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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The latest edits by User:Thejackhmr raises alarm bells. First is a wholesale unilateral deletion of lots of the article [1], immediately followed by a very minor edit with no edit comment (and actually introduces a grammatical error) [2] that gives the appearance of covering tracks. I'm not accusing Thejackhmr of malice or impropriety, but I find it all very disappointing given how hotly debated an article this is. Fuzheado | Talk 05:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thejackhmr
I would appreciate it if you would not use such inflamatory titles for your edits, not repeat edits which have already proved controversial and explain changes likely to be controversial. I agree that there is room for improvement here. Maybe you could try constructive edits. Tim Ivorson 07:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On an entirely different subject - I have just reverted an anonymous edit which quoted one of the internal FNC memos discussed in the bias section, as I did not think it was necessary; I linked the MediaMatters page containing the memos in question, so a curious reader can see for himself.
Also, I removed the detailed reasons behind FOX's ratings success from the opening paragraph and moved it to the relevant paragraph below. The purpose of the article is to go into detail; the purpose of the opener is to state the very basic undisputed facts. I don't think either of these changes should be especially controversial; just wanted to tell everyone so as not to be accused of unilateralism. — Dan | Talk 03:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It strikes me as quite inappropriate to cite the political activity of Greta Van Susteren's husband as evidence about her beliefs. Wives are now allowed to hold views and vote independently of their husbands. I notice that there is no corresponding discussion of the political activities of any male's spouse.
There seems to be no discussion of how FOX News is viewed outside the US - i.e. that many consider it very patriotic - that is to say, a mad raving looney right-wing neo-con propaganda tool. Mostly people who tune in consider it hilarious - just as a Canadian journalist suggested (when it was announced Canada was to get FOX News). For me, it's quite humorous until one realises that there are many who take it all entirely seriously!
The "not biased" allegation is the worst attribute - I could stomach it otherwise to some extent. In fact, this applies to US foreign policy too - people could accept it more if they weren't so adamant about "We're right, we're doing this for the greater good, we've a God-given duty".
So, to conclude - I think it's important to mention the strong feelings that this channel stirs up! Certainly the whole incident with that Canadian guy and the ensuing hate-mail from FOX News viewers should be mentioned.
I'm not putting in anything myself into the article though - because I realise this is probably extremely contentious. In fact, there's probably many who find my above comments appalling. Still, you've got to face reality!
zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A Swedish right leaning paper ( Expressen actually) recently called FOX News "the most biased news source in the west". // Liftarn
I have just reverted a few edits which I feel introduced unnecessary POV into the article. The first ( diff) connected two paragraphs to make an extremely long paragraph - bad form, even without the POV - but the transition line was "Meanwhile, critics contend that FOX has a conservative bias. Critics whose claims, on November 1, 2003, were undeniably supported by a report in the Los Angeles Times that quoted Charlie Reina..." That FOX "undeniably" carries a bias is not for an encyclopedia article to judge.
The second edit ( diff) cast doubt, without a source, on the legitimacy of the liberal FOX anchors. These claims should certainly go under "allegations of bias" and not in the section about personalities, if, indeed, they merit inclusion at all. I don't think they do unless they generate sufficient controversy to be reported by a mainstream news source. — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Egad, now there's another one which an anon has restored after I removed it once ( diff). I don't want to get into an edit war, but to say, without qualification, that FOX News presents a right-wing viewpoint, and call it neutral, is absurd. The fact is that they have been accused of bias. It is not for us to make a value judgement on a channel. Despite my beliefs, I would never write "It is noted for putting liberal spin on the news" in the CNN article; I would instead document accusations of bias. Consequently I'm going to revert it again. — Dan | Talk 12:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A recent edit of the article was called "Personalities - So...Chris Wallace has a main job at Fox News which means he is automatically "conservative?" quickly glance his bio no affiliations with a political party...." I don't think that being a conservative necessarily means supporting a conseRvative party. Tim Ivorson 17:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BJAODN material, for sure. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am removing this from the summary. There is no equivalent in any other media outlet section. The fact that this has been allowed to stand is fairly alarming.
