![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
According to the page, Fox Business is on channel 223 on Dish Network, but as a Dish Network subscriber, as of this date, channel 223 is a home shopping channel. I cannot find FBN anywhere on Dish. ...The Foot "# Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel president and Fox TV Stations Group chairman, held a staff meeting the Friday before the launch to prepare reporters, anchors, producers and others for the Monday launch. From the newsroom, Ailes talked about how the press covered the launch of FNC 11 years ago. The Fox executive dismissed negative comments from doubters by noting FNC grew to become the number one news channel, less than six years after launch. He told the staffers to focus on integrity, attitude, teamwork and excellence in everything they do" ... this isn't cited, and probably came from the inside. I have contacted Janet Alshouse the VP in charge on international distribution of FOX News and FOX Business Network, who advises that contrary to what the Australian newspaper article says, no deal has been done for Australia yet or for the UK. FBN will not be offered internationally until the first quarter of 2008, when Foxtel in Australia and Sky in the UK will be strong possible customers to take carriage. If anyone wants proof of this please email me on stuart.fanning@gmail.com Stuartfanning
The network has been on for over 24 hours. Where's the "Criticism" and "Controversies" sections? patsw 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
what criticism? I don't know of any major things the network has done "wrong" for a network that's been on, what, five days? The network needs time to fill itsself out first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.83.150 ( talk) 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all they have? Infomercials to whine about? The Fox Haters are really digging themselves into a hole with this. -- 4.239.60.84 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What do you guys think of shitcanning the Criticism section? The Olbermann "source" doesn't work and so what if they ended up playing some more infomercials. Is that really a big deal? I don't think so. HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 ( talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should try and include the studios each biz show is produced in, like what is included on the FNC page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism is fine, but to count Olbermann's windmill-tilting among is it akin to using Limbaugh quotes to discuss criticism of CNN. -- Mhking 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have a valid criticism of Olbermanns 'windmill-tilting', what was the point of your comment ? 81.130.211.218 ( talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A guy who regularly refers to the news channel as Fox Noise? Hm, no you guys will have to do better than that. Removed 129.15.131.248 ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)HaroldZoid
Where is the source? The youtube link doesn't work. I'm not talking about the NYT article. If you want to keep the second part then fine, but what about the Olbermann? I don't see what you mean by neutrally presented. --HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's ridiculous... by your logic, any reference that can't be reached by hyperlink is invalid (for instance, a print version of Encyclopedia Britannica). That's so far off base that I am having trouble even processing how you could come to that conclusion. Where on earth did you get that idea? It's dead wrong. The actual episode is cited; if you want to verify it you simply need to get ahold of that episode and watch it. There is no burden of hyperlink availability anywhere on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to back up your claim with policy or guideline.You insert criticism which cannot be verified... No one can research it, plus since the average reader has no way to easily view this supposed criticism, there is no way to determine if it even exist. Until you can provide actual references to the material such that someone can verify it, it does not belong... now that the reference is not available there is no way to review it.
He is criticizing Ailes in his capacity as an officer of News Corporation, which owns FBN. The subject of criticism is FBN; the actions which draw criticism were perpetrated by FBN specifically (in airing a misconstrued review). By your logic, we must limit criticism to individuals... utter nonsense. The network aried the dishonest statement, and Olbermann called them on it. Look up vicarious liability....the problem is that it is not FBN to which KO is criticizing
How many times must I point out the ad hominem logical fallacy? Beyond that, it's speculation and completely irrelevant. There is no requirement for the person being critical to "like" or "dislike" the subject being criticized... personal feelings are irrelevant. Please show us a policy or guideline to back up your statements....KO, who already dislikes FNC, and pretty much anything FNC related...
I did not realize that the text was that hard for you to comprehend. The criticism is that they changed the quote to misrepresent the meaning entirely....you have yet to provide what the actual criticism is
Absolutely. Beyond that, there is no requirement that criticism need be approved by Arzel to be valid. I challenge you once more to give any policy or guideline stating otherwise.Seriously, is this what constitutes major criticism these days?
Further sourcing is not necessary. Since you did not bother to address any of the points raised above, I don't really feel like repeating the same things over and over. I strongly encourage you to re-read my pointes, especially point number 1, which you still seem to have problems understanding. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A valid criticism of how a network advertises on it's own network? "the advertisement is misleading" Aren't all advertisements suppose to by misleading to favor the product or service being sold?
