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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
[1] <--- Should probably be mentioned in this article, seeing as their main competitor (CNN) used to claim this in their tagline for 10+ years... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 ( talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If it is included, it should also be noted that they are the most untrusted also. (In other words, don't do how Fox will report on this poll.)
The poll is basically worthless because it falls between party lines. I personally find it hard to trust a network with the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is clear that they have a conservative/Republican viewpoint. -- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This poll was done by a Public Policy Polling, a source often cited by the left as being highly reliable. It states that not only is FOXNews the highest ranking network when it comes to "trust, it is the lowest ranking when it comes to "distrust". In fact, it was the only network that scored positively in this regard. The margin of error on this poll is 2.8%, and is from a reliable source. You may not agree, but unless your opinion is backed up by fact, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on. Rapier1 ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
With any polling it can be deceptive. Here are some things that skew this poll: A large portion of the 49% favorable came from Republicans who voted 74% in their trust of Fox News. It should also be noted that only 14% considered themselves liberal compared to 39% conservative. Also, to be noted is that 63% were 46 or older. If your sample is not a true sample of the general population, then you cannot make true conclusions from it.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No the percents are not fairly close. I never made a claim about the comparision numbers between conservatives and liberals, only that the survey was not a representative of the whole, which it isn't. Lets just say that 21% of voters call themselves liberals. That is a 7% difference compared to the results in the survey, or 50% of the survey results for liberals. You are trying to tell me that a 50% is not going to skew the results. No where in the survey is an opt out question where the survey ends if they say they do not watch news.-- 99.52.157.254 ( talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Statistically speaking, if you look at the crosstabs, you can see the skewing.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
By continually reverting good-faith edits regarding this poll, you are edit-warring and in violation of WP:3RR. Please restore the last version. Rapier1 ( talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The poll is clearing biased (not done on purpose, but the participants are not representative of the whole), therefore the conclusions are worthless. And therefore, they should not be included in the article.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[2]
For reference--
76.235.200.246 (
talk)
02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
7% may not seem like that much, but it is a significant amount when "the other side" is at 40%. The percent of who people voted for is again skewed towards Republicans/Conservatives. It is like that throughout. On the surface it may not seem like a lot, but when combined it does. The fact that there is already polarization (74% of Reps trust Fox), means that little differences can have a big impact.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the page suppose to be NPOV, so why allow something that isn't, even if it is questionable.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this so important that it needs to be in the article?-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I just did an updated crosstab on my own assuming a breakout of 39% Dem, 25% Rep, and 36% Ind and get 45% favorable and 40% unfavorable with 15% unfavorable. I would be quite suprised if the real difference between D's and R's is that great.
DATA - Based on the poll percentages there were ~414 D, ~403 R, and ~403 I. My adjusted numbers are ~449 D, ~288 R, and ~414 I. So, it wouldn't really matter.
Arzel (
talk)
03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You lost me.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive user has been blocked, I've restored the contect regarding this poll Rapier1 ( talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about more than just the political party breakdown, but the other breakdowns also show a skew (compared to in real life) to Conservatives/Republicans. And considering the polarization that we see, it becomes significant.-- 69.209.98.241 ( talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to hear a solid argument from you. Therefore it still is non-NPOV.-- 69.209.98.241 ( talk) 03:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is one other way the results are skewed: The election results for popular vote were: Obama: 52.9% and McCain 45.7%. The survey results were Obama 47% and McCain 46%. The only way the survey results are viable is if "all" the don't remember voted for Obama. Statistically speaking, that is not very likely (also considering that McCain was a more popular vote of the elderly who would be more likely not to remember.) I explained the skew in the liberal/conservative above in a response to another user. 50% difference of the surveyed results of liberals compared to what the actual number of liberals. The last one I will go over is the skew in age. I had to search a little but I found from the census bureau the breakdown of age. According to them, 50.3% of the voting age is 46 or older, while the survey results were 63%. And if you at the age comparison for trust, you can see that these individuals have more trust in Fox News compared to the news of the other networks. Therefore, by having more of these individuals than the actual percent of the population, you are going to skew it in favor of Fox News. Now please don't imply that I am saying that previous surveys on trust of news were impartial, I'm not, I'm only saying that this survey was biased and therefore should not be included in the article.-- 99.52.157.254 ( talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
