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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
ET | Format [1] | Program | Host(s) | Location | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6a-9a | Opinion | Fox and Friends | Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade | Studio E, NY | The channel's morning editorial program (HD) |
9a-11a | News | America's Newsroom | Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum | Studio J, NY | A daily look at what's making news and Politics. (HD) |
11a-1p | News | Happening Now | Jon Scott and Jenna Lee | Studio E, NY | A daily look at Breaking News in the world. (HD) |
1p-3p | Opinion | America Live with Megyn Kelly | Megyn Kelly | Studio J, NY | A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD) |
3p-4p | News | Studio B | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD) |
4p-5p | Opinion | Your World with Neil Cavuto | Neil Cavuto | Studio E, NY | Business Program. (HD) |
5p-6p | Opinion | Glenn Beck | Glenn Beck | Studio D, NY | Political opinion program. (HD) |
6p-7p | News and Opinion | Special Report with Bret Baier | Bret Baier | Washington | American politics and world news followed by political opinions from DC. (HD) |
7p-8p | News | Fox Report | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | The channel's evening newscast. (HD) |
8p-9p | Opinion | O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | New York | Political opinion program. (HD) |
9p-10p | Opinion | Hannity | Sean Hannity | Studio J, NY | A nightly editorial program. (HD) |
10p-11p | Opinion | On the Record | Greta Van Susteren | Washington/NY | Nightly editorial program. (HD) |
3a-4a | Opinion | Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld | Greg Gutfeld | Studio E, NY | Nightly talk variety program. (HD) |
As of October, America's Newsroom moved to Studio H and America Live with Megyn Kelly moved to Studio A, temporarily, as the FOX News Channel prepares the set for the America's Election HQ Studio (in Studio J) for Election Night on November 2, 2010
Thefoxfanatic ( talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In an OP-ED Kurtz, with the Washington Post said some (unnamed) survery said that 7 of 10 journalists thought FNC to be conservatively biased. This is probably true since 8 of 10 journalists are Democrats(per the Pew Excelence in Journalism studies). However, we cannot make a statement of fact that 7 of 10 journalists think this or that based on the second-hand claim of Kurtz. Just because Kurtz does shoddy journalism doesn't mean it should make it's way here as a factual statement. If he can't identify the survery then it is probably not notable. Arzel ( talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't debate the adjective many. [1] Instead, find out which prominent people say that Fox News is a propaganda organ of the Republican Party, and attribute the statement to them. Jehochman Talk 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree names other than Media Matters who exists to attack Fox News or competitors to Fox Nes. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If you check the main page footnotes 47-49 which are used on the fox Bias claim. 1 is from the Democratic party, the seconfd from Media Matters and the third from FAIR the last two are extreme left leaning groups. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please include President Obama's recent (2010) comments regarding FOX NEWS.
24.136.149.20 ( talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
In response to a citation request for "Following this, a senior Obama adviser told U.S. News that the White House would never get a fair shake from Fox News.", under the heading: Obama administration conflict with Fox News, I am submitting this as the source:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/10/23/fox-pushed-team-obama-over-the-brink.html
I apologize if this has already been submitted, as I was unable to find any historical discussion on the issue. Darren Means ( talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the source isn't peer reviewed. But it could be useful to put it in the News Corp article. But just because it talks about Fox News doesn't mean it applies to Fox News.
Manticore55 (
talk)
19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
Surveys of people's opinion of Fox news are very different from reputable analyses of program content. Inclusion of a citation from Pew Research Center about the bias exhibited in 2008 election coverage at
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 would provide a reputable balance to popular opinion. Please append the following to the section labelled "Assertions of conservative bias"
A 2008 Pew Research Center study
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 shows positive versus negative coverage tone of Obama and McCain between MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and the media overall. Fox News had the most consistent coverage tone between Obama and McCain (0-12% variation for Fox versus 49-62% variation for media overall and more extreme for CNN and MSNBC).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuberman ( talk • contribs)
Note: I've detranscluded the {{ edit semi-protected}} template now that discussion is taking place. -- Stickee (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" organization. Using them as a source to claim Fox News is misrepresenting the facts is the same as using Fox News to claim CNN or NPR is misrepresting the facts and is a violation of the NPOV. I think that section should be edited to remove media matters and use a valid, objective source instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.60.43 ( talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the opriginal poster Media Matters has no credbility, they are funded by George Soros and it's only purpose is to attack conservative media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the phrase that Fox News uses, "America's Election Headquarters," be put in the section of Fox News's slogans? Is it a slogan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 ( talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is notable? NickCT ( talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness, Paul Krugman is a well-respected and highly regarded economist. Were this an issue of economics, I would advocate inclusion. This, however, has to do with politics, and is thus just another voice in a sea of opinion. Soxwon ( talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What is probably most notable is the number of possible candidates that do not currently hold office. If you don't hold office, you have to do something to keep your name in the news. In the 2008 election, all of the major Democratic candidates were senators and therefore unable to hold paid outside positions. I can't think of a single major candidate from either side that wasn't a govenor, senator, or representative in 2008. In 2010 you probably won't have any Democratic candidates to worry about besides Obama, and the only other possible challengers to Obama are already serving or working for him, so the "balance" in relation to the 2010 election is not relevant. Arzel ( talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The attacks on the Krugman column as opinion, and therefore irrelevant, are completely misguided. Krugman wasn't offering an opinion; he was stating an objective fact, and then offering opinions about it. If the Krugman column were all we had, it would be adequate sourcing for the underlying fact.
