This 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Ratings - Before my edit, the Wikipedia article said "April 2005, however, Fox viewership had dropped for the sixth straight month (to a total drop of over 58%). Well, not only is that information wrong, if you click on the link you see that it came from a CNN press release. What the press release ACTUALLY said was that Fox's audience between 8 and 10 pm between the ages of 25 and 54 (Prime p25-45) was down since November 2004. CNN doesn't mention in their press release that November 2004 was the 2004 presidential election, where all news networks were at record highs. Additionally, that information is outdated. Fox's ratings have surged since April, and there are new figures for May and June. [ http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp] [1] Fox now regularly doubles CNN both in primetime and total day ratings.
I've unprotected the page. Let's reach a consensus here and make edits according to it. If there's another revert war I may consider re-protecting. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Suggest archiving this section. crazyeddie 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm British. I assume that the "allegation" that Fox News has a right-wing bias is basically true. For heaven sakes, so what? There are umpteen major media outlets in the U.S. with a clear liberal bias. Why be so scared of a bit of variety? In the UK we take it for granted that different media outlets have different biases, and that this is a healthy situation. Can't you all just get real and calm down about it?
The result of all this passion is a pretty awful article, which focuses far too much on clashing opinions, when straight forward facts should be all that are required.
Cities and villages have been decimated in Iraq because the American people have been decieved into believing Saddam had a direct role in the 9/11 attacks and that he was about to attack the US again. As is pointed out in the entry, Fox News played a large role in duping people with this propaganda. As the word suggests, MEDIA is the medium through which people are informed of what goes on in the World around them. That the news media is corrupted by politicians is not something to be taken lightly. Amibidhrohi 04:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Everyone needs to be watched for that. Not many people who bother to look Fox up and then edit the article are without their personal bias. Most,if not all try to pretend they're unopinionated or absolutely unbiased. That's a problem with wikipedia that has no solution- there can be no expectation of a purely academic contribution free of bias. Amibidhrohi 03:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion as to how the links should be organized to ensure an NPOV. In particular a series of right wing vandals have removed critical links entirely on the theory that critical links should not be listed unless 'balanced' by complimentary ones.
If people beleive that there is a lack of balance they should add some links that are supportive of Fox News. Simply deleting critical links because they are critical is supressing criticism. This is not coincidentally exactly the sort of bias that Fox is widely accused of, presenting only the ideas of right wing idealogues and claiming that this represents a NPOV.
If you want the links to be 'balanced' then find some links from credible sources that are complimentary of Fox. If you can't find them that might be because they don't actually exist.
So far the links have been removed and reverted 5 times and there has not been any justification given for doing so in discussion that I could find.
the columbia journalism review points out (quotes and link below) that fox's format - largely 'non-news' is different from cnn,msnbc, and (i suggest) this makes the anchor/moderator/guest's personal stance more important as opposed to those on the other networks. the article itself is dated ('98). is there anything new on this? have other networks, for instance also changed format's more in line with fnc? -- Doldrums 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
In FNC's round-the-clock format -- unlike those of its competitors at CNN and MSNBC -- hard news, except for breaking stories, is mostly confined to a few minutes on the hour and half-hour, plus an hour-long newscast at 7 p.m. Most of the rest is chat shows, interviews -- discussions of trends, technology, health, entertainment, education, pets, as well as some old newsreels from the Fox Movietone archives.
If Fox's collective news hole -- small for an all-news cable channel -- offers largely untilted coverage, its discussion programs regularly and unabashedly convey a right-of-center sensibility, sometimes subtle, at other times overt.
- Television: Is Fox News Fair?, March/April 1998, Columbia Journalism Review
This is a good point, and should be noted in the Allegations of Bias section. Thanks for the link! I'm not sure if anything new has been covered on that front, but then I'm hardly an expert. Another link that bears looking at is this: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm I'm planning on working on a draft rewrite of my own on the Allegations of Bias section, and I'll incorporate these two links into it. crazyeddie 08:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: __this is an inline comment__
Fox faces criticism that its reporting is systematically biased and that its editorial line and commentary is conservative or right-wing. Fox and __it's supporters__ deny this and assert that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. __Note about organisation of section: allegations first, rebuttals later__ Criticism of Fox is based on __some blurb required__
Ownership, Management and Talent/Personnel
Fox's owner, Robert Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. The CEO Roger Ailes' past activities include working for Republican Party, Presidents__(Campaigns?)__ and right-wing media projects. A number of Fox News Channel's anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by __who? the channel's critics?__.
Reporting and Editorial Line
Fox's format has a __far?__ larger share of commentary over 'hard news'; than cnn or msnbc. Critics allege the commentary is largely biased, that this format brings out the personal biases of the on-air talent to a greater degree. Fox is also accused of blurring the lines between news and commentary. All this brings into question Fox's claim and self-promotion that it offers "Fair and Balanced" coverage and "We Report, You Decide".
In the documentary film ''Outfoxed'', former employees of Fox claim that management exercise editorial control over the channels content and that the channel practises systematic slanting of its news and commentary to present views that toe the mangement's line. They present Copies of Memos from Fox executive John Moody to substantiate their claim.
Apart from broad policies and practises, individual stories covered by fox have been pointed out as example of bias and misreporting.
- Fox has supported the War on Iraq in its editorial line, along wth all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide.
