the highest level of misperceptions was in the CBS audience (33 percent) followed by Fox (24 percent), ABC (23 percent), NBC (22 percent), and CNN (21 percent). Respondants who got their news primarily from print media (14 percent) and NPR or PBS (10 percent) were less likely to choose this description.

There are several reasons I'm proposing this removal. Take your pick:

  1. "Variations were more modest" meaning less important.
  2. This belief is not really a misperception per se.
  3. CBS is hardly a fair comparison. PIPA placed almost as much blame on CBS as FOX for encouraging these misperceptions.
  4. Even though CBS came in first on this belief, FOX did come in second, and probably had a higher than average percentage.
  5. This point is not an effective counterpoint. It does nothing to make up for the fact that FOX had a greater percentage of belief in this misperception.

It was my original intent that, to make up for removing this sentence, I would propose inserting mention of the stat about FOX viewers being the least likely to believe the misperception that there was no connection between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda. However, it appears that this language wasn't included in the peer-reviewed PSQ version. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Much of the controversy over this bulletpoint seems to stem from the pro-Fox POV insisting that these misperceptions aren't misperceptions. It does seem to be objectively true that these misperceptions are, in fact, just that. But, regardless, an article on FNC is not the place to be having this discussion. I propose we keep the misperception language the way it is, but link to articles that deal directly with these issues, specifically:

We should also make note of any important evidence that has been discovered since the PIPA report was released, in order to show that these misperceptions were, at the very least, misperceptions at the time of the survey. Namely those degraded mustard gas shells. Anybody have any idea when those were found and when this information was made public? Sources would be nice. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

These were misperceptions not only at the time of the survey, but prior to the war.

Kevin Baastalk: new 03:54, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Heh. I remember waiting for the first fireworks of the war to start up. (Hey, I'm paying for them, might as well enjoy the show, right? The show turned out to be a bit of dud, compared to the first one, IMO.) I turned to my friend (a Republican who later voted for Kerry) and asked, "Um. Hussein has to know we mean business. If he has WMDs, wouldn't he have coughed them up by now, in order to save his hide?" "I know he has them, you know he has them." "Yeah, you're probably right." So I can't say that I blame the average man on the street for being a bit confused. Bush, on the other hand... crazyeddie 08:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, when where those shells found? crazyeddie 08:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Combined Proposed Language

Existing

  • A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[6] (PDF),
    • 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
    • 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
    • 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.

Proposed

  • A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[7] (PDF)
    • 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". In the aggregate, 52% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda)
    • 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Iraq disarmament crisis)
    • 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq)
Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.

Replaced my original proposal with Kevin's. Good job on inlining the issue links. Still not entirely happy with the comparison percentages, aesthetically speaking, but can't say I like my version better than yours. After consideration, I've changed my mind on giving information on developments that came about after the study was completed. If somebody else brings it up, we can handle it then. crazyeddie 16:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and making the change. crazyeddie 18:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scott Norvell's recent comments ("admission of bias").

I'm not even going to attempt editing this in yet, but how to integrate it should be discussed now, in anticipation for the media-battles that'll likely take place once this meets mainstream. [8] Shem 23:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OH. Oh my. Not earth-shattering, but still. Um. Any pro-Foxers want to try and take a whack at it? crazyeddie 08:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2005-06-02 NPOV

Hey, Shem, what's the story with the NPOV? Given how many times this freakin' article has had that notice, I'm starting to suspect "force of habit".

On a related note, the order of sections was the result of negotiations between the two POVs. I can understand how we might want to keep it consistent with the CNN article's format, but could we at least wait until they settle their own NPOV crisis? Maybe they'll want to go to a format that consistent with us. Does anybody object to the new CNN-style format? crazyeddie 08:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do Trödel|talk 12:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may've been force of habit, but it was mostly pre-empting problems I assumed users would have regardless, and added the tag to both the CNN and FOXNews articles. There is no reason whatsoever for their formats to diverge as the previous version did, and I erred on the side that would not leave me accused of "covering up" bias later on (moving FOXNews' bias section up, rather than CNN's prominent section down). The articles (CNN and FOXNews) should be edited to a consistent format, from what I see of the two; again, so long as CNN is edited in tandem. Shem (talk) 15:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the CNN and Fox News articles have to be edited in tandem. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. At the very least, we should wait until one or the other settle down to a relatively stable form. In the case of Fox News, the Bias section was moved down due to objections by the pro-Fox POV. Their point was that it was overwhelming the rest of the article. The anti-Fox POV didn't feel the need to argue (much). That might not be a problem at CNN - there is less evidence of CNN's bias, CNN's alledged bias isn't as hotly contested. IMO, the Fox News article is more mature than the CNN article, thanks to the constant POV wars. I could make the case that CNN should follow Fox's lead (the articles, not the networks...), but I won't. I would recommend discussing it in the talk pages before making major changes to either article.

