This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is a topic specific archive of all the discussions on Allegations of Bias and the rewrite that occured January 2005 as a result of those discussions.
The first paragraph of the "Allegations of Bias" section gives plenty of NPOV summary of the various positions on bias at Fox News. The remainder of the section is almost exclusively POV, so I am moving it to a new page at Fox News Bias and linking to it in this section. To add any of this information back, please restrict additions to lists of links to the source documents that substantiate the claims. Otherwise, we'll get into POV madness again. Thanks. ( 70.179.158.69 22:37 , 29 Nov 2004 UTC)
I think the Allegations of Bias section has gotten a bit out of hand. It is nearly half the article. It either needs to be severely trimmed to balance out this article. Its really looking like a joke. TDC 03:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Not only, from my POV anyway, is every single allegation well researched and cited, I think the opposing POV has had a chance to make a rebuttal. Is this a question of NPOV, or excess length of a section? What points are in violation of NPOV? What points need to be trimmed? crazyeddie 06:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is both an issue of POV and length as they are linked together. Too much emphasis on one particular topic is a form of POV as per Wiki policy. I would think that this section be no more than 10-15% the entire content of the article. TDC 18:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link to this policy? I would like to refresh my knowledge of it. Now, to the business at hand. Firstly, I think that any allegation of bias against a major news source is of great interest to Wikipedians. If you feel that the Fox News article has been treated unfairly, perhaps the answer is adding to the allegations sections of other major news sources' articles. I've heard reasonably vague accusations levelled at CNN from both the left and the right. It would be nice to see if there is anything to them. Or, adding more information to the parts of the article that aren't part of the allegations section. That said, apparently the problem is that the section, IYO, is too long, not that any one point is POV. So, what allegations are no longer notable? Let's take this on a case by case basis. crazyeddie 19:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a better comparison than BBC or CNN is The New York Times article. crazyeddie 21:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, I see you've added "Propose alt language to FOX News#Allegations of bias section" to your to-do list. Since this is likely to take some time, I'd like to remove the neutrality warning while we wait. I'm not sure if this proper protocol - this is my first neutrality dispute. Does anybody have any objections to removing the neutrality warning at least temporarily? We can resume this conversation when somebody has a concrete proposal to make.
crazyeddie 19:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, I have a concrete proposal to make. Let's go through the Bias section paragraph by paragraph and see if anything can be trimmed on notability grounds, rather than NPOV. I would strongly object to imposing a quota on this section, and would like to avoid that discussion if possible. crazyeddie 19:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. How should I put this? First off, I resent TDC's remark that almost everybody who criticizes Fox is a member of the left wing. I consider myself a moderate politically, and I have voted pretty much 50/50 Democrat/Republican in every election with the sole exception of the election of 2004. I voted Bush in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004. I don't consider myself a member of either wing. I personally believe that Fox is biased, but I'm not 100% sure, mainly because I don't watch it.
One might as well question the near uniform nature of Fox's defenders.
However, the source of the accusations of bias doesn't matter, only their truth. Or rather, making sure that the allegations listed here are properly researched, cited, etc. And that the defense also has their say. Yes, the liberals have been advancing most of the allegations. But the conservatives have also been forcing them to make sure they have their facts straight. I would say that the resulting crucible has done wonders for the quality of the article, and has put it on the fast track for featured status.
The existance of this crucible makes me question the alledged non-NPOV nature of article. I notice that you (TDC) are not trying to criticize the NPOV of any particular point, only the overall length of the section.
I would not say that the alleged bias of Fox is its only notable quality. However, I would say that it is its most notable feature. Further more, IMO, this alleged bias is much of the reason for the channel's popularity. Conservatives watch it to escape the "liberal bias". Liberals watch to see what the fuss is all about. I believe that the proportion of the article given to this topic is appropriate.
Comparing the amount ink dedicated to Fox's alledged bias to that of BBC's, CNN's or even The New York Times' alledged biases is misleading. It appears from the articles for each news source that "Allegations of Bias" sections are reserved for news sources that are alleged to have consciously biased their reporting, not news sources that may unconsciously bias their reporting because of the staff's own POVs. AFAI (or anyone) CT, neither the BBC or CNN have consciously biased their reporting. If there were credible allegations of this, I would fully support inclusion of these allegations into the relevant articles, regardless of how much space it would take. I believe that the amount of space allocated to the discussion of alledged bias in these articles is appropriate.
On the other hand, there is credible evidence that The New York Times has engaged in conscious biasing. But at least they are looking into the matter internally! (As is stated in the relevant section in the New York Times article.) If anybody has further allegations of bias against the New York Times, I would also support inclusion of those allegations, regardless of the cost of ink. I believe that the amount of space allocated to the discussion of the New York Times' alleged bias is also appropriate.
To sum up, IMO, the reason the Allegations of Bias section for Fox is so long is simply because there are so many allegations. Every single one of the allegations, until proven otherwise, adhere to the NPOV policy, are notable, and have been correctly researched and cited. All of these allegations are widely believed, and should be included, if only to rebutt them, or appear to be credible. The opposing POV has been given ample opportunity to rebutt these allegations, which has also added to the length of the section. I believe that the article, as it now stands, is quite NPOV, and that TDC is attempting to make the article adhere closer to the pro-Fox POV. crazyeddie 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news" [1] (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").
FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.
The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections. Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the The Times and the New York Post. In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular. He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show. (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)
Some criticize FOX News for calling Palestinian and other Arab militants "terrorists", while many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant", or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber". It is argued that, although "terrorist" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.) FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber". Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.
Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law ( [2], [3]).
During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so. At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election ( [4]), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ( [5]). The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network ( [6], link in PDF). The study lists three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions", that are more common among FOX News viewers:
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter ( [7]), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the " Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online ( [8]). They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an axe to grind."
In early 2004, when the Hutton Inquiry had just closed, FOX News broadcast an opinion piece by presenter John Gibson which claimed that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [9]. Viewers filed twenty-four complaints with Ofcom, the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator, regarding the incident. In its case, FOX News claimed that the "heroic repulsion" quote was mere paraphrasing and pointed to a Google search for "BBC anti-American" to support Gibson's claim of bias. Ofcom ruled on mid- June, 2004 that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: failing to honor the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Its report highlighted the fact that the BBC was not given a chance to respond, Fox News failed to respond to Ofcom by backing up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and the broadcaster did not make it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words ( [10]).
A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.
In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated ( [11]). FOX News later retracted the story and apologized ( [12]), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [13]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.
There was a discussion above about a change in the header name. I'll move it down here when I get finished. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here we go:
From what I see on FOX, to say the least, they report more opinions on the right than the left, which makes them biased. Mir 03:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it depends on how you define bias. One way of defining it is the the involuntary slant a reporter gives a story, because a human always has a POV. These allegations seem to add up to a bit more than that. Maybe "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Integrity" would be a better phrase? crazyeddie 20:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news" [14] (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").
FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party.
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
Removed a sentence that I think should be placed in the last paragraph. If we decide to use Trodel's version of the last paragraph, we should also use his introduction. crazyeddie 07:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See crazyeddie's comments on response for agreement on this paragraph Trödel 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections. Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times. In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular. He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show. (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)
I think we need to explain who Murdoch and Ailes are. Probably explained earlier in the article, but by the time they get down here, the reader has probably forgotten. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about internal links to the same article - I don't think it is too much to ask a reader to know who the owner and management are (as opposed to the an not well known personality). Trodel 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I knew who Murdoch was, but not Ailes. How's this version? The links go to the actual articles instead of being internal links. crazyeddie 20:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some criticize FOX News for calling Palestinian and other Arab militants "terrorists", while many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant", or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber". It is argued that, although "terrorist" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.) FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber". Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.