- Fox and the New York Post, both Murdoch-owned, were the only major news organisation to heed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's request to use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber". __Similarly Operation Iraqi Freedom? bbc called it iraq war, al jazeera called it an invasion, i think ...__
- In October 2004, Fox published a news article by Carl Cameron, its chief political correspondent, containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Fox later withdrew the article, apologised and stated that it "reprimanded" Carlson.
- Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that a Fox News opinion piece by John Gibson had breached the Programme Code (which sets out editorial standards for commercial television services in the UK) in three areas: "respect for truth," "opportunity to take part," and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence."
- John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a Fox news consultant who was part of the team that recommended Fox News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, in the 2000 Presidential election.
Media Studies and Watchdog Groups
A study published in 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 misperceptions such as "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda", "Since the war with Iraq ended, the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" and "the majority of people [in the world] favour the U.S. having gone to war". Strikingly, Fox viewers were unique in that thier likelyhood of holding these misperceptions increased slightly with the attention they paid to watching news.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.
now for some xplanation
some xplanations abt my edits
-- Doldrums 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I plan on working on a rewrite proposal of my own Real Soon Now. The main feature of what I'm planning on doing is to break down the section into three parts: Allegations of Editoral Bias, Allegations of Bias in "Straight News" Reporting, Alleged Violations of Journalisitic Intergrity. The various discussions about the biases among the on-air talent and management would be crammed into a subsection in the "allegations of editoral bias" section, I would also try to tie them all in to an overriding thesis that the FNC staff as a whole is biased, not just certain individuals. The WXYZ affiliate case and the John Prescott Ellis case would both be in the Alleged Violations of Journalisitc Intergrity section. That section would contain the most extreme allegations, including ones that are essentially conspiracy theories. Even conspiracy theories are notable...
I also have read the FAIR reports, and I'll be referring to them mainly in the Allegations of Editoral Bias section.
"Slight" might be better than "moderate" with the PIPA bulletpoint. However, I'd like to save such minor modifications until after the rewrite so they don't get lost in the rush.
We'll have to see what we can do to keep the section as short as possible - but no shorter! Spinning off the Allegations of Bias section into a seperate article is constantly being brought up, but it is contraindicated because it would be seen as a POV fork, and might bring about retaliations against, for example, the CNN article.
The name-calling is notable, and we should make some mention of it. If we don't, somebody is going to put it back in in about five minutes.
I'd very much appreciate your input and feedback once I've gotten my proposal done. crazyeddie 08:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The studies section might as well be removed. It's littered with bias. Sure you can dress up the findings nicely with scientific sounding names and descriptions but it doesn't change the fact that the organizations that conducted those studies are liberal. If you think it's possible for a slanting organization to conduct a fair study well, think again. The "Program on International Policy Attitudes" is an interesting study because of the definitions they use for certain criteria and not just the questions they do ask but perhaps more importantly, the questions they don't. For example, the first two misconceptions stated aren't misconceptions at all. Saddam Hussein began an anti-US alliance with bin Laden in the early 1990s. The culmination of this was a meeting in Prague between suicide bomber Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials several months before 9/11. The second "misconception" that the US hasn't found WMDs since the war started is equally laughable. The US has found strains of bioweapon agents in the home of an Iraqi defense scientist, a prison lab that was used to test bioweapons on human guinea pigs and many more chemical and bioweapon recipes and equipment. Perhaps the least known piece of evidence of Iraqi WMD production was the sarin bomb that exploded in Baghdad in May of 2004. FOX was the only news organization to cover it. Interestingly enough the Maryland study only asked the liberal questions, none of the conservative ones. Why didn't it ask its subjects if they thought Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent" threat? Or if America's intervention in Iraq was unilateral? Take out this section, it insults the unbiased nature of Wikipedia.
Upon further inspection of the page, it actually kinda sickens me. The page seems more like an essay titled "Fox News Loves Conservatives" than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. I can barely read a sentence without something trying to point to bias. Talk about bias, there should be a page devoted to the bias of the Fox News page.
Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.
*Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.
*Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
* While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,
*In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.
For some reason, the article critizes Ailes for confusing a Fox affiliate with the Fox News Channel, yet two sections allege that Fox News is biased, and that evidence is backed up with events dealing with Fox affiliates. Why the obvious bias and hypocrisy in the article? -- Avonsf 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Could the person who keeps posting the NPOV tag at least tell us whether he thinks that the POV is left or right wing? Do they think it is inaccurate to describe Fox as a 'news station' rather than a 'facist propaganda outlet' or would they like the phrase 'anti-american communist sympathizers' to be added in front of the word critics? -- Gorgonzilla 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It looks as if the most likely explanation for the ratings collapse is that the ratings were fake all along. Under the diary scheme there were plenty of angry poor white males who would say they watch Fox when they don't. NPR and Air America see a similar effect. In the early days of Air America they were outperforming O'Reily in places where they didn't have a station. So now Neilsen has moved to electronic monitoring and use of Tivo etc. The bubble ratings are collapsing. So the recent declines of up to 60% in Fox ratings is probably not going to be a trend. I found a citation in BusinessWeek but I have not seen an editorial on the ratings now they are out. So can't put that in the article yet under no original research. But I would expect Fox themselves to be making the same argument sometime, well unless they succeed in getting a bill passed to prohibit the new methods of measuring ratings. Incidentally the rate card for Fox has always suggested that the advertisers suspect something of the sort is going on. -- Gorgonzilla 00:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a study that was linked to from the article a while back. The bulletpoint was removed because it was grossly POV. This is what I've come up with after reading the linked study. This proposed bulletpoint is a bit long, and probably could use other forms of polishing (not to mention getting vetted by others in order to prevent a possible edit war!) So, for your consideration... crazyeddie 01:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to put it into the article, sit back and wait for the fireworks... crazyeddie 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed the @#$% link. The researchers were in no way, shape, or form affliated with ADA - they were only using the ADA scores to rate the conservative/liberal nature of the various entites. The ADA is openly liberal, ADA scores are a measure of how well congress-critters agree with the ADA's stance on issues. So you could say that ADA scores are not so much a measure of liberalness or conservativeness, but of pro-ADAness and anti-ADAness. Fortunately, the ADA is liberal enough that this just so happens to be a good measure of location on the left-right spectrum also!