But, of course, the Krugman column isn't all we have. Krugman expressly credited his source, Politico (whose President and CEO, incidentally, is a former assistant to that well-known Bolshevik, Ronald Reagan). Let's focus on this article in Politico, which establishes the fact -- Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum are all prospective Republican candidates and are all on the Fox News payroll. The article goes on to point out some of the issues raised as a result. Of greatest relevant to our article is that Fox is providing four right-wingers with "a lucrative and powerful pulpit". Politico states:
Their Fox jobs allow these politicians an opportunity to send conservative activists a mostly unfiltered message in what is almost always a friendly environment. Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party.
In addition to what the situation says about FNC's overall right-wing bias (Krugman: "Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan"), the Politico article refers to the issues of the disadvantaging of other Republican candidates and the problem of Fox News reporters who must cover their co-employees.
This is an unprecedented situation that certainly deserves mention. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion is not necessarily whether the prospective candidates have announced. Names are listed at United States presidential election, 2012 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 if they've been discussed in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old. - PrBeacon (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We have another observation about the Republican politicians on the Fox payroll.
The previous discussion was sidetracked by a false concern about WP:CRYSTAL, triggered by the observation that the four Republican politicians who are Fox hirelings are all prospective presidential candidates. I don't think it's at all within the purview of that policy; it's not crystal-ball-gazing to say that Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and Santorum are all currently being discussed in the media as presidential prospects.
Still, I call this a distraction because it's not the most important aspect for the article about Fox News. Forget everything you've already read about the race for the White House in 2012. Pretend for the sake of the argument that we have absolutely no idea who might be on the Republican ticket in 2012. It could just as easily be Charles Manson. Fine. What we do know, and what's important for the FNC article, is this: Fox News has four former national politicians on its payroll and all four of them are Republicans. That fact is highly relevant for readers who want to determine whether Fox News has a right-wing bias. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A lot of criticsm comes from Media Matters and to describe it as a media watch dog group is wrong. It excists to attack conservative media. We should change description to progressive advocacy group. Basil rock ( talk) 13:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, we had this discussion before, but that was with both sections. I would like to narrow this down a bit. I think that the White House talking points section should not be in the article b/c it mainly consists of a man promoting his book through controversy (the Hardball transcript) and then an HP piece about O'Reilly's reaction. There seems to be no wide coverage of this event, or even major coverage when it happened. A g-news search reveals little about the talking points, save for blogger and HP pieces. I for one, would like more than a Hardball Transcript for a book promotion, HP, and blogs for an entire section of the article (I could possbily see a statement where he accused them, but that's about it). Soxwon ( talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
While I understand that there is a "Controversies" section already set up in this article, there appears to be a phenomenon appearing in which FNC (usually quoted as "FOX News") is publicly attacked (hereby referred to as 'Comments' in the interest of neutral tone) by many public figures and sources, some of which are quite reputable.
I find this widespread and unique enough to deserve a section of it's own, or even just a mention. If sources are required I believe I can hunt them down but I'm not very good at that.
The 'comments' are unique in that:
(1) A meaningful amount of comments are personally against FOX.
(2) A meaningful amount of comments seem to be negative referendums of FOX with no elaboration of any kind (made-up example: "FOX News is Bad!")
(3) The above types of statements are made by public, noteworthy, and sometimes powerful people/entities.
(4) Certain comments seem to have become de facto axioms to some public groups ("FOX News is Racist." Anecdotal, but can probably find polls. If not, ignore)
(5) A similar multitude of comments (1) and (2) do not seem to exist with other high-rated News Organizations, not even close to.
(6) (Possibly a stretch) FOX News could be construed as the most - but at least considered one of the most - watched News Organizations based on viewership. Also, FOX News is regarded as near-equal to other powerful News Organizations in terms of reliability/likability. This makes the entire event less explicable and, therefore, more noteworthy (as opposed to same events occuring against a small, fringe -madeup- News Organization like "Fascist News Channel" or "Communist News Network").
Agreement? Contention? Maybe someone who knows what I'm trying to say and can throw in some great sources so I don't have to do my own dirty work? I'd like to get a dialogue rolling on this.