Trodel objects to the new format. I think that the Bias section should be at the end of the article, but I was planning on proposing a breakdown of the arguments into "allegations of editoral bias" and "allegations of bias in straight reporting" or something similar. Does anybody else have any opinions on the matter? crazyeddie 18:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do, but would appreciate people stating their outright POVs on FoxNews before continuing. If Trodel's objection is a major point here, I'll register my objection to the old format likewise. On the side, I can't say I appreciate seeing Emerson invoked in such a trivial manner, and hold that consistency where encyclopædia are concerned is both useful and desired. Shem (talk) 19:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Edit: Having the CNN article follow the FoxNews article's lead where organization is concerned would be satisfactory. Should've said that to start with. Shem (talk) 19:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My objection is for two reasons: 1) the FOX News article has been stable for some time and I am afraid that once the move is noticed, old issues that have reached consensus after hard work will be resurrect themselves for dispute; and 2) I am sympathetic to the view that criticisms can overwelm articles - not just on FOX News but on many other articles on Wikipedia where the criticisms exceed the descriptive content. Trödel|talk 03:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting Emerson, I was quoting Bartlett! Seriously though, consistency is an important consideration in an encyclopedia, but it shouldn't be the only consideration. The situations of the Fox and CNN articles aren't entirely parrallel.

In the case of Fox, the reason the bias section was moved towards the end is because, at one point, the Allegations of Bias section was overwhelming the rest of the article. Currently, this isn't a problem, but it might crop up again.

That's why the status quo is the way it is. The reason I'm in favor of keeping the status quo is that most readers are already aware of the allegations of Fox's bias. In all likelihood, they're coming to this article for the express purpose of seeing this information. So it's a good idea to put it at the end, so they can read everything else about Fox before getting to the main event.

On the other hand, CNN doesn't have such a bad rep as Fox. It is entirely likely that a reader of the CNN article isn't previously aware of the allegations of CNN's bias. So it makes sense that CNN's bias section occurs close to the top.

As far as personal POVs go, I'm anti-Fox. Trodel is pro-Fox (more or less), but has a history of compromising and listening to reason. I would advise taking his objections seriously, as that might prevent a less reasonable pro-Fox POV warrior from throwing a full-scale tantrum later on.

We have two "votes" for the status quo, one vote for the proposed change. Does anybody else support moving the allegations of bias section closer to the beginning of the article? crazyeddie 22:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The status quo does need some change, though. At the very least, "controversies and allegations of bias" should appear before the lengthy (and largely list-structured) "Internation Transmission" section. Its content is more relevant to the surrounding "personalities" and "ratings success" sections, and FoxNews' right-wing bias has become more relevant to discussion of FoxNews in general. The section covering this should not be stashed away at the very bottom. Shem (talk) 23:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am also reverting anons who attempt to move the section back down to the very bottom, while this is being discussed. Shem (talk) 21:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The reordering was done without discussion - thus the order should stay at the status quo for several months until consensus is reached here. Trödel|talk 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The status quo is flawed, and seems to result from those with a pro-Fox POV. It should not be the very last section of this article, and certainly not for "several months." I firmly object to its current ordering; I can understand not having it be the second section, so as not to overwhelm the article, but to tuck it away at the very bottom is a deliberate attempt at keeping from view material very pertinent to FoxNews' operation. Shem (talk) 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you looked at the archives? There is clearnly not a pro-FOX POV on this page. I suggest you inform yourself before wildly attacking those who have worked hard to make this a fair discussion of a potentially controversial subject.
However, if you have a suggestion as to where it fits the flow of the article better please make one, as I agree that having it follow management makes it overwelme the article. I just looked back through the history it was before the Trademark dispute section. That seems an appropriate place. The article progresses - summary, management, personalities, ratings, locations, controversy & bias. Trödel|talk 01:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have read the archives in their entirety. I suggest you not be so presumptious as to assume one is not fully informed, especially before making such remarks, nor do I appreciate your use of heated rhetoric (implying that I am "wildly attacking" unnamed users). I do not intend on playing "personality politics" with you, so please pay me the same respect, Trodel.
I propose, as I said above (to which you did not respond), that the section be placed between "Rating success" and "International transmission." To bury it beneath the entire article, including redundant lists and trademark disputes with inconsequential internet sites, strikes me as quite unusual. Shem (talk) 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then I suggest you follow your own counsel. "...it seems to result from those with a pro-Fox POV..." started the accusations.
However I am ok with the movement up one more section. Trödel|talk 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS - if you read all the archives you are a better man than me - as although I have followed this page for months, I often just skim the frequently heated rhetoric. Trödel|talk 02:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd only assumed its place at the very bottom was a compromise between those with pro- and anti-Fox POVs, as this page's archives are (in brief) a pattern of assertion by Anti-Fox -> Objection by Pro-Fox -> Compromise with Pro-Fox. It wasn't meant to be directed at you, and I apologize if it read that way; it was not intended. I'd only read the archives after noting the section dedicated to "Controvery and Bias," then figured the rest of 'em were the best source of context for this article's regular editors. Good stuff to know, seeing how others've worked in the past, etc. I agree with the structure Trodel's set up; the CNN page doesn't seem to have any regulars, but would anyone here object to a re-ordering of CNN's sections to follow the FoxNews article's lead? Shem (talk) 06:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No - problem - sorry for responding so strongly - I am copying your comment over to CNN and will put it on my watch list. Trödel|talk 19:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the order matters much if the intro is sufficiently good. My only objection to moving sections is that it makes it difficult to see what else has changed in that edit. I found Microsoft File Compare output difficult to follow. If we're announcing our POVs, mine is anti-big media. Perhaps that makes me pro-FNC in a funny way, but I don't think so. Tim Ivorson 11:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decidedly not. Murdoch's News Corporation, including FoxNews, is hardly "anti-big media." Shem (talk) 20:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course FNC isn't anti-big-media. It is big media. However, FNC seems not to like its competitors. Neither do I. Tim Ivorson 07:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No doubt "the big five" all loathe one another -- CNN, CBS, Fox, ABC, and MSNBC -- being competitors, and all. Shem (talk) 11:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New further reading section

