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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Anyone have any problems with this? [1] I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, could you leave the rest of the edit and just take out the conservative part? I appear to have stepped in a hornet's nest. Fast Clear ( talk) 04:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the following from the article:
== Current programming ==
=== Weekdays ===
ET | Program | Host(s) | Location | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
5a–6a | Fox & Friends First | Rotation of Fox News talent | Studio H, NY | Early morning newscast lead-in to Fox & Friends. |
6a–9a | Fox & Friends | Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade | Studio E, NY | The channel's morning editorial program featuring news and political opinion. |
9a–11a | America's Newsroom | Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum | Studio J, NY | News program. |
11a–1p | Happening Now | Jon Scott and Jenna Lee | Studio H, NY | News program. |
1p–3p | America Live with Megyn Kelly | Megyn Kelly | Studio J, NY | A daily look at Breaking News and analysis. |
3p–4p | Studio B | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | Afternoon news broadcast. |
4p–5p | Your World with Neil Cavuto | Neil Cavuto | Studio E, NY | Business news and opinion. |
5p–6p, 2a-3a | The Five | Rotation of Greg Gutfeld, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Andrea Tantaros, Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Juan Williams. | Studio D, NY | A nightly roundtable talk and analysis program featuring political opinion and discussion of pop culture. |
6p–7p | Special Report with Bret Baier | Bret Baier | Washington | American politics and world newsmagazine followed by political discussion with guests. |
7p–8p | Fox Report | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | The channel's flagship evening news broadcast. |
8p–9p, 11p-12m, 4a-5a | The O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | Studio A, NY | Cable news's top-rated show. Nghtly editorial and opinion program. |
9p–10p, 12m-1a | Hannity | Sean Hannity | Studio J, NY | Political opinion program. |
10p–11p, 1a-2a | On the Record | Greta Van Susteren | Washington | Nightly newsmagazine featuring politics, legal matters and human interest stories. |
3a–4a | Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld | Greg Gutfeld | Studio E, NY | Late night talk variety program featuring satirist Greg Gutfeld. |
Although I appreciate the effort involved in compiling the schedule, in light of the above-mentioned policy (#4: "...For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc.") I don't believe it's appropriate in the article. Miniapolis ( talk) 02:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A full list of programs, in my view, would violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE; a list of "historically significant" programs (as cited in my comment above) would be fine. I have no dog in this fight; as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I arrived at this article because it was tagged as needing a copy edit. All the best, Miniapolis ( talk) 15:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This thing is huge, and all the topics are only indirectly related. I can see how this might make sense on News Corporation's page, but this is excessive overlinking for an article about just one asset. I think a Fox Entertainment Group navbox is broad enough, but adequately specific. Opinions? InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No objections in eleven days (the signature timestamp is misleading), so it's gone. InedibleHulk ( talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Did he use the studio that "The Five" now uses? I'm really not sure about this one. Curvebill ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I noticed there used to be a box in the article with the shows and the studios they are produced in. That's what it has to do with this article. Curvebill ( talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It was Studio H. This article will also teach you more about "the cube" than you could ever want. Probably. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) But next time, if I have a question about programming, I'll ask it in the Fox News Channel programming section. Curvebill ( talk) 18:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This was recently inserted: "In 2012, The Union of Concerned Scientists published a report stating that primetime coverage of climate change is overwhelmingly misrepresented. The report asserts that 93 percent of primetime discussions were inaccurate. Fox News was found to be consistently dismissive of the established scientific consensus on climate change." I'm having a couple of issues with this. First, it just seems WP:POINTy. This is mainly based on a study by a climate change group. They are hardly unbiased and have a vested interest in deriding anyone who disputes climate change. Second, the study is very focused on FNC and the WSJ. Maybe I missed where they compared them to other outlets, but it sets out to target those two outlets. Lastly, the whole claim is based on the premise that the climate change scientists are right. Are they? Who knows and that debate doesn't belong here. But what is not in debate is that their position is not proven and does have many opponents that are much smarter than me. (Please spare me the "flat earth" answers. I'm not here to debate global warming). In short, the longer I look at this, the more pointy the edit looks. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone fleshed it out a bit, but I'm still lost on how coverage can be "misrepresented". Stuff can misrepresented in coverage, but unless Fox is analyzing climate change coverage itself and bullshitting it, the sentence doesn't really say anything. Or maybe it does, and I'm stupid. Either way, some specifics would be nice, if we're to keep this at all. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not sure whether this should be included here or not (there might be an issue of longevity of issue), but I wonder if anyone else considers the exchange between Megan Kelly and Karl Rove during the 2012 Presidential election coverage to be worthy of mention? It's been covered in just about every news outlet out there, and I would say its relevance to Fox News and how they are perceived is huge. Any other thoughts? Jasonnewyork ( talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first line of the MSNBC page says it is "progressive cable news...". Fox News should likewise have "conservative cable news" in its first line since it is well documented this is the case (cited in the Controversy section). It should be clear to the reader what the nature of the channel is from the first line, similar to the MSNBC page. Otherwise there should be a common standard of leaving explanation to later in the article. 115.64.142.41 ( talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
O'Reilly has also said they're not conservative. From the source for the "denied any bias" bit in Paragraph 3: "If Fox News is a conservative channel — and I'm going to use the word 'if' — so what?" O'Reilly said Tuesday night as he removed his makeup following a broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor from inside Fox's skybox in Madison Square Garden. "You've got 50 other media that are blatantly left. Now, I don't think Fox is a conservative channel. I think it's a traditional channel. There's a difference. We are willing to hear points of view that you'll never hear on ABC, CBS or NBC." InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
A different approach: "What are feelings on this line: Fox News Channel (FNC), also known as Fox News, is a cable news and entertainment channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group..." They've actually registered with the FCC as a news and entertainment channel, with programs like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., being listed as entertainment. Jasonnewyork ( talk) 00:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(od) Unless there is clear consensus to so describe all the "news channels" I doubt consensus will back ascribing that term only to Fox. I would note, in fact, that CNN has essentially the same percentage of "commentary" shows as Fox has, and MSNBC has a higher percentage of "commentary" shows. Collect ( talk) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch says he tried to push a pro-Iraq war agenda, not just on FOX News, but through the whole machine. Is there still a difference? InedibleHulk ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I used Hannity and Colmes as two arbitrary names, somewhat relevant to the topic. Nothing more to it than that. If you'd find it less weird, replace their names with Abbott and Costello or Bert and Ernie. Guy A and Guy B, even. I'm getting the feeling this argument could theoretically last forever, and there's no real point to either of us convincing the other of anything. Unless/until there's a specific article issue that needs to be addressed, I think it's fair to declare this a No Contest. Sound good? I agree with you about Obama and other networks also being guilty of this, by the way. I never meant anything in a "Red vs Blue" type of way. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In this section, it says FOX is the second most trusted network and the most distrusted. If there were two networks in this poll, that would make sense. But this section also mentions more than two other networks in the poll. Does this make sense in some way I'm overlooking, or is it nonsense? InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the lead is not significant enough to be mentioned, as it gives undue weight in relation to the page as a whole. Plus the criticism seems to be from sources of a biased opinion (Rachel Maddow). It either needs greatly shrunk and reworked for neutrality or removed entirely. As it is it cannot stand, and so I'm removing it. Naapple ( Talk) 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of that two sentence paragraph is about how news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other. It can't be shrunk much further, and if it leans any way, it's to the right. But it doesn't lean any way. Both sides say their piece. If you trust FOX's story, great. If you trust the critics, great. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should have neutrality in politics so the phrase "_Critics have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting. Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and have denied any bias in news reporting_" should be in the controversy section not in the opening discription, otherwise it makes Wikipedia look like it wants to take sides against FOX news.