Bullercruz1 (
talk)
06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
For the last time, Media Matters for America and Huffington Post are reliable sources that can be used. It is preferable, however, to use other sources due to the weight issues surrounding MMFA and HP. I personally feel they are not enough in and of themselves when discussing political issues. Soxwon ( talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe you are confusing honest criticism and/or stating of grievances with violence. In the latter the one who has had violence done to them is clearly a victim. In the former the one being spoken of is spoken of in the matter they are precisely because they are perceived as an aggressor (or otherwise unethical). So in a way these things are actually opposite. It's kind of like you're calling a tattle-tale a bully. Which begs the question: if you had to side with one or the other, which would you side with? A bit alarming, if you ask me. Kevin Baas talk 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that FOX makes a pretty clear distinction of Opinion shows and Hard News shows, such distinctions are even placed on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article says on the Assertions of Conservative Bias section that, “A Pew Research poll released on October 29, 2009, found that Fox News is viewed as the most ideological channel in America. 47% of those surveyed said Fox News is 'mostly conservative,' 14% said 'mostly liberal,' and 24% said "neither." In comparison, MSNBC had 36% identify it as 'mostly liberal,' 11% as 'mostly conservative,' and 27% as 'neither.' CNN had 37% describe it as 'mostly liberal,' 11% as 'mostly conservative,' and 33% as 'neither.'" Apparently, MSNBC is seen by Americans as the least ideological 24-hour news cable channel in America. If you read Wikipedia's article on MSNBC, you'll notice that on several places of the article and their sources related to the matter of MSNBC’s new slogan, they say that “following several years in which many observers noted a politically leftward shift in the channel's programming, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressive identity in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline 'Lean Forward.'" I'd like to ask, what progressive identity..., if Americans supposedly view MSNBC as the least ideological of 3 cable outlets in America? Also, is it possible that today MSNBC would be considered by Americans as at least the the second most ideological network in America’s mind thanks to its new slogan, and not only that but other things like Keith Olbermann’s suspension and the addition of Lawrence O ‘Donnell in its primetime lineup? My questions does have to do with constructive crticism of the article. One has to keep in mind the recent changes that has happened on MSNBC and it could be possible that the public’s opinion about cable TV has changed drastically because of them. Many in the media recently (even the New York Times has) has accused MSNBC of having a liberal bias. Willminator ( talk) 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not cleared to edit the FNC wiki, but I did notice that Sean Hannity's studio is listed as studio J, that is incorrect. Sean Hannity moved this fall to Studio G, which is typically used by FBN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Also Happening Now is listed as "Studio E", which is also incorrect, Happening Now is streamed from the Newsroom, sometimes referred to as "Studio N".
Bret Baier's Washington Studio is also referred to as Studio 1.
O'Reilly is produced in Studio A.
Greta is primarily in Studio 1 (Washington) but is sometimes in Studio H (New York) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
While I have been learning Wikipolicies for some time, this is the first I've learned of this particular policy, and I definitely think it applies to this particular article, PARTICULARLY the bit about STONE WALLING. Every article, every anti Fox News post made here is shifted with one defense after another to the point of absurdity.
Fox News *IS* biased. It *IS* directly allied with the Republican party. It *DOES* lie on a regular basis to the point that simply saying that it is 'Biased' is absurd. It goes far beyond that. Repeated calls for peer reviewed content are met with calls that the sponsors of the research are liberal. Anything from a partisan group attacking them is called partisan but you can't CALL THEM partisan just because they don't use the words, "Official arm of the Republican Party" in their website even when in all practice they are.
I call violation of WP: GAMING, in the extreme. Tacitus2010 ( talk) 23:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've not noticed that there has been a latent edit war as of late regarding the content of that survey. I don't want to quibble about each word used in the description, but it needs to be somewhat accurately reflect what the survey was about. The survey clearly states that it is about misinformation and it also explains what it considers "false" and "correct" information in this context. So no matter how exactly you want to phrase that, you cannot simply state it was a survey of beliefs and fox viewers turned out to have the following believes, such a description would be an utter misrepresentation of the survey and a violation of WP policy.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved
this content to the main article:
Fox News Channel controversies. This article's criticism section is intended to be a
WP:SS of FNC controversies, not a place for new additions. You might want to move the discussion there, and maybe shift this discussion towards whether the study is notable enough for this article.
†TE†
Talk
18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A study of misinformation raises the somewhat delicate question of what is true. When dealing with topics that have been highly politicized, it is common to default to the position that all perceptions are relative and treatment of any position as more or less true is itself inherently political. We believe that such a position is at odds with what is necessary for well-functioning democracy. It is indeed very important for a healthy democratic process to be open to a wide range of positions. At the same time, it is essential that there be means and institutions for achieving consensus about key factors that ultimately affect public policy decisions. On a regular basis government economists come to conclusions about the state of the economy. Such conclusions influence key decisions in the private sphere, as well as government decisions. Such government economists should be, and generally are, open to input from experts outside of government in the course of coming to conclusions. In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion. In most cases we inquired about respondents’ views of expert opinion, as well as the respondents’ own views. While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as ‘misinformed.’ It should also be noted that queries about expert opinion were not predicated on the idea that there is unanimity on issues. On some issues, such as climate change, there is a vocal dissenting minority among experts. Thus questions were framed in terms of whether, among experts, more had one or another view, or views were evenly divided.
