![]() | 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
200px|left 200px|right What is the deal with the logo? There have been lots of changes and reverts and reverts back (myself included). To me it is pretty clear the one on the right looks better than the one on the left. I am pretty sure I have seen the one on the right used on the television station, but the one on the left seems to be the one currently on their website. Thoughts? – CWenger ( talk) 00:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, that's why I create the picture to enhance the image of wikipedia. As for a refernce it's right here Thanx for your support CWenger ( talk) Keep WP honest Jetijonez ( talk) 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"the market that Fox News sought to corner when it was launched in 1996, its "fair and balanced" slogan calibrated perfectly to resonate with conservatives who believed Rather and his cronies were anything but that.... in building Fox News, Ailes has created the opposite anchor-guest dynamic, essentially establishing his network as a safe haven for conservative politicians from the mainstream media and its pesky, biased questions."
This seems to be partly a joke. Instead of CNN and MSNBC, which Fox News competes most directly with, there is a list of international broadcasters. Fox News may be fairly said to compete with some of these channels internationally, but Nile TV? That's the state-run domestic channel in Egypt accused of blatant government propaganda. That may reflect how some feel about Fox News, but it's not appropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia, since Nile TV is not even intended for an international audience. We might as well list every domestic news channel on the planet. 98.246.191.164 ( talk) 10:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please update the Ratings and Reception section. It currently reads: "In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[38][39]" The results of the same poll as of January 2011 say Fox News is the LEAST trusted news channel, see link: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/new_survey_says_fox_least_trus.php Thanks! Canthandlethetooth ( talk) 08:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the 2011 survey from PPP: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-second-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.142.94 ( talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list every country's cable/satellite providers that provide FNC? Looks cluttering.
Senior Trend ( talk) 22:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone see the Wikipedia propriety or even a need for this unsourced, speculative and highly subjective list? IMHO, it should be deleted. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this count [1]?
The Most Trusted Name in News Senior Trend ( talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have done a WP:BOLD edit to make it sound a lot more readable
Some critics have claimed that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.[5] Fox News Channel says that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other and denies any bias in its news reporting.[6]
Senior Trend ( talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Would "some critics" be a weasel word? The reference provided seems kinda weak since its a blog about OJs book that accuses Fox news in a paragraph as being biased. If you know of a stronger reference that would be great. Im still new at this so if im wrong, my bad. Thanks. Jason 09:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougy05050 ( talk • contribs)
"Some critics[who?] have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.[5] Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel respond that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and deny any bias in the news reporting."
Not to be a stickler but this critic section is out of place and needs to be moved to the critic section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
This should be added to controversies or some section.
Eric Alterman, of The Nation magazine, has documented lies promulgated about Democrats on the Fox network including false and misleading stories put forward by Bill Sammon. see: Fox: The Liars' Network by Eric Alterman April, 2011 76.239.25.186 ( talk) 05:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be. We should not take every single blog and article about any news organization and put it in a wikipedia article. Especially not when it is clear the article is biased - it says "The Liberal Media" above it and it is clear that the article writer has some personal vendetta against the organization. The answer is no, one should not go around the internet trying to find any bit or piece of information that attempts to say "Fox lies" simply because they don't like the organization. YouMakeMeFeel: ( talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the first user: This article is relevant and should be added to the encylopedic article. As for "YouMakeMeFeel"... "the answer is no".. you are not the authority or some arbitrator on such issues which require consensus and thorough discussion. Who the hell do you think you are ... by saying "the answer is no" as if you are the final authority and as if you are some significant person or as if you hold any decision-making weight, like the final decision is yours to make or something?? The name of the author does not mean anything. It is the context. The article offers credible reasoning and sources for its content. Calling oneself "conservative" or any other label does not mean you actually ARE... it is the actual content that actually counts. 70.26.8.87 ( talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
@YouMakeMeFeel: The point of the Alterman's article is exactly the opposite of of what you are trying to imply here. It is not about disliking Fox (for being conservative or whatever reason), but that fox somewhat systematically distorts facts. Also it in an article in The Nation and not some arbitrary blog or opinion on the internet.