I'd like to make the statements a bit stronger in order to make it obvious why the critics find this objectionable. crazyeddie 21:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am unhappy with the wording here (even my own) because I am in the camp that terrorist is a legitimate word with a well defined meaning (which I would define as a someone who does bodily harm to civilians for political, religious, or idealogical purposes) (I know - offtopic). The issue for me is what is the critic claim? (1) that FOX News calls all middle eastern criminals terrorists or (2) that it uses the term terrorist instead of militant? I had assumed it was the latter. Trodel 22:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe that is the accepted definition. However, it is a highly negative term, like fascist, so it should be avoided unless you really mean it. I don't think critics would mind calling a proven terrorist a terrorist, but calling someone a terrorist when there might be a reasonable doubt that they aren't is asking for trouble. It would appear that people besides Fox, including the Wikipedia, use a "millitant until proven terrorist" policy. I'm not sure how Fox uses the term, since I don't watch it. In what cases does Fox use terrorist when other networks use millitant? crazyeddie 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I prefer crazyeddie's version of the homicide bomber bullet point. Tim Ivorson 13:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, if it makes you feel better, remember that you're reporting the views of the critics, not your own. You might not have a problem with calling a spade a spade, but the critics do. (After all, isn't "spade" a slang term for a black man? Maybe that phrase doesn't mean what we think it does...)
But the issue does remain: what do the critics claim? We'd have to track down a critic who has made that claim, and ask them how they meant it.
Here's a possible workaround: I've heard that the Israelis have cut off diplomatic communications with Abbas, the new Palestinian president, following a rocket attack on a patrol in Gaza Strip. I believe that this attack is a case of legitimate asymmetrical warfare, not terrorism. The targets were not civilians but millitary or para-millitary troops. So, in my book, the attackers fall under the general category of "militant". If we can find an example of Fox referring to this attack as terrorism, then I'll make the claim, and we can quote me. If not, then maybe we can find a similar example. crazyeddie 21:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Found the story. Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144351,00.html Unfortunatley, it seems that Fox is learning :-(. We may have to backtrack through the history and see who put in that remark in the first place. crazyeddie 21:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this is an example of Fox not calling a militant a terrorist. So I suppose I'll have to remove the word "all". Is that enough for you, Trodel? crazyeddie 21:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that defining the terms as inflammatory and generic is not appropriate here - let the words stand on their own - supporters of FOX News would see the use of inflammatory as degrading and those that think it is inflammatory will still think the use of the term terrorist is inflammatory without describing it as such Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I did some extensiver research on FOX News (website) and the use of the term terrorist - specifially I found that terrorist was reserved for true terrorism and FOX News seems to be using militant for activites that are not clear terrorism. See terrorist 2004 search and militant 2004 search. I spot checked many of these and it looks like FOX News uses some discretion in using terrorist. Although they did use terrorist 4 times more frequently. Try some other search terms like "hezzbollah terrorist" or "palestinian militant" etc. Note that terrorist vs militant usage is about 50/50 with the term palestinian. Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Finally is there any support for the "only major news source". A quick search on Google News reveals use by New York Post, Pravda also using the term recently. Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm basically doing my best to interpert what whoever was the first to add those points to the article was trying to say. I don't watch Fox myself, so have no idea what they do. Maybe "only major news source" is a bit of a stretch, but the Post is also a Murdoch publication, kinda a print version of FNC, and Pravda is... well, Pravda. (Pravda means Truth in Russian, which is ironic, since it was an infamous source of Soviet propoganda back during the Cold War. From what I've seen of it, it hasn't improved much since then.) That's the trouble with trying to rephrase what some unknown person said - information is lost or gained in the translation. Maybe we do need to track down whoever put these bits in. Or we can continue trying to hash out compromise language that seems to mesh up with reality. crazyeddie 10:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about "one of the few major news sources, along with the Post and Pravda". I must admit, there is a certain righteousness in seeing Fox and the Post in the same sentence as Pravda. crazyeddie 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could you possibly do a similar militant/terrorist search on other news sources? If CBS, CNN, NYT, NPR, etc show a similar pattern, I'd be in favor of scrapping the point altogether. crazyeddie 10:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've adopted Tim's changes for now, expcept on odd usage (possible Britishism?). Also wikifyied Post and Pravda. However, I still think we should figure out if there is anything to that militant/terrorist bit. It maybe that it's something Fox has fixed, or it could be something that was blown out of proportion. In this case, if it is a disproven allegation, I think it's minor enough that we should cut it. crazyeddie 21:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I still like my original versions for these sentences - My research on CNN revealed that their "Palestinian Terrorist"/"Palestinian Militant" is 7:1 (favoring terrorist) which is higher than FOX News. The other news organizations were about 1:1, like FOX, (give or take 20%) except for the NY Times which used militant much more frequently.
I think "... at Ari Fleisher's request..." implies a personal appeal by the whitehouse as opposed to a open request to all news organizations during the press briefing (which by the way I could not find any reference to - after spending some time on whitehouse.gov searching the archives). Based on this information I have changed my proposal unless someone can find the person who put the terrorist vs militant comment in and the history - I am not as good at searching Wiki history as using google and add-on tools to target a specific site. Trodel 12:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we ought to share your results with the other articles. Adds some weight to the leftist anti-CNN people. I wonder if this was something Fox fixed prior to 2004, or if it was never there. If the first, that might explain CNN - Fox had its feet held to the fire over it, CNN didn't. At any rate, let's remove it.
Here's the closest thing I found to a source for the "homicide bomber" term so far: [15] It at least gives a time frame to look in. From the link, it looks like it wasn't really a request. It was a trend/fashion that Bush and Fleisher were trying to start, and Fox, Post, and Pravda were the few who actually followed suit.
As for going through the history, the best method I know is brute force. Go through the history 500 edits at a time, looking for a version that doesn't contain the target section. Fine tune from there. But I don't think that'll be neccessary. You've done more research than the original contributor did. crazyeddie 18:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE Pravda and Pravda Online are apparently two seperate beasts. Pravda the newspaper is liberal, Pravda Online in nationalist. Which one did you get a ping on Trodel? crazyeddie 20:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Did some reviewing of my history on this (thank you Google Desktop!). The article comes from pravda.ru - not sure which one it is; however the thing I overlooked is that it was a reader letter - not an editorial or news article of the site itself. And I could find no other references to "homicde bomber" on the site. See [16]
I took out pravda and (hopefully) reworded my version above to make it as short as possible without leaving out any pertinent information. I agree with the removal of terrorist because they have (at least in 2004) been discriminatory in their use of the term and use militant frequently when the suspected combatant's description is not clearly terrorist. Trödel 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Trodel's version looks good. Tim - about that Britishism, it's understandable to this American, it just sounds odd. I've heard some other Americans the speak the same way, but they seem to be a minority. crazyeddie 23:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to defend the terrorist point. I'm not sure about this, but I currently see it in the following way. If FNC calls people or organisations terrorist at all, especially as it has become quite emotive in America, some people probably don't like it. The "terrorists" might say that their victims are collateral damage, while America's civilian victims are targets. Tim Ivorson 12:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, it looks like FNC's use of the word is consistant with how other major news sources use it (which ones did you compare it with Trodel?). The sole exception is CNN, which is actually noticebly worse, and the New York Times, which is pretty convincingly accused of being biased in a liberal direction (but not as badly as FOX, IMHO). It is also usually clear if civilians were the target, or just innocent bystanders. (Assuming you don't think Trodel biased his research - I suppose we could always replicate the experiment.) So if we point fingers at Fox on this issue, we have to do it to several other news sources also. crazyeddie 18:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering if we can come up with a wording that would be acceptable re the "Terrorist" vs "Militant" claim as this is something that is fairly frequently thrown as an accusation against FOX News. I still want to keep things short though and not keep it if it is not notable. My thought is that searching the website might not be sufficient because of the verbal use of the term on the shows. I don't have access to a good search tool like Nexis or Dialogue (presumming that they carry transcripts). Given our precedent to include accusations that are prevalent I am willing to reconsider dropping this one. Trödel 22:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I thought the terrorist/militant claim was a major one, I'd also support its inclusion, along with a rebuttal. Major defined as "likely to be re-inserted if removed." I'm not completely up on the FNC debate so I'm not sure if this point is that major. crazyeddie 22:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law ( [17], [18]).