Is it just me or does FBN seem more news based than business based? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.68.213 ( talk) 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
We must have an MCO from the channel editing wikipedia ;-). I enjoy the pics, but four or five is overkill. Let's just pick one. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a table could be added, or an off-shoot page, that lists the areas where high definition coverage is available, or soon to be available. Currently Time Warner Cable of New York City only has FBN contracted for standard definition. 68.175.118.95 ( talk) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Does this really belong in the intro? How many people it's available to is hardly such an important fact as to need such prominent placement, and it serves only to give some people the mistaken impression that it gets 30 million viewers. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The information on the ratings for FBN ends in 2008. What about in 2009 and 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.20.240 ( talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fbn.com live online show, where is an actual live stream of this channel available? -- 93.82.9.129 ( talk) 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That´s about adding to the page, therefore improving the article. -- 93.82.5.210 ( talk) 03:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
According to the page, Fox Business is on channel 223 on Dish Network, but as a Dish Network subscriber, as of this date, channel 223 is a home shopping channel. I cannot find FBN anywhere on Dish. ...The Foot "# Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel president and Fox TV Stations Group chairman, held a staff meeting the Friday before the launch to prepare reporters, anchors, producers and others for the Monday launch. From the newsroom, Ailes talked about how the press covered the launch of FNC 11 years ago. The Fox executive dismissed negative comments from doubters by noting FNC grew to become the number one news channel, less than six years after launch. He told the staffers to focus on integrity, attitude, teamwork and excellence in everything they do" ... this isn't cited, and probably came from the inside. I have contacted Janet Alshouse the VP in charge on international distribution of FOX News and FOX Business Network, who advises that contrary to what the Australian newspaper article says, no deal has been done for Australia yet or for the UK. FBN will not be offered internationally until the first quarter of 2008, when Foxtel in Australia and Sky in the UK will be strong possible customers to take carriage. If anyone wants proof of this please email me on stuart.fanning@gmail.com Stuartfanning
The network has been on for over 24 hours. Where's the "Criticism" and "Controversies" sections? patsw 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
what criticism? I don't know of any major things the network has done "wrong" for a network that's been on, what, five days? The network needs time to fill itsself out first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.83.150 ( talk) 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all they have? Infomercials to whine about? The Fox Haters are really digging themselves into a hole with this. -- 4.239.60.84 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What do you guys think of shitcanning the Criticism section? The Olbermann "source" doesn't work and so what if they ended up playing some more infomercials. Is that really a big deal? I don't think so. HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 ( talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should try and include the studios each biz show is produced in, like what is included on the FNC page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism is fine, but to count Olbermann's windmill-tilting among is it akin to using Limbaugh quotes to discuss criticism of CNN. -- Mhking 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have a valid criticism of Olbermanns 'windmill-tilting', what was the point of your comment ? 81.130.211.218 ( talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A guy who regularly refers to the news channel as Fox Noise? Hm, no you guys will have to do better than that. Removed 129.15.131.248 ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)HaroldZoid
Where is the source? The youtube link doesn't work. I'm not talking about the NYT article. If you want to keep the second part then fine, but what about the Olbermann? I don't see what you mean by neutrally presented. --HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's ridiculous... by your logic, any reference that can't be reached by hyperlink is invalid (for instance, a print version of Encyclopedia Britannica). That's so far off base that I am having trouble even processing how you could come to that conclusion. Where on earth did you get that idea? It's dead wrong. The actual episode is cited; if you want to verify it you simply need to get ahold of that episode and watch it. There is no burden of hyperlink availability anywhere on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to back up your claim with policy or guideline.You insert criticism which cannot be verified... No one can research it, plus since the average reader has no way to easily view this supposed criticism, there is no way to determine if it even exist. Until you can provide actual references to the material such that someone can verify it, it does not belong... now that the reference is not available there is no way to review it.
He is criticizing Ailes in his capacity as an officer of News Corporation, which owns FBN. The subject of criticism is FBN; the actions which draw criticism were perpetrated by FBN specifically (in airing a misconstrued review). By your logic, we must limit criticism to individuals... utter nonsense. The network aried the dishonest statement, and Olbermann called them on it. Look up vicarious liability....the problem is that it is not FBN to which KO is criticizing
How many times must I point out the ad hominem logical fallacy? Beyond that, it's speculation and completely irrelevant. There is no requirement for the person being critical to "like" or "dislike" the subject being criticized... personal feelings are irrelevant. Please show us a policy or guideline to back up your statements....KO, who already dislikes FNC, and pretty much anything FNC related...
I did not realize that the text was that hard for you to comprehend. The criticism is that they changed the quote to misrepresent the meaning entirely....you have yet to provide what the actual criticism is
Absolutely. Beyond that, there is no requirement that criticism need be approved by Arzel to be valid. I challenge you once more to give any policy or guideline stating otherwise.Seriously, is this what constitutes major criticism these days?
Further sourcing is not necessary. Since you did not bother to address any of the points raised above, I don't really feel like repeating the same things over and over. I strongly encourage you to re-read my pointes, especially point number 1, which you still seem to have problems understanding. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A valid criticism of how a network advertises on it's own network? "the advertisement is misleading" Aren't all advertisements suppose to by misleading to favor the product or service being sold?
Is it just me or does FBN seem more news based than business based? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.68.213 ( talk) 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
We must have an MCO from the channel editing wikipedia ;-). I enjoy the pics, but four or five is overkill. Let's just pick one. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a table could be added, or an off-shoot page, that lists the areas where high definition coverage is available, or soon to be available. Currently Time Warner Cable of New York City only has FBN contracted for standard definition. 68.175.118.95 ( talk) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Does this really belong in the intro? How many people it's available to is hardly such an important fact as to need such prominent placement, and it serves only to give some people the mistaken impression that it gets 30 million viewers. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The information on the ratings for FBN ends in 2008. What about in 2009 and 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.20.240 ( talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fbn.com live online show, where is an actual live stream of this channel available? -- 93.82.9.129 ( talk) 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That´s about adding to the page, therefore improving the article. -- 93.82.5.210 ( talk) 03:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)