Alterman clearly dislikes Fox, however I c no reason to doubt the actual issues. Is anybody claiming that Fox did not report faöse figures in the Gore story? Is anybody claiming the quotes of and his taped statements are not true? Those the thing this article could be cited for. Having said that this article is probably not the best place to integrate that information but Fox News Channel controversies might be better and Bill Sammon is discussed there already. The article here is to provide a general overview of Fox as a whole (all its aspects) and not details on any controversy it might have caused.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The REAL liars are:
msnbc cnn npr washington post cbs abc nbc etc etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For an article to be neutral sources such as the "Nation" can not be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Crj84 (
talk) 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe the following text should be added under the "assertions of conservative bias" subsection of Criticism and Controversies.
In a June 19 2011 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace stated that fox news is the counterweight to msnbc, they have a liberal agenda and we tell the other side of the story.
This comment may be found here http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday/?playlist_id=86913 at 4:12
As debated in earlier discussions on this talk, a consensus was reached by other editors in regards to the FNC Logo to be used. Now Packerfan386 ( talk) has taken upon himself to change out the current FNC Logo with inaccurate image, and states and I quote "uses not some derivative from a anti-fox news site. plus the .svg is beyond hideous" as he has said in his edit commentary. This not only displays incivility on this editors work, but also shows unsubstantiated claim that the image has no references. Unfortunetly Packerfan386 ( talk) has missed out on one the small detail (of his uploaded image) that the references from http://www.foxnews.com in its Logo, is just that; FOX NEWS dot COM for the website. I can't find anywhere in the TV news cast a logo with dot com in there. This is not only an untrue representation of the television program image, it also undetermines the accuracy of this article Jetijonez ( talk) 06:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This morning Fox News announced who the establishment’s three leading 2012 GOP candidates are in light of last week’s Republican debate and straw poll in Ames, Iowa.
Fox News’s top three are: 1. Michele Bachmann, who won the straw poll by as little as 0.91% or 152 votes, 2. Mitt Romney, who did not even compete in the straw poll, and 3. Rick Perry, who participated neither in the debate or the straw poll.
No mention was made of Ron Paul, who overwhelmingly won the debate (even according to Fox News’s own post-debate poll) and scored a close second at the straw poll with 4,671 votes, except to lump him in with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain as an also-ran.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-15/the-mainstream-medias-leading-gop-candidates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.96.46 ( talk) 09:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please change "in the age 25–54 demographic" to "in the 25-54 age range", or similar? The use of the modish word "demographic" is fatuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.48.230 ( talk) 16:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The section under Canada is misleading and false. Fox News is banned in Canada because of a Canadian regulation that bans the broadcast of false or misleading news. And no I'm not making that up. Fox News attorneys even admitted that the First Amendment gives them the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves in the USA. However, Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." Here are some sources:
http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/9037-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada.html http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html http://current.com/community/93039146_canada-rejects-fox-style-news.htm http://www.care2.com/causes/crtc-refuses-to-allow-false-news-on-canadian-airwaves.html Galraedia ( talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Highly opinionated and bias? Are you freaking kidding me? Fox News and Fox News TV style channels are banned from broadcasting on the airwaves in Canada. Here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/ Galraedia ( talk) 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Arzel, there is no left or right in wikipedia, only the truth. Fox News is banned from broadcast in Canada because officials in that country see it as "false or misleading news". Whether or not that is true is irrelevant because it doesn't change Canada's reason for not allowing it on the airwaves. I'm not saying Fox News is "misleading or false", I am saying that Canada's reason for not allowing it on the airwaves is because they consider it to be in violation of a law that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news in their country. The fact that you would accuse these sites of being "left-wing" brings into question your own bias. Just because something isn't suger-coated the way you want it to be doesn't make it any less true. Galraedia ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the statement would be a lot more accurate if it read: "Some critics have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes exclusively conservative political positions."
It should also really be noted that Chris Wallace claims that Fox News is a deliberate counterbalance to perceived bias in the "liberal media", as can be seen in his interview with Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday here.
Readers can figure these things out themselves. btw, there are Fox affiliate TV stations, in addition to cable Fox News Channel. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The network gave more favorable coverage to Barack Obama in 2008 than to John McCain during the election and the Obama administration shields them from U.K.-style investigation. They should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes.
The Light Burns ( talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
In the first sentence of this section, the red text indicates that "the page does not exist". Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC) . . . I.e., The page linking FoxNews "does not exist".
