![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Reverted the following changes [1] added first by Sooganssnoogans and later back by JzG, finding that these changes are using FoxNews competitors as sources as well as other hyperpartisan sourcing with an axe to grind. Since when do we trust a competing entities opinions?-- MONGO ( talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
References
So now Fox News is in competition with Oxford University Press and the Newyorker? Seriously? That's the argument for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals? 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And absurd claims along the lines of "Vox leans far left" have gotten editors topic banned in the past because they display a pretty clear WP:TEND approach to editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Text "pages" ignored (
help) and Grossman, Matt; Hopkins, David A. (October 13, 2016).
Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 175.
ISBN
978-0-19062-660-0.. I dientified the sources I agree are problematic - Vox, Max Boot and MMA - and the ones I think are reliable - New Yorker (because it's investigative not opinion) and PBS.
Guy (
help!) 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)We have academic sources + other high quality reliable sources like the Newyorker. There's no policy based reasons for these attempts at removal. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The long-standing edit is fully supported by multiple reliable sources and should be restored in its entirety. soibangla ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Can we at a minimum agree that Media Matters should not be used at all in this article?. It is a far-left organization that has declared a "war on Fox News". It is purely an advocacy organization, not a reliable source.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I recently closed an RSN discussion on whether CNN is usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News. "The consensus is that CNN is a usable source for unflattering information about Fox News. Editors largely do not accept the financial COI argument to disqualify CNN. Several editors feel that attribution is needed. Meanwhile, WEIGHT / DUE has been listed as a factor by several editors as to whether such content should be used." In relation to the above discussions, the argument against the possibility of using competitors as sources (if they are already known as reliable sources) seems to be rejected at RSN. starship .paint ( talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
How does anyone propose shortening that section to address the tags left there? I've tried shortening it but couldn't find anything that warranted removing. Are the tags misplaced? Love of Corey ( talk) 00:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Fox War Channel. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Fox War Channel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
All American New Year. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#All American New Year until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 16:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The main article that [citation needed] for the statement that Fox News still keeps the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Here's the citation showing that Fox News has the trademark registration over "Fair & Balanced" https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000075280027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:82D8:4480:E15A:1B0A:3B5E:6489 ( talk) 09:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Fox News coverage extended throughout the programming day, with particular emphasis by Hannity" to "According to Media Matters, the Fox News coverage extended throughout the programming day, with particular emphasis by Hannity." Attribution is needed. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 09:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Attribution is in the in-line citation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(1) I think you need to edit this segment here:
"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24] Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During Trump's presidency, observers have said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "It's the closest we've come to having state TV."[26][27]"
These lines are very editorialized and represents a very particular line of harsh criticism from Fox News' biggest detractors, who of course tend to have their own politics. Appearing in the summary gives the strong appearance of non-neutrality of the overall article. It is fine to mention its political bias in the summary, but the full discussion of various defenses and criticism (including harshest criticism) should appear in the section on political alignment.
(a) The referenced paragraph in the summary should instead read:
"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of Republican Party candidates and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22]"
(b) This should be removed from the summary since it already appears word for word in the section on political alignment (where it belongs):
"Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During Trump's presidency, observers have said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "It's the closest we've come to having state TV."[26][27]".
(c) The following segment should also be removed from the summary, as it is already in section on political alignment. To me, it is also unclear:
"Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24]"
What does this mean exactly? The citations are also unclear both in how they support the allegation (not to mention what the allegation exactly is). What is the "integrity" of the news? How does Fox damage the integrity of the news (eg is its bias that damages the integrity of the news)? It should also be elaborated on a bit more and because it is unclear (but may be valid or a widely shared criticism worth noting) it should appear in the section on political alignment. This is not merely an allegation of political bias--even if a strong political bias. Again, it is a point of view of Fox's harshest critics and doesn't belong in the summary. Aapelle ( talk) 02:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second paragraph within the Fox New Channel description is entirely biased regarding left leaning media companies and newspapers opinions of the Channel. The sources quoted are just media sources themselves which makes them no more valid than just somebody off the street. I recommend this whole second paragraph be deleted since it is based on opinion. Leave the rest of the paragraphs alone that focus on the facts of the company and the history of it which mostly avoids political opinion. I'd edit this way myself if allowed. Cschlise ( talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There was been quite a fair amount of discussion on talk:MSNBC about whether the network should be described as liberal or progressive in the first sentence of the article. As that seems to be going nowhere, I suggest removing this descriptor from the top sentence of this article for consistency and fairness. One can read down the lead which discusses at length Fox News' conservative editorial slant and allegations of reporting bias. thorpewilliam ( talk) 03:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It is properly sourced, and it is one of the network's main claims to fame. Dimadick ( talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
While I would like to make the change myself (and have already attempted), it will be instantly reverted. I'll give this 24 hours, then, I'll probably attempt it again myself unless responded to. thorpewilliam ( talk) 10:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I would change that Fox News Channel is a conservative news channel. It should be changed.