IIRC, roughly a third to a quarter of the entire report is dedicated to analyzing possible sources of bias in the report itself. I find it to be very NPOV. Interestingly enough, the person who first mentioned this report here was very much pro-Fox. They interperted the report as saying that the New York Times is 8 times more biased than FNC. True, but a gross distortion. crazyeddie 21:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and feel free to tinker with the prose! This is the Wikipedia after all. Just be prepared to work out a consensus if someone disagrees. crazyeddie 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The correct title of this should be FOX News, not Fox News. FOX is a network. The news channel connected to it is FOX News. We don't write Cbs News, or Abc News. If this page were moved, there would be many double redirects that would need fixed. Any thoughts? -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Look in the latest archive - I think somebody just moved the article here from FOX News to Fox News. I really don't care either way, but I would like the article to stay put for two months runnings. AFAIK, FOX isn't an acronym, like Columbia Broadcasting System, or American Broadcasting Company. The all-caps FOX is just a marketing thang. According to the last guy to move this article, in such a situation, the rule is to only capitlize the first letter. Again, check the latest archive for the details, I'm just working from memory here, and I wasn't too interested last time either. crazyeddie 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem. You demonstrated a willingness to do some drudgery. Kudos! crazyeddie 22:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I do like Fox News. Their bias is off the chain! But I still like watching it! It's entertaining! I mean what channel can brag more than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News combined for their primetime line-up! Right after CNN beated the Fox News in the coverage of the two major hurricanes, Fox decided to prove that they still are the #1 in primetime. Oh what happen to the first half of the day? Did Fox News replace David Asman with Bill Hemmer? Did Linda Vester get replaced with Juliet Huddy? Did Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity get more louder since President Bush's rating plummet down once again? Does Fox need to be a little more fair and balanced? LILVOKA
I'm sure it's been addressed before, however there really should be a split in articles - one pertaining to the FOX News Channel (cable channel) and the other being FOX News (local affiliates), as they are separate divisions, headed by different personnel, and are very unique in terms of content. -- Mrmiscellanious 21:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
So...how far are we here on the to-do list? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Right now www.foxnews.com is carrying GREENPEACE advertisements that protest against Kimberley-Clark treeloggings. Is the hell freezing over or the treehuggers obtained mind control devices to brainwash oil-neocon cabal?
I can't imagine how long you liberals have slaved over this article.
The amount of schemeing and weaseling to make it pejorative is unbelieveable.
Every possible angle has been added to make Fox news look horrible.
Way to go.
Another wikipedia triumph!-- Capsela 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry folks, this entry smacks of the same bias it accuses FOX News of sporting. Clean out all the subjective trash and just leave the facts. BTW, the CBS News entry doesn't discuss Rathergate, Bernard Goldberg, etc. Drill down the changes if you want this thing to be taken seriously.
wow, just wow. I made a few changes, but this article still has major POV problems. compare this article to the CNN article and it is night and day. someone needs to do some serious work here. could the controversies and bias section possibly be any bigger? it's worth noting in an encyclopedia that one reporter gave a "soft interview" to Rush Limbaugh? wow, and Larry King has never given a soft interview in his career? not sure how that is a controversy. this article is laughable in just about every way. RonMexico 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the time has come to end the redirect of "Fox News" to "Fox News Channel". Fox News is expanding; they have a rapidly-growing talk radio network, now offer a full radio news service, and are expanding their reach into broadcast television ("Geraldo at Large" airs only on broadcast TV stations). All of these subjects deserve inclusion on Wikipedia, but none of them truly belong on a page about the cable news channel. Thoughts? Aaron 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I am looking for info on 2 employees of
Fox13, who were fired when they did not want to air a falsefied reportage on
Monsanto. It resulted in a law suit by
Jane Akre, where (in appeal) whistleblower-status was denied because "lying in the news is not a crime". Who can help?
No, it isn't. "Fox 13" is just a little local TV station that happens to be owned by the same company that owns Fox News Channel. Putting anything about Jane Akre in the Fox News Channel article would be like putting accusations of dangerous rides at Disney World in the entry for ABC News. Aaron 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, despite their (false) denials, Fox News headquarters was directly involved in that case. The Fox affiliate was located in Florida, not Atlanta, however even the most cursory examination of the court documents shows that 1) Fox head Ailes was the one contacted by Monsanto (and he claims to know nothing about it) and 2) that the court documents show that the lawyer of record (Carolyn Forrest) actually works from Atlanta. Fox may be perceived poorly because the facts are biased against it. -- Bigdavediode 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the 'liberal critics' phrases. They imply that only liberals, not moderates or moderate conservatives, feel that Fox News is slanted in their reportings, which is not arguable without references that prove that to be the case. "Critics" would suffice.