An entire section of this heavy-on-criticism article is based on work done by a highly partisan liberal smear machine. If non-scientific polls taken for the purpose of calling anyone's journalistic integrity - whether we're talking about Fox News or CNN - into question are acceptable, then those polls done by the Public Policy and TIME people must be acceptable. You can't have it both ways, people! MudskipperMarkII ( talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see above. Polls are only relevant when they represent the true portions of the population equally (or adjust the results because it wasn't a representative of the whole.) This is true no matter who is doing the polling. If you believe a poll is bias state your reason, but you better come up with more than just "liberal smear machine." -- 76.235.208.230 ( talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Where do I even come close to suggesting that? You still have said nothing to refute the statements I have made above about the bias of the poll. If you believe a poll is biased show how it is biased. You really shouldn't talk about agenda when yours is so obvious. To me the poll just shows the complete polarization regarding trust of a news organization.-- 76.235.208.230 ( talk) 02:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a little digging of comparing the two most recent polls (public policy and pew research center). I found that the Pew Research Center uses the iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2008 Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and also includes oversampling to get a more accurate findings from smaller segments of the population. The Public Policy poll used Interactive Voice Response, but they did not make any adjustments. The Pew used the word favorable, while PP used the word trust. These polls were done only 6 months apart, so their shouldn't be massive differences between them, but there is. In the Pew poll CNN has a 60% favorable (19% unfavorable) while the PP poll has them listed as 39% trustworthy (41% non-trustworthy). I know it is possible, but is highly unlikely, unless their is a specific event in between those time periods to cause the shift. Fox News also saw a significant increase of 12% in the mistrust/unfavorable. I would do more comparisons but in the Pew network news is lumped together. The Pew has numbers for MSNBC, while the PP has numbers for NBC News (which would include MSNBC), but these cannot be compared because they are not the same thing. For some reason the results from the PP have much higher mistrust than the results of the unfavorable from the Pew. There hasn't been a major event in the 6 months that would cause this discrepancy over all the news networks. Do the words trust and favorable somehow not equate to the public? The results would suggest that you can find something favorable, but have mistrust also. Does the fact that the Pew adjusted their results, while the PP didn't have an affect? -- 69.214.15.243 ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a huge event? What about everything happening in Washington? CNN's declining ratings? (Red Eye, FNC's 3 AM show, beat CNN's primetime last week.) Obama's sinking approval ratings? The health care debate which many say has dragged on for at least six months too long? How many more major events do you want? Oh, and then there's one of FNC broadcasters being responsible for two White House officials' resignations. Pew also showed that FNC had the most balanced 2008 election coverage, so it would be best not to bring that up again. PokeHomsar ( talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please Please come up with something not biased; as I showed the mistrust/unfavorable of Fox also rose. Is that the best you can come up with? I feel like I am debating a Fox News commentator (pusher). Nothing is logical, everything is completely nonsensical (just like your "debate" regarding KO's degree). It is true because they say it is true. Do you have any real intelligent discussion regarding the differences in the numbers of the polls or do you want to continue with this right wing blog debate?-- 67.36.58.10 ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The Pew for landline phones asks to speak with "the youngest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home." They do this because it is harder to get the younger generation to participate. This makes it so that the younger generation statistics are more accurate and a true representative of the population as a whole. The PP poll does not do this, so their data is going to be from an older segment of the population. Could this lead to the results not being a representative of the population as a whole?-- 67.36.58.10 ( talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It has more to do whether it should be included in the article. Continued attack? I'm just pointing out the bullshit. Should WP include any poll with considerable polarization in it because in the end the numbers don't really represent the public. -- 67.36.58.10 ( talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Very similar articles about two news organizations, however in the Fox News article, Criticism comes about mid way through, before programming and international coverage... however in the MSNBC article criticism is at nearly the very end after the exact same sections, programming and international coverage. Some standard should be agreed upon and enacted here, it looks somewhat bias if someone compares the two. BluBerries! ( talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) And actually upon further inspection, CNN and CBS News also have controversy sections at the bottom of the article, only Fox News somehow warranted it in the middle. Suggest it is moved to the bottom since a convention appears to have already been decided, just not fairly implemented. BluBerries! ( talk) 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about on BlueBerries initial comment. For the proposal I'd say, standardization in general is good. Against I'd say, the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently? All-in-all I think lean towards BlueBerries call to standardize. I also would second Murph's "Maybe you should propose a Wikiproject:Cable News Channels and some sort of Manual of Style " NickCT ( talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
TDurden1937 ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937
Can we autoflag all references to Fox News as something that needs a reliable source?