Some seem to think that a poll conducted Fairleigh Dickinson University that claims FNC viewers are less informed about world affairs. Others feel it is a coatrack. I see one problem with the lack of demonstrated relevance. First, why does the poll even matter? I see no coverage of the poll by reliable third parties that would indicate the poll was notable or significant. All I see if a press release being used. Second, why do we need another poll that makes that kind of claim? The article already contains that sort of info. Adding yet another one starts looking like an WP:UNDUE issue. The admin who is edit warring over it says he is willing to discuss it. We'll see if there is discussion or something else. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
From Mediaite...rather sums this up nicely...
JakeInJoisey ( talk) 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me propose a hypothetical question: if a person does not know anything about jaundice, how come watching Fox News, or MSNBC for that matter, will make that person "'more ignorant"' about jaundice? This issue has got nothing to do with the obvious bias of either news channel. Rather it has to do with the indefensible title of a poll, which is being used as if it were true. I know WP is not the place to settle such discussions, but for credibility's sake, such statements, however well sourced, do not belong here. Some people think that god exists, and this has been widely reported. Does it mean that WP should become a platform for bible-lovers? Would that, well reported and all, be acceptable? I think not, and so, we should strive for objectivity.-- Ianonne89 ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Over and above WP:NPOV, let's ralk about WP:RS and whether a study based on such a limited poll can come to a universal conclusion with any degree of statistal accuracy. From the text of the "study" itself:
This study is targeting a particular demographic in a single (small) state and positing that because the poll results acquired in the poll (without giving the specifics of the poll itself) come out a certain way (after "adjustment") thet these results should apply nationally. This is obviously spurious and any attempt to put this forward as a reliable study that is coming from a neutral point of view seems to be ignorant at the very best, and blatant POV pushing at the very worst. Either way, there is no place in this article for this study. SeanNovack ( talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
A demonstration … touched off a night of violent protests against the military council ruling Egypt, leaving 24 people dead and more than 200 wounded in the worst spasm of violence since the ouster of President Mubarak. The protest … appeared to catch fire because it was aimed squarely at the military council, at a moment when the military’s delays in turning over power had led to a spike in public distrust of its authority. ( "Egypt News — Revolution and Aftermath". The New York Times. November 29, 2011.)
To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the regime there?
13.05 The new Egyptian prime minister Kamal al-Ganzuri, who served as prime minister for Hosni Mubarak, is a choice that will almost certainly intensify criticism by the tens of thousands of protesters accusing the generals of trying to extend the old guard and demanding they step down immediately.
After the announcement, crowds were chanting in Tahrir Square: 'Illegitimate, illegitimate!'.
One protester Mohammed el-Fayoumi, 29, said: 'Not only was he prime minister under Mubarak, but also part of the old regime for a total of 18 years. Why did we have a revolution then?'"
"Egypt protests and Arab Spring: November 25 as it happened". The DailyTelegraph. London. November 28, 2011.)
…nine months later, as Egyptians began voting in the first parliamentary elections since Mr. Mubarak’s fall, the future of the revolution was anything but clear.
Initially, the military had been seen as the linchpin of the transition to a more democratic regime. It was the institution Islamists hoped would steer the country to early elections that they were poised to dominate. Liberals regarded it as a hedge against Islamist power. And the Obama administration considered it a partner that it hoped would help secure American interests.
But in the months that followed, growing numbers of secular Egyptians wondered if what had happened was a popular revolution or a military coup — whether they had traded one military regime for another… ( "Egypt News — Revolution and Aftermath". The New York Times. November 29, 2011.)
I have reverted Sean Novak's recent edit. While substantively correct, it violates, IMHO, WP:OR. The "conclusion" of the study, as expressed in the press release, is as follows...
It is, IMHO, trash innuendo...but that is the citation used in support of the existing language...which is, unfortunately, accurate. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the poor methodology as stated above, this poll is limited to residents to the state of NJ, and as such has little relevance to FNC as a whole. I am removing for weight reasons alone. Jake, that is a seriously strange premise to make, and something I have seen alluded to within this discussion. People that have not been exposed to some form of information cannot by definition be more informed than people that have been exposed to some information. If anything that kind of presentation of material be the authors of the poll only point to the poor methodology as a whole of the publication, and only furthers the clear reason to remove such a poorly contrived and regionally small poll. Arzel ( talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently, Wikipedia's coverage of the numerous studies of FNC viewers' information level is found at Fox News Channel controversies#Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers. That section includes reference to the PIPA (University of Maryland) study. It also includes Roger Ailes's response, in which he denounces the PIPA study as a "push poll".