Additions to Crazyeddie's Version in bold, removals struckout:
As it might look:
Copied from notability check discussion:
I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Verified that this lawsuit was against a Fox affiliate and deals with a local news story - see District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District decision. Should not be included. Trodel 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that we should include it, but make it clear the case was against a Fox affiliate, not Fox itself. Heck, I'm arguing this for the good for the pro-Fox side. If a factoid is included here, then it is probably being bandied about by liberal rumor-mongers. It'd be nice to put this rumor to rest, as far as we have anything to say about. Just because an allegation is not credible doesn't mean it's not notable, if enough people believe it. Think "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". crazyeddie 23:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who tried to keep them quiet (allegedly offering bribes and asking them to agree to secrecy according to The Corporation)? I got the impression that it was FOX News. We seem to be linking to the wrong Steve Wilson. Perhaps this one could be given fuller treatment where it is more relevant. Space is of the essence, so perhaps crazyeddie's version should be shorter (and maybe somewhere other than the allegations of whatever it is section, as you seem to be saying that this one is resolved). I think that it's worth mentioning in this article, because this is a notable controversy. Tim Ivorson 14:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is an allegations section, not proof . I think we should list all the major allegations the critics of Fox make, wether or not they have been disproven. If they have been disproven, we should make a note of it. If you think you can make my version shorter, go for it - in your own fork that is, if I like the changes, I'll adopt them. And if you can find an article about the right Steve Wilson, go ahead and change the link in my version. Now what's this about a coverup? Do we have sources? Are they credible? crazyeddie 20:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, until we know more, I guess we'll have to keep it like it is. But if you happen to watch The Corporation again, take notes, do some research, and see if there is anything to it. I like your version better than mine, but it still needs some work. crazyeddie 22:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so. At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election ( [22]), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
I think we should keep the bit about Ellis, including the bit about it being about VNS, not FNC. I personally believe that Fox's actions during the election reporting don't show bias, but they are at the center of many conspiracy theories. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the bit about Ellis should be included in Voter News Service. The consipiracy theorists don't limit this conspiricy re Ellis to FOX News but to the reporting by all news organziations especially thouse that used the VNS. Trodel 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say no to it being included in the VNS article. But I also think we need to include it here, but make it clear that it didn't directly affect Fox - or just Fox. We don't want to be accused of being part of the coverup by some wingnut :-) However, if somebody else agrees with Trodel that it should be removed, I won't buck. crazyeddie 21:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I just added it to the VNS article. I strongly don't think it should be included in an article about
FOX News since it is about
Voter News Service. It could be included in the
Media bias artilce as well. I'm sure to be accused of coverup by some wingnut so I don't let that bother me (too much :).
Trodel 21:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree on this issue for now, and wait for others to break the tie. crazyeddie 23:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Any other comments on adding this bullet Trodel 12:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that the consensus on the whistleblower case sets a precedent. Notable because it's widely believed, but pretty well shot down, which we've made clear. crazyeddie 18:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am reluctantly ok with including this. We should try to find a reference that he contacted both Bush cousins otherwise I would say leave that out - I will do some looking tonight to see if I can verify that it is more than conjucture based on the relationship. If we can't I say leave the middle sentence out. Trödel 23:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say it's a moot point here, since it's pretty clear that wether he did or did not, it doesn't directly affect Fox. However, it should be done for the sake of the VNS article, and might as well do it now, so we can sync the two versions (VNS and FOX article versions) up. crazyeddie 23:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement here so I will move to the concensus section. Trödel 22:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Found evidence of Ellis' relationship with FOX News both CBS News and The Guardian refer to Ellis having admited giving the Bush brothers up to date information about projections (with the Guardian citing a New Yorker article. Also the relationship to FOX News is also clear - Ellis was one of 4 consultants assigned by VNS to work with FOX News and that group recommended to FOX News to call for Bush in Florida which they did an 2:16 am. So now we have that all cleared up I am going to try to write a proposal that puts things in context better. Trödel 01:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS I wouldn't recommend wading through the hyperbole of the google search I started with. It would make things easier if people would reference their claims :)
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ( [26]). The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
white | male | Republican | conservative | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hume | 93% | 91% | 89% | 65% | |
Blitzer | 93% | 86% | 57% | 32% |
FAIR also claimed that between 1998 and 2001, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson with themes regarding a past extra-marital affair and the use of donations to make maintenance and child support payments.
I think we need to keep some sort of summary of the meat of report. Maybe as sub-bullet points? crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
...or we could just bullet point the original version, since it seems to be shorter than my rewrite. :-/ crazyeddie 07:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The progressive link should point to progressivism, but that would still be ambiguous. What makes it progressive? Perhaps progressive could just be removed. Although I have suggested changes to crazyeddie's version, I'm not sure that I don't prefer Trodel's version. Tim Ivorson 16:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Made some changes based on Tim's suggestions. I think we should stick with Fox rather than FNC - same number of letters, and names are less confusing than alphabet soup. I'm not sure, but I think the "progressive" label was stuck in by a pro-Foxer as an ad-hominem attack on the report. So I have no problem with removing it, assuming Trodel and the other pro-Foxers don't object. I think we should somehow keep a summary of the content of the report, because that's what gives it its kick. With out the meat, the reader is left with the "progressive" label and the title of the report. With just those, it sounds like just an attack piece. crazyeddie 20:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have made new suggestions above. My suggested removals should save space. It is not necessary to include " Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)", because neither name would be used later in the article if any of the proposed changes to this section are made. I prefer simply " Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting", but we could save more space with " FAIR". Tim Ivorson 13:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your suggestions look good, except I think "1 out of 12" reads better than "1 of 12". Maybe we could just say:
etc, etc. If the reader wants to know more about FAIR, they can click on the link.
As for the rest of it, the name of the section is "Allegations of Bias". If the name of the section is changed, then maybe we should think of putting it elsewhere. As evidence of bias, I think this bullet point is one of the most important. And it's the contents of the report, not the name of the report or who released it, that makes it so. crazyeddie 22:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I get the feeling this is an American/British usage difference. crazyeddie 19:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think all this detail is not necessary to the allegation and is easily available on the links. Maybe a summary sentance like "...that more FOX News guests were Republican than other news sources." The extra detail provides evidence of left leaning CNN since had only 32% Republican guests. I added the term progressive based on the description of the watchdog group on Wikipedia and the fact that it is progressive. PS although I don't shy from describing groups using words that might be charged, I do think the use of derrogatory slang terms such as spade is aweful - and why I don't use them. Trodel 12:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Didn't think you did, Trodel. (However, I have used that phrase in the past - I wonder what's so offensive about shovels? OH. And, back in the 70s, I think "spade" might have been complimentary - not that I'd use it today, I value my skin!) Tim, in America, progressive is a slightly better defined (or less derogatory) term than left wing or liberal. (Somehow Limbaugh managed to turn "liberal" into a slam all by itself - don't ask me how.) As for "social democrat", well, thems fighting words. If we have to pin a label on FAIR, progressive is probably the best choice. It looks like that's how they describe themselves. But I'd rather we didn't label it. Is it really that important?