Well over half of the article is devoted to criticisms, controversies and allegations of bias. Even the sections that aren't specifically about controversies discuss the "conservative bias". If you want to see how this article could be better written, just look at the CNN page. CNN has a controversy and bias section but it doesn't take up the majority of the article like here. Even the minor changes I and other people have made keep getting reverted. someone please make this article fair if Wiki wants to be taken seriously as a legitimate encyclopedia. again, i'm NOT saying to eliminate criticisms, i'm just saying currently it is taking over the entire article and people are resisting any change whatsoever. RonMexico 13:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting, so the fact that the criticisms outweigh other facts about the organization reflects what is known about Fox. If you disagree with any of the segments, give reason and reference for that and modify the article accordingly. It's not right that the NPOV sign be used as a first measure against the article. Amibidhrohi 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting..." ....says who? Obviously, this is an opinion, not factual. What methods to you propose to scientifically establish your hypothesis? On the other hand, if you stated some groups or segments of society FELT that Fox News was biased, that would be a factual statement, but it should be put in the under an appropriate topic.
CNN isn't known to run host after host who speaks exclusively in defense of the Republican party and the conservative agenda. As for 'proof', google FOX NEWS. Almost every website that isn't either Fox or marketing it or its affiliates speaks to its bias. Anyway, the burden of proof that Fox ISN'T recognized for its bias is on you since you're the one who wants to post that sign. Amibidhrohi 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Google is not a proper citation. The results can be manipulated. Popularity does not equate to truth or true facts.
Do not remove information that has a source and is relevant to the article. Anything that is inaccurate, and any point that is derived from one's own judgement should be removed. No disagreement there. There's no logic that you've given that justifies using the CNN entry as a template for the Fox one. If there's insufficient criticism on the CNN page, edit THAT. So long as the information provided in the Fox entry is accurate, they should remain. If how Fox runs itself warrants criticism and that criticism has been voiced by referable sources, it's entirely natural that an encyclopedia would reflect that. Do not confuse being fair or balanced with being deceptive by excluding facts. Amibidhrohi 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
RONMEXICO, you're repeatedly placing political label adjectives such as 'liberal' or 'left wing' before groups that have criticised Fox. If you can conclusively prove that they are categorically 'liberal' or 'left wing', provide the sources. If you can't, stop adding them. These adjectives are your own perceptions of those critics' biases, and therefore POV. To demonstrate what I mean, I added one such adjective which you're welcome to delete for the same reason...or LEAVE there if you feel your actions are reasonable. Amibidhrohi 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't see the new NPOV sign until now...Whoever put that up needs to justify it, and at least try to correct inaccuracies before putting it there. I'm taking it off. If FAIR characterizes itself as progressive, use 'progressive', not liberal. As for mediamatters, its bias is no more obvious than Fox News' own. I say we steer clear of all these adjectives, since from the opposing side's point of view they are inevitably pejorative. Amibidhrohi 04:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand there is alot of controversy on this topic, though I'm not sure why. The answer is simple. If you were writing a research paper, you would want your statements to be factual and supported by sources. If you were to demonstrate a persons viewpoint, you would have to provide direct quotes from that person to establish an argument for that persons POV or why that person did something. And IF you decided to put forth some editorial content (which is fine) you would place it in the appropriate categories. History is not an appropriate category to editorialize.
The following line in History should be removed or moved to a more appropriate topic:
"Rupert Murdoch established Fox News to counter a news media that he claimed was predominantly liberal.[2]"
First of all, the source cited does not in any way support the statement. Just on the face of that one could say the statement is fabricated. That doesn't mean that it isn't true, but merely an opinion as presented. There are other appropiate categories that the statement could be placed under but it should also have correct citations to actual quotes from Murdoch. Or it could be rephrased to to show a POV of a segment of the public and placed in an appropriate topic like Controversy.
Someone please remove the comments for the ratings section and can we please discuss this on this page? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe Ann Coulter ever worked for FNC. She was added to the personality list and removed, and now she's under "Former Personalities."
Did she just recently join and leave the network or did someone add her to make them seem more conservative?
71.100.36.139 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph from the Ratings section:
News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, has campaigned against plans by Nielsen to change the method used to compile ratings from the traditional 'diary' method to the electronic 'people meter'. A longstanding criticism of the diary method of compiling ratings is that consumers may misrepresent their viewing behavior in order to 'vote' for prefered programming such as PBS or Fox News. A grassroots campaign financed and organized by Fox, Don't Count Us Out has alleged that the new method of compiling ratings is biased against minority viewers pointing to dramatic falls in the viewing figures of network TV programs aimed at minority audiences. Supporters of Nielsen, including Jesse Jackson, have noted that the Nielsen sample actually over-represents minority viewers and that the dramatic falls in viewing of broadcast programming are matched by a rise in the ratings for cable programming, in particular Black Entertainment Television [5]
This may belong on the Nielsen page, but it has no direct relevance to FNC. -- Aaron 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well an IP added this. I listened to it. I am not sure if he is admitting that FOX news is right wing or he says that NBC thinks FOX news is right wing. I have a feeling that the latter is more correct. In either case, I feel that it may be taken off the site soon, if anyone wants to listen, there you go. Docku Hi 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Ratings - Before my edit, the Wikipedia article said "April 2005, however, Fox viewership had dropped for the sixth straight month (to a total drop of over 58%). Well, not only is that information wrong, if you click on the link you see that it came from a CNN press release. What the press release ACTUALLY said was that Fox's audience between 8 and 10 pm between the ages of 25 and 54 (Prime p25-45) was down since November 2004. CNN doesn't mention in their press release that November 2004 was the 2004 presidential election, where all news networks were at record highs. Additionally, that information is outdated. Fox's ratings have surged since April, and there are new figures for May and June. [ http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp] [1] Fox now regularly doubles CNN both in primetime and total day ratings.