Now, the term " push poll" has a clear meaning. The PIPA study doesn't fit it. The lengthy discussions above about the FDU study don't need to be replicated in this instance, because the merits of Ailes's comment are clear: His statement is false. (Addendum: To clarify in light of the subsequent discussion, the foregoing statement represents my personal opinion. Roger Ailes has not confessed to me that, as an experienced political operative, he is perfectly familiar with what a push poll actually is. He has not been convicted of perjury (his statement wasn't under oath anyway). I am not aware of any polygraph examination of Ailes that supports my opinion, nor is my opinion based on research into Roger Ailes that has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Does that cover it? End of Addendum. Thank you.)
Oh, and his statement wasn't subject to academic peer review, either.
Now, the question is, should Ailes's response be reported in Wikipedia? I think it should be. We can verify that he made the statement, it's relevant to the subject of the article, and he's not just some random blogger. That the statement is (known to me to be) rubbish is not an adequate reason for removing the information that he made the statement.
I raise the question here because this is the page where we're discussing the subject of FNC viewers' information levels, but also because it's a handy example of how we apply the standard of verifiability rather than truth.
So, would the editors who want to exclude the FDU study also want to exclude Ailes's statement? JamesMLane t c 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping other editors would look over the new article The Foxification of News, to ensure it's made in a balanced manner. -- Rob ( talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a body of academic work on the subject of the comparative levels of knowledge of FNC viewers. In my opinion, that material should be presented in this article in full. At present, however, editors opposed to that have succeeded in removing it from this article and relegating it to a daughter article, Fox News Channel controversies.
According to WP:SS, when material is moved to a daughter article, a summary should be left behind. Accordingly, I added such a summary here, but it was promptly reverted by Collect. My addition was exactly what I had suggested on this very talk page in the course of the discussion about including the latest study; no one objected then, but Collect now imperiously informs me that I must "try for consensus".
My addition complies with WP:SS (as the wording preferred by Collect does not) and with WP:NPOV. I'll restore it unless someone can explain to me what' wrong with it (other than "disclosure of this fact might reflect badly on Fox News"). JamesMLane t c 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if your problem is that my edit linked to a specific section of the more detailed article, a practice I've seen elsewhere but which isn't specifically addressed (pro or con) in the guideline.When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic.
Collect and JakeInJoisey seem to imply that I have an ideological viewpoint while they are studiously neutral, simply working without preconceptions to improve the encyclopedia. AGF doesn't require me to accept that characterization, however. Actually, Collect, if all the people with a POV were to take a respite from editing this article, then you and several people who frequently agree with you would be on the sideline, right along with Gamaliel and me. The Wikipedia standard isn't whether the editor is neutral, but whether the edit is neutral.
SeanNovack, based on your clarification, I think I see the problem -- you and I are disagreeing because we're addressing different subjects, and talking past each other.
You continue to direct your fire at the Fairleigh Dickinson University study. Thus, you assert that the information I "seek to add" is based on a poll "in a single state". Evidently you and Nightshift36 are reiterating your opposition to this edit, by which Gamaliel added that information to this article.
I invite you to examine the edit that I actually made, which Collect reverted and which is the subject of this thread. That edit is a brief summary of and link to a section in the "Controversies" daughter article. If you examine that section, you'll see that the information presented includes academic studies by the University of Maryland, Stanford University, and Fairleigh Dickinson University; a poll by the Pew Research Center; and commentary from various other notable sources, including Roger Ailes, the head of FNC. That's why, on the "Controversies" talk page, which I realize you may not have been monitoring, I pointed out that it's a mistake to consider the FDU study in isolation.
The question at hand is not whether to pull out the FDU study from all the other data and highlight it in this article. Instead, the question is whether to include here a summary that simply reports the existence of the controversy (without specifying any one of the sources of information about it), and to provide a wikilink to where the reader can find more information, pursuant to WP:SS.