For example, take this report: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
Fox scores a 39.7 whereas CBS Evening News scores a more extreme 73.7. (Note that a centrist voter was rated at 54)
The study isn't perfect but it at least gives us a more deterministic way of defining bias.
Finally, by the Wikipedia community's own admission, the Washington Times is similar in ideology to Fox News yet its summary section doesn't have this veiled attack. Fox has been singled out and has been held to a different standard than other news outlets on Wikipedia.
TO:NcShu
"What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant."
Why is it not relevant? Facts and statements on other Wikipedia pages would seem to be relevant, after all, most pages have links connecting to other pages. What is someone to think if he reads something on one article and follows a link to find the exact opposite stated in another article.
It is almost certainly desirable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be as consistent as possible across its articles.
The above quote does not seem right to me.
"The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias"
When you say "almost all broad criticism" ... from what population are you sampling? I cited a scientific paper which defined a measure for bias. This is a more superior source than the others cited according to Wikipedia's rules.
I'm removing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 ( talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
To DockU:
Appreciate the reference .. but nothing in the link you provided seems to apply.
"you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" I'm not talking about articles that do and don't exist. I'm talking about an inconsistency between two or more articles which needs to be fixed. My contention is NOT that the WS Times or CBS news articles need to be fixed, it is that THIS ONE DOES.
"'there are lots of other bad articles' is also common" All of the articles mentioned are fairly updated. My contention is NOT due to the lack of updates of certain articles. It IS due to an apparent slant in the writing of the articles and we are trying to correct it.
I encourage anyone to come up with or reference some kind of reasonable systematic analysis of news sites that shows fox news is slanted more to the right than the major networks are slanted to the left. I have provided one above which refutes this.
If I added an equivalent statement to CBS News it would be deleted because the liberals think CBS is not biased. However, I also agree that it does not belong there but for a different reason: that such criticisms don't belong in the summary section of ANY of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 ( talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy implies some type of cooperation among the actors. I don't claim this. The liberal bias found on Wikipedia is merely by accident, though it is clearly apparent. The people who tend to read/post to Wikipedia are probably more from academic circles (I would bet) and therefore are more liberal.
The criticisms section of this article is much larger than others (due to the aforementioned bias). However, I agree that the large amount of this article that is devoted to criticism is consistent with having a few sentences in the summary.
You guys would do well to update the criticisms section (since I am apparently not allowed to). McClellan has since admitted that he lied about his statements regarding the talking points. 68.198.48.12 ( talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Its not fair to start the Criticisms so close to the beginning of the article, especially when CNN is towards the bottom of their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 Apr 2008
God man, sign your posts and read the above discussion. What do you think we're debating about? TheNobleSith ( talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
'Just a note - conservative and right-wing/Republicanism are NOT the same. There are conservative Democrats (blue dogs) and conservative Republicans, just as there are moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans. Thus, Conservative and Right-Wing are not exactly synonomous. '
Based on recent discussion, I'd like to add the following to the FAQ. Please advise.
The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal, shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well. No. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories. Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies. Please review the lead again. The introduction takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. It's only point is to highlight that a notable controversy concerning the network is that it has a perception of promoting conservative positions. The lead takes no position on whether such a perception is in fact accurate; to do so would violate WP:NPOV.
Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The second part seems solid. Urzatron ( talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To Bytebear-- I don't see the "biting", perhaps you can point out specifically what the problem is. These are proposals, so I didn't do a spell or grammar check before posting. I just wanted to know what people thought of the idea. All grammatical and style suggestions are greatly appreciated. To Urzation-- The point of the first sentence is to respond to users who want the "some say x, others say y, and some even say z" formulation that editors often want in the lead. As AuburnPilot has noted, it has come up from time to time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories.