I created a further reading section so that things that do not belong in the external link section have a place in the article. Basically, the further reading section may include articles that are relevant to the Wikipedia article. These further reading articles basically are articles having information that can be added to the Wikikpedia article on Fox but have yet to be cited in a footnote. From the further reading section, I removed

  • "Fox Factor". USA Today.
  • "Q2 '06: FNC #9 On All Of Cable TV". Media Bistro.

since they only contained a blurb on Fox. Feel free to add these to the article in a citation. Bebestbe (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some observers?

What are these "some observers" the article speaks of on the lead-in to the article? This needs references or it must be removed to meet quality standards.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

POV?

This article just screams liberal POV, whether some editors deny it or not. The fact that "critics and some observers" is not sourced proves this. The article needs balance. What "some observers" do the editors of this page mean? What "critics" are they referring to? I know it's the lead-in, but the least that can be done is remove "some observers" as it shows a liberal tilt.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To say "some observers" shows a liberal tilt doesn't make sense. As I said above, this has all been discussed and is explained with the FAQ and archives. The current wording, and absence of sources, is a product of consensus. See WP:LEAD for more information on the fact that the lead should mention notable controversies and that the lead does not require sources. I am happy to discuss new points of contention, but please familiarize yourself with how we arrived at the current wording. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
While I applaud your effort to continue to assume good faith with this guy, his contributions, iuser page, and significant discussion at WP:ANI is plenty enough evidence that WP:AGF may be abandoned. I'd caution against feeding the troll beyond this point. Just my opinion... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary, this article has a pronounced conservative POV by omitting the numerous examples of Fox misdeeds that would show its right-wing bias. In the latest one, Fox photoshopped the images of two New York Times staffers who had dared to report Fox's ratings slump; their reward was to have Fox broadcast distorted images of them, without, of course, any disclosure to the viewer. See [9] and [10] for details. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Instead of trying to label the political viewpoints of the editors, either right or left, can someone please look at the policies before coming here? Couldn't it just be that the editors here are trying to present a neutral article, in compliance with relevant policies? The reason that the info James wants isn't in is because it just hit the blogosphere yesterday and also because there is a controversies article which could cover it in more depth, provided there is a consensus that it is significant for inclusion. On a personal note, (and at this point, I don't care if it is taken as a personal attack) the extremism presented by both Pokeshamsar and James Lane disgusts me. It is people like you two, who wish everything and every issue become a battlefield, without room for compromise, that presents the biggest threat to the country, as with it, no problem will ever get solved. Grow up and put down the political swords, and try to work with people who may view things differently from you because everyone has different experiences. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You really shouldn't jump to conclusions about JamesMLane, who is an excellent editor of long standing, based on this single comment, nor should you lump him in with the likes of an insulting edit warrior. I think the point he was trying to make is not that OMG this single thing is missing, but that this article, for whatever reasons, omits many prominent issues and criticisms of Fox and his hardly a liberal hatchet job. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll jump to any damned conclusion I want to jump to, and state any opinion I feel like stating--Thank you. It seems to be the way the place goes and I really don't appreciate the admonition! It's good that you know that Lane has been an excellent editor, but when you post crap like he just did, and I'm in the place I'm in, you'll get the response I give. I'm tired of muzzling myself and to what effect. Yesterday I ended my third "wiki-break" in as many weeks, and I still come back to the same garbage I left. If I'm wrong about JamesLane, I'll apologize, but I don't see any difference from his post and Pokeshomsar. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC
You are confusing "I disagree with you" and "You can't do that". Obviously you can do whatever you want, but when you lump in an excellent editor of long standing with a brand new troll, it's not exactly the kind of thoughtful behavior I've come to expect from you. The problem here is perhaps JML's mistake of engaging the trolling instead of ignoring the offending editor, which makes it easy for onlookers to lump the two in together. Also, I'm familiar with the edit histories of both users, where you evidently are not, so that makes it easy for me to distinguish between the two. We all fall into that trap sometimes. I know both of us have snapped at trolls like RPJ, and perhaps an uninitiated onlooker might fall for RPJ's "I don't know why you are offended" routine. But I digress. I know this article is frustrating for everyone involved because it attracts partisans and trolls by the bucketful, but let's not make the mistake of taking a notch out of good editors because we're frustrated at the bad ones. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