Kevin Baas talk 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The guy in this video takes a hard look at the study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ PokeHomsar ( talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that its called "Fox News" but I think its status as a legitimate "news source" has been called into question by legitimate and balanced sources. Perhaps the wiki article should call it a "political channel" or "conservative talk" channel rather than a "news channel". 66.245.123.136 ( talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
A google search of the top ten pages reveals for "Fox News"
On the first page most Fox News, the Wiki Article itself and other news stations copying fox articles.
The second page shows 'partisian' sites showing how fox news is biased....(3) The rest are fox news articles or Fox news sites.
The third page has this article which is interesting. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News And also has this mention of a wired article talking about the most shameful spin of wiki articles...probably still going on.
The rest of the third page are fox sites.
The fourth page has fox news forwarded articles, 2 anti fox links and Fox or Fox affiliate sites.
On the fifth page we see fox affiliate links, two 'partisan' anti fox links, and an aggregation news article (associated content which is apparently banned to be linked by wikipedia) which is neither positive or negative.
On the sixth page we have fox affiliate links http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=F7oHTeTwJYe8sAOkr_zgDg&start=50&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91
On the seventh page we have 1 'partisan' anti fox link, fox affiliate links and fox forwarded articles.
On the eighth page we have fox affiliates
On the ninth page we have one profox news aggregator http://www.mediaite.com/tag/fox-news/
A snopes article about something that isn't even true.
This Salon article showing outrageous fox behavior. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama
This news week editorial against Fox News.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/17/the-o-garbage-factor.html
And fox affiliate sites.
On the tenth page we have 2 sites dedicated to attacking fox, oh and this article indicating how Apple will be boycotting Fox because of their behavior. http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/29/apple-boycotts-fox-news-because-of-glenn-beck/
On a tech blog no less.
So a totally random sampling of fox sites shows, when removing sites that are simple fox itself or forward articles from fox, numerous anti fox sites that are 'partisan' one of which points out this very talk page as being riddled with Fox news supporters, and 3-4 'reliable' sources flat out saying Fox's behavior is outrageous.
And NONE...we're not even talking about partisan conservative sources...say that Fox is a reliable news source or that it doesn't act in a partisan fashion.
Can we stop the joke now that is the defense of this article?
No? OK then. Tacitus2010 ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
14 December 2010 (UTC)
And here is an actual academic journal:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
Fox news is Propaganda. Period. Tacitus2010 ( talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a confusion of terms here, news and propaganda are not a contradiction. It is correct that "quality news" and the "journalistic ethos" attempt to achieve accurate somewhat unbiased reporting and to stay away from propaganda, however that doesn't mean that news providers worldwide always adhere to those those principles. All the news media in totalitarian or semi totalitarian countries has always been propaganda and often questionable regarding accuracy and facts, so in the big picture fox is nothing special there. The only thing that makes Fox stand out somewhat is, that in post WWII democratic societies we might not have been used to such open and shameless propaganda news by mainstream news media. In other words Fox seems to be the first (in the US) main stream tv news channel that turned itself voluntarily into a propaganda channel with little regard for the "journalistic ethos", but if you look at the bigger picture and consider Chinese or Russian TV news than fox is hardly special at all and still as much "news" as those are. Or to make a long story short you simply cannot equate news media with quality journalism, they are 2 different things and fox is the former but not the latter.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is biased to call FoX News Channel "GOP Pravda", "FoX Newspeak Channel", or "The Propaganda Channel" (as I have done in contexts in which neutrality is not assumed).
As a harsh critic of FoX News I admit that FoX News is deadly-serious in its presentation, has lesser 'fluff' (like stories on 'fashion' and 'entertainment' as CNN has. But that said, it offers little news and much analysis. Analysis sounds noble, but not when it is one-sided assertion of the merits of 'conservative' politicians and ideology and scathing criticism of anyone or anything liberal. The analysis of news has a parallel in CBN News on The 700 Club, except that the analysis on The 700 Club leads to an endorsement of some religious position. Pbrower2a ( talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This sounds extremely awkward. Better to use a synonym like "contend" or "claim"?