I'm sticking to my guns on the details. Actually 57% of CNN's guests were Republican - which might not be a bias, since Republicans dominate the government right now. 32% were conservative - persumably more extreme in their views than just Republicans. I'm guessing another third were "liberal" and the remaining third "moderate". If you can find a shorter way to express this information, Trodel, go ahead. But unless everybody else agrees that the details should be stripped... Look at how much debate these numbers have caused here!
Summarizing the details will lead to the same problems of adding or subtracting information as the "labels" section. The report doesn't state "...that more FOX News guests were Republican than other news sources." Rather it compares two specific shows, one on Fox, one on CNN.
Any idea why so many manuals of style recommend spelling out numerical values? Do they think we can't read numbers? I understand it's a widespread idea, but I just don't understand it. (Then again, my native language is written English, not spoken - I have to translate spoken in my head.) I still think my version reads better. crazyeddie 18:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've been leaving this discussion alone because I don't know much about it. I read (skimmed) the FAIR report today and it seems that the reporting of the data above is not even handed - 93% of CNN's guests were white (for example) and their were varying terms of the study (19 week period for one Brit Hume, more than a year for O'Reilly). Also the choice of example title on Jackson is slanted, the report actually says:
As far as formatting - I like the subbullets, I think we should use x% and 1 of 12 shows, or something similar. I will see if I can think of something useful to propose. Trödel 23:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering why they didn't compare the white percentage of CNN's guests. If y'all don't mind, I just trim that off. For Jesse Jackson, I'll see what I can come up with. crazyeddie 02:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or we could just trim that off as well. So Fox (or rather, O'Reilly) has an anti-Jesse Jackson bias. Big whoop. crazyeddie 02:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some time later: Basically, this is what I get for not reading the original source. If the source isn't being accurately reported, we need to read the friggin' thing ourselves and write our own summary. But, if I'm not mistaken, this is the last sticking point before consensus. Let's just hurry up and get a "good enough" consensus bullet point together, so we can get this thing done. We can come back later after we've read the report and fix it up. We can also see how our fellow contributors have treated the rewrite in the elapsed time.
I don't know about you all, but I'm to the point where I can no longer see the forest for the trees. As soon as we have a good enough version of this bullet point, let's archive all of this and take a look at the finished product. crazyeddie 07:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, Trodel. Let's combine what we got, and look at it altogether. crazyeddie 01:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network ( [31], link in PDF). The study lists three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions", that are more common among FOX News viewers:
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter ( [32]), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the " Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
Probably ought to keep the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference". crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix that bullet point? crazyeddie 07:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. Might want to do whatever voodoo you do to Trodel's also. crazyeddie 20:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I prefer Trodel's version and I think that both would benefit from removing the (PIPA), as it is not needed to explain a subsequent use of the acronym. Tim Ivorson 11:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the information about PIPA from my version, for the same reasons as the FAIR bit. The only difference between mine and Trodel's version is the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference", which I find a rather important point. crazyeddie 19:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've adopted your changes for aesthetic reasons. I believe that the sponsors list came from the PIPA article, along with the progressive tag. In context, the progressive tag establishes a parrellel between PIPA and a similar conservative group. I removed the sponsers list in interests of space. crazyeddie 21:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is Tim's version except I removed "even" from "...reports that, even after adjusting..." Trodel 13:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The "even" means that the difference was even more extreme before the adjustment. And they seem to be pretty extreme even after - something like 90% of the regular audience, if memory serves. I'd hate to fight over one friggin' word, but that word is kinda important. The "even" version represents both mine and Tim's opinion. (Last I checked, anyway.) It's not like it causes a line wrap or anything. crazyeddie 19:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Memory, you're fired. "80% held one or more of these beliefs". Not as extreme as memory reported but still pretty bad. crazyeddie 19:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Added the "even" back in. I foudn this logic compelling Trödel 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online ( [35]). They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an ax to grind."
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In early 2004, when the Hutton Inquiry had just closed, FOX News broadcast an opinion piece by presenter John Gibson which claimed that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [36]. Viewers filed twenty-four complaints with Ofcom, the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator, regarding the incident. In its case, FOX News claimed that the "heroic repulsion" quote was mere paraphrasing and pointed to a Google search for "BBC anti-American" to support Gibson's claim of bias. Ofcom ruled on mid- June, 2004 that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: failing to honor the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Its report highlighted the fact that the BBC was not given a chance to respond, Fox News failed to respond to Ofcom by backing up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and the broadcaster did not make it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words ( [37]).
I have problems with the drastic removal of text from the OfCom section. OfCom regarded this as a very serious breach indeed, and made it plain that this was o technicality. OfCom found that Fox News failed to respect the truth, failed to give the BBC a chance to respond and failed to ensure that an expressed opinion did not rely on false evidence. This should be reflected in the text. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the heck OfCom is, but I think allegations of bias coming from it are at least as important as allegations coming from a domestic watchdog organization. Trodel, I'd suggest keeping all of the "bullet points" in the section, and focus on trimming as much fat as possible from each individual bullet point. We can discuss which bullet points are worthy of inclusion in a seperate discussion. crazyeddie 07:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, looks like it was just slimmed down, not removed entirely. Sorry, I misread Tony's comment. However, his comments does underscore my point that interpertation provides a buffer that can balance out the material's POV. More comments later, after I've actually read this when fully awake. crazyeddie 07:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Offtopic: I would suppose something like OfCom is needed when one the largest players in the media business is a government entity. Plus, I think OfCom only monitors broadcast media, kinda like the FCC. Since spectrum is limited, it's a national resource that has to be protected. How is laying down ground rules for public debate that much different than saying what body parts can't be shown? I don't like censorship any better than the rest of you, but, like the FCC, OfCom does seem to be limited to just broadcast. Would any UKers like to comment? crazyeddie 09:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Offtopic discussion continued on my talk page. crazyeddie 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated ( [39]). FOX News later retracted the story and apologized ( [40]), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.
Making clear that the quotes, were, in fact, fabricated. crazyeddie 23:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Altbhough I think the term fabricated is duplicative since it was retracted I am leaving it in since there have been no other comments to the contrary. Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that I slightly rewrote crazyeddies version to use attributed instead of purported, and removed the word later after FOX News since the retraction was the same day. Trodel 13:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. crazyeddie 19:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [43]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [44]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [45]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. However, the vast majority of critics do not claim that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the channel as a whole has a systemic bias.
I would leave out the response of critics to the response of ailes. I put a reworded version of this sentence in the intro - and took it out of here. thougts? Trodel 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't see this as a summary of the allegations but as the response from FOX News. Trodel 23:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough on the section name change, since it will be taken out when we put the pieces back together. I think Ailes' statement is too misleading not to be commented on. I'd advise moving the reworded version back to here. crazyeddie 23:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to find a place to put the Media Matters link. Not quite sure where yet. 66.189.230.243 07:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind... crazyeddie 07:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we don't need a summary at the end - and that labeling this the response using bold in the paragraph is sufficient. This would then move the vast majority comment to the intro. thoughts? Trodel 13:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a summary. And I think that the "Fox News responds" in bold is clear enough that I retract my rebuttal. Which means we should also use your intro, Trodel. crazyeddie 20:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Below is a consensus proposal. Edit the talk page to discuss. |
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
white | male | Republican | conservative | ||
Hume (FOX) | 93% | 91% | 89% | 71% | |
Blitzer (CNN) | 93% | 86% | 57% | 32% |
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [51]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.
See proposed text - we can discuss notablity if the above is not sufficient.
...
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ( [52]). The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
...
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter ( [53]), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the " Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
...