When an editor posts at a talk page, we don't get to see their edit history or their rating by the community. They are judged by their post and that goes for admin or troll, me, you or anybody else. And I am certainly not now going to start checking user contributions before I respond to what I see. JML's "mistake" was not in responding to Pokehomsar's garbage but with providing his own or maybe more accurately, providing language that appears to be the same.-- "To the contrary, this article has a pronounced conservative POV by omitting the numerous examples of Fox misdeeds that would show its right-wing bias." That is the same sentiment Pokehomsar, Cbuhl, Jsn933, amd several other trolls have stated here, but now its coming from the other direction. Now because you apparently are familiar with his edit history, you are attempting to provide some additional context to his quote, but the plain reading of his edit is not ambiguous, and I believe any reasonable person would take it the way I did, i.e. he believes the article has a pronounced conservative bias, not “one could argue that the article has a pronounced conservative bias.” Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll concede your last point, and I think he should have framed it with that qualifier or the statement could be interpreted as rather unfair to the editors here. I do agree with James in that I think the article is overly favorable to Fox and doesn't sufficiently reflect reality, but given that a pack of howler monkeys descends upon an editor every time he/she points out something negative about Fox I think it is the best compromise that could be hammered out given the current state of things and reflects the hard work of a lot of good editors, and James' statement doesn't recognize that. In the end though, I think the lesson here is not to engage trolls at all. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Upon my own review of the contributions of JML, it appears that you were right about him, so I left an apology on his talk page for incorrectly addressing him with my diatribe (let it be clear, I meant everything I said about the rise of these extremist POV warriors that seem to be cropping up on article after article-- they do disgust me. I am not and will not back down from that). Anyway, I'll be taking another Wiki-break in a few hours. My next step may be to take some articles out of my watchlist, or to just quit the project altogether. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there are far too many extremists, and it is too difficult to get rid of all but the most obnoxious of them. I hope you don't quit. You might consider avoiding the political articles for a while. When I need to unwind, I work on articles about music or comics or obscure people nobody cares about. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That came out wrong, if this upcoming break doesn't work, then I may refactor my watchlist to take out some of the more contentious articles, that are in there because I added a comma, but which I have no real interest in. I'm not thinking of quitting in any imminent time period. However, at some point down the line it is an option, of course, but I'm not a quitter so that wouldn't be my next step as my comment implies. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I would use a phrase like "one could argue that the article has a pronounced conservative bias" if I thought there were a colorable argument to that effect but I weren't prepared to endorse the argument myself. When an editor thinks there actually is a bias, he or she should say so and provide an explanation. It's not POV-warring to say, of a biased article, that it is biased. Other editors join in, agreeing or disagreeing, and that's how we work to root out bias. I agree with Ramsquire's point that there's a daughter article about controversies. Moving material to a daughter article is acceptable only if an adequate summary is left behind in the main article. In my opinion, the main article in its current form doesn't now give the reader enough information about the numerous specific instances that support the conclusion of right-wing bias on the part of Fox. That doesn't mean that the doctored photos must be included here, only that the reader should get an idea of the supporting information, beyond the mere fact that some people have made the accusation. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering the story about the doctored pictures came out ths morning and has yet to be corroborated by a third party, and there is no response yet by Fox News, it really is a non-issue at this time. It falls under "ongoing news story" which can reveal new facts. And even if the altered images are true, it is POV to make claim as to why they were doctored. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet the facts stand strong unless NBC "doctored" the original FOX-broadcast. Watch it here [11] Funny? Disgusting? Maybe both. --Floridianed (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fox News/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

8 images, 85 citations, this article totally US-biased like the Drudge Report. It needs a lot of cleanup and inline citations before GAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 03:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_9&oldid=1136736458"