After all, just look at who their source for military aviation is...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/01/russia-build-new-strategic-bomber-says-putin/ A photograph from Wikipedia reportedly of a Sukhoi PAK FA fifth generation fighter prototype taxiing on the day of its first flight, 29 January 2010.
Hcobb ( talk) 16:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This is small change but for what it's worth: a. While a host "own's" his show, the phrase "Fox News host" rather sounds as if he's hosting a newscast which he most certainly isn't. A "commentator" may or may not "own" his own show, but, regardless, Beck's role on the show is to commentate. That's why I said "in this context" it may be the better word. b. Beck probably still does hold the same position and may continue to hold it throughout his lifetime but we don't know that from the source. What we know from the source is that on this occasion he equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism. Badmintonhist ( talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary Outfoxed be mentioned somewhere in the "Criticism and Controversies" section as well? It is only mentioned once in the article under the "Slogan" section, but is a key player in the criticism of the Fox News Corporation.
Perhaps a subsection titled "Slogan controversy" should be created under "Criticism and Controversies" to incorporate both the well-known slogan controversy and Outfoxed documentary, or perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the "Accusations of conservative bias" subsection.
This may be relevant to the separate Fox News Channel controversies article, as the Slogan controversy is not mentioned at all in that article, and the documentary is only mentioned for a single reference amid the many controversies it covers regarding Fox News.
71.198.169.120 ( talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.120 ( talk) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be no citation for the content of the second paragraph of the "Ratings and Reception" section of the article. The text of the paragraph states:
In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.
I have not been able to find an adequate reference for these statistics. I, therefore, request a "citation needed" note for this paragraph.
71.198.169.120 ( talk) 19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The criticism section on Glenn Beck and social justice mentions that Jim Wallis said that what Beck said attacks the Christian faith and Christians shouldn't listen to Glenn Beck. The reader is led to believe that the criticism by Wallis is based solely upon his faith and that politics has nothing to do with the criticism. The fact is, Wallis is a well-known liberal/progressive/left-winger. Even the liberal New York Times refers to him as "left" and "religious left." I contend that the reader needs to know the political background of the person making such a broad statement on behalf of all Christians. The use of "liberal" would be sourced to the NYT article.-- Drrll ( talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I find the section under Controversy about Glenn Beck's comments about social justice not really notable. It's just a comment he made that was criticized by two other Christians and received barely any media attention. To be frank, Beck has made much more controversial claims before that. But most importantly, I don't see what it has to do with Fox News as a channel. All of the other criticisms seem to focus on Fox in general, and the one section on Beck sticks out like a sore thumb. Joker1189 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
Media Matters is being used as a reliable source for derogatory content in this article. Just like the Media Research Center/Newsbusters, Media Matters is not a news organization, but instead fits under the category of a self-published source. From Wikipedia policy on reliable sources: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". The burden of establishing that Media Matters is an exception to this rule falls on the editors wanting to keep that content in.-- Drrll ( talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
From the self-published sources section of the reliable source policy:Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Drrll, please explain how your statements are supported by policy. Please point us to the actual language in policy you believe supports your position. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I notice that this was archived soon after I wrote it on WP:RSN, so I'll include it here as well. Given the fact that we are supposed to be putting forth an effort to make the articles in Wikipedia as neutral as possible as per WP:NPOV, and Media Matters on its own website calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", I can't see any way that MMfA could possibly qualify as "Reliable", as per WP:RS. The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV (edit: and WP:COI, upon further reflection), how can it be considered reliable? Rapier ( talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that MMfA qualify as a reliable source. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of you just keep restating the same thing. And you wonder why new editors don't want to get involved? There is no "admitted bias" that is your presumption. PrBeacon ( talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Restating for the sloppy readers: I never said they weren't biased. I'm objecting to Arzel's claim of "admitted bias." And Rapier that secondary meaning is your presumption of the term bias. A fine point, perhaps, but I think it's important not to just let that slide in this argument. Yet another editor (Niteshift) chooses to patronize rather than discuss in civil terms. Does anyone still wonder why these threads devolve so quickly? PrBeacon ( talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift, I suggest you ignore PrBeacon's further attempts to bait. He appears to now be focused only on ad hominen attacks. Arzel ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus by outside editors at RSN # Media matters (25th time asked) seems to be that MMfA can be used as a reliable source and that it is not self-published.