As for Nightshift36's argument about WP:SS, it's clear that the main article is supposed to include a summary of the more detailed article. I'm noting that our current summary of the the more detailed "Controversies" article is inadequate because it omits one entire section, which I've tried to summarize in a single neutral sentence. I also included a wikilink to the relevant section of the daughter article. That's helpful to the reader but is, as I pointed out, not expressly addressed by the guideline. Nightshift36, I'm still not clear whether your objection is to the link. If we dropped the link but left in the one-sentence addition to the summary, would that be satisfactory? I think it would be inferior but I'd be willing to go along with it just to get past this ruckus. JamesMLane t c 20:56, 21 December 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
200px|left 200px|right What is the deal with the logo? There have been lots of changes and reverts and reverts back (myself included). To me it is pretty clear the one on the right looks better than the one on the left. I am pretty sure I have seen the one on the right used on the television station, but the one on the left seems to be the one currently on their website. Thoughts? – CWenger ( talk) 00:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, that's why I create the picture to enhance the image of wikipedia. As for a refernce it's right here Thanx for your support CWenger ( talk) Keep WP honest Jetijonez ( talk) 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"the market that Fox News sought to corner when it was launched in 1996, its "fair and balanced" slogan calibrated perfectly to resonate with conservatives who believed Rather and his cronies were anything but that.... in building Fox News, Ailes has created the opposite anchor-guest dynamic, essentially establishing his network as a safe haven for conservative politicians from the mainstream media and its pesky, biased questions."
This seems to be partly a joke. Instead of CNN and MSNBC, which Fox News competes most directly with, there is a list of international broadcasters. Fox News may be fairly said to compete with some of these channels internationally, but Nile TV? That's the state-run domestic channel in Egypt accused of blatant government propaganda. That may reflect how some feel about Fox News, but it's not appropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia, since Nile TV is not even intended for an international audience. We might as well list every domestic news channel on the planet. 98.246.191.164 ( talk) 10:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please update the Ratings and Reception section. It currently reads: "In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[38][39]" The results of the same poll as of January 2011 say Fox News is the LEAST trusted news channel, see link: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/new_survey_says_fox_least_trus.php Thanks! Canthandlethetooth ( talk) 08:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the 2011 survey from PPP: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-second-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.142.94 ( talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list every country's cable/satellite providers that provide FNC? Looks cluttering.
Senior Trend ( talk) 22:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone see the Wikipedia propriety or even a need for this unsourced, speculative and highly subjective list? IMHO, it should be deleted. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this count [1]?
The Most Trusted Name in News Senior Trend ( talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have done a WP:BOLD edit to make it sound a lot more readable
Some critics have claimed that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.[5] Fox News Channel says that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other and denies any bias in its news reporting.[6]
Senior Trend ( talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Would "some critics" be a weasel word? The reference provided seems kinda weak since its a blog about OJs book that accuses Fox news in a paragraph as being biased. If you know of a stronger reference that would be great. Im still new at this so if im wrong, my bad. Thanks. Jason 09:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougy05050 ( talk • contribs)
"Some critics[who?] have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions.[5] Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel respond that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and deny any bias in the news reporting."
Not to be a stickler but this critic section is out of place and needs to be moved to the critic section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
This should be added to controversies or some section.
Eric Alterman, of The Nation magazine, has documented lies promulgated about Democrats on the Fox network including false and misleading stories put forward by Bill Sammon. see: Fox: The Liars' Network by Eric Alterman April, 2011 76.239.25.186 ( talk) 05:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be. We should not take every single blog and article about any news organization and put it in a wikipedia article. Especially not when it is clear the article is biased - it says "The Liberal Media" above it and it is clear that the article writer has some personal vendetta against the organization. The answer is no, one should not go around the internet trying to find any bit or piece of information that attempts to say "Fox lies" simply because they don't like the organization. YouMakeMeFeel: ( talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the first user: This article is relevant and should be added to the encylopedic article. As for "YouMakeMeFeel"... "the answer is no".. you are not the authority or some arbitrator on such issues which require consensus and thorough discussion. Who the hell do you think you are ... by saying "the answer is no" as if you are the final authority and as if you are some significant person or as if you hold any decision-making weight, like the final decision is yours to make or something?? The name of the author does not mean anything. It is the context. The article offers credible reasoning and sources for its content. Calling oneself "conservative" or any other label does not mean you actually ARE... it is the actual content that actually counts. 70.26.8.87 ( talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
@YouMakeMeFeel: The point of the Alterman's article is exactly the opposite of of what you are trying to imply here. It is not about disliking Fox (for being conservative or whatever reason), but that fox somewhat systematically distorts facts. Also it in an article in The Nation and not some arbitrary blog or opinion on the internet.