I've unprotected the page. Let's reach a consensus here and make edits according to it. If there's another revert war I may consider re-protecting. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Suggest archiving this section. crazyeddie 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm British. I assume that the "allegation" that Fox News has a right-wing bias is basically true. For heaven sakes, so what? There are umpteen major media outlets in the U.S. with a clear liberal bias. Why be so scared of a bit of variety? In the UK we take it for granted that different media outlets have different biases, and that this is a healthy situation. Can't you all just get real and calm down about it?
The result of all this passion is a pretty awful article, which focuses far too much on clashing opinions, when straight forward facts should be all that are required.
Cities and villages have been decimated in Iraq because the American people have been decieved into believing Saddam had a direct role in the 9/11 attacks and that he was about to attack the US again. As is pointed out in the entry, Fox News played a large role in duping people with this propaganda. As the word suggests, MEDIA is the medium through which people are informed of what goes on in the World around them. That the news media is corrupted by politicians is not something to be taken lightly. Amibidhrohi 04:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Everyone needs to be watched for that. Not many people who bother to look Fox up and then edit the article are without their personal bias. Most,if not all try to pretend they're unopinionated or absolutely unbiased. That's a problem with wikipedia that has no solution- there can be no expectation of a purely academic contribution free of bias. Amibidhrohi 03:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion as to how the links should be organized to ensure an NPOV. In particular a series of right wing vandals have removed critical links entirely on the theory that critical links should not be listed unless 'balanced' by complimentary ones.
If people beleive that there is a lack of balance they should add some links that are supportive of Fox News. Simply deleting critical links because they are critical is supressing criticism. This is not coincidentally exactly the sort of bias that Fox is widely accused of, presenting only the ideas of right wing idealogues and claiming that this represents a NPOV.
If you want the links to be 'balanced' then find some links from credible sources that are complimentary of Fox. If you can't find them that might be because they don't actually exist.
So far the links have been removed and reverted 5 times and there has not been any justification given for doing so in discussion that I could find.
the columbia journalism review points out (quotes and link below) that fox's format - largely 'non-news' is different from cnn,msnbc, and (i suggest) this makes the anchor/moderator/guest's personal stance more important as opposed to those on the other networks. the article itself is dated ('98). is there anything new on this? have other networks, for instance also changed format's more in line with fnc? -- Doldrums 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
In FNC's round-the-clock format -- unlike those of its competitors at CNN and MSNBC -- hard news, except for breaking stories, is mostly confined to a few minutes on the hour and half-hour, plus an hour-long newscast at 7 p.m. Most of the rest is chat shows, interviews -- discussions of trends, technology, health, entertainment, education, pets, as well as some old newsreels from the Fox Movietone archives.
If Fox's collective news hole -- small for an all-news cable channel -- offers largely untilted coverage, its discussion programs regularly and unabashedly convey a right-of-center sensibility, sometimes subtle, at other times overt.
- Television: Is Fox News Fair?, March/April 1998, Columbia Journalism Review
This is a good point, and should be noted in the Allegations of Bias section. Thanks for the link! I'm not sure if anything new has been covered on that front, but then I'm hardly an expert. Another link that bears looking at is this: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm I'm planning on working on a draft rewrite of my own on the Allegations of Bias section, and I'll incorporate these two links into it. crazyeddie 08:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: __this is an inline comment__
Fox faces criticism that its reporting is systematically biased and that its editorial line and commentary is conservative or right-wing. Fox and __it's supporters__ deny this and assert that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. __Note about organisation of section: allegations first, rebuttals later__ Criticism of Fox is based on __some blurb required__
Ownership, Management and Talent/Personnel
Fox's owner, Robert Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. The CEO Roger Ailes' past activities include working for Republican Party, Presidents__(Campaigns?)__ and right-wing media projects. A number of Fox News Channel's anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by __who? the channel's critics?__.
Reporting and Editorial Line
Fox's format has a __far?__ larger share of commentary over 'hard news'; than cnn or msnbc. Critics allege the commentary is largely biased, that this format brings out the personal biases of the on-air talent to a greater degree. Fox is also accused of blurring the lines between news and commentary. All this brings into question Fox's claim and self-promotion that it offers "Fair and Balanced" coverage and "We Report, You Decide".
In the documentary film ''Outfoxed'', former employees of Fox claim that management exercise editorial control over the channels content and that the channel practises systematic slanting of its news and commentary to present views that toe the mangement's line. They present Copies of Memos from Fox executive John Moody to substantiate their claim.
Apart from broad policies and practises, individual stories covered by fox have been pointed out as example of bias and misreporting.
- Fox has supported the War on Iraq in its editorial line, along wth all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide.