- Blueboar - "As an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that MMfA is a reliable source"
Yilloslime - "Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included"- KillerChihuahua - "Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources"
- Squidfryerchef - "Policy and precedent are pretty clear on this. Advocacy groups can be RS"
- Dlabtot - "when sources are in dispute, we present all of the significant conflicting viewpoints according to our NPOV policy. ... Almost daily we have folks here at RSN arguing that this or that source can't be used because it is 'biased'. It gets tiresome because it flows from a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy"
The previous RSN discussed whether to treat several partisan groups consistently : FAIR, MRC, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters. There was much support for that but also some compelling opposition. Please read those admin threads before replying here. Thanks. PrBeacon ( talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
New poll released by 60 Minutes / Vanity Fair [9] lists FoxNews in 2nd place with 29% behind CNN with 32%. I think this should be included in the final paragraph of the Ratings and reception section, along with shortening the PPP info already there, so I'm putting the idea here for reworking that paragraph. PrBeacon ( talk) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting this change to the 'Ratings and reception' section, which removed the PEW report info. The editor equates this removal with the one discussed above. They are not the same. The PEW report does not talk about the old slogan "most trusted." And I believe that Arzel should have discussed this here before making this change. PrBeacon ( talk) 04:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
First quarter 2010 television viewership ratings revealed that Fox News Channel was the second highest-rated basic cable channel, behind USA Network. The ratings also showed that the top 13 cable news shows aired on FNC. In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.
In September 2009, the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various national news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the network as "favorable", and 43% of Democrat viewers and 55% of all viewers share this opinion. However, Fox had the highest unfavorable rating of all national outlets studied at 25 percent of all viewers. The report goes on to say that "partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007".[39]. In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news network in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[41] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only network to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the network, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score. -- Drrll ( talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Drrll ( talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Roger Ailes is described as a former Republican Party Strategist. According to Ailes himself in his interview with Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge at the Hoover Institution, he was never a strategist, just a media consultant. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/85840987.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 ( talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The introduction for FoxNews needs to mention why they are controversial as a news source. I know there has been extensive discussion on this in the past- archives 21 23 25 etc... But I also see the following summary in the FAQ at the top of this talkpage:
WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
The [old] Concern, mentioned before that, no longer applies to the current lead.
So has it been watered down since then?
As it stands now the lead merely states "Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." This is a weak summary of substantial criticism. And it is then countered by Fox's rebuttal. In tandem this falsely portrays the FNC as simply another right-wing outlet and thus frames the rest of the article in such a manner. This does not accurately reflect media criticism of FNC contained within the rest of the article -- including
Fox News Channel controversies which by extension is a part of this discussion. I think the lead section should include one or two summary sentences of criticism & controversy from the body text and the
separate article. For starters the existing sentence in question could be ammended:
Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality. [11] [12]
Which is what the criticism section says already. We might also mention allegations of poor fact-checking and mixing commentary with reporting. Murdoch's son-in-law even said that he is "ashamed and sickened by [their] horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards" [13]. I present this last source for context, not as one to be used within the article. PrBeacon ( talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
".. briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias" -- much of the response above has ignored this part of LEAD or otherwise dismissed it. That would not stand up to peer review. Because substantial criticism from reliable sources (left-leaning or not) has a place in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. I don't see a past consensus on the current wording -- please provide links to specific discussions where that was reached -- and it is hardly a compromise to simply call FNC "conservative". Alhough I understand the comparisons to MSNBC I don't think that applies here, mostly because as another edited said "the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality [sic] different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently" -NickCT (arch.26). PrBeacon ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussions: See archives
21,
19,
18,
17,
16 (Includes
RfC) and
15.
Also please note: my previous posts for this thread neglected to differentiate between the two parts of the FAQ's first point: policy and consensus.
PrBeacon (
talk)
04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to the page. The lead has to discuss the controversy. If anything, the current one sentence on the controversy is too little. There are good facts that would help define the controversy and spark interest in the article. We could mention, for example, the Bush talking points, the Obama criticisms, etc. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. Leadwind ( talk) 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon asked me to contribute here, but I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been said by me and others in the archives. The usual suspects are making the same arguments over and over again and not bringing anything new in the way of fact or policy based arguments to the table. Speaking of tables, this discussion should be tabled on account of deja vu. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Three outside editors at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard # FoxNews have agreed that the lede should better reflect the extensive criticism and controversies of Fox News. Therefore I'm restoring my earlier change as noted above & adding one of the sources from the subarticle FNC controversies. - PrBeacon (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't get that same interpretation. Let them come here and discuss, rather than simply pushing your POV. Arzel ( talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
[1] <--- Should probably be mentioned in this article, seeing as their main competitor (CNN) used to claim this in their tagline for 10+ years... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 ( talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If it is included, it should also be noted that they are the most untrusted also. (In other words, don't do how Fox will report on this poll.)