I've added it to the FAQ, as there did not seem to be any objection. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:05, 23 April 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The latest edits by User:Thejackhmr raises alarm bells. First is a wholesale unilateral deletion of lots of the article [1], immediately followed by a very minor edit with no edit comment (and actually introduces a grammatical error) [2] that gives the appearance of covering tracks. I'm not accusing Thejackhmr of malice or impropriety, but I find it all very disappointing given how hotly debated an article this is. Fuzheado | Talk 05:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thejackhmr
I would appreciate it if you would not use such inflamatory titles for your edits, not repeat edits which have already proved controversial and explain changes likely to be controversial. I agree that there is room for improvement here. Maybe you could try constructive edits. Tim Ivorson 07:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On an entirely different subject - I have just reverted an anonymous edit which quoted one of the internal FNC memos discussed in the bias section, as I did not think it was necessary; I linked the MediaMatters page containing the memos in question, so a curious reader can see for himself.
Also, I removed the detailed reasons behind FOX's ratings success from the opening paragraph and moved it to the relevant paragraph below. The purpose of the article is to go into detail; the purpose of the opener is to state the very basic undisputed facts. I don't think either of these changes should be especially controversial; just wanted to tell everyone so as not to be accused of unilateralism. — Dan | Talk 03:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It strikes me as quite inappropriate to cite the political activity of Greta Van Susteren's husband as evidence about her beliefs. Wives are now allowed to hold views and vote independently of their husbands. I notice that there is no corresponding discussion of the political activities of any male's spouse.
There seems to be no discussion of how FOX News is viewed outside the US - i.e. that many consider it very patriotic - that is to say, a mad raving looney right-wing neo-con propaganda tool. Mostly people who tune in consider it hilarious - just as a Canadian journalist suggested (when it was announced Canada was to get FOX News). For me, it's quite humorous until one realises that there are many who take it all entirely seriously!
The "not biased" allegation is the worst attribute - I could stomach it otherwise to some extent. In fact, this applies to US foreign policy too - people could accept it more if they weren't so adamant about "We're right, we're doing this for the greater good, we've a God-given duty".
So, to conclude - I think it's important to mention the strong feelings that this channel stirs up! Certainly the whole incident with that Canadian guy and the ensuing hate-mail from FOX News viewers should be mentioned.
I'm not putting in anything myself into the article though - because I realise this is probably extremely contentious. In fact, there's probably many who find my above comments appalling. Still, you've got to face reality!
zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A Swedish right leaning paper ( Expressen actually) recently called FOX News "the most biased news source in the west". // Liftarn
I have just reverted a few edits which I feel introduced unnecessary POV into the article. The first ( diff) connected two paragraphs to make an extremely long paragraph - bad form, even without the POV - but the transition line was "Meanwhile, critics contend that FOX has a conservative bias. Critics whose claims, on November 1, 2003, were undeniably supported by a report in the Los Angeles Times that quoted Charlie Reina..." That FOX "undeniably" carries a bias is not for an encyclopedia article to judge.
The second edit ( diff) cast doubt, without a source, on the legitimacy of the liberal FOX anchors. These claims should certainly go under "allegations of bias" and not in the section about personalities, if, indeed, they merit inclusion at all. I don't think they do unless they generate sufficient controversy to be reported by a mainstream news source. — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Egad, now there's another one which an anon has restored after I removed it once ( diff). I don't want to get into an edit war, but to say, without qualification, that FOX News presents a right-wing viewpoint, and call it neutral, is absurd. The fact is that they have been accused of bias. It is not for us to make a value judgement on a channel. Despite my beliefs, I would never write "It is noted for putting liberal spin on the news" in the CNN article; I would instead document accusations of bias. Consequently I'm going to revert it again. — Dan | Talk 12:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A recent edit of the article was called "Personalities - So...Chris Wallace has a main job at Fox News which means he is automatically "conservative?" quickly glance his bio no affiliations with a political party...." I don't think that being a conservative necessarily means supporting a conseRvative party. Tim Ivorson 17:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BJAODN material, for sure. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am removing this from the summary. There is no equivalent in any other media outlet section. The fact that this has been allowed to stand is fairly alarming.