By "notability check", I meant checking each "bullet point" one by one, to see if they should be stripped from the article on notability grounds, instead of NPOV. I would advise holding off on this discussion until we see how the first two proposed solutions work out. crazyeddie 07:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favor of leaving the current section as it is. It seems to be pretty well written and (looking at the sections that I know about) accurate. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Below is a consensus proposal. Edit the talk page to discuss. |
Added the notice to the article; hopefully, that will generate comments from more than me, crazyeddie, Tim Ivorson, Tony Sidaway, and TDC. I think a change of this nature should be widely reviewed and discussed. Trodel 23:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: I moved the recommendation to the article after getting agreement from Tony Sidaway. I will remove the notice above in a few days depending on feedback. Trödel 17:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed the above notice today Trödel ( talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See FOX News#Allegations of bias for recommendation. Discuss language below. For additional history of discussion section by section and original language see Talk:FOX News/Allegations of Bias.
Although I have left all accusations in the section; that shouldn't imply any opinion of mine about their worthiness. I am editing to eliminate unneeded details and explanations of the accusations. The goal being to leave just the bare facts – I tried to be NPOV – Please comment. -- Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll look again tommorrow, when I'm more awake. I'm a bit worried about such a massive change in this section. The current version is the result of several edit wars. (At least that's my impression, I haven't done any digging into the history.) The result of these wars is a balanced NPOV - or at least I think so. This major of a change might upset that balance despite our best efforts. If so, it might cause additional edit war(s) trying to restore the balance, leading to the section being bloated again. To tell you the truth, I suggested trimming the fat from the section as a debating tactic - I didn't have much actual hope for success.
I've been very busy today, so I still haven't had a chance to get a good look at the proposed changes. So I'm stuck with commenting on the proposal in general. First off, I believe we Wikipedians should offer intepertations of facts, or, when possible, quote other people's intepertations. Facts, without context, do not speak for themselves. Secondly, I think it is safe to say that most, if not all, of these allegations were added by contributors of an anti-Fox POV. The ability to add context or interpertation to the bare facts is what makes the section acceptable to the pro-Fox side.
Plus, I'd hate to leave out the details. In addition to being anti-Fox, I'm also an inclusionist :-) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since we're condensing each individual point, not changing their order or deleting them outright, I think we should do a point to point comparison, not whole to whole. I'm changing the layout here to that effect. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've finished making alternate versions. Trodel, let's see where we can work out a compromise version between the two of us, or see where we have to agree to disagree for the time being. For the bits we can't agree on, we can wait for the peanut gallery to propose a tertium quid or come to a consensus on which version they want. crazyeddie 07:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It has been a while since I watched FOX News since it is no longer included in my satellite subscription; however, my evaluation was that FOX News has biased opinons, but it's news is fairly even handed - the problems it that it intersperses 5 minute updates of real news in the middle of its opinion shows. It is the blurring of the distinction between news and opinion that has led to these allegations. I guess I see less of a hidden agenda than most - especially since the first few claims my friends made turned out to be exagerations. Though like Tim I don't watch it enough to know first hand anymore. Trodel 13:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So none of us watch Fox? That's just... beautiful. crazyeddie 23:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I personally get my news from NPR, PBS, and the New York Times. I was blissfully unaware of the details of the Peterson case until I had to make a computer repair housecall, and the client was watching Oprah in the other room. I was mainly commenting on the fact that three people, with limited direct experience of Fox, are performing a major rewrite on a section in an article on Fox. crazyeddie 19:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I pretty much get all my news from Google News and the Wall Street Journal but I do listen to O'Reilly during lunch at least once a week when I am driving to do errands. Listening to his radio show is one reason I am interested in this as the accusations I have heard from others have not reflected what I heard on the show - especially in tone. I would like to see this get presented in a respectable way - I do think that, from what I remember of FOX News (and some of the coverage I saw on election night), FOX News goes out of its way to be sure to present the conservative side of issues.
Well it look like we are getting close - and the problems with wikipedia lately have made this a draining process - I hate losing info - luckly I began copying and pasting before the error occured. Trödel 23:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know what you mean Tim. Fortunately, most of them have been too desensitized by the mind control rays to be able to edit the Wikipedia. The few trolls we get are actually the brightest of the lot. <j/k> I really hope the developers fix the @##$ servers. Judging from the numbers, Wikipedia might not be "the encyclopedia slashdot built" much longer. crazyeddie 01:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well I have summarized it all under Concensus - I tried to take what seemed to be the objections and merge the FAIR bullet point, and the Ellis bullet point to make decent items. I hope you guys are ok with what I did there. If you need it the [Talk:FOX News/Allegations of Bias|history/archive] is available. I think they will get it up and running - it is getting enough press they should be able to get some corporate donations soon without running ads for them other than identifying them on the contributors page. let me know if I missed anything. Trödel 03:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also - is there a style or rule about quoting non wikipedia articles by not having them underline words in the paragraph. This seems fairly common although there are some places where the link is in the paragraph and part of the text though in most cases it is an after sentence reference. [56] If you know of one and can point me to the style article I would appreciate it. tia Trödel 03:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I never believed that the section needed a rewrite; I still prefer the current version. I realise that some people have put a lot of work into it, and I thank them for the effort, but for my money the new version does not improve the article. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My objection isn't strong enough to make me a stick-in-the-mud on this. I think it's acceptable. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's wait until Monday. I've nobody has any objections, we'll go ahead and make the switch, then sit back and watch the fireworks. crazyeddie 20:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See above and archive for prior discussion - new discussion here to make it easier to navigate. Trödel 17:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Language has been up for almost 3 days without any objections - I am thinking of removing the notice after 5 days - any thoughts on if it should be done sooner or later Trödel ( talk · contribs) 15:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd recommend watchlist this article if you haven't already, and keeping watchlisted for, say, 6 months. crazyeddie 19:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks like we reached a concensus on this - removed the comment (banner) - Thanks to all making this my first entry into a significant edit on a controversial subjetct a good one. Trödel ( talk · contribs) 18:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This criticism does not belong in the opening paragraph. There is no consensus to have the information remain 24.27.151.226 ( talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
and i concur it does not belong since it is there in black and white in the controversies section and i have removed it and will contiue to do so it is very obvious that it is not useful and frankyl is out of place,and i dont have a horse in this race one way or another but it is not a matter of disagreeing with content , its an open and shut case its just a repeat statement that is why there is no need for a consenus and you dont start off a criticism about a news media organization in the opening section it suppose about the news channel its self the criticism sections comes later down the section like in any aticle this seems to be just a political motivated stunt-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC)
so puting the rebuttle statement after that one would make it neutral if its okay to repeat one it okay to repeat the other-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The only consensus on the conservative bias of FOX News was reached by liberals and liberals alone. I would first ask that all who voted on this consensus to identify if they are liberal or conservative. A large number of them, mark my words, will be liberal. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I edited the statement to make it more neutral. The previous version was anything but. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If everyone who came to said "concensus" was indeed liberal, then the consensus would be obvious. It is undoubtably what happened here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is a topic specific archive of all the discussions on Allegations of Bias and the rewrite that occured January 2005 as a result of those discussions.