The poll is basically worthless because it falls between party lines. I personally find it hard to trust a network with the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is clear that they have a conservative/Republican viewpoint. -- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This poll was done by a Public Policy Polling, a source often cited by the left as being highly reliable. It states that not only is FOXNews the highest ranking network when it comes to "trust, it is the lowest ranking when it comes to "distrust". In fact, it was the only network that scored positively in this regard. The margin of error on this poll is 2.8%, and is from a reliable source. You may not agree, but unless your opinion is backed up by fact, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on. Rapier1 ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
With any polling it can be deceptive. Here are some things that skew this poll: A large portion of the 49% favorable came from Republicans who voted 74% in their trust of Fox News. It should also be noted that only 14% considered themselves liberal compared to 39% conservative. Also, to be noted is that 63% were 46 or older. If your sample is not a true sample of the general population, then you cannot make true conclusions from it.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No the percents are not fairly close. I never made a claim about the comparision numbers between conservatives and liberals, only that the survey was not a representative of the whole, which it isn't. Lets just say that 21% of voters call themselves liberals. That is a 7% difference compared to the results in the survey, or 50% of the survey results for liberals. You are trying to tell me that a 50% is not going to skew the results. No where in the survey is an opt out question where the survey ends if they say they do not watch news.-- 99.52.157.254 ( talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Statistically speaking, if you look at the crosstabs, you can see the skewing.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
By continually reverting good-faith edits regarding this poll, you are edit-warring and in violation of WP:3RR. Please restore the last version. Rapier1 ( talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The poll is clearing biased (not done on purpose, but the participants are not representative of the whole), therefore the conclusions are worthless. And therefore, they should not be included in the article.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[2]
For reference--
76.235.200.246 (
talk)
02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
7% may not seem like that much, but it is a significant amount when "the other side" is at 40%. The percent of who people voted for is again skewed towards Republicans/Conservatives. It is like that throughout. On the surface it may not seem like a lot, but when combined it does. The fact that there is already polarization (74% of Reps trust Fox), means that little differences can have a big impact.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the page suppose to be NPOV, so why allow something that isn't, even if it is questionable.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this so important that it needs to be in the article?-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I just did an updated crosstab on my own assuming a breakout of 39% Dem, 25% Rep, and 36% Ind and get 45% favorable and 40% unfavorable with 15% unfavorable. I would be quite suprised if the real difference between D's and R's is that great.
DATA - Based on the poll percentages there were ~414 D, ~403 R, and ~403 I. My adjusted numbers are ~449 D, ~288 R, and ~414 I. So, it wouldn't really matter.
Arzel (
talk)
03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You lost me.-- 76.235.200.246 ( talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive user has been blocked, I've restored the contect regarding this poll Rapier1 ( talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about more than just the political party breakdown, but the other breakdowns also show a skew (compared to in real life) to Conservatives/Republicans. And considering the polarization that we see, it becomes significant.-- 69.209.98.241 ( talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to hear a solid argument from you. Therefore it still is non-NPOV.-- 69.209.98.241 ( talk) 03:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is one other way the results are skewed: The election results for popular vote were: Obama: 52.9% and McCain 45.7%. The survey results were Obama 47% and McCain 46%. The only way the survey results are viable is if "all" the don't remember voted for Obama. Statistically speaking, that is not very likely (also considering that McCain was a more popular vote of the elderly who would be more likely not to remember.) I explained the skew in the liberal/conservative above in a response to another user. 50% difference of the surveyed results of liberals compared to what the actual number of liberals. The last one I will go over is the skew in age. I had to search a little but I found from the census bureau the breakdown of age. According to them, 50.3% of the voting age is 46 or older, while the survey results were 63%. And if you at the age comparison for trust, you can see that these individuals have more trust in Fox News compared to the news of the other networks. Therefore, by having more of these individuals than the actual percent of the population, you are going to skew it in favor of Fox News. Now please don't imply that I am saying that previous surveys on trust of news were impartial, I'm not, I'm only saying that this survey was biased and therefore should not be included in the article.-- 99.52.157.254 ( talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