For example, take this report: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
Fox scores a 39.7 whereas CBS Evening News scores a more extreme 73.7. (Note that a centrist voter was rated at 54)
The study isn't perfect but it at least gives us a more deterministic way of defining bias.
Finally, by the Wikipedia community's own admission, the Washington Times is similar in ideology to Fox News yet its summary section doesn't have this veiled attack. Fox has been singled out and has been held to a different standard than other news outlets on Wikipedia.
TO:NcShu
"What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant."
Why is it not relevant? Facts and statements on other Wikipedia pages would seem to be relevant, after all, most pages have links connecting to other pages. What is someone to think if he reads something on one article and follows a link to find the exact opposite stated in another article.
It is almost certainly desirable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be as consistent as possible across its articles.
The above quote does not seem right to me.
"The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias"
When you say "almost all broad criticism" ... from what population are you sampling? I cited a scientific paper which defined a measure for bias. This is a more superior source than the others cited according to Wikipedia's rules.
I'm removing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 ( talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
To DockU:
Appreciate the reference .. but nothing in the link you provided seems to apply.
"you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" I'm not talking about articles that do and don't exist. I'm talking about an inconsistency between two or more articles which needs to be fixed. My contention is NOT that the WS Times or CBS news articles need to be fixed, it is that THIS ONE DOES.
"'there are lots of other bad articles' is also common" All of the articles mentioned are fairly updated. My contention is NOT due to the lack of updates of certain articles. It IS due to an apparent slant in the writing of the articles and we are trying to correct it.
I encourage anyone to come up with or reference some kind of reasonable systematic analysis of news sites that shows fox news is slanted more to the right than the major networks are slanted to the left. I have provided one above which refutes this.
If I added an equivalent statement to CBS News it would be deleted because the liberals think CBS is not biased. However, I also agree that it does not belong there but for a different reason: that such criticisms don't belong in the summary section of ANY of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 ( talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy implies some type of cooperation among the actors. I don't claim this. The liberal bias found on Wikipedia is merely by accident, though it is clearly apparent. The people who tend to read/post to Wikipedia are probably more from academic circles (I would bet) and therefore are more liberal.
The criticisms section of this article is much larger than others (due to the aforementioned bias). However, I agree that the large amount of this article that is devoted to criticism is consistent with having a few sentences in the summary.
You guys would do well to update the criticisms section (since I am apparently not allowed to). McClellan has since admitted that he lied about his statements regarding the talking points. 68.198.48.12 ( talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Its not fair to start the Criticisms so close to the beginning of the article, especially when CNN is towards the bottom of their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 Apr 2008
God man, sign your posts and read the above discussion. What do you think we're debating about? TheNobleSith ( talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
'Just a note - conservative and right-wing/Republicanism are NOT the same. There are conservative Democrats (blue dogs) and conservative Republicans, just as there are moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans. Thus, Conservative and Right-Wing are not exactly synonomous. '
Based on recent discussion, I'd like to add the following to the FAQ. Please advise.
The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal, shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well. No. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories. Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies. Please review the lead again. The introduction takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. It's only point is to highlight that a notable controversy concerning the network is that it has a perception of promoting conservative positions. The lead takes no position on whether such a perception is in fact accurate; to do so would violate WP:NPOV.
Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The second part seems solid. Urzatron ( talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To Bytebear-- I don't see the "biting", perhaps you can point out specifically what the problem is. These are proposals, so I didn't do a spell or grammar check before posting. I just wanted to know what people thought of the idea. All grammatical and style suggestions are greatly appreciated. To Urzation-- The point of the first sentence is to respond to users who want the "some say x, others say y, and some even say z" formulation that editors often want in the lead. As AuburnPilot has noted, it has come up from time to time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories.
I've added it to the FAQ, as there did not seem to be any objection. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)