The first paragraph of the "Allegations of Bias" section gives plenty of NPOV summary of the various positions on bias at Fox News. The remainder of the section is almost exclusively POV, so I am moving it to a new page at Fox News Bias and linking to it in this section. To add any of this information back, please restrict additions to lists of links to the source documents that substantiate the claims. Otherwise, we'll get into POV madness again. Thanks. ( 70.179.158.69 22:37 , 29 Nov 2004 UTC)
I think the Allegations of Bias section has gotten a bit out of hand. It is nearly half the article. It either needs to be severely trimmed to balance out this article. Its really looking like a joke. TDC 03:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Not only, from my POV anyway, is every single allegation well researched and cited, I think the opposing POV has had a chance to make a rebuttal. Is this a question of NPOV, or excess length of a section? What points are in violation of NPOV? What points need to be trimmed? crazyeddie 06:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is both an issue of POV and length as they are linked together. Too much emphasis on one particular topic is a form of POV as per Wiki policy. I would think that this section be no more than 10-15% the entire content of the article. TDC 18:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link to this policy? I would like to refresh my knowledge of it. Now, to the business at hand. Firstly, I think that any allegation of bias against a major news source is of great interest to Wikipedians. If you feel that the Fox News article has been treated unfairly, perhaps the answer is adding to the allegations sections of other major news sources' articles. I've heard reasonably vague accusations levelled at CNN from both the left and the right. It would be nice to see if there is anything to them. Or, adding more information to the parts of the article that aren't part of the allegations section. That said, apparently the problem is that the section, IYO, is too long, not that any one point is POV. So, what allegations are no longer notable? Let's take this on a case by case basis. crazyeddie 19:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a better comparison than BBC or CNN is The New York Times article. crazyeddie 21:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, I see you've added "Propose alt language to FOX News#Allegations of bias section" to your to-do list. Since this is likely to take some time, I'd like to remove the neutrality warning while we wait. I'm not sure if this proper protocol - this is my first neutrality dispute. Does anybody have any objections to removing the neutrality warning at least temporarily? We can resume this conversation when somebody has a concrete proposal to make.
crazyeddie 19:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, I have a concrete proposal to make. Let's go through the Bias section paragraph by paragraph and see if anything can be trimmed on notability grounds, rather than NPOV. I would strongly object to imposing a quota on this section, and would like to avoid that discussion if possible. crazyeddie 19:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. How should I put this? First off, I resent TDC's remark that almost everybody who criticizes Fox is a member of the left wing. I consider myself a moderate politically, and I have voted pretty much 50/50 Democrat/Republican in every election with the sole exception of the election of 2004. I voted Bush in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004. I don't consider myself a member of either wing. I personally believe that Fox is biased, but I'm not 100% sure, mainly because I don't watch it.
One might as well question the near uniform nature of Fox's defenders.
However, the source of the accusations of bias doesn't matter, only their truth. Or rather, making sure that the allegations listed here are properly researched, cited, etc. And that the defense also has their say. Yes, the liberals have been advancing most of the allegations. But the conservatives have also been forcing them to make sure they have their facts straight. I would say that the resulting crucible has done wonders for the quality of the article, and has put it on the fast track for featured status.
The existance of this crucible makes me question the alledged non-NPOV nature of article. I notice that you (TDC) are not trying to criticize the NPOV of any particular point, only the overall length of the section.
I would not say that the alleged bias of Fox is its only notable quality. However, I would say that it is its most notable feature. Further more, IMO, this alleged bias is much of the reason for the channel's popularity. Conservatives watch it to escape the "liberal bias". Liberals watch to see what the fuss is all about. I believe that the proportion of the article given to this topic is appropriate.
Comparing the amount ink dedicated to Fox's alledged bias to that of BBC's, CNN's or even The New York Times' alledged biases is misleading. It appears from the articles for each news source that "Allegations of Bias" sections are reserved for news sources that are alleged to have consciously biased their reporting, not news sources that may unconsciously bias their reporting because of the staff's own POVs. AFAI (or anyone) CT, neither the BBC or CNN have consciously biased their reporting. If there were credible allegations of this, I would fully support inclusion of these allegations into the relevant articles, regardless of how much space it would take. I believe that the amount of space allocated to the discussion of alledged bias in these articles is appropriate.
On the other hand, there is credible evidence that The New York Times has engaged in conscious biasing. But at least they are looking into the matter internally! (As is stated in the relevant section in the New York Times article.) If anybody has further allegations of bias against the New York Times, I would also support inclusion of those allegations, regardless of the cost of ink. I believe that the amount of space allocated to the discussion of the New York Times' alleged bias is also appropriate.
To sum up, IMO, the reason the Allegations of Bias section for Fox is so long is simply because there are so many allegations. Every single one of the allegations, until proven otherwise, adhere to the NPOV policy, are notable, and have been correctly researched and cited. All of these allegations are widely believed, and should be included, if only to rebutt them, or appear to be credible. The opposing POV has been given ample opportunity to rebutt these allegations, which has also added to the length of the section. I believe that the article, as it now stands, is quite NPOV, and that TDC is attempting to make the article adhere closer to the pro-Fox POV. crazyeddie 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news" [1] (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").
FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.
The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections. Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the The Times and the New York Post. In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular. He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show. (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)
Some criticize FOX News for calling Palestinian and other Arab militants "terrorists", while many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant", or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber". It is argued that, although "terrorist" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.) FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber". Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.
Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law ( [2], [3]).
During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so. At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election ( [4]), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ( [5]). The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network ( [6], link in PDF). The study lists three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions", that are more common among FOX News viewers:
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter ( [7]), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the " Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online ( [8]). They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an axe to grind."
In early 2004, when the Hutton Inquiry had just closed, FOX News broadcast an opinion piece by presenter John Gibson which claimed that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [9]. Viewers filed twenty-four complaints with Ofcom, the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator, regarding the incident. In its case, FOX News claimed that the "heroic repulsion" quote was mere paraphrasing and pointed to a Google search for "BBC anti-American" to support Gibson's claim of bias. Ofcom ruled on mid- June, 2004 that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: failing to honor the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Its report highlighted the fact that the BBC was not given a chance to respond, Fox News failed to respond to Ofcom by backing up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and the broadcaster did not make it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words ( [10]).
A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.
In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated ( [11]). FOX News later retracted the story and apologized ( [12]), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [13]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.
There was a discussion above about a change in the header name. I'll move it down here when I get finished. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here we go:
From what I see on FOX, to say the least, they report more opinions on the right than the left, which makes them biased. Mir 03:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it depends on how you define bias. One way of defining it is the the involuntary slant a reporter gives a story, because a human always has a POV. These allegations seem to add up to a bit more than that. Maybe "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Integrity" would be a better phrase? crazyeddie 20:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news" [14] (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").
FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party.
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
Removed a sentence that I think should be placed in the last paragraph. If we decide to use Trodel's version of the last paragraph, we should also use his introduction. crazyeddie 07:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See crazyeddie's comments on response for agreement on this paragraph Trödel 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections. Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times. In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular. He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show. (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)
I think we need to explain who Murdoch and Ailes are. Probably explained earlier in the article, but by the time they get down here, the reader has probably forgotten. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about internal links to the same article - I don't think it is too much to ask a reader to know who the owner and management are (as opposed to the an not well known personality). Trodel 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I knew who Murdoch was, but not Ailes. How's this version? The links go to the actual articles instead of being internal links. crazyeddie 20:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some criticize FOX News for calling Palestinian and other Arab militants "terrorists", while many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant", or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber". It is argued that, although "terrorist" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.) FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber". Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles.
I'd like to make the statements a bit stronger in order to make it obvious why the critics find this objectionable. crazyeddie 21:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am unhappy with the wording here (even my own) because I am in the camp that terrorist is a legitimate word with a well defined meaning (which I would define as a someone who does bodily harm to civilians for political, religious, or idealogical purposes) (I know - offtopic). The issue for me is what is the critic claim? (1) that FOX News calls all middle eastern criminals terrorists or (2) that it uses the term terrorist instead of militant? I had assumed it was the latter. Trodel 22:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe that is the accepted definition. However, it is a highly negative term, like fascist, so it should be avoided unless you really mean it. I don't think critics would mind calling a proven terrorist a terrorist, but calling someone a terrorist when there might be a reasonable doubt that they aren't is asking for trouble. It would appear that people besides Fox, including the Wikipedia, use a "millitant until proven terrorist" policy. I'm not sure how Fox uses the term, since I don't watch it. In what cases does Fox use terrorist when other networks use millitant? crazyeddie 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I prefer crazyeddie's version of the homicide bomber bullet point. Tim Ivorson 13:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, if it makes you feel better, remember that you're reporting the views of the critics, not your own. You might not have a problem with calling a spade a spade, but the critics do. (After all, isn't "spade" a slang term for a black man? Maybe that phrase doesn't mean what we think it does...)