An entire section of this heavy-on-criticism article is based on work done by a highly partisan liberal smear machine. If non-scientific polls taken for the purpose of calling anyone's journalistic integrity - whether we're talking about Fox News or CNN - into question are acceptable, then those polls done by the Public Policy and TIME people must be acceptable. You can't have it both ways, people! MudskipperMarkII ( talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see above. Polls are only relevant when they represent the true portions of the population equally (or adjust the results because it wasn't a representative of the whole.) This is true no matter who is doing the polling. If you believe a poll is bias state your reason, but you better come up with more than just "liberal smear machine." -- 76.235.208.230 ( talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Where do I even come close to suggesting that? You still have said nothing to refute the statements I have made above about the bias of the poll. If you believe a poll is biased show how it is biased. You really shouldn't talk about agenda when yours is so obvious. To me the poll just shows the complete polarization regarding trust of a news organization.-- 76.235.208.230 ( talk) 02:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a little digging of comparing the two most recent polls (public policy and pew research center). I found that the Pew Research Center uses the iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2008 Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and also includes oversampling to get a more accurate findings from smaller segments of the population. The Public Policy poll used Interactive Voice Response, but they did not make any adjustments. The Pew used the word favorable, while PP used the word trust. These polls were done only 6 months apart, so their shouldn't be massive differences between them, but there is. In the Pew poll CNN has a 60% favorable (19% unfavorable) while the PP poll has them listed as 39% trustworthy (41% non-trustworthy). I know it is possible, but is highly unlikely, unless their is a specific event in between those time periods to cause the shift. Fox News also saw a significant increase of 12% in the mistrust/unfavorable. I would do more comparisons but in the Pew network news is lumped together. The Pew has numbers for MSNBC, while the PP has numbers for NBC News (which would include MSNBC), but these cannot be compared because they are not the same thing. For some reason the results from the PP have much higher mistrust than the results of the unfavorable from the Pew. There hasn't been a major event in the 6 months that would cause this discrepancy over all the news networks. Do the words trust and favorable somehow not equate to the public? The results would suggest that you can find something favorable, but have mistrust also. Does the fact that the Pew adjusted their results, while the PP didn't have an affect? -- 69.214.15.243 ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a huge event? What about everything happening in Washington? CNN's declining ratings? (Red Eye, FNC's 3 AM show, beat CNN's primetime last week.) Obama's sinking approval ratings? The health care debate which many say has dragged on for at least six months too long? How many more major events do you want? Oh, and then there's one of FNC broadcasters being responsible for two White House officials' resignations. Pew also showed that FNC had the most balanced 2008 election coverage, so it would be best not to bring that up again. PokeHomsar ( talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please Please come up with something not biased; as I showed the mistrust/unfavorable of Fox also rose. Is that the best you can come up with? I feel like I am debating a Fox News commentator (pusher). Nothing is logical, everything is completely nonsensical (just like your "debate" regarding KO's degree). It is true because they say it is true. Do you have any real intelligent discussion regarding the differences in the numbers of the polls or do you want to continue with this right wing blog debate?-- 67.36.58.10 ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The Pew for landline phones asks to speak with "the youngest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home." They do this because it is harder to get the younger generation to participate. This makes it so that the younger generation statistics are more accurate and a true representative of the population as a whole. The PP poll does not do this, so their data is going to be from an older segment of the population. Could this lead to the results not being a representative of the population as a whole?-- 67.36.58.10 ( talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It has more to do whether it should be included in the article. Continued attack? I'm just pointing out the bullshit. Should WP include any poll with considerable polarization in it because in the end the numbers don't really represent the public. -- 67.36.58.10 ( talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Very similar articles about two news organizations, however in the Fox News article, Criticism comes about mid way through, before programming and international coverage... however in the MSNBC article criticism is at nearly the very end after the exact same sections, programming and international coverage. Some standard should be agreed upon and enacted here, it looks somewhat bias if someone compares the two. BluBerries! ( talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) And actually upon further inspection, CNN and CBS News also have controversy sections at the bottom of the article, only Fox News somehow warranted it in the middle. Suggest it is moved to the bottom since a convention appears to have already been decided, just not fairly implemented. BluBerries! ( talk) 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about on BlueBerries initial comment. For the proposal I'd say, standardization in general is good. Against I'd say, the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently? All-in-all I think lean towards BlueBerries call to standardize. I also would second Murph's "Maybe you should propose a Wikiproject:Cable News Channels and some sort of Manual of Style " NickCT ( talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
TDurden1937 ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937
Can we autoflag all references to Fox News as something that needs a reliable source?