Alterman clearly dislikes Fox, however I c no reason to doubt the actual issues. Is anybody claiming that Fox did not report faöse figures in the Gore story? Is anybody claiming the quotes of and his taped statements are not true? Those the thing this article could be cited for. Having said that this article is probably not the best place to integrate that information but Fox News Channel controversies might be better and Bill Sammon is discussed there already. The article here is to provide a general overview of Fox as a whole (all its aspects) and not details on any controversy it might have caused.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The REAL liars are:
msnbc cnn npr washington post cbs abc nbc etc etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For an article to be neutral sources such as the "Nation" can not be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Crj84 (
talk) 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe the following text should be added under the "assertions of conservative bias" subsection of Criticism and Controversies.
In a June 19 2011 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace stated that fox news is the counterweight to msnbc, they have a liberal agenda and we tell the other side of the story.
This comment may be found here http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday/?playlist_id=86913 at 4:12
As debated in earlier discussions on this talk, a consensus was reached by other editors in regards to the FNC Logo to be used. Now Packerfan386 ( talk) has taken upon himself to change out the current FNC Logo with inaccurate image, and states and I quote "uses not some derivative from a anti-fox news site. plus the .svg is beyond hideous" as he has said in his edit commentary. This not only displays incivility on this editors work, but also shows unsubstantiated claim that the image has no references. Unfortunetly Packerfan386 ( talk) has missed out on one the small detail (of his uploaded image) that the references from http://www.foxnews.com in its Logo, is just that; FOX NEWS dot COM for the website. I can't find anywhere in the TV news cast a logo with dot com in there. This is not only an untrue representation of the television program image, it also undetermines the accuracy of this article Jetijonez ( talk) 06:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This morning Fox News announced who the establishment’s three leading 2012 GOP candidates are in light of last week’s Republican debate and straw poll in Ames, Iowa.
Fox News’s top three are: 1. Michele Bachmann, who won the straw poll by as little as 0.91% or 152 votes, 2. Mitt Romney, who did not even compete in the straw poll, and 3. Rick Perry, who participated neither in the debate or the straw poll.
No mention was made of Ron Paul, who overwhelmingly won the debate (even according to Fox News’s own post-debate poll) and scored a close second at the straw poll with 4,671 votes, except to lump him in with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain as an also-ran.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-15/the-mainstream-medias-leading-gop-candidates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.96.46 ( talk) 09:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please change "in the age 25–54 demographic" to "in the 25-54 age range", or similar? The use of the modish word "demographic" is fatuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.48.230 ( talk) 16:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The section under Canada is misleading and false. Fox News is banned in Canada because of a Canadian regulation that bans the broadcast of false or misleading news. And no I'm not making that up. Fox News attorneys even admitted that the First Amendment gives them the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves in the USA. However, Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." Here are some sources:
http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/9037-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada.html http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html http://current.com/community/93039146_canada-rejects-fox-style-news.htm http://www.care2.com/causes/crtc-refuses-to-allow-false-news-on-canadian-airwaves.html Galraedia ( talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Highly opinionated and bias? Are you freaking kidding me? Fox News and Fox News TV style channels are banned from broadcasting on the airwaves in Canada. Here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/ Galraedia ( talk) 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Arzel, there is no left or right in wikipedia, only the truth. Fox News is banned from broadcast in Canada because officials in that country see it as "false or misleading news". Whether or not that is true is irrelevant because it doesn't change Canada's reason for not allowing it on the airwaves. I'm not saying Fox News is "misleading or false", I am saying that Canada's reason for not allowing it on the airwaves is because they consider it to be in violation of a law that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news in their country. The fact that you would accuse these sites of being "left-wing" brings into question your own bias. Just because something isn't suger-coated the way you want it to be doesn't make it any less true. Galraedia ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the statement would be a lot more accurate if it read: "Some critics have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes exclusively conservative political positions."
It should also really be noted that Chris Wallace claims that Fox News is a deliberate counterbalance to perceived bias in the "liberal media", as can be seen in his interview with Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday here.
Readers can figure these things out themselves. btw, there are Fox affiliate TV stations, in addition to cable Fox News Channel. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The network gave more favorable coverage to Barack Obama in 2008 than to John McCain during the election and the Obama administration shields them from U.K.-style investigation. They should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes.
The Light Burns ( talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
In the first sentence of this section, the red text indicates that "the page does not exist". Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC) . . . I.e., The page linking FoxNews "does not exist".