Fox News Network, LLC Terms of Use Agreement ( /info/en/?search=Fox_News) states, in part (first sentence of second paragraph), "Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment." This statement is what protects them when they exaggerate and or lie. Therefore, please change:
“Fox News (officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox) is an American multinational conservative[2][3][4][5] cable news television channel. “
to:
Fox News (officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox) is an American multinational cable television personal enjoyment and entertainment channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.183.93 ( talk) 22:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the last paragraph in the beginning of the article because it is exactly the same as the content of the “Political alignment” section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola ( talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. The
lead section should summarise the article, and Fox's political alignment is pretty important to this article, so I would suggest getting consensus before doing this.
Seagull123
Φ 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)The last sentence of the lead includes a quote describing Fox as "the closest we've come to having state TV." I don't see the value of having this quote in the lead, as it has no summary value. Hence, I have decided to ask for comments on this quote existing as it does in the lead. thorpewilliam ( talk) 02:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
A edit I made moving the descriptor of "conservative" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead and added "some" to the statement former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives", with the reason given that these edits were "not an improvement". As per remedies, I have raised this here to see if a consensus developed. In the mean time, as more than 24 hours has passed since my original edit, again as per remedies, I will re-instate. thorpewilliam ( talk) 04:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
See MOS:WEASEL regarding the word "some" Vrrajkum ( talk) 19:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shorten the final paragraph of the article’s introduction. It is nearly identical to the Political alignment section of the article. I understand why deleting the paragraph would not be feasible, but I believe cutting it down is very much necessary given that there’s few differences between the paragraph and the Political alignment section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola ( talk) 07:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Swil999 (
talk) 09:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A certain editor, whom I will not name, has as I see it showed an aversion to even slight improvements to this article. I plan to restore my most recent edit, which was already a compromise as I see it, as more than 24h has passed. Any editor who has an opposition to these is free to justify those here, in accordance with ArbCom remedies. Kind regards, thorpewilliam ( talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2603:9001:407:C800:56BD:79FF:FE4D:6E3D ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally find your "accessible reading material" on FOX NEWS is incorrectly based! FOX NEWS' contributions are open, clear, and informative for all open minded, clear thinking & true information seekers!
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
O3000 (
talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
My recent edits on the new relationship between Trump/Trumpism and Fox News has been reverted. I understand that the lead should be a summary of the article, but I think these new developments (as well as the rise of Newsmax and OANN as far-right alternatives as a result of Fox's more critical stance on Trump, bolstered by Trump himself) should be mentioned as this issue has been mentioned a few times on the talk page. – Bangalamania ( talk) 03:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello freemediakid!, can you provide a reliable independent source for you statement about conspiracy theorist. But I also agree with the OP, it could use an update as this is a big change in the way they are reporting. WILDGUN96 ( talk) 04:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment only. I like the information all being in one spot. (like a book). Don't break it all up please. 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:101:5F0:E455:40FF:2C22:563C ( talk)
At
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#NPOV_issues_on_wiki_with_regards_to_politics, @
Masem: has suggested that the section
Fox_News#Glenn_Beck's_comments_about_George_Soros should be expanded to cover the entire pattern of anti-semitic attacks that have been made by Fox hosts. I am starting this discussion here to work on wording and establish sourcing.
IHateAccounts (
talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)comments by this sock puppet are struck per wp:talko
@
Masem: Asking you and others to help provide sources regarding anti-semitism by Fox hosts or regular contributors below.
IHateAccounts (
talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
===General background:===
Jennifer Rubin does not identify as a Conservative and has sought to distance herself from that label. Should this sentence be rewritten? Juno ( talk) 03:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the controversy section, there is a subsection called Journalistic ethical standards. This section should include the case of McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC. This case determined that Tucker Carlson is NOT being a reliable source of facts. This is the argument of the Fox news lawyers. There are many articles about this case including the judge of the case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye 2600:1009:B016:9143:8967:869:58E4:22A0 ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The current introduction is not very perspicuous when it comes to the fact, that Fox News had repeatedly spread fake news and alternative facts. The Fox-News wiki-article in other wiki-language-Versions are more straight forward in their introductions of fox news. I at least recommend for other users here, to go for example to the french or german fox-news-wiki artice and use a translator-app, to see how they describe fox-news in the introduction. besides a report in a scientific-journal [1] the sources being used are huffpost [2], forbes [3], Los Angeles Magazine [4], CNN [5], Le Monde [6], Die Zeit [7] and Slate france [8]. Well I guess that if some of the mentioned sources (for example: cnn, Huffpost, Forbes) would be used for mentioning fake news and alternative facts in the introduction of fox news, the editing would most probably be reverted. but what if we would use - next to the scientific report - the english-based Los Angeles Magazine or the french "le monde" or the german "Die Zeit"? With translation programs everyone can check the non-english-sources themselves. So there is no boundary, when it comes to the use of those, right? ---- LennBr ( talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I was overhearing some discussions down at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard #New York Post and found this link. I dunno if it's any helpful, but I just wanted to ask if there is any worth in mentioning more about Fox News and its unreliability surrounding politics-related topics. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Ron DeSantis to Regular guests and contributors
see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/06/desantis-gives-fox-news-exclusive-signing-new-voting-restrictions-into-law/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/05/06/fox-news-didnt-ask-for-an-exclusive-on-desantis-bill-signing-network-says/ https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-exclusive-desantis-florida-election-bill-signing-2021-5 71.173.64.11 ( talk) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fox News is available on Foxtel on channel 608. 175.32.196.147 ( talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Qwerfjkl}}
on reply) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)The section about Fox News’s political bias needs to be significantly improved to be neutral. In terms of semantics, the use of the word “conservative” requires clarification and more specifics, as Wikipedia, especially the English version, suits the global English-speaking audience. Moreover, the obfuscated use of “scholars” or passive voice dent the credibility of Wikipedia in the eyes of conservative readers. This is not to say that the bias doesn't exist, but it needs to be more properly explained and supported. 109.66.6.108 ( talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
More specifically, I think it would be better to be more semantically accurate (for instance “socially conservative”/“religious”/“a free market (or capitalism) advocate” instead of the umbrella term “conservative” in the specific context in which these are mentioned. Conservative could also mean risk-averse, for instance.