But the issue does remain: what do the critics claim? We'd have to track down a critic who has made that claim, and ask them how they meant it.
Here's a possible workaround: I've heard that the Israelis have cut off diplomatic communications with Abbas, the new Palestinian president, following a rocket attack on a patrol in Gaza Strip. I believe that this attack is a case of legitimate asymmetrical warfare, not terrorism. The targets were not civilians but millitary or para-millitary troops. So, in my book, the attackers fall under the general category of "militant". If we can find an example of Fox referring to this attack as terrorism, then I'll make the claim, and we can quote me. If not, then maybe we can find a similar example. crazyeddie 21:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Found the story. Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144351,00.html Unfortunatley, it seems that Fox is learning :-(. We may have to backtrack through the history and see who put in that remark in the first place. crazyeddie 21:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this is an example of Fox not calling a militant a terrorist. So I suppose I'll have to remove the word "all". Is that enough for you, Trodel? crazyeddie 21:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that defining the terms as inflammatory and generic is not appropriate here - let the words stand on their own - supporters of FOX News would see the use of inflammatory as degrading and those that think it is inflammatory will still think the use of the term terrorist is inflammatory without describing it as such Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I did some extensiver research on FOX News (website) and the use of the term terrorist - specifially I found that terrorist was reserved for true terrorism and FOX News seems to be using militant for activites that are not clear terrorism. See terrorist 2004 search and militant 2004 search. I spot checked many of these and it looks like FOX News uses some discretion in using terrorist. Although they did use terrorist 4 times more frequently. Try some other search terms like "hezzbollah terrorist" or "palestinian militant" etc. Note that terrorist vs militant usage is about 50/50 with the term palestinian. Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Finally is there any support for the "only major news source". A quick search on Google News reveals use by New York Post, Pravda also using the term recently. Trodel 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm basically doing my best to interpert what whoever was the first to add those points to the article was trying to say. I don't watch Fox myself, so have no idea what they do. Maybe "only major news source" is a bit of a stretch, but the Post is also a Murdoch publication, kinda a print version of FNC, and Pravda is... well, Pravda. (Pravda means Truth in Russian, which is ironic, since it was an infamous source of Soviet propoganda back during the Cold War. From what I've seen of it, it hasn't improved much since then.) That's the trouble with trying to rephrase what some unknown person said - information is lost or gained in the translation. Maybe we do need to track down whoever put these bits in. Or we can continue trying to hash out compromise language that seems to mesh up with reality. crazyeddie 10:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about "one of the few major news sources, along with the Post and Pravda". I must admit, there is a certain righteousness in seeing Fox and the Post in the same sentence as Pravda. crazyeddie 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could you possibly do a similar militant/terrorist search on other news sources? If CBS, CNN, NYT, NPR, etc show a similar pattern, I'd be in favor of scrapping the point altogether. crazyeddie 10:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've adopted Tim's changes for now, expcept on odd usage (possible Britishism?). Also wikifyied Post and Pravda. However, I still think we should figure out if there is anything to that militant/terrorist bit. It maybe that it's something Fox has fixed, or it could be something that was blown out of proportion. In this case, if it is a disproven allegation, I think it's minor enough that we should cut it. crazyeddie 21:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I still like my original versions for these sentences - My research on CNN revealed that their "Palestinian Terrorist"/"Palestinian Militant" is 7:1 (favoring terrorist) which is higher than FOX News. The other news organizations were about 1:1, like FOX, (give or take 20%) except for the NY Times which used militant much more frequently.
I think "... at Ari Fleisher's request..." implies a personal appeal by the whitehouse as opposed to a open request to all news organizations during the press briefing (which by the way I could not find any reference to - after spending some time on whitehouse.gov searching the archives). Based on this information I have changed my proposal unless someone can find the person who put the terrorist vs militant comment in and the history - I am not as good at searching Wiki history as using google and add-on tools to target a specific site. Trodel 12:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we ought to share your results with the other articles. Adds some weight to the leftist anti-CNN people. I wonder if this was something Fox fixed prior to 2004, or if it was never there. If the first, that might explain CNN - Fox had its feet held to the fire over it, CNN didn't. At any rate, let's remove it.
Here's the closest thing I found to a source for the "homicide bomber" term so far: [15] It at least gives a time frame to look in. From the link, it looks like it wasn't really a request. It was a trend/fashion that Bush and Fleisher were trying to start, and Fox, Post, and Pravda were the few who actually followed suit.
As for going through the history, the best method I know is brute force. Go through the history 500 edits at a time, looking for a version that doesn't contain the target section. Fine tune from there. But I don't think that'll be neccessary. You've done more research than the original contributor did. crazyeddie 18:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE Pravda and Pravda Online are apparently two seperate beasts. Pravda the newspaper is liberal, Pravda Online in nationalist. Which one did you get a ping on Trodel? crazyeddie 20:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Did some reviewing of my history on this (thank you Google Desktop!). The article comes from pravda.ru - not sure which one it is; however the thing I overlooked is that it was a reader letter - not an editorial or news article of the site itself. And I could find no other references to "homicde bomber" on the site. See [16]
I took out pravda and (hopefully) reworded my version above to make it as short as possible without leaving out any pertinent information. I agree with the removal of terrorist because they have (at least in 2004) been discriminatory in their use of the term and use militant frequently when the suspected combatant's description is not clearly terrorist. Trödel 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Trodel's version looks good. Tim - about that Britishism, it's understandable to this American, it just sounds odd. I've heard some other Americans the speak the same way, but they seem to be a minority. crazyeddie 23:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to defend the terrorist point. I'm not sure about this, but I currently see it in the following way. If FNC calls people or organisations terrorist at all, especially as it has become quite emotive in America, some people probably don't like it. The "terrorists" might say that their victims are collateral damage, while America's civilian victims are targets. Tim Ivorson 12:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, it looks like FNC's use of the word is consistant with how other major news sources use it (which ones did you compare it with Trodel?). The sole exception is CNN, which is actually noticebly worse, and the New York Times, which is pretty convincingly accused of being biased in a liberal direction (but not as badly as FOX, IMHO). It is also usually clear if civilians were the target, or just innocent bystanders. (Assuming you don't think Trodel biased his research - I suppose we could always replicate the experiment.) So if we point fingers at Fox on this issue, we have to do it to several other news sources also. crazyeddie 18:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering if we can come up with a wording that would be acceptable re the "Terrorist" vs "Militant" claim as this is something that is fairly frequently thrown as an accusation against FOX News. I still want to keep things short though and not keep it if it is not notable. My thought is that searching the website might not be sufficient because of the verbal use of the term on the shows. I don't have access to a good search tool like Nexis or Dialogue (presumming that they carry transcripts). Given our precedent to include accusations that are prevalent I am willing to reconsider dropping this one. Trödel 22:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I thought the terrorist/militant claim was a major one, I'd also support its inclusion, along with a rebuttal. Major defined as "likely to be re-inserted if removed." I'm not completely up on the FNC debate so I'm not sure if this point is that major. crazyeddie 22:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law ( [17], [18]).