- Fox and the New York Post, both Murdoch-owned, were the only major news organisation to heed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's request to use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber". __Similarly Operation Iraqi Freedom? bbc called it iraq war, al jazeera called it an invasion, i think ...__
- In October 2004, Fox published a news article by Carl Cameron, its chief political correspondent, containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Fox later withdrew the article, apologised and stated that it "reprimanded" Carlson.
- Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that a Fox News opinion piece by John Gibson had breached the Programme Code (which sets out editorial standards for commercial television services in the UK) in three areas: "respect for truth," "opportunity to take part," and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence."
- John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a Fox news consultant who was part of the team that recommended Fox News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, in the 2000 Presidential election.
Media Studies and Watchdog Groups
A study published in 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 misperceptions such as "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda", "Since the war with Iraq ended, the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" and "the majority of people [in the world] favour the U.S. having gone to war". Strikingly, Fox viewers were unique in that thier likelyhood of holding these misperceptions increased slightly with the attention they paid to watching news.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.
now for some xplanation
some xplanations abt my edits
-- Doldrums 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I plan on working on a rewrite proposal of my own Real Soon Now. The main feature of what I'm planning on doing is to break down the section into three parts: Allegations of Editoral Bias, Allegations of Bias in "Straight News" Reporting, Alleged Violations of Journalisitic Intergrity. The various discussions about the biases among the on-air talent and management would be crammed into a subsection in the "allegations of editoral bias" section, I would also try to tie them all in to an overriding thesis that the FNC staff as a whole is biased, not just certain individuals. The WXYZ affiliate case and the John Prescott Ellis case would both be in the Alleged Violations of Journalisitc Intergrity section. That section would contain the most extreme allegations, including ones that are essentially conspiracy theories. Even conspiracy theories are notable...
I also have read the FAIR reports, and I'll be referring to them mainly in the Allegations of Editoral Bias section.
"Slight" might be better than "moderate" with the PIPA bulletpoint. However, I'd like to save such minor modifications until after the rewrite so they don't get lost in the rush.
We'll have to see what we can do to keep the section as short as possible - but no shorter! Spinning off the Allegations of Bias section into a seperate article is constantly being brought up, but it is contraindicated because it would be seen as a POV fork, and might bring about retaliations against, for example, the CNN article.
The name-calling is notable, and we should make some mention of it. If we don't, somebody is going to put it back in in about five minutes.
I'd very much appreciate your input and feedback once I've gotten my proposal done. crazyeddie 08:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The studies section might as well be removed. It's littered with bias. Sure you can dress up the findings nicely with scientific sounding names and descriptions but it doesn't change the fact that the organizations that conducted those studies are liberal. If you think it's possible for a slanting organization to conduct a fair study well, think again. The "Program on International Policy Attitudes" is an interesting study because of the definitions they use for certain criteria and not just the questions they do ask but perhaps more importantly, the questions they don't. For example, the first two misconceptions stated aren't misconceptions at all. Saddam Hussein began an anti-US alliance with bin Laden in the early 1990s. The culmination of this was a meeting in Prague between suicide bomber Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials several months before 9/11. The second "misconception" that the US hasn't found WMDs since the war started is equally laughable. The US has found strains of bioweapon agents in the home of an Iraqi defense scientist, a prison lab that was used to test bioweapons on human guinea pigs and many more chemical and bioweapon recipes and equipment. Perhaps the least known piece of evidence of Iraqi WMD production was the sarin bomb that exploded in Baghdad in May of 2004. FOX was the only news organization to cover it. Interestingly enough the Maryland study only asked the liberal questions, none of the conservative ones. Why didn't it ask its subjects if they thought Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent" threat? Or if America's intervention in Iraq was unilateral? Take out this section, it insults the unbiased nature of Wikipedia.
Upon further inspection of the page, it actually kinda sickens me. The page seems more like an essay titled "Fox News Loves Conservatives" than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. I can barely read a sentence without something trying to point to bias. Talk about bias, there should be a page devoted to the bias of the Fox News page.
Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.
*Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.
*Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
* While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,
*In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.
For some reason, the article critizes Ailes for confusing a Fox affiliate with the Fox News Channel, yet two sections allege that Fox News is biased, and that evidence is backed up with events dealing with Fox affiliates. Why the obvious bias and hypocrisy in the article? -- Avonsf 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Could the person who keeps posting the NPOV tag at least tell us whether he thinks that the POV is left or right wing? Do they think it is inaccurate to describe Fox as a 'news station' rather than a 'facist propaganda outlet' or would they like the phrase 'anti-american communist sympathizers' to be added in front of the word critics? -- Gorgonzilla 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It looks as if the most likely explanation for the ratings collapse is that the ratings were fake all along. Under the diary scheme there were plenty of angry poor white males who would say they watch Fox when they don't. NPR and Air America see a similar effect. In the early days of Air America they were outperforming O'Reily in places where they didn't have a station. So now Neilsen has moved to electronic monitoring and use of Tivo etc. The bubble ratings are collapsing. So the recent declines of up to 60% in Fox ratings is probably not going to be a trend. I found a citation in BusinessWeek but I have not seen an editorial on the ratings now they are out. So can't put that in the article yet under no original research. But I would expect Fox themselves to be making the same argument sometime, well unless they succeed in getting a bill passed to prohibit the new methods of measuring ratings. Incidentally the rate card for Fox has always suggested that the advertisers suspect something of the sort is going on. -- Gorgonzilla 00:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a study that was linked to from the article a while back. The bulletpoint was removed because it was grossly POV. This is what I've come up with after reading the linked study. This proposed bulletpoint is a bit long, and probably could use other forms of polishing (not to mention getting vetted by others in order to prevent a possible edit war!) So, for your consideration... crazyeddie 01:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to put it into the article, sit back and wait for the fireworks... crazyeddie 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed the @#$% link. The researchers were in no way, shape, or form affliated with ADA - they were only using the ADA scores to rate the conservative/liberal nature of the various entites. The ADA is openly liberal, ADA scores are a measure of how well congress-critters agree with the ADA's stance on issues. So you could say that ADA scores are not so much a measure of liberalness or conservativeness, but of pro-ADAness and anti-ADAness. Fortunately, the ADA is liberal enough that this just so happens to be a good measure of location on the left-right spectrum also!