As per “scholars” I was unclear. The article (the prose itself) is properly referenced. Specifically the general use of “scholars” or of the passive voice is what bothers me, as it puts the burden of proof on the reader (to discern from the sources the opinions of scholars) rather than be provided with the names outright. This usage also sounds a little bit pompous, as if the writers know everything that had been said about this in the scholarly world.
It is purely about semantic. As a non-expert, I was sure the article is biased at first glance. Only after putting in time analyzing it did I realize it is a purely linguistic problem. 109.66.6.108 ( talk) 17:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Without taking a position, such a controversial subject needs to be updated. The references are 10 years old and the amount of research in the last decade is humungous. Some positions of Fox and scientists may have changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.63.8.238 ( talk) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I request to remove Rick Leventhal from the list of Fox News personalities. He already left the network on June 2021. Thank you https://pagesix.com/2021/06/17/kelly-dodds-husband-rick-leventhal-leaving-fox-news/ 49.204.181.142 ( talk) 11:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Last paragraph needs to be moved into the body. No other news sources has it. It's ridiculously biased. 2600:8805:C980:9400:B419:EACF:C083:FF90 ( talk) 23:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No it doesn't who made you the exepert? 2600:8805:C980:9400:5C01:5E1B:F64C:7382 ( talk) 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Fix lead 2600:8805:C980:9400:5CD4:9B4B:C130:4BB ( talk) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
i believe that with the amount of coverage Fox News is giving the fall of Kabul i believe a new section should be added
As of today. 137.27.65.235 ( talk) 12:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an undefined refname in the
Pro-Republican and pro-Trump bias section. It was caused by
this edit, that removed the auto1 reference while it was still in use.
The following:
<ref name="auto1"/>
should be replaced with:
<ref name="auto1">{{Cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house |title=The Making of the Fox News White House |first=Jane |last=Mayer |date=March 4, 2019 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |access-date=October 17, 2019}}</ref>
Thanks
89.241.33.89 (
talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
He should be included in the list of former hosts and contributors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.154.136 ( talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not denying Fox isn't a conservative news source. It is. But for the sake of consistency, I believe the word "conservative" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Mind you, it's coming before even "cable news television channel". No other article for a mainstream, mass-market news channel, of which Fox is one, has mention of its political leanings in the very first sentence. MSNBC, for example, which I'd argue has a roughly equivalent progressive bias, only mentions accusations of liberal bias at the end of the lead. I am not advocating that any and all accusations of conservative bias should be removed from the lead, they shouldn't, but having mentions of political biases in the lead is completely different from having mentions of political bias in the first sentence. Mentioning biases in the lead is crucial for properly summarizing the most important parts of the article below but placing the word "conservative" in the first sentence right before "Cable News Television Channel" is tantamount to saying Fox is a conservative news channel, not that Fox is a news channel accused of conservative biases, despite the talk page stating the article takes no position on Fox's political biases. Unlike the article on Fox News, taking example again from MSNBC, the article does not state MSNBC is a liberal news channel, rather that it is one accused of liberal bias.
I looked through the article FAQ, as well as the linked RfC, and nowhere does it state "conservative" should be placed in the first sentence, only that mentions of conservative bias should be included in the lead. I am taking no political position here, I am not trying to right great wrongs, I am not even trying to defend Fox. I am trying to make the article consistent with what is stated in the article FAQ, where it is stated, the article takes no position on the biases of Fox News. In its current state, this article does. Brazenly. I am suggesting simply that the first instance of the word "Conservative" is removed from the lead. Nothing else would change, and the incredibly important mentions of conservative bias would remain.
I would appreciate if someone would be able to tell me why "conservative" is used in the first sentence of the lead, and redirect me to the appropriate RfC which mandates that "conservative" be used in the first sentence, not the RfC which mandates that conservative bias be mentioned in the lead.
Thanks, KlammedyKlamKlam: Nosh 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, KlammedyKlamKlam: Nosh 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
KlammedyKlamKlam: Nosh 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
“What distinguishes Fox News from others is that it was deliberately conceived to be slanted.”