Some seem to think that a poll conducted Fairleigh Dickinson University that claims FNC viewers are less informed about world affairs. Others feel it is a coatrack. I see one problem with the lack of demonstrated relevance. First, why does the poll even matter? I see no coverage of the poll by reliable third parties that would indicate the poll was notable or significant. All I see if a press release being used. Second, why do we need another poll that makes that kind of claim? The article already contains that sort of info. Adding yet another one starts looking like an WP:UNDUE issue. The admin who is edit warring over it says he is willing to discuss it. We'll see if there is discussion or something else. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
From Mediaite...rather sums this up nicely...
JakeInJoisey ( talk) 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me propose a hypothetical question: if a person does not know anything about jaundice, how come watching Fox News, or MSNBC for that matter, will make that person "'more ignorant"' about jaundice? This issue has got nothing to do with the obvious bias of either news channel. Rather it has to do with the indefensible title of a poll, which is being used as if it were true. I know WP is not the place to settle such discussions, but for credibility's sake, such statements, however well sourced, do not belong here. Some people think that god exists, and this has been widely reported. Does it mean that WP should become a platform for bible-lovers? Would that, well reported and all, be acceptable? I think not, and so, we should strive for objectivity.-- Ianonne89 ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Over and above WP:NPOV, let's ralk about WP:RS and whether a study based on such a limited poll can come to a universal conclusion with any degree of statistal accuracy. From the text of the "study" itself:
This study is targeting a particular demographic in a single (small) state and positing that because the poll results acquired in the poll (without giving the specifics of the poll itself) come out a certain way (after "adjustment") thet these results should apply nationally. This is obviously spurious and any attempt to put this forward as a reliable study that is coming from a neutral point of view seems to be ignorant at the very best, and blatant POV pushing at the very worst. Either way, there is no place in this article for this study. SeanNovack ( talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
A demonstration … touched off a night of violent protests against the military council ruling Egypt, leaving 24 people dead and more than 200 wounded in the worst spasm of violence since the ouster of President Mubarak. The protest … appeared to catch fire because it was aimed squarely at the military council, at a moment when the military’s delays in turning over power had led to a spike in public distrust of its authority. ( "Egypt News — Revolution and Aftermath". The New York Times. November 29, 2011.)
To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the regime there?
13.05 The new Egyptian prime minister Kamal al-Ganzuri, who served as prime minister for Hosni Mubarak, is a choice that will almost certainly intensify criticism by the tens of thousands of protesters accusing the generals of trying to extend the old guard and demanding they step down immediately.
After the announcement, crowds were chanting in Tahrir Square: 'Illegitimate, illegitimate!'.
One protester Mohammed el-Fayoumi, 29, said: 'Not only was he prime minister under Mubarak, but also part of the old regime for a total of 18 years. Why did we have a revolution then?'"
"Egypt protests and Arab Spring: November 25 as it happened". The DailyTelegraph. London. November 28, 2011.)
…nine months later, as Egyptians began voting in the first parliamentary elections since Mr. Mubarak’s fall, the future of the revolution was anything but clear.
Initially, the military had been seen as the linchpin of the transition to a more democratic regime. It was the institution Islamists hoped would steer the country to early elections that they were poised to dominate. Liberals regarded it as a hedge against Islamist power. And the Obama administration considered it a partner that it hoped would help secure American interests.
But in the months that followed, growing numbers of secular Egyptians wondered if what had happened was a popular revolution or a military coup — whether they had traded one military regime for another… ( "Egypt News — Revolution and Aftermath". The New York Times. November 29, 2011.)
I have reverted Sean Novak's recent edit. While substantively correct, it violates, IMHO, WP:OR. The "conclusion" of the study, as expressed in the press release, is as follows...
It is, IMHO, trash innuendo...but that is the citation used in support of the existing language...which is, unfortunately, accurate. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the poor methodology as stated above, this poll is limited to residents to the state of NJ, and as such has little relevance to FNC as a whole. I am removing for weight reasons alone. Jake, that is a seriously strange premise to make, and something I have seen alluded to within this discussion. People that have not been exposed to some form of information cannot by definition be more informed than people that have been exposed to some information. If anything that kind of presentation of material be the authors of the poll only point to the poor methodology as a whole of the publication, and only furthers the clear reason to remove such a poorly contrived and regionally small poll. Arzel ( talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently, Wikipedia's coverage of the numerous studies of FNC viewers' information level is found at Fox News Channel controversies#Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers. That section includes reference to the PIPA (University of Maryland) study. It also includes Roger Ailes's response, in which he denounces the PIPA study as a "push poll".