Senior Trend ( talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Down in the controversies section we see this:
"Many observers of the channel have asserted that it has a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party. Fox News has publicly denied such assertions.[45] Critics and other observers[46][47][48] have asserted that Fox News has a bias towards the political right at the expense of neutrality.[46][49]"
The first and third sentences mean virtually the same thing and make this introduction repetitive and cumbersome. I propose just replacing the first sentence with
"Many critics and observers[46][47][48] of the channel have asserted that Fox News has a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party at the expense of neutrality.[46][49]"
And then deleting the third altogether. That should eliminate the absurd repetition while keeping the valuable sources added by the third sentence. Furthermore, I'd also question the necessity of the "at the expense of neutrality," bit, as bias in favor of something inherently implies that it's at the expense of neutrality, but that's far less of an issue. Antsache ( talk) 02:44, 16 January 2011 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
ET | Format [1] | Program | Host(s) | Location | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6a-9a | Opinion | Fox and Friends | Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade | Studio E, NY | The channel's morning editorial program (HD) |
9a-11a | News | America's Newsroom | Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum | Studio J, NY | A daily look at what's making news and Politics. (HD) |
11a-1p | News | Happening Now | Jon Scott and Jenna Lee | Studio E, NY | A daily look at Breaking News in the world. (HD) |
1p-3p | Opinion | America Live with Megyn Kelly | Megyn Kelly | Studio J, NY | A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD) |
3p-4p | News | Studio B | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD) |
4p-5p | Opinion | Your World with Neil Cavuto | Neil Cavuto | Studio E, NY | Business Program. (HD) |
5p-6p | Opinion | Glenn Beck | Glenn Beck | Studio D, NY | Political opinion program. (HD) |
6p-7p | News and Opinion | Special Report with Bret Baier | Bret Baier | Washington | American politics and world news followed by political opinions from DC. (HD) |
7p-8p | News | Fox Report | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | The channel's evening newscast. (HD) |
8p-9p | Opinion | O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | New York | Political opinion program. (HD) |
9p-10p | Opinion | Hannity | Sean Hannity | Studio J, NY | A nightly editorial program. (HD) |
10p-11p | Opinion | On the Record | Greta Van Susteren | Washington/NY | Nightly editorial program. (HD) |
3a-4a | Opinion | Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld | Greg Gutfeld | Studio E, NY | Nightly talk variety program. (HD) |
As of October, America's Newsroom moved to Studio H and America Live with Megyn Kelly moved to Studio A, temporarily, as the FOX News Channel prepares the set for the America's Election HQ Studio (in Studio J) for Election Night on November 2, 2010
Thefoxfanatic ( talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In an OP-ED Kurtz, with the Washington Post said some (unnamed) survery said that 7 of 10 journalists thought FNC to be conservatively biased. This is probably true since 8 of 10 journalists are Democrats(per the Pew Excelence in Journalism studies). However, we cannot make a statement of fact that 7 of 10 journalists think this or that based on the second-hand claim of Kurtz. Just because Kurtz does shoddy journalism doesn't mean it should make it's way here as a factual statement. If he can't identify the survery then it is probably not notable. Arzel ( talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't debate the adjective many. [1] Instead, find out which prominent people say that Fox News is a propaganda organ of the Republican Party, and attribute the statement to them. Jehochman Talk 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree names other than Media Matters who exists to attack Fox News or competitors to Fox Nes. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If you check the main page footnotes 47-49 which are used on the fox Bias claim. 1 is from the Democratic party, the seconfd from Media Matters and the third from FAIR the last two are extreme left leaning groups. Nbaka is a joke ( talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please include President Obama's recent (2010) comments regarding FOX NEWS.
24.136.149.20 ( talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
In response to a citation request for "Following this, a senior Obama adviser told U.S. News that the White House would never get a fair shake from Fox News.", under the heading: Obama administration conflict with Fox News, I am submitting this as the source:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/10/23/fox-pushed-team-obama-over-the-brink.html
I apologize if this has already been submitted, as I was unable to find any historical discussion on the issue. Darren Means ( talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the source isn't peer reviewed. But it could be useful to put it in the News Corp article. But just because it talks about Fox News doesn't mean it applies to Fox News.
Manticore55 (
talk)
19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
Surveys of people's opinion of Fox news are very different from reputable analyses of program content. Inclusion of a citation from Pew Research Center about the bias exhibited in 2008 election coverage at
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 would provide a reputable balance to popular opinion. Please append the following to the section labelled "Assertions of conservative bias"
A 2008 Pew Research Center study
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 shows positive versus negative coverage tone of Obama and McCain between MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and the media overall. Fox News had the most consistent coverage tone between Obama and McCain (0-12% variation for Fox versus 49-62% variation for media overall and more extreme for CNN and MSNBC).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuberman ( talk • contribs)
Note: I've detranscluded the {{ edit semi-protected}} template now that discussion is taking place. -- Stickee (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" organization. Using them as a source to claim Fox News is misrepresenting the facts is the same as using Fox News to claim CNN or NPR is misrepresting the facts and is a violation of the NPOV. I think that section should be edited to remove media matters and use a valid, objective source instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.60.43 ( talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the opriginal poster Media Matters has no credbility, they are funded by George Soros and it's only purpose is to attack conservative media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the phrase that Fox News uses, "America's Election Headquarters," be put in the section of Fox News's slogans? Is it a slogan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 ( talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is notable? NickCT ( talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness, Paul Krugman is a well-respected and highly regarded economist. Were this an issue of economics, I would advocate inclusion. This, however, has to do with politics, and is thus just another voice in a sea of opinion. Soxwon ( talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What is probably most notable is the number of possible candidates that do not currently hold office. If you don't hold office, you have to do something to keep your name in the news. In the 2008 election, all of the major Democratic candidates were senators and therefore unable to hold paid outside positions. I can't think of a single major candidate from either side that wasn't a govenor, senator, or representative in 2008. In 2010 you probably won't have any Democratic candidates to worry about besides Obama, and the only other possible challengers to Obama are already serving or working for him, so the "balance" in relation to the 2010 election is not relevant. Arzel ( talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The attacks on the Krugman column as opinion, and therefore irrelevant, are completely misguided. Krugman wasn't offering an opinion; he was stating an objective fact, and then offering opinions about it. If the Krugman column were all we had, it would be adequate sourcing for the underlying fact.