This statement is not fair or accurate. According to the 1996 New York Times article below, which contains several quotes from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes describing how they expect FNC to report news. Making up a reason why a description should or should not be removed is dishonest. I don’t think you should be the one telling others why a news outlet was conceived while ignoring the founders own reasons. If that is the reasoning from removing “conservative” from the lead paragraph or not adding “liberal” to the lead paragraph of CNN than you are wrong. Fox News definitely leans right, just as CNN leans left. Try again, why does one have that description in the lead and the other doesn’t?
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/07/business/at-the-new-fox-news-channel-the-buzzword-is-fairness-separating-news-from-bias.html WhowinsIwins ( talk) 07:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The truth was, Fox had been conceived from the very beginning as a venue for TV news with a deliberate slant.. Moxy-
This is ultimately a style decision subject to local consensus. Considering the discretion available to a closer, neither side's arguments can be labelled as inherently stronger than the other's. There are some comments that don't really appear to have a strong basis in site PAGs, or are otherwise opinionated, but it doesn't really change the outcome too much: there's no consensus in this discussion as to whether Fox should be described as "conservative" in the first sentence. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the label stays as it is the status quo.
As for the discussion about why MSNBC doesn't include that channel's political leanings, editors are free to hold a discussion at Talk:MSNBC. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Fox News be described as a "conservative cable news television channel" or should the word "Conservative" be removed from the first sentence without removing other mentions of conservative bias from the lead?
KlammedyKlamKlam:
Nosh 20:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the perception of Foxnews having a conservative bias (whether the perception is accurate or not is irrelevant) is sufficiently widespread, to leave it out of the article would violate NPOV. This perception is also one of the factors that makes Foxnews notable, so it should be mentioned in the introduction. Also, since the perception (again not any actual bias just a perception) is so widely known to exist it need not be cited at all. However, to show that said perception is not being pulled out of thin air, there is a citation to a study showing the pervasiveness of the perception.–– FormalDude talk 16:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere.". Also, per that discussion it is important to note that there is a difference between supporting having conservative in the opening vs in the first sentence. While some have argued that Fox News is a conservative network it's probably better to say they have a conservative view on political topics (broadly speaking including science and social topics with a political angle). Saying "conservative news network" can imply they only cover topics that have some relationship to conservativism. The network covers the full range of national news including things like current events, business news, etc. Contrast that with sources such as Reason which typically covers topics that have a specifically librarian aspect to them. While "conservative" is an important aspect of the network it is not defining the way "news network" is defining. The original closer was correct to note that many of the "keep" !votes don't actually address if the term should be in the opening sentence vs early in the lead. As such they aren't helpful in deciding consensus. I would encourage those editors to clarify their positions as to why this should be in the first sentence instead of say the second sentence. Springee ( talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
American multinational conservative cable news television channelis a mouthful. I would prefer the first sentence read something more like:
Fox News … is an American[I would cut 'multinational']
cable news television channel…or some variant thereof. I don't see a compelling reason why its conservative bias urgently needs to be mentioned in the first sentence as opposed to elsewhere in the first paragraph or lead, but if others are adamant, I would prefer to append something like
…which caters to conservative audiences.to the end of the sentence, rather than leave it where it is. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
to appeal to a conservative audience. I am open to alternative suggestions but would note that there is not currently a consensus for describing it in our voice as deliberately biased and establishing one would, at this point in the process, require a separate RfC. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment It's often helpful to see how Wikipedia characterizes things like this vs other sources. Consider the entry from Encyclopedia Britannica
[8]. It's opening paragraph is Fox News Channel, American cable television news and political commentary channel launched in 1996. The network operated under the umbrella of the Fox Entertainment Group, the film and television division of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox (formerly News Corporation).
. Discussion of the things conservative are 3 paragraphs deep into the article. Sources that say "conservative" is the defining characteristic of the network appear to be from sources that are making a point about the nature of the coverage rather than sources that are providing a high level assessment. This would suggest that the emphasis we put on this may not reflect out other sources would want to summarize this topic and suggest that we are adding emphasis based on the views of editors here rather than how external sources would summarize the topic.
Springee (
talk) 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Fox is known for just being news channel before anything else, before it's known as conservative.Do you have a source to support that, or is it just your own say-so? Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
"conservative" isn't even a real thing, but you haven't provided any sources from political scientists that line up with that. My preliminary search of peer reviewed studies shows that there are instances where political scientists ascribe labels like "conservative". For example:
Google Scholar results
|
---|
|
Gobsmacked that someone, a non-admin no less, had the stones to take a 2-to-1 discussion and call it for the 1. Yes, yes, "not-a-vote", but one needs to see something rather exceptional or extraordinary to pull something like this. Will give the closer a little more time before this moved to a formal close review. Zaathras ( talk) 04:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
–– FormalDude talk 08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
The sentence "although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to 'slant the news in favor of conservatives'" is based on a 2004 article referencing a documentary from the same year. Is it not reasonable to either remove the last paragraph altogether or include more elaboration? Seems to be highly misleading to the average reader, especially with it being a pretty serious allegation. Oebelysk ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2022 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Reverted the following changes [1] added first by Sooganssnoogans and later back by JzG, finding that these changes are using FoxNews competitors as sources as well as other hyperpartisan sourcing with an axe to grind. Since when do we trust a competing entities opinions?-- MONGO ( talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
References
So now Fox News is in competition with Oxford University Press and the Newyorker? Seriously? That's the argument for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals? 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And absurd claims along the lines of "Vox leans far left" have gotten editors topic banned in the past because they display a pretty clear WP:TEND approach to editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Text "pages" ignored (
help) and Grossman, Matt; Hopkins, David A. (October 13, 2016).
Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 175.
ISBN
978-0-19062-660-0.. I dientified the sources I agree are problematic - Vox, Max Boot and MMA - and the ones I think are reliable - New Yorker (because it's investigative not opinion) and PBS.
Guy (
help!) 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)We have academic sources + other high quality reliable sources like the Newyorker. There's no policy based reasons for these attempts at removal. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The long-standing edit is fully supported by multiple reliable sources and should be restored in its entirety. soibangla ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Can we at a minimum agree that Media Matters should not be used at all in this article?. It is a far-left organization that has declared a "war on Fox News". It is purely an advocacy organization, not a reliable source.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I recently closed an RSN discussion on whether CNN is usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News. "The consensus is that CNN is a usable source for unflattering information about Fox News. Editors largely do not accept the financial COI argument to disqualify CNN. Several editors feel that attribution is needed. Meanwhile, WEIGHT / DUE has been listed as a factor by several editors as to whether such content should be used." In relation to the above discussions, the argument against the possibility of using competitors as sources (if they are already known as reliable sources) seems to be rejected at RSN. starship .paint ( talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
How does anyone propose shortening that section to address the tags left there? I've tried shortening it but couldn't find anything that warranted removing. Are the tags misplaced? Love of Corey ( talk) 00:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Fox War Channel. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Fox War Channel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
All American New Year. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#All American New Year until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 16:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The main article that [citation needed] for the statement that Fox News still keeps the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Here's the citation showing that Fox News has the trademark registration over "Fair & Balanced" https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000075280027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:82D8:4480:E15A:1B0A:3B5E:6489 ( talk) 09:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Fox News coverage extended throughout the programming day, with particular emphasis by Hannity" to "According to Media Matters, the Fox News coverage extended throughout the programming day, with particular emphasis by Hannity." Attribution is needed. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 09:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Attribution is in the in-line citation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(1) I think you need to edit this segment here:
"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24] Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During Trump's presidency, observers have said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "It's the closest we've come to having state TV."[26][27]"
These lines are very editorialized and represents a very particular line of harsh criticism from Fox News' biggest detractors, who of course tend to have their own politics. Appearing in the summary gives the strong appearance of non-neutrality of the overall article. It is fine to mention its political bias in the summary, but the full discussion of various defenses and criticism (including harshest criticism) should appear in the section on political alignment.
(a) The referenced paragraph in the summary should instead read:
"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of Republican Party candidates and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22]"
(b) This should be removed from the summary since it already appears word for word in the section on political alignment (where it belongs):
"Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During Trump's presidency, observers have said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "It's the closest we've come to having state TV."[26][27]".
(c) The following segment should also be removed from the summary, as it is already in section on political alignment. To me, it is also unclear:
"Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24]"
What does this mean exactly? The citations are also unclear both in how they support the allegation (not to mention what the allegation exactly is). What is the "integrity" of the news? How does Fox damage the integrity of the news (eg is its bias that damages the integrity of the news)? It should also be elaborated on a bit more and because it is unclear (but may be valid or a widely shared criticism worth noting) it should appear in the section on political alignment. This is not merely an allegation of political bias--even if a strong political bias. Again, it is a point of view of Fox's harshest critics and doesn't belong in the summary. Aapelle ( talk) 02:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second paragraph within the Fox New Channel description is entirely biased regarding left leaning media companies and newspapers opinions of the Channel. The sources quoted are just media sources themselves which makes them no more valid than just somebody off the street. I recommend this whole second paragraph be deleted since it is based on opinion. Leave the rest of the paragraphs alone that focus on the facts of the company and the history of it which mostly avoids political opinion. I'd edit this way myself if allowed. Cschlise ( talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There was been quite a fair amount of discussion on talk:MSNBC about whether the network should be described as liberal or progressive in the first sentence of the article. As that seems to be going nowhere, I suggest removing this descriptor from the top sentence of this article for consistency and fairness. One can read down the lead which discusses at length Fox News' conservative editorial slant and allegations of reporting bias. thorpewilliam ( talk) 03:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It is properly sourced, and it is one of the network's main claims to fame. Dimadick ( talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
While I would like to make the change myself (and have already attempted), it will be instantly reverted. I'll give this 24 hours, then, I'll probably attempt it again myself unless responded to. thorpewilliam ( talk) 10:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I would change that Fox News Channel is a conservative news channel. It should be changed.