After all, just look at who their source for military aviation is...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/01/russia-build-new-strategic-bomber-says-putin/ A photograph from Wikipedia reportedly of a Sukhoi PAK FA fifth generation fighter prototype taxiing on the day of its first flight, 29 January 2010.
Hcobb ( talk) 16:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This is small change but for what it's worth: a. While a host "own's" his show, the phrase "Fox News host" rather sounds as if he's hosting a newscast which he most certainly isn't. A "commentator" may or may not "own" his own show, but, regardless, Beck's role on the show is to commentate. That's why I said "in this context" it may be the better word. b. Beck probably still does hold the same position and may continue to hold it throughout his lifetime but we don't know that from the source. What we know from the source is that on this occasion he equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism. Badmintonhist ( talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary Outfoxed be mentioned somewhere in the "Criticism and Controversies" section as well? It is only mentioned once in the article under the "Slogan" section, but is a key player in the criticism of the Fox News Corporation.
Perhaps a subsection titled "Slogan controversy" should be created under "Criticism and Controversies" to incorporate both the well-known slogan controversy and Outfoxed documentary, or perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the "Accusations of conservative bias" subsection.
This may be relevant to the separate Fox News Channel controversies article, as the Slogan controversy is not mentioned at all in that article, and the documentary is only mentioned for a single reference amid the many controversies it covers regarding Fox News.
71.198.169.120 ( talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.120 ( talk) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be no citation for the content of the second paragraph of the "Ratings and Reception" section of the article. The text of the paragraph states:
In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.
I have not been able to find an adequate reference for these statistics. I, therefore, request a "citation needed" note for this paragraph.
71.198.169.120 ( talk) 19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The criticism section on Glenn Beck and social justice mentions that Jim Wallis said that what Beck said attacks the Christian faith and Christians shouldn't listen to Glenn Beck. The reader is led to believe that the criticism by Wallis is based solely upon his faith and that politics has nothing to do with the criticism. The fact is, Wallis is a well-known liberal/progressive/left-winger. Even the liberal New York Times refers to him as "left" and "religious left." I contend that the reader needs to know the political background of the person making such a broad statement on behalf of all Christians. The use of "liberal" would be sourced to the NYT article.-- Drrll ( talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I find the section under Controversy about Glenn Beck's comments about social justice not really notable. It's just a comment he made that was criticized by two other Christians and received barely any media attention. To be frank, Beck has made much more controversial claims before that. But most importantly, I don't see what it has to do with Fox News as a channel. All of the other criticisms seem to focus on Fox in general, and the one section on Beck sticks out like a sore thumb. Joker1189 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
Media Matters is being used as a reliable source for derogatory content in this article. Just like the Media Research Center/Newsbusters, Media Matters is not a news organization, but instead fits under the category of a self-published source. From Wikipedia policy on reliable sources: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". The burden of establishing that Media Matters is an exception to this rule falls on the editors wanting to keep that content in.-- Drrll ( talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
From the self-published sources section of the reliable source policy:Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Drrll, please explain how your statements are supported by policy. Please point us to the actual language in policy you believe supports your position. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I notice that this was archived soon after I wrote it on WP:RSN, so I'll include it here as well. Given the fact that we are supposed to be putting forth an effort to make the articles in Wikipedia as neutral as possible as per WP:NPOV, and Media Matters on its own website calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", I can't see any way that MMfA could possibly qualify as "Reliable", as per WP:RS. The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV (edit: and WP:COI, upon further reflection), how can it be considered reliable? Rapier ( talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that MMfA qualify as a reliable source. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of you just keep restating the same thing. And you wonder why new editors don't want to get involved? There is no "admitted bias" that is your presumption. PrBeacon ( talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Restating for the sloppy readers: I never said they weren't biased. I'm objecting to Arzel's claim of "admitted bias." And Rapier that secondary meaning is your presumption of the term bias. A fine point, perhaps, but I think it's important not to just let that slide in this argument. Yet another editor (Niteshift) chooses to patronize rather than discuss in civil terms. Does anyone still wonder why these threads devolve so quickly? PrBeacon ( talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift, I suggest you ignore PrBeacon's further attempts to bait. He appears to now be focused only on ad hominen attacks. Arzel ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus by outside editors at RSN # Media matters (25th time asked) seems to be that MMfA can be used as a reliable source and that it is not self-published.