(also this is my first time posting a comment like this so if it belongs somewhere else please move it, thanks) Chinablue888 ( talk) 19:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This article doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Is Fox's reporting biased? Absolutely! However, look at two other obviously biased news channels; Russia Today and MSNBC. The lead section of Russia Today doesn't mention anything about bias since this is relagated to the "objectivity and bias" section (As it should be). MSNBC's lead section is sort of romantically lables MSNBC "increasingly progressive", but this description is glowingly positive and the words 'criticism' or 'bias' are never mentioned in the header (again, they are correctly discussed in the "criticism and controvercy" section). For those who wish to keep three cited comments concerning the bias of Fox News in the lead section, please satisfactorally answer one question: Why should Wikipedia's article on Fox News mention something in the header that no other articles on news channels address in the header? The obvious answer is that it shouldn't, or if it should, we should also reflect this in these other two articles as well as others. It should be taken out of the lead and moved to the proper section. (Please compare) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Msnbc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.57.187 ( talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, no, I am not saying that it is the Russia Today and MSNBC articles that need to be changed. You should reread my comment and pay attention this time; namely to where I repeatedly mention that in those articles claims of bias rightly appear in bias section rather than the lead. Secondly, this IS the correct talk page for deleting content from the lead. I am suggesting we delete the bit about bias from the lead since it is already adequately covered in the rather large "Controversies" section (and this section should be large). This would bring the article in conformity with other articles about other biased news channels. The bit about the term "increasingly progressive" being positive or neutral is really missing the point and only serves as distracting a red herring. The fact of the matter is the lead of the MSNBC article does not use words such as "bias" or "controversy", but rather just reflects MSNBC's own slogan. I don't have a problem with that, but I am saying that THIS article should save bias and controversy for the proper section. Please guys, I'm really trying not to go here, but it it getting increasingly obvious that some of you are determined to have your own biases reflected in this article. I don't like Fox either, but we really should adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy as well as making sure that our article conforms to the established norm for other such articles. Leave your vendettas against Fox at the login screen, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.11.138 ( talk) 09:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Belchfire keeps removing the word "some" from the lead, citing the weasel words guideline, but apparently hasn't read it too carefully. While the guideline does say to generally avoid them (note that it doesn't say prohibit), it also says: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." Now, the removal has been reverted by more than one editor, suggesting that the removal of "some" actually makes the sentence deceiving and/or inaccurate. Perhaps Belchfire will discuss this here. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article. It is a large article with a tiny lead. It seems like the sections in the article ought to be summarized. Be——Critical 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I don't like it. If there's one thing with less educational substance than a poll, it's a poll that attempts (I use that word loosely) to quantify an unquantifiable like trust. Hardly can be called info, certainly not lead-worthy info. InedibleHulk ( talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In 2010, its programs took the top ten spots for most-watched cable news programs in the 25–54 age demographic, and the top twelve spots among total cable news program viewers.
Silence is consensus. I'll assume you guys agree and change it back pretty soon. Be——Critical 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a question, is Tvnewser on mediabistro.com quoting Weekday Ranker a good source? What is that Weekday Ranker? I didn't find anything immediately, so just asking[www.themediaaudit.com/media/30535/ranker_report.pdf]. Be——Critical 09:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is Bulls & Bears, Cavoto, Forbs on Fox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.22.206 ( talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
i dont know why i cant edit this paragraph, so please add it for me:
"FNC is broadcast on channel 71 of the cable operator pay-TV HOT. "
also, fix the type of the YES operator - should read "satellite operator" instead of "cable operator". -- 81.218.79.200 ( talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
And old issue resurfaced again with the reposting of a survey done by Fairleigh Dickinson University. [3] That issue was already discussed here [4] and here [5], with no consensus to include it. Re-inserting it would require a new discussion. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
From the look of the above comments: please read the new addition, here so we don't waste time on things that are out-dated. Be——Critical 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There are criticism sections on several articles on Wikipedia. A controversial article like Fox News needs more than a sentence for criticism. I can help build a Criticism section here with several sources if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.188.177 ( talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe Fox News should contain the title propaganda in it's critic section and is in fact a textbook case example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model >Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This section is ridiculous and contains opinionated words like 'snub'. I may take this argument to higher wikipedia authority if this is not addressed. >Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