Fox News Network, LLC Terms of Use Agreement ( /info/en/?search=Fox_News) states, in part (first sentence of second paragraph), "Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment." This statement is what protects them when they exaggerate and or lie. Therefore, please change:
“Fox News (officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox) is an American multinational conservative[2][3][4][5] cable news television channel. “
to:
Fox News (officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox) is an American multinational cable television personal enjoyment and entertainment channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.183.93 ( talk) 22:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the last paragraph in the beginning of the article because it is exactly the same as the content of the “Political alignment” section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola ( talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. The
lead section should summarise the article, and Fox's political alignment is pretty important to this article, so I would suggest getting consensus before doing this.
Seagull123
Φ 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)The last sentence of the lead includes a quote describing Fox as "the closest we've come to having state TV." I don't see the value of having this quote in the lead, as it has no summary value. Hence, I have decided to ask for comments on this quote existing as it does in the lead. thorpewilliam ( talk) 02:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
A edit I made moving the descriptor of "conservative" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead and added "some" to the statement former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives", with the reason given that these edits were "not an improvement". As per remedies, I have raised this here to see if a consensus developed. In the mean time, as more than 24 hours has passed since my original edit, again as per remedies, I will re-instate. thorpewilliam ( talk) 04:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
See MOS:WEASEL regarding the word "some" Vrrajkum ( talk) 19:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shorten the final paragraph of the article’s introduction. It is nearly identical to the Political alignment section of the article. I understand why deleting the paragraph would not be feasible, but I believe cutting it down is very much necessary given that there’s few differences between the paragraph and the Political alignment section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola ( talk) 07:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Swil999 (
talk) 09:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A certain editor, whom I will not name, has as I see it showed an aversion to even slight improvements to this article. I plan to restore my most recent edit, which was already a compromise as I see it, as more than 24h has passed. Any editor who has an opposition to these is free to justify those here, in accordance with ArbCom remedies. Kind regards, thorpewilliam ( talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2603:9001:407:C800:56BD:79FF:FE4D:6E3D ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally find your "accessible reading material" on FOX NEWS is incorrectly based! FOX NEWS' contributions are open, clear, and informative for all open minded, clear thinking & true information seekers!
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
O3000 (
talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
My recent edits on the new relationship between Trump/Trumpism and Fox News has been reverted. I understand that the lead should be a summary of the article, but I think these new developments (as well as the rise of Newsmax and OANN as far-right alternatives as a result of Fox's more critical stance on Trump, bolstered by Trump himself) should be mentioned as this issue has been mentioned a few times on the talk page. – Bangalamania ( talk) 03:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello freemediakid!, can you provide a reliable independent source for you statement about conspiracy theorist. But I also agree with the OP, it could use an update as this is a big change in the way they are reporting. WILDGUN96 ( talk) 04:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment only. I like the information all being in one spot. (like a book). Don't break it all up please. 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:101:5F0:E455:40FF:2C22:563C ( talk)
At
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#NPOV_issues_on_wiki_with_regards_to_politics, @
Masem: has suggested that the section
Fox_News#Glenn_Beck's_comments_about_George_Soros should be expanded to cover the entire pattern of anti-semitic attacks that have been made by Fox hosts. I am starting this discussion here to work on wording and establish sourcing.
IHateAccounts (
talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)comments by this sock puppet are struck per wp:talko
@
Masem: Asking you and others to help provide sources regarding anti-semitism by Fox hosts or regular contributors below.
IHateAccounts (
talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
===General background:===
Jennifer Rubin does not identify as a Conservative and has sought to distance herself from that label. Should this sentence be rewritten? Juno ( talk) 03:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the controversy section, there is a subsection called Journalistic ethical standards. This section should include the case of McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC. This case determined that Tucker Carlson is NOT being a reliable source of facts. This is the argument of the Fox news lawyers. There are many articles about this case including the judge of the case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye 2600:1009:B016:9143:8967:869:58E4:22A0 ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The current introduction is not very perspicuous when it comes to the fact, that Fox News had repeatedly spread fake news and alternative facts. The Fox-News wiki-article in other wiki-language-Versions are more straight forward in their introductions of fox news. I at least recommend for other users here, to go for example to the french or german fox-news-wiki artice and use a translator-app, to see how they describe fox-news in the introduction. besides a report in a scientific-journal [1] the sources being used are huffpost [2], forbes [3], Los Angeles Magazine [4], CNN [5], Le Monde [6], Die Zeit [7] and Slate france [8]. Well I guess that if some of the mentioned sources (for example: cnn, Huffpost, Forbes) would be used for mentioning fake news and alternative facts in the introduction of fox news, the editing would most probably be reverted. but what if we would use - next to the scientific report - the english-based Los Angeles Magazine or the french "le monde" or the german "Die Zeit"? With translation programs everyone can check the non-english-sources themselves. So there is no boundary, when it comes to the use of those, right? ---- LennBr ( talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I was overhearing some discussions down at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard #New York Post and found this link. I dunno if it's any helpful, but I just wanted to ask if there is any worth in mentioning more about Fox News and its unreliability surrounding politics-related topics. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Ron DeSantis to Regular guests and contributors
see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/06/desantis-gives-fox-news-exclusive-signing-new-voting-restrictions-into-law/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/05/06/fox-news-didnt-ask-for-an-exclusive-on-desantis-bill-signing-network-says/ https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-exclusive-desantis-florida-election-bill-signing-2021-5 71.173.64.11 ( talk) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fox News is available on Foxtel on channel 608. 175.32.196.147 ( talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Qwerfjkl}}
on reply) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)The section about Fox News’s political bias needs to be significantly improved to be neutral. In terms of semantics, the use of the word “conservative” requires clarification and more specifics, as Wikipedia, especially the English version, suits the global English-speaking audience. Moreover, the obfuscated use of “scholars” or passive voice dent the credibility of Wikipedia in the eyes of conservative readers. This is not to say that the bias doesn't exist, but it needs to be more properly explained and supported. 109.66.6.108 ( talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
More specifically, I think it would be better to be more semantically accurate (for instance “socially conservative”/“religious”/“a free market (or capitalism) advocate” instead of the umbrella term “conservative” in the specific context in which these are mentioned. Conservative could also mean risk-averse, for instance.