- Blueboar - "As an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that MMfA is a reliable source"
Yilloslime - "Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included"- KillerChihuahua - "Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources"
- Squidfryerchef - "Policy and precedent are pretty clear on this. Advocacy groups can be RS"
- Dlabtot - "when sources are in dispute, we present all of the significant conflicting viewpoints according to our NPOV policy. ... Almost daily we have folks here at RSN arguing that this or that source can't be used because it is 'biased'. It gets tiresome because it flows from a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy"
The previous RSN discussed whether to treat several partisan groups consistently : FAIR, MRC, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters. There was much support for that but also some compelling opposition. Please read those admin threads before replying here. Thanks. PrBeacon ( talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
New poll released by 60 Minutes / Vanity Fair [9] lists FoxNews in 2nd place with 29% behind CNN with 32%. I think this should be included in the final paragraph of the Ratings and reception section, along with shortening the PPP info already there, so I'm putting the idea here for reworking that paragraph. PrBeacon ( talk) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting this change to the 'Ratings and reception' section, which removed the PEW report info. The editor equates this removal with the one discussed above. They are not the same. The PEW report does not talk about the old slogan "most trusted." And I believe that Arzel should have discussed this here before making this change. PrBeacon ( talk) 04:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
First quarter 2010 television viewership ratings revealed that Fox News Channel was the second highest-rated basic cable channel, behind USA Network. The ratings also showed that the top 13 cable news shows aired on FNC. In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.
In September 2009, the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various national news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the network as "favorable", and 43% of Democrat viewers and 55% of all viewers share this opinion. However, Fox had the highest unfavorable rating of all national outlets studied at 25 percent of all viewers. The report goes on to say that "partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007".[39]. In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news network in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[41] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only network to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the network, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score. -- Drrll ( talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Drrll ( talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Roger Ailes is described as a former Republican Party Strategist. According to Ailes himself in his interview with Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge at the Hoover Institution, he was never a strategist, just a media consultant. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/85840987.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 ( talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The introduction for FoxNews needs to mention why they are controversial as a news source. I know there has been extensive discussion on this in the past- archives 21 23 25 etc... But I also see the following summary in the FAQ at the top of this talkpage:
WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
The [old] Concern, mentioned before that, no longer applies to the current lead.
So has it been watered down since then?
As it stands now the lead merely states "Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." This is a weak summary of substantial criticism. And it is then countered by Fox's rebuttal. In tandem this falsely portrays the FNC as simply another right-wing outlet and thus frames the rest of the article in such a manner. This does not accurately reflect media criticism of FNC contained within the rest of the article -- including
Fox News Channel controversies which by extension is a part of this discussion. I think the lead section should include one or two summary sentences of criticism & controversy from the body text and the
separate article. For starters the existing sentence in question could be ammended:
Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality. [11] [12]
Which is what the criticism section says already. We might also mention allegations of poor fact-checking and mixing commentary with reporting. Murdoch's son-in-law even said that he is "ashamed and sickened by [their] horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards" [13]. I present this last source for context, not as one to be used within the article. PrBeacon ( talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
".. briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias" -- much of the response above has ignored this part of LEAD or otherwise dismissed it. That would not stand up to peer review. Because substantial criticism from reliable sources (left-leaning or not) has a place in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. I don't see a past consensus on the current wording -- please provide links to specific discussions where that was reached -- and it is hardly a compromise to simply call FNC "conservative". Alhough I understand the comparisons to MSNBC I don't think that applies here, mostly because as another edited said "the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality [sic] different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently" -NickCT (arch.26). PrBeacon ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussions: See archives
21,
19,
18,
17,
16 (Includes
RfC) and
15.
Also please note: my previous posts for this thread neglected to differentiate between the two parts of the FAQ's first point: policy and consensus.
PrBeacon (
talk)
04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to the page. The lead has to discuss the controversy. If anything, the current one sentence on the controversy is too little. There are good facts that would help define the controversy and spark interest in the article. We could mention, for example, the Bush talking points, the Obama criticisms, etc. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. Leadwind ( talk) 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon asked me to contribute here, but I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been said by me and others in the archives. The usual suspects are making the same arguments over and over again and not bringing anything new in the way of fact or policy based arguments to the table. Speaking of tables, this discussion should be tabled on account of deja vu. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Three outside editors at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard # FoxNews have agreed that the lede should better reflect the extensive criticism and controversies of Fox News. Therefore I'm restoring my earlier change as noted above & adding one of the sources from the subarticle FNC controversies. - PrBeacon (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't get that same interpretation. Let them come here and discuss, rather than simply pushing your POV. Arzel ( talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)