In court cases Fox claims it is not a news organization. Fox is entertainment. This should be noted. >Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit
I had a list of FNC studios and the shows produced in them that was removed. It was not a TV Guide style list so I'm wondering why it was removed and if I can add it back?( IceManNYR ( talk) 22:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC))
I protected the article for a week because of the ongoing edit war. User:Niteshift36 has now asked me on my talkpage to remove the disputed material while it's being discussed, and told me s/he thinks a week's protection seems overly long. I'll answer here. It doesn't have to be a week, I'll be very happy to unprotect if and when the conflict is resolved and people are able to form a consensus here on talk. The recent editing of the article is a sad sight, and I must say the thread above isn't very encouraging either. I hope people use this editing lull for some constructive discussion. As for me reverting the article back to a different version, no, that won't happen. Please see The Wrong Version. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
{{ editprotected}}
Please add "I think" to the beginning of the quote by Chris Wallace in the "Objectivity and bias" section per the consensus above. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the infobox logo with File:FoxNewsChannelLogo.png, as this is the official logo, and not the rendering we currently use. WikiRedactor ( talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:02, 18 September 2013 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Anyone have any problems with this? [1] I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, could you leave the rest of the edit and just take out the conservative part? I appear to have stepped in a hornet's nest. Fast Clear ( talk) 04:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the following from the article:
== Current programming ==
=== Weekdays ===
ET | Program | Host(s) | Location | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
5a–6a | Fox & Friends First | Rotation of Fox News talent | Studio H, NY | Early morning newscast lead-in to Fox & Friends. |
6a–9a | Fox & Friends | Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade | Studio E, NY | The channel's morning editorial program featuring news and political opinion. |
9a–11a | America's Newsroom | Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum | Studio J, NY | News program. |
11a–1p | Happening Now | Jon Scott and Jenna Lee | Studio H, NY | News program. |
1p–3p | America Live with Megyn Kelly | Megyn Kelly | Studio J, NY | A daily look at Breaking News and analysis. |
3p–4p | Studio B | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | Afternoon news broadcast. |
4p–5p | Your World with Neil Cavuto | Neil Cavuto | Studio E, NY | Business news and opinion. |
5p–6p, 2a-3a | The Five | Rotation of Greg Gutfeld, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Andrea Tantaros, Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Juan Williams. | Studio D, NY | A nightly roundtable talk and analysis program featuring political opinion and discussion of pop culture. |
6p–7p | Special Report with Bret Baier | Bret Baier | Washington | American politics and world newsmagazine followed by political discussion with guests. |
7p–8p | Fox Report | Shepard Smith | Studio H, NY | The channel's flagship evening news broadcast. |
8p–9p, 11p-12m, 4a-5a | The O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | Studio A, NY | Cable news's top-rated show. Nghtly editorial and opinion program. |
9p–10p, 12m-1a | Hannity | Sean Hannity | Studio J, NY | Political opinion program. |
10p–11p, 1a-2a | On the Record | Greta Van Susteren | Washington | Nightly newsmagazine featuring politics, legal matters and human interest stories. |
3a–4a | Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld | Greg Gutfeld | Studio E, NY | Late night talk variety program featuring satirist Greg Gutfeld. |
Although I appreciate the effort involved in compiling the schedule, in light of the above-mentioned policy (#4: "...For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc.") I don't believe it's appropriate in the article. Miniapolis ( talk) 02:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A full list of programs, in my view, would violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE; a list of "historically significant" programs (as cited in my comment above) would be fine. I have no dog in this fight; as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I arrived at this article because it was tagged as needing a copy edit. All the best, Miniapolis ( talk) 15:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This thing is huge, and all the topics are only indirectly related. I can see how this might make sense on News Corporation's page, but this is excessive overlinking for an article about just one asset. I think a Fox Entertainment Group navbox is broad enough, but adequately specific. Opinions? InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No objections in eleven days (the signature timestamp is misleading), so it's gone. InedibleHulk ( talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Did he use the studio that "The Five" now uses? I'm really not sure about this one. Curvebill ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I noticed there used to be a box in the article with the shows and the studios they are produced in. That's what it has to do with this article. Curvebill ( talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It was Studio H. This article will also teach you more about "the cube" than you could ever want. Probably. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) But next time, if I have a question about programming, I'll ask it in the Fox News Channel programming section. Curvebill ( talk) 18:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This was recently inserted: "In 2012, The Union of Concerned Scientists published a report stating that primetime coverage of climate change is overwhelmingly misrepresented. The report asserts that 93 percent of primetime discussions were inaccurate. Fox News was found to be consistently dismissive of the established scientific consensus on climate change." I'm having a couple of issues with this. First, it just seems WP:POINTy. This is mainly based on a study by a climate change group. They are hardly unbiased and have a vested interest in deriding anyone who disputes climate change. Second, the study is very focused on FNC and the WSJ. Maybe I missed where they compared them to other outlets, but it sets out to target those two outlets. Lastly, the whole claim is based on the premise that the climate change scientists are right. Are they? Who knows and that debate doesn't belong here. But what is not in debate is that their position is not proven and does have many opponents that are much smarter than me. (Please spare me the "flat earth" answers. I'm not here to debate global warming). In short, the longer I look at this, the more pointy the edit looks. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone fleshed it out a bit, but I'm still lost on how coverage can be "misrepresented". Stuff can misrepresented in coverage, but unless Fox is analyzing climate change coverage itself and bullshitting it, the sentence doesn't really say anything. Or maybe it does, and I'm stupid. Either way, some specifics would be nice, if we're to keep this at all. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not sure whether this should be included here or not (there might be an issue of longevity of issue), but I wonder if anyone else considers the exchange between Megan Kelly and Karl Rove during the 2012 Presidential election coverage to be worthy of mention? It's been covered in just about every news outlet out there, and I would say its relevance to Fox News and how they are perceived is huge. Any other thoughts? Jasonnewyork ( talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first line of the MSNBC page says it is "progressive cable news...". Fox News should likewise have "conservative cable news" in its first line since it is well documented this is the case (cited in the Controversy section). It should be clear to the reader what the nature of the channel is from the first line, similar to the MSNBC page. Otherwise there should be a common standard of leaving explanation to later in the article. 115.64.142.41 ( talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
O'Reilly has also said they're not conservative. From the source for the "denied any bias" bit in Paragraph 3: "If Fox News is a conservative channel — and I'm going to use the word 'if' — so what?" O'Reilly said Tuesday night as he removed his makeup following a broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor from inside Fox's skybox in Madison Square Garden. "You've got 50 other media that are blatantly left. Now, I don't think Fox is a conservative channel. I think it's a traditional channel. There's a difference. We are willing to hear points of view that you'll never hear on ABC, CBS or NBC." InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
A different approach: "What are feelings on this line: Fox News Channel (FNC), also known as Fox News, is a cable news and entertainment channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group..." They've actually registered with the FCC as a news and entertainment channel, with programs like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., being listed as entertainment. Jasonnewyork ( talk) 00:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(od) Unless there is clear consensus to so describe all the "news channels" I doubt consensus will back ascribing that term only to Fox. I would note, in fact, that CNN has essentially the same percentage of "commentary" shows as Fox has, and MSNBC has a higher percentage of "commentary" shows. Collect ( talk) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch says he tried to push a pro-Iraq war agenda, not just on FOX News, but through the whole machine. Is there still a difference? InedibleHulk ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I used Hannity and Colmes as two arbitrary names, somewhat relevant to the topic. Nothing more to it than that. If you'd find it less weird, replace their names with Abbott and Costello or Bert and Ernie. Guy A and Guy B, even. I'm getting the feeling this argument could theoretically last forever, and there's no real point to either of us convincing the other of anything. Unless/until there's a specific article issue that needs to be addressed, I think it's fair to declare this a No Contest. Sound good? I agree with you about Obama and other networks also being guilty of this, by the way. I never meant anything in a "Red vs Blue" type of way. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In this section, it says FOX is the second most trusted network and the most distrusted. If there were two networks in this poll, that would make sense. But this section also mentions more than two other networks in the poll. Does this make sense in some way I'm overlooking, or is it nonsense? InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the lead is not significant enough to be mentioned, as it gives undue weight in relation to the page as a whole. Plus the criticism seems to be from sources of a biased opinion (Rachel Maddow). It either needs greatly shrunk and reworked for neutrality or removed entirely. As it is it cannot stand, and so I'm removing it. Naapple ( Talk) 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of that two sentence paragraph is about how news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other. It can't be shrunk much further, and if it leans any way, it's to the right. But it doesn't lean any way. Both sides say their piece. If you trust FOX's story, great. If you trust the critics, great. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should have neutrality in politics so the phrase "_Critics have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting. Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and have denied any bias in news reporting_" should be in the controversy section not in the opening discription, otherwise it makes Wikipedia look like it wants to take sides against FOX news.