But, of course, the Krugman column isn't all we have. Krugman expressly credited his source, Politico (whose President and CEO, incidentally, is a former assistant to that well-known Bolshevik, Ronald Reagan). Let's focus on this article in Politico, which establishes the fact -- Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum are all prospective Republican candidates and are all on the Fox News payroll. The article goes on to point out some of the issues raised as a result. Of greatest relevant to our article is that Fox is providing four right-wingers with "a lucrative and powerful pulpit". Politico states:
Their Fox jobs allow these politicians an opportunity to send conservative activists a mostly unfiltered message in what is almost always a friendly environment. Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party.
In addition to what the situation says about FNC's overall right-wing bias (Krugman: "Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan"), the Politico article refers to the issues of the disadvantaging of other Republican candidates and the problem of Fox News reporters who must cover their co-employees.
This is an unprecedented situation that certainly deserves mention. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion is not necessarily whether the prospective candidates have announced. Names are listed at United States presidential election, 2012 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 if they've been discussed in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old. - PrBeacon (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We have another observation about the Republican politicians on the Fox payroll.
The previous discussion was sidetracked by a false concern about WP:CRYSTAL, triggered by the observation that the four Republican politicians who are Fox hirelings are all prospective presidential candidates. I don't think it's at all within the purview of that policy; it's not crystal-ball-gazing to say that Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and Santorum are all currently being discussed in the media as presidential prospects.
Still, I call this a distraction because it's not the most important aspect for the article about Fox News. Forget everything you've already read about the race for the White House in 2012. Pretend for the sake of the argument that we have absolutely no idea who might be on the Republican ticket in 2012. It could just as easily be Charles Manson. Fine. What we do know, and what's important for the FNC article, is this: Fox News has four former national politicians on its payroll and all four of them are Republicans. That fact is highly relevant for readers who want to determine whether Fox News has a right-wing bias. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A lot of criticsm comes from Media Matters and to describe it as a media watch dog group is wrong. It excists to attack conservative media. We should change description to progressive advocacy group. Basil rock ( talk) 13:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, we had this discussion before, but that was with both sections. I would like to narrow this down a bit. I think that the White House talking points section should not be in the article b/c it mainly consists of a man promoting his book through controversy (the Hardball transcript) and then an HP piece about O'Reilly's reaction. There seems to be no wide coverage of this event, or even major coverage when it happened. A g-news search reveals little about the talking points, save for blogger and HP pieces. I for one, would like more than a Hardball Transcript for a book promotion, HP, and blogs for an entire section of the article (I could possbily see a statement where he accused them, but that's about it). Soxwon ( talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
While I understand that there is a "Controversies" section already set up in this article, there appears to be a phenomenon appearing in which FNC (usually quoted as "FOX News") is publicly attacked (hereby referred to as 'Comments' in the interest of neutral tone) by many public figures and sources, some of which are quite reputable.
I find this widespread and unique enough to deserve a section of it's own, or even just a mention. If sources are required I believe I can hunt them down but I'm not very good at that.
The 'comments' are unique in that:
(1) A meaningful amount of comments are personally against FOX.
(2) A meaningful amount of comments seem to be negative referendums of FOX with no elaboration of any kind (made-up example: "FOX News is Bad!")
(3) The above types of statements are made by public, noteworthy, and sometimes powerful people/entities.
(4) Certain comments seem to have become de facto axioms to some public groups ("FOX News is Racist." Anecdotal, but can probably find polls. If not, ignore)
(5) A similar multitude of comments (1) and (2) do not seem to exist with other high-rated News Organizations, not even close to.
(6) (Possibly a stretch) FOX News could be construed as the most - but at least considered one of the most - watched News Organizations based on viewership. Also, FOX News is regarded as near-equal to other powerful News Organizations in terms of reliability/likability. This makes the entire event less explicable and, therefore, more noteworthy (as opposed to same events occuring against a small, fringe -madeup- News Organization like "Fascist News Channel" or "Communist News Network").
Agreement? Contention? Maybe someone who knows what I'm trying to say and can throw in some great sources so I don't have to do my own dirty work? I'd like to get a dialogue rolling on this.