IIRC, roughly a third to a quarter of the entire report is dedicated to analyzing possible sources of bias in the report itself. I find it to be very NPOV. Interestingly enough, the person who first mentioned this report here was very much pro-Fox. They interperted the report as saying that the New York Times is 8 times more biased than FNC. True, but a gross distortion. crazyeddie 21:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and feel free to tinker with the prose! This is the Wikipedia after all. Just be prepared to work out a consensus if someone disagrees. crazyeddie 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The correct title of this should be FOX News, not Fox News. FOX is a network. The news channel connected to it is FOX News. We don't write Cbs News, or Abc News. If this page were moved, there would be many double redirects that would need fixed. Any thoughts? -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Look in the latest archive - I think somebody just moved the article here from FOX News to Fox News. I really don't care either way, but I would like the article to stay put for two months runnings. AFAIK, FOX isn't an acronym, like Columbia Broadcasting System, or American Broadcasting Company. The all-caps FOX is just a marketing thang. According to the last guy to move this article, in such a situation, the rule is to only capitlize the first letter. Again, check the latest archive for the details, I'm just working from memory here, and I wasn't too interested last time either. crazyeddie 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem. You demonstrated a willingness to do some drudgery. Kudos! crazyeddie 22:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I do like Fox News. Their bias is off the chain! But I still like watching it! It's entertaining! I mean what channel can brag more than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News combined for their primetime line-up! Right after CNN beated the Fox News in the coverage of the two major hurricanes, Fox decided to prove that they still are the #1 in primetime. Oh what happen to the first half of the day? Did Fox News replace David Asman with Bill Hemmer? Did Linda Vester get replaced with Juliet Huddy? Did Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity get more louder since President Bush's rating plummet down once again? Does Fox need to be a little more fair and balanced? LILVOKA
I'm sure it's been addressed before, however there really should be a split in articles - one pertaining to the FOX News Channel (cable channel) and the other being FOX News (local affiliates), as they are separate divisions, headed by different personnel, and are very unique in terms of content. -- Mrmiscellanious 21:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
So...how far are we here on the to-do list? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Right now www.foxnews.com is carrying GREENPEACE advertisements that protest against Kimberley-Clark treeloggings. Is the hell freezing over or the treehuggers obtained mind control devices to brainwash oil-neocon cabal?
I can't imagine how long you liberals have slaved over this article.
The amount of schemeing and weaseling to make it pejorative is unbelieveable.
Every possible angle has been added to make Fox news look horrible.
Way to go.
Another wikipedia triumph!-- Capsela 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry folks, this entry smacks of the same bias it accuses FOX News of sporting. Clean out all the subjective trash and just leave the facts. BTW, the CBS News entry doesn't discuss Rathergate, Bernard Goldberg, etc. Drill down the changes if you want this thing to be taken seriously.
wow, just wow. I made a few changes, but this article still has major POV problems. compare this article to the CNN article and it is night and day. someone needs to do some serious work here. could the controversies and bias section possibly be any bigger? it's worth noting in an encyclopedia that one reporter gave a "soft interview" to Rush Limbaugh? wow, and Larry King has never given a soft interview in his career? not sure how that is a controversy. this article is laughable in just about every way. RonMexico 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the time has come to end the redirect of "Fox News" to "Fox News Channel". Fox News is expanding; they have a rapidly-growing talk radio network, now offer a full radio news service, and are expanding their reach into broadcast television ("Geraldo at Large" airs only on broadcast TV stations). All of these subjects deserve inclusion on Wikipedia, but none of them truly belong on a page about the cable news channel. Thoughts? Aaron 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I am looking for info on 2 employees of
Fox13, who were fired when they did not want to air a falsefied reportage on
Monsanto. It resulted in a law suit by
Jane Akre, where (in appeal) whistleblower-status was denied because "lying in the news is not a crime". Who can help?
No, it isn't. "Fox 13" is just a little local TV station that happens to be owned by the same company that owns Fox News Channel. Putting anything about Jane Akre in the Fox News Channel article would be like putting accusations of dangerous rides at Disney World in the entry for ABC News. Aaron 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, despite their (false) denials, Fox News headquarters was directly involved in that case. The Fox affiliate was located in Florida, not Atlanta, however even the most cursory examination of the court documents shows that 1) Fox head Ailes was the one contacted by Monsanto (and he claims to know nothing about it) and 2) that the court documents show that the lawyer of record (Carolyn Forrest) actually works from Atlanta. Fox may be perceived poorly because the facts are biased against it. -- Bigdavediode 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the 'liberal critics' phrases. They imply that only liberals, not moderates or moderate conservatives, feel that Fox News is slanted in their reportings, which is not arguable without references that prove that to be the case. "Critics" would suffice.