Now, the term " push poll" has a clear meaning. The PIPA study doesn't fit it. The lengthy discussions above about the FDU study don't need to be replicated in this instance, because the merits of Ailes's comment are clear: His statement is false. (Addendum: To clarify in light of the subsequent discussion, the foregoing statement represents my personal opinion. Roger Ailes has not confessed to me that, as an experienced political operative, he is perfectly familiar with what a push poll actually is. He has not been convicted of perjury (his statement wasn't under oath anyway). I am not aware of any polygraph examination of Ailes that supports my opinion, nor is my opinion based on research into Roger Ailes that has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Does that cover it? End of Addendum. Thank you.)
Oh, and his statement wasn't subject to academic peer review, either.
Now, the question is, should Ailes's response be reported in Wikipedia? I think it should be. We can verify that he made the statement, it's relevant to the subject of the article, and he's not just some random blogger. That the statement is (known to me to be) rubbish is not an adequate reason for removing the information that he made the statement.
I raise the question here because this is the page where we're discussing the subject of FNC viewers' information levels, but also because it's a handy example of how we apply the standard of verifiability rather than truth.
So, would the editors who want to exclude the FDU study also want to exclude Ailes's statement? JamesMLane t c 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping other editors would look over the new article The Foxification of News, to ensure it's made in a balanced manner. -- Rob ( talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a body of academic work on the subject of the comparative levels of knowledge of FNC viewers. In my opinion, that material should be presented in this article in full. At present, however, editors opposed to that have succeeded in removing it from this article and relegating it to a daughter article, Fox News Channel controversies.
According to WP:SS, when material is moved to a daughter article, a summary should be left behind. Accordingly, I added such a summary here, but it was promptly reverted by Collect. My addition was exactly what I had suggested on this very talk page in the course of the discussion about including the latest study; no one objected then, but Collect now imperiously informs me that I must "try for consensus".
My addition complies with WP:SS (as the wording preferred by Collect does not) and with WP:NPOV. I'll restore it unless someone can explain to me what' wrong with it (other than "disclosure of this fact might reflect badly on Fox News"). JamesMLane t c 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if your problem is that my edit linked to a specific section of the more detailed article, a practice I've seen elsewhere but which isn't specifically addressed (pro or con) in the guideline.When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic.
Collect and JakeInJoisey seem to imply that I have an ideological viewpoint while they are studiously neutral, simply working without preconceptions to improve the encyclopedia. AGF doesn't require me to accept that characterization, however. Actually, Collect, if all the people with a POV were to take a respite from editing this article, then you and several people who frequently agree with you would be on the sideline, right along with Gamaliel and me. The Wikipedia standard isn't whether the editor is neutral, but whether the edit is neutral.
SeanNovack, based on your clarification, I think I see the problem -- you and I are disagreeing because we're addressing different subjects, and talking past each other.
You continue to direct your fire at the Fairleigh Dickinson University study. Thus, you assert that the information I "seek to add" is based on a poll "in a single state". Evidently you and Nightshift36 are reiterating your opposition to this edit, by which Gamaliel added that information to this article.
I invite you to examine the edit that I actually made, which Collect reverted and which is the subject of this thread. That edit is a brief summary of and link to a section in the "Controversies" daughter article. If you examine that section, you'll see that the information presented includes academic studies by the University of Maryland, Stanford University, and Fairleigh Dickinson University; a poll by the Pew Research Center; and commentary from various other notable sources, including Roger Ailes, the head of FNC. That's why, on the "Controversies" talk page, which I realize you may not have been monitoring, I pointed out that it's a mistake to consider the FDU study in isolation.
The question at hand is not whether to pull out the FDU study from all the other data and highlight it in this article. Instead, the question is whether to include here a summary that simply reports the existence of the controversy (without specifying any one of the sources of information about it), and to provide a wikilink to where the reader can find more information, pursuant to WP:SS.
As for Nightshift36's argument about WP:SS, it's clear that the main article is supposed to include a summary of the more detailed article. I'm noting that our current summary of the the more detailed "Controversies" article is inadequate because it omits one entire section, which I've tried to summarize in a single neutral sentence. I also included a wikilink to the relevant section of the daughter article. That's helpful to the reader but is, as I pointed out, not expressly addressed by the guideline. Nightshift36, I'm still not clear whether your objection is to the link. If we dropped the link but left in the one-sentence addition to the summary, would that be satisfactory? I think it would be inferior but I'd be willing to go along with it just to get past this ruckus. JamesMLane t c 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)