As per “scholars” I was unclear. The article (the prose itself) is properly referenced. Specifically the general use of “scholars” or of the passive voice is what bothers me, as it puts the burden of proof on the reader (to discern from the sources the opinions of scholars) rather than be provided with the names outright. This usage also sounds a little bit pompous, as if the writers know everything that had been said about this in the scholarly world.
It is purely about semantic. As a non-expert, I was sure the article is biased at first glance. Only after putting in time analyzing it did I realize it is a purely linguistic problem. 109.66.6.108 ( talk) 17:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Without taking a position, such a controversial subject needs to be updated. The references are 10 years old and the amount of research in the last decade is humungous. Some positions of Fox and scientists may have changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.63.8.238 ( talk) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I request to remove Rick Leventhal from the list of Fox News personalities. He already left the network on June 2021. Thank you https://pagesix.com/2021/06/17/kelly-dodds-husband-rick-leventhal-leaving-fox-news/ 49.204.181.142 ( talk) 11:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Last paragraph needs to be moved into the body. No other news sources has it. It's ridiculously biased. 2600:8805:C980:9400:B419:EACF:C083:FF90 ( talk) 23:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No it doesn't who made you the exepert? 2600:8805:C980:9400:5C01:5E1B:F64C:7382 ( talk) 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Fix lead 2600:8805:C980:9400:5CD4:9B4B:C130:4BB ( talk) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
i believe that with the amount of coverage Fox News is giving the fall of Kabul i believe a new section should be added
As of today. 137.27.65.235 ( talk) 12:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fox News has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an undefined refname in the
Pro-Republican and pro-Trump bias section. It was caused by
this edit, that removed the auto1 reference while it was still in use.
The following:
<ref name="auto1"/>
should be replaced with:
<ref name="auto1">{{Cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house |title=The Making of the Fox News White House |first=Jane |last=Mayer |date=March 4, 2019 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |access-date=October 17, 2019}}</ref>
Thanks
89.241.33.89 (
talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
He should be included in the list of former hosts and contributors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.154.136 ( talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not denying Fox isn't a conservative news source. It is. But for the sake of consistency, I believe the word "conservative" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Mind you, it's coming before even "cable news television channel". No other article for a mainstream, mass-market news channel, of which Fox is one, has mention of its political leanings in the very first sentence. MSNBC, for example, which I'd argue has a roughly equivalent progressive bias, only mentions accusations of liberal bias at the end of the lead. I am not advocating that any and all accusations of conservative bias should be removed from the lead, they shouldn't, but having mentions of political biases in the lead is completely different from having mentions of political bias in the first sentence. Mentioning biases in the lead is crucial for properly summarizing the most important parts of the article below but placing the word "conservative" in the first sentence right before "Cable News Television Channel" is tantamount to saying Fox is a conservative news channel, not that Fox is a news channel accused of conservative biases, despite the talk page stating the article takes no position on Fox's political biases. Unlike the article on Fox News, taking example again from MSNBC, the article does not state MSNBC is a liberal news channel, rather that it is one accused of liberal bias.
I looked through the article FAQ, as well as the linked RfC, and nowhere does it state "conservative" should be placed in the first sentence, only that mentions of conservative bias should be included in the lead. I am taking no political position here, I am not trying to right great wrongs, I am not even trying to defend Fox. I am trying to make the article consistent with what is stated in the article FAQ, where it is stated, the article takes no position on the biases of Fox News. In its current state, this article does. Brazenly. I am suggesting simply that the first instance of the word "Conservative" is removed from the lead. Nothing else would change, and the incredibly important mentions of conservative bias would remain.
I would appreciate if someone would be able to tell me why "conservative" is used in the first sentence of the lead, and redirect me to the appropriate RfC which mandates that "conservative" be used in the first sentence, not the RfC which mandates that conservative bias be mentioned in the lead.
Thanks, KlammedyKlamKlam: Nosh 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, KlammedyKlamKlam: Nosh 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
KlammedyKlamKlam: Nosh 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
“What distinguishes Fox News from others is that it was deliberately conceived to be slanted.”