Bullercruz1 (
talk)
06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
For the last time, Media Matters for America and Huffington Post are reliable sources that can be used. It is preferable, however, to use other sources due to the weight issues surrounding MMFA and HP. I personally feel they are not enough in and of themselves when discussing political issues. Soxwon ( talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe you are confusing honest criticism and/or stating of grievances with violence. In the latter the one who has had violence done to them is clearly a victim. In the former the one being spoken of is spoken of in the matter they are precisely because they are perceived as an aggressor (or otherwise unethical). So in a way these things are actually opposite. It's kind of like you're calling a tattle-tale a bully. Which begs the question: if you had to side with one or the other, which would you side with? A bit alarming, if you ask me. Kevin Baas talk 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that FOX makes a pretty clear distinction of Opinion shows and Hard News shows, such distinctions are even placed on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article says on the Assertions of Conservative Bias section that, “A Pew Research poll released on October 29, 2009, found that Fox News is viewed as the most ideological channel in America. 47% of those surveyed said Fox News is 'mostly conservative,' 14% said 'mostly liberal,' and 24% said "neither." In comparison, MSNBC had 36% identify it as 'mostly liberal,' 11% as 'mostly conservative,' and 27% as 'neither.' CNN had 37% describe it as 'mostly liberal,' 11% as 'mostly conservative,' and 33% as 'neither.'" Apparently, MSNBC is seen by Americans as the least ideological 24-hour news cable channel in America. If you read Wikipedia's article on MSNBC, you'll notice that on several places of the article and their sources related to the matter of MSNBC’s new slogan, they say that “following several years in which many observers noted a politically leftward shift in the channel's programming, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressive identity in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline 'Lean Forward.'" I'd like to ask, what progressive identity..., if Americans supposedly view MSNBC as the least ideological of 3 cable outlets in America? Also, is it possible that today MSNBC would be considered by Americans as at least the the second most ideological network in America’s mind thanks to its new slogan, and not only that but other things like Keith Olbermann’s suspension and the addition of Lawrence O ‘Donnell in its primetime lineup? My questions does have to do with constructive crticism of the article. One has to keep in mind the recent changes that has happened on MSNBC and it could be possible that the public’s opinion about cable TV has changed drastically because of them. Many in the media recently (even the New York Times has) has accused MSNBC of having a liberal bias. Willminator ( talk) 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not cleared to edit the FNC wiki, but I did notice that Sean Hannity's studio is listed as studio J, that is incorrect. Sean Hannity moved this fall to Studio G, which is typically used by FBN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Also Happening Now is listed as "Studio E", which is also incorrect, Happening Now is streamed from the Newsroom, sometimes referred to as "Studio N".
Bret Baier's Washington Studio is also referred to as Studio 1.
O'Reilly is produced in Studio A.
Greta is primarily in Studio 1 (Washington) but is sometimes in Studio H (New York) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
While I have been learning Wikipolicies for some time, this is the first I've learned of this particular policy, and I definitely think it applies to this particular article, PARTICULARLY the bit about STONE WALLING. Every article, every anti Fox News post made here is shifted with one defense after another to the point of absurdity.
Fox News *IS* biased. It *IS* directly allied with the Republican party. It *DOES* lie on a regular basis to the point that simply saying that it is 'Biased' is absurd. It goes far beyond that. Repeated calls for peer reviewed content are met with calls that the sponsors of the research are liberal. Anything from a partisan group attacking them is called partisan but you can't CALL THEM partisan just because they don't use the words, "Official arm of the Republican Party" in their website even when in all practice they are.
I call violation of WP: GAMING, in the extreme. Tacitus2010 ( talk) 23:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've not noticed that there has been a latent edit war as of late regarding the content of that survey. I don't want to quibble about each word used in the description, but it needs to be somewhat accurately reflect what the survey was about. The survey clearly states that it is about misinformation and it also explains what it considers "false" and "correct" information in this context. So no matter how exactly you want to phrase that, you cannot simply state it was a survey of beliefs and fox viewers turned out to have the following believes, such a description would be an utter misrepresentation of the survey and a violation of WP policy.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved
this content to the main article:
Fox News Channel controversies. This article's criticism section is intended to be a
WP:SS of FNC controversies, not a place for new additions. You might want to move the discussion there, and maybe shift this discussion towards whether the study is notable enough for this article.
†TE†
Talk
18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A study of misinformation raises the somewhat delicate question of what is true. When dealing with topics that have been highly politicized, it is common to default to the position that all perceptions are relative and treatment of any position as more or less true is itself inherently political. We believe that such a position is at odds with what is necessary for well-functioning democracy. It is indeed very important for a healthy democratic process to be open to a wide range of positions. At the same time, it is essential that there be means and institutions for achieving consensus about key factors that ultimately affect public policy decisions. On a regular basis government economists come to conclusions about the state of the economy. Such conclusions influence key decisions in the private sphere, as well as government decisions. Such government economists should be, and generally are, open to input from experts outside of government in the course of coming to conclusions. In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion. In most cases we inquired about respondents’ views of expert opinion, as well as the respondents’ own views. While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as ‘misinformed.’ It should also be noted that queries about expert opinion were not predicated on the idea that there is unanimity on issues. On some issues, such as climate change, there is a vocal dissenting minority among experts. Thus questions were framed in terms of whether, among experts, more had one or another view, or views were evenly divided.