(also this is my first time posting a comment like this so if it belongs somewhere else please move it, thanks) Chinablue888 ( talk) 19:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This article doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Is Fox's reporting biased? Absolutely! However, look at two other obviously biased news channels; Russia Today and MSNBC. The lead section of Russia Today doesn't mention anything about bias since this is relagated to the "objectivity and bias" section (As it should be). MSNBC's lead section is sort of romantically lables MSNBC "increasingly progressive", but this description is glowingly positive and the words 'criticism' or 'bias' are never mentioned in the header (again, they are correctly discussed in the "criticism and controvercy" section). For those who wish to keep three cited comments concerning the bias of Fox News in the lead section, please satisfactorally answer one question: Why should Wikipedia's article on Fox News mention something in the header that no other articles on news channels address in the header? The obvious answer is that it shouldn't, or if it should, we should also reflect this in these other two articles as well as others. It should be taken out of the lead and moved to the proper section. (Please compare) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Msnbc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.57.187 ( talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, no, I am not saying that it is the Russia Today and MSNBC articles that need to be changed. You should reread my comment and pay attention this time; namely to where I repeatedly mention that in those articles claims of bias rightly appear in bias section rather than the lead. Secondly, this IS the correct talk page for deleting content from the lead. I am suggesting we delete the bit about bias from the lead since it is already adequately covered in the rather large "Controversies" section (and this section should be large). This would bring the article in conformity with other articles about other biased news channels. The bit about the term "increasingly progressive" being positive or neutral is really missing the point and only serves as distracting a red herring. The fact of the matter is the lead of the MSNBC article does not use words such as "bias" or "controversy", but rather just reflects MSNBC's own slogan. I don't have a problem with that, but I am saying that THIS article should save bias and controversy for the proper section. Please guys, I'm really trying not to go here, but it it getting increasingly obvious that some of you are determined to have your own biases reflected in this article. I don't like Fox either, but we really should adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy as well as making sure that our article conforms to the established norm for other such articles. Leave your vendettas against Fox at the login screen, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.11.138 ( talk) 09:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Belchfire keeps removing the word "some" from the lead, citing the weasel words guideline, but apparently hasn't read it too carefully. While the guideline does say to generally avoid them (note that it doesn't say prohibit), it also says: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." Now, the removal has been reverted by more than one editor, suggesting that the removal of "some" actually makes the sentence deceiving and/or inaccurate. Perhaps Belchfire will discuss this here. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article. It is a large article with a tiny lead. It seems like the sections in the article ought to be summarized. Be——Critical 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I don't like it. If there's one thing with less educational substance than a poll, it's a poll that attempts (I use that word loosely) to quantify an unquantifiable like trust. Hardly can be called info, certainly not lead-worthy info. InedibleHulk ( talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In 2010, its programs took the top ten spots for most-watched cable news programs in the 25–54 age demographic, and the top twelve spots among total cable news program viewers.
Silence is consensus. I'll assume you guys agree and change it back pretty soon. Be——Critical 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a question, is Tvnewser on mediabistro.com quoting Weekday Ranker a good source? What is that Weekday Ranker? I didn't find anything immediately, so just asking[www.themediaaudit.com/media/30535/ranker_report.pdf]. Be——Critical 09:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is Bulls & Bears, Cavoto, Forbs on Fox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.22.206 ( talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
i dont know why i cant edit this paragraph, so please add it for me:
"FNC is broadcast on channel 71 of the cable operator pay-TV HOT. "
also, fix the type of the YES operator - should read "satellite operator" instead of "cable operator". -- 81.218.79.200 ( talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
And old issue resurfaced again with the reposting of a survey done by Fairleigh Dickinson University. [3] That issue was already discussed here [4] and here [5], with no consensus to include it. Re-inserting it would require a new discussion. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
From the look of the above comments: please read the new addition, here so we don't waste time on things that are out-dated. Be——Critical 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There are criticism sections on several articles on Wikipedia. A controversial article like Fox News needs more than a sentence for criticism. I can help build a Criticism section here with several sources if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.188.177 ( talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe Fox News should contain the title propaganda in it's critic section and is in fact a textbook case example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model >Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This section is ridiculous and contains opinionated words like 'snub'. I may take this argument to higher wikipedia authority if this is not addressed. >Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
In court cases Fox claims it is not a news organization. Fox is entertainment. This should be noted. >Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Ims000g4y ( talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit
I had a list of FNC studios and the shows produced in them that was removed. It was not a TV Guide style list so I'm wondering why it was removed and if I can add it back?( IceManNYR ( talk) 22:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC))
I protected the article for a week because of the ongoing edit war. User:Niteshift36 has now asked me on my talkpage to remove the disputed material while it's being discussed, and told me s/he thinks a week's protection seems overly long. I'll answer here. It doesn't have to be a week, I'll be very happy to unprotect if and when the conflict is resolved and people are able to form a consensus here on talk. The recent editing of the article is a sad sight, and I must say the thread above isn't very encouraging either. I hope people use this editing lull for some constructive discussion. As for me reverting the article back to a different version, no, that won't happen. Please see The Wrong Version. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
{{ editprotected}}
Please add "I think" to the beginning of the quote by Chris Wallace in the "Objectivity and bias" section per the consensus above. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the infobox logo with File:FoxNewsChannelLogo.png, as this is the official logo, and not the rendering we currently use. WikiRedactor ( talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)