This statement is not fair or accurate. According to the 1996 New York Times article below, which contains several quotes from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes describing how they expect FNC to report news. Making up a reason why a description should or should not be removed is dishonest. I don’t think you should be the one telling others why a news outlet was conceived while ignoring the founders own reasons. If that is the reasoning from removing “conservative” from the lead paragraph or not adding “liberal” to the lead paragraph of CNN than you are wrong. Fox News definitely leans right, just as CNN leans left. Try again, why does one have that description in the lead and the other doesn’t?
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/07/business/at-the-new-fox-news-channel-the-buzzword-is-fairness-separating-news-from-bias.html WhowinsIwins ( talk) 07:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The truth was, Fox had been conceived from the very beginning as a venue for TV news with a deliberate slant.. Moxy-
This is ultimately a style decision subject to local consensus. Considering the discretion available to a closer, neither side's arguments can be labelled as inherently stronger than the other's. There are some comments that don't really appear to have a strong basis in site PAGs, or are otherwise opinionated, but it doesn't really change the outcome too much: there's no consensus in this discussion as to whether Fox should be described as "conservative" in the first sentence. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the label stays as it is the status quo.
As for the discussion about why MSNBC doesn't include that channel's political leanings, editors are free to hold a discussion at Talk:MSNBC. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Fox News be described as a "conservative cable news television channel" or should the word "Conservative" be removed from the first sentence without removing other mentions of conservative bias from the lead?
KlammedyKlamKlam:
Nosh 20:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the perception of Foxnews having a conservative bias (whether the perception is accurate or not is irrelevant) is sufficiently widespread, to leave it out of the article would violate NPOV. This perception is also one of the factors that makes Foxnews notable, so it should be mentioned in the introduction. Also, since the perception (again not any actual bias just a perception) is so widely known to exist it need not be cited at all. However, to show that said perception is not being pulled out of thin air, there is a citation to a study showing the pervasiveness of the perception.–– FormalDude talk 16:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere.". Also, per that discussion it is important to note that there is a difference between supporting having conservative in the opening vs in the first sentence. While some have argued that Fox News is a conservative network it's probably better to say they have a conservative view on political topics (broadly speaking including science and social topics with a political angle). Saying "conservative news network" can imply they only cover topics that have some relationship to conservativism. The network covers the full range of national news including things like current events, business news, etc. Contrast that with sources such as Reason which typically covers topics that have a specifically librarian aspect to them. While "conservative" is an important aspect of the network it is not defining the way "news network" is defining. The original closer was correct to note that many of the "keep" !votes don't actually address if the term should be in the opening sentence vs early in the lead. As such they aren't helpful in deciding consensus. I would encourage those editors to clarify their positions as to why this should be in the first sentence instead of say the second sentence. Springee ( talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
American multinational conservative cable news television channelis a mouthful. I would prefer the first sentence read something more like:
Fox News … is an American[I would cut 'multinational']
cable news television channel…or some variant thereof. I don't see a compelling reason why its conservative bias urgently needs to be mentioned in the first sentence as opposed to elsewhere in the first paragraph or lead, but if others are adamant, I would prefer to append something like
…which caters to conservative audiences.to the end of the sentence, rather than leave it where it is. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
to appeal to a conservative audience. I am open to alternative suggestions but would note that there is not currently a consensus for describing it in our voice as deliberately biased and establishing one would, at this point in the process, require a separate RfC. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment It's often helpful to see how Wikipedia characterizes things like this vs other sources. Consider the entry from Encyclopedia Britannica
[8]. It's opening paragraph is Fox News Channel, American cable television news and political commentary channel launched in 1996. The network operated under the umbrella of the Fox Entertainment Group, the film and television division of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox (formerly News Corporation).
. Discussion of the things conservative are 3 paragraphs deep into the article. Sources that say "conservative" is the defining characteristic of the network appear to be from sources that are making a point about the nature of the coverage rather than sources that are providing a high level assessment. This would suggest that the emphasis we put on this may not reflect out other sources would want to summarize this topic and suggest that we are adding emphasis based on the views of editors here rather than how external sources would summarize the topic.
Springee (
talk) 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Fox is known for just being news channel before anything else, before it's known as conservative.Do you have a source to support that, or is it just your own say-so? Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
"conservative" isn't even a real thing, but you haven't provided any sources from political scientists that line up with that. My preliminary search of peer reviewed studies shows that there are instances where political scientists ascribe labels like "conservative". For example:
Google Scholar results
|
---|
|
Gobsmacked that someone, a non-admin no less, had the stones to take a 2-to-1 discussion and call it for the 1. Yes, yes, "not-a-vote", but one needs to see something rather exceptional or extraordinary to pull something like this. Will give the closer a little more time before this moved to a formal close review. Zaathras ( talk) 04:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
–– FormalDude talk 08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
The sentence "although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to 'slant the news in favor of conservatives'" is based on a 2004 article referencing a documentary from the same year. Is it not reasonable to either remove the last paragraph altogether or include more elaboration? Seems to be highly misleading to the average reader, especially with it being a pretty serious allegation. Oebelysk ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)