Kevin Baas talk 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The guy in this video takes a hard look at the study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ PokeHomsar ( talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that its called "Fox News" but I think its status as a legitimate "news source" has been called into question by legitimate and balanced sources. Perhaps the wiki article should call it a "political channel" or "conservative talk" channel rather than a "news channel". 66.245.123.136 ( talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
A google search of the top ten pages reveals for "Fox News"
On the first page most Fox News, the Wiki Article itself and other news stations copying fox articles.
The second page shows 'partisian' sites showing how fox news is biased....(3) The rest are fox news articles or Fox news sites.
The third page has this article which is interesting. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News And also has this mention of a wired article talking about the most shameful spin of wiki articles...probably still going on.
The rest of the third page are fox sites.
The fourth page has fox news forwarded articles, 2 anti fox links and Fox or Fox affiliate sites.
On the fifth page we see fox affiliate links, two 'partisan' anti fox links, and an aggregation news article (associated content which is apparently banned to be linked by wikipedia) which is neither positive or negative.
On the sixth page we have fox affiliate links http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=F7oHTeTwJYe8sAOkr_zgDg&start=50&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91
On the seventh page we have 1 'partisan' anti fox link, fox affiliate links and fox forwarded articles.
On the eighth page we have fox affiliates
On the ninth page we have one profox news aggregator http://www.mediaite.com/tag/fox-news/
A snopes article about something that isn't even true.
This Salon article showing outrageous fox behavior. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama
This news week editorial against Fox News.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/17/the-o-garbage-factor.html
And fox affiliate sites.
On the tenth page we have 2 sites dedicated to attacking fox, oh and this article indicating how Apple will be boycotting Fox because of their behavior. http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/29/apple-boycotts-fox-news-because-of-glenn-beck/
On a tech blog no less.
So a totally random sampling of fox sites shows, when removing sites that are simple fox itself or forward articles from fox, numerous anti fox sites that are 'partisan' one of which points out this very talk page as being riddled with Fox news supporters, and 3-4 'reliable' sources flat out saying Fox's behavior is outrageous.
And NONE...we're not even talking about partisan conservative sources...say that Fox is a reliable news source or that it doesn't act in a partisan fashion.
Can we stop the joke now that is the defense of this article?
No? OK then. Tacitus2010 ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
14 December 2010 (UTC)
And here is an actual academic journal:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
Fox news is Propaganda. Period. Tacitus2010 ( talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a confusion of terms here, news and propaganda are not a contradiction. It is correct that "quality news" and the "journalistic ethos" attempt to achieve accurate somewhat unbiased reporting and to stay away from propaganda, however that doesn't mean that news providers worldwide always adhere to those those principles. All the news media in totalitarian or semi totalitarian countries has always been propaganda and often questionable regarding accuracy and facts, so in the big picture fox is nothing special there. The only thing that makes Fox stand out somewhat is, that in post WWII democratic societies we might not have been used to such open and shameless propaganda news by mainstream news media. In other words Fox seems to be the first (in the US) main stream tv news channel that turned itself voluntarily into a propaganda channel with little regard for the "journalistic ethos", but if you look at the bigger picture and consider Chinese or Russian TV news than fox is hardly special at all and still as much "news" as those are. Or to make a long story short you simply cannot equate news media with quality journalism, they are 2 different things and fox is the former but not the latter.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is biased to call FoX News Channel "GOP Pravda", "FoX Newspeak Channel", or "The Propaganda Channel" (as I have done in contexts in which neutrality is not assumed).
As a harsh critic of FoX News I admit that FoX News is deadly-serious in its presentation, has lesser 'fluff' (like stories on 'fashion' and 'entertainment' as CNN has. But that said, it offers little news and much analysis. Analysis sounds noble, but not when it is one-sided assertion of the merits of 'conservative' politicians and ideology and scathing criticism of anyone or anything liberal. The analysis of news has a parallel in CBN News on The 700 Club, except that the analysis on The 700 Club leads to an endorsement of some religious position. Pbrower2a ( talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This sounds extremely awkward. Better to use a synonym like "contend" or "claim"?
Senior Trend ( talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Down in the controversies section we see this:
"Many observers of the channel have asserted that it has a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party. Fox News has publicly denied such assertions.[45] Critics and other observers[46][47][48] have asserted that Fox News has a bias towards the political right at the expense of neutrality.[46][49]"
The first and third sentences mean virtually the same thing and make this introduction repetitive and cumbersome. I propose just replacing the first sentence with
"Many critics and observers[46][47][48] of the channel have asserted that Fox News has a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party at the expense of neutrality.[46][49]"
And then deleting the third altogether. That should eliminate the absurd repetition while keeping the valuable sources added by the third sentence. Furthermore, I'd also question the necessity of the "at the expense of neutrality," bit, as bias in favor of something inherently implies that it's at the expense of neutrality, but that's far less of an issue. Antsache ( talk) 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)