Well over half of the article is devoted to criticisms, controversies and allegations of bias. Even the sections that aren't specifically about controversies discuss the "conservative bias". If you want to see how this article could be better written, just look at the CNN page. CNN has a controversy and bias section but it doesn't take up the majority of the article like here. Even the minor changes I and other people have made keep getting reverted. someone please make this article fair if Wiki wants to be taken seriously as a legitimate encyclopedia. again, i'm NOT saying to eliminate criticisms, i'm just saying currently it is taking over the entire article and people are resisting any change whatsoever. RonMexico 13:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting, so the fact that the criticisms outweigh other facts about the organization reflects what is known about Fox. If you disagree with any of the segments, give reason and reference for that and modify the article accordingly. It's not right that the NPOV sign be used as a first measure against the article. Amibidhrohi 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Fox News is primarily recognized for its biased reporting..." ....says who? Obviously, this is an opinion, not factual. What methods to you propose to scientifically establish your hypothesis? On the other hand, if you stated some groups or segments of society FELT that Fox News was biased, that would be a factual statement, but it should be put in the under an appropriate topic.
CNN isn't known to run host after host who speaks exclusively in defense of the Republican party and the conservative agenda. As for 'proof', google FOX NEWS. Almost every website that isn't either Fox or marketing it or its affiliates speaks to its bias. Anyway, the burden of proof that Fox ISN'T recognized for its bias is on you since you're the one who wants to post that sign. Amibidhrohi 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Google is not a proper citation. The results can be manipulated. Popularity does not equate to truth or true facts.
Do not remove information that has a source and is relevant to the article. Anything that is inaccurate, and any point that is derived from one's own judgement should be removed. No disagreement there. There's no logic that you've given that justifies using the CNN entry as a template for the Fox one. If there's insufficient criticism on the CNN page, edit THAT. So long as the information provided in the Fox entry is accurate, they should remain. If how Fox runs itself warrants criticism and that criticism has been voiced by referable sources, it's entirely natural that an encyclopedia would reflect that. Do not confuse being fair or balanced with being deceptive by excluding facts. Amibidhrohi 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
RONMEXICO, you're repeatedly placing political label adjectives such as 'liberal' or 'left wing' before groups that have criticised Fox. If you can conclusively prove that they are categorically 'liberal' or 'left wing', provide the sources. If you can't, stop adding them. These adjectives are your own perceptions of those critics' biases, and therefore POV. To demonstrate what I mean, I added one such adjective which you're welcome to delete for the same reason...or LEAVE there if you feel your actions are reasonable. Amibidhrohi 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't see the new NPOV sign until now...Whoever put that up needs to justify it, and at least try to correct inaccuracies before putting it there. I'm taking it off. If FAIR characterizes itself as progressive, use 'progressive', not liberal. As for mediamatters, its bias is no more obvious than Fox News' own. I say we steer clear of all these adjectives, since from the opposing side's point of view they are inevitably pejorative. Amibidhrohi 04:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand there is alot of controversy on this topic, though I'm not sure why. The answer is simple. If you were writing a research paper, you would want your statements to be factual and supported by sources. If you were to demonstrate a persons viewpoint, you would have to provide direct quotes from that person to establish an argument for that persons POV or why that person did something. And IF you decided to put forth some editorial content (which is fine) you would place it in the appropriate categories. History is not an appropriate category to editorialize.
The following line in History should be removed or moved to a more appropriate topic:
"Rupert Murdoch established Fox News to counter a news media that he claimed was predominantly liberal.[2]"
First of all, the source cited does not in any way support the statement. Just on the face of that one could say the statement is fabricated. That doesn't mean that it isn't true, but merely an opinion as presented. There are other appropiate categories that the statement could be placed under but it should also have correct citations to actual quotes from Murdoch. Or it could be rephrased to to show a POV of a segment of the public and placed in an appropriate topic like Controversy.
Someone please remove the comments for the ratings section and can we please discuss this on this page? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe Ann Coulter ever worked for FNC. She was added to the personality list and removed, and now she's under "Former Personalities."
Did she just recently join and leave the network or did someone add her to make them seem more conservative?
71.100.36.139 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph from the Ratings section:
News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, has campaigned against plans by Nielsen to change the method used to compile ratings from the traditional 'diary' method to the electronic 'people meter'. A longstanding criticism of the diary method of compiling ratings is that consumers may misrepresent their viewing behavior in order to 'vote' for prefered programming such as PBS or Fox News. A grassroots campaign financed and organized by Fox, Don't Count Us Out has alleged that the new method of compiling ratings is biased against minority viewers pointing to dramatic falls in the viewing figures of network TV programs aimed at minority audiences. Supporters of Nielsen, including Jesse Jackson, have noted that the Nielsen sample actually over-represents minority viewers and that the dramatic falls in viewing of broadcast programming are matched by a rise in the ratings for cable programming, in particular Black Entertainment Television [5]
This may belong on the Nielsen page, but it has no direct relevance to FNC. -- Aaron 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well an IP added this. I listened to it. I am not sure if he is admitting that FOX news is right wing or he says that NBC thinks FOX news is right wing. I have a feeling that the latter is more correct. In either case, I feel that it may be taken off the site soon, if anyone wants to listen, there you go. Docku Hi 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)