Additions to Crazyeddie's Version in bold, removals struckout:
As it might look:
Copied from notability check discussion:
I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Verified that this lawsuit was against a Fox affiliate and deals with a local news story - see District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District decision. Should not be included. Trodel 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that we should include it, but make it clear the case was against a Fox affiliate, not Fox itself. Heck, I'm arguing this for the good for the pro-Fox side. If a factoid is included here, then it is probably being bandied about by liberal rumor-mongers. It'd be nice to put this rumor to rest, as far as we have anything to say about. Just because an allegation is not credible doesn't mean it's not notable, if enough people believe it. Think "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". crazyeddie 23:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who tried to keep them quiet (allegedly offering bribes and asking them to agree to secrecy according to The Corporation)? I got the impression that it was FOX News. We seem to be linking to the wrong Steve Wilson. Perhaps this one could be given fuller treatment where it is more relevant. Space is of the essence, so perhaps crazyeddie's version should be shorter (and maybe somewhere other than the allegations of whatever it is section, as you seem to be saying that this one is resolved). I think that it's worth mentioning in this article, because this is a notable controversy. Tim Ivorson 14:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is an allegations section, not proof . I think we should list all the major allegations the critics of Fox make, wether or not they have been disproven. If they have been disproven, we should make a note of it. If you think you can make my version shorter, go for it - in your own fork that is, if I like the changes, I'll adopt them. And if you can find an article about the right Steve Wilson, go ahead and change the link in my version. Now what's this about a coverup? Do we have sources? Are they credible? crazyeddie 20:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, until we know more, I guess we'll have to keep it like it is. But if you happen to watch The Corporation again, take notes, do some research, and see if there is anything to it. I like your version better than mine, but it still needs some work. crazyeddie 22:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so. At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election ( [22]), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
I think we should keep the bit about Ellis, including the bit about it being about VNS, not FNC. I personally believe that Fox's actions during the election reporting don't show bias, but they are at the center of many conspiracy theories. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the bit about Ellis should be included in Voter News Service. The consipiracy theorists don't limit this conspiricy re Ellis to FOX News but to the reporting by all news organziations especially thouse that used the VNS. Trodel 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say no to it being included in the VNS article. But I also think we need to include it here, but make it clear that it didn't directly affect Fox - or just Fox. We don't want to be accused of being part of the coverup by some wingnut :-) However, if somebody else agrees with Trodel that it should be removed, I won't buck. crazyeddie 21:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I just added it to the VNS article. I strongly don't think it should be included in an article about
FOX News since it is about
Voter News Service. It could be included in the
Media bias artilce as well. I'm sure to be accused of coverup by some wingnut so I don't let that bother me (too much :).
Trodel 21:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree on this issue for now, and wait for others to break the tie. crazyeddie 23:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Any other comments on adding this bullet Trodel 12:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that the consensus on the whistleblower case sets a precedent. Notable because it's widely believed, but pretty well shot down, which we've made clear. crazyeddie 18:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am reluctantly ok with including this. We should try to find a reference that he contacted both Bush cousins otherwise I would say leave that out - I will do some looking tonight to see if I can verify that it is more than conjucture based on the relationship. If we can't I say leave the middle sentence out. Trödel 23:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say it's a moot point here, since it's pretty clear that wether he did or did not, it doesn't directly affect Fox. However, it should be done for the sake of the VNS article, and might as well do it now, so we can sync the two versions (VNS and FOX article versions) up. crazyeddie 23:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement here so I will move to the concensus section. Trödel 22:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Found evidence of Ellis' relationship with FOX News both CBS News and The Guardian refer to Ellis having admited giving the Bush brothers up to date information about projections (with the Guardian citing a New Yorker article. Also the relationship to FOX News is also clear - Ellis was one of 4 consultants assigned by VNS to work with FOX News and that group recommended to FOX News to call for Bush in Florida which they did an 2:16 am. So now we have that all cleared up I am going to try to write a proposal that puts things in context better. Trödel 01:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS I wouldn't recommend wading through the hyperbole of the google search I started with. It would make things easier if people would reference their claims :)
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ( [26]). The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
white | male | Republican | conservative | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hume | 93% | 91% | 89% | 65% | |
Blitzer | 93% | 86% | 57% | 32% |
FAIR also claimed that between 1998 and 2001, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson with themes regarding a past extra-marital affair and the use of donations to make maintenance and child support payments.
I think we need to keep some sort of summary of the meat of report. Maybe as sub-bullet points? crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
...or we could just bullet point the original version, since it seems to be shorter than my rewrite. :-/ crazyeddie 07:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The progressive link should point to progressivism, but that would still be ambiguous. What makes it progressive? Perhaps progressive could just be removed. Although I have suggested changes to crazyeddie's version, I'm not sure that I don't prefer Trodel's version. Tim Ivorson 16:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Made some changes based on Tim's suggestions. I think we should stick with Fox rather than FNC - same number of letters, and names are less confusing than alphabet soup. I'm not sure, but I think the "progressive" label was stuck in by a pro-Foxer as an ad-hominem attack on the report. So I have no problem with removing it, assuming Trodel and the other pro-Foxers don't object. I think we should somehow keep a summary of the content of the report, because that's what gives it its kick. With out the meat, the reader is left with the "progressive" label and the title of the report. With just those, it sounds like just an attack piece. crazyeddie 20:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have made new suggestions above. My suggested removals should save space. It is not necessary to include " Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)", because neither name would be used later in the article if any of the proposed changes to this section are made. I prefer simply " Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting", but we could save more space with " FAIR". Tim Ivorson 13:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your suggestions look good, except I think "1 out of 12" reads better than "1 of 12". Maybe we could just say:
etc, etc. If the reader wants to know more about FAIR, they can click on the link.
As for the rest of it, the name of the section is "Allegations of Bias". If the name of the section is changed, then maybe we should think of putting it elsewhere. As evidence of bias, I think this bullet point is one of the most important. And it's the contents of the report, not the name of the report or who released it, that makes it so. crazyeddie 22:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I get the feeling this is an American/British usage difference. crazyeddie 19:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think all this detail is not necessary to the allegation and is easily available on the links. Maybe a summary sentance like "...that more FOX News guests were Republican than other news sources." The extra detail provides evidence of left leaning CNN since had only 32% Republican guests. I added the term progressive based on the description of the watchdog group on Wikipedia and the fact that it is progressive. PS although I don't shy from describing groups using words that might be charged, I do think the use of derrogatory slang terms such as spade is aweful - and why I don't use them. Trodel 12:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Didn't think you did, Trodel. (However, I have used that phrase in the past - I wonder what's so offensive about shovels? OH. And, back in the 70s, I think "spade" might have been complimentary - not that I'd use it today, I value my skin!) Tim, in America, progressive is a slightly better defined (or less derogatory) term than left wing or liberal. (Somehow Limbaugh managed to turn "liberal" into a slam all by itself - don't ask me how.) As for "social democrat", well, thems fighting words. If we have to pin a label on FAIR, progressive is probably the best choice. It looks like that's how they describe themselves. But I'd rather we didn't label it. Is it really that important?
I'm sticking to my guns on the details. Actually 57% of CNN's guests were Republican - which might not be a bias, since Republicans dominate the government right now. 32% were conservative - persumably more extreme in their views than just Republicans. I'm guessing another third were "liberal" and the remaining third "moderate". If you can find a shorter way to express this information, Trodel, go ahead. But unless everybody else agrees that the details should be stripped... Look at how much debate these numbers have caused here!
Summarizing the details will lead to the same problems of adding or subtracting information as the "labels" section. The report doesn't state "...that more FOX News guests were Republican than other news sources." Rather it compares two specific shows, one on Fox, one on CNN.
Any idea why so many manuals of style recommend spelling out numerical values? Do they think we can't read numbers? I understand it's a widespread idea, but I just don't understand it. (Then again, my native language is written English, not spoken - I have to translate spoken in my head.) I still think my version reads better. crazyeddie 18:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've been leaving this discussion alone because I don't know much about it. I read (skimmed) the FAIR report today and it seems that the reporting of the data above is not even handed - 93% of CNN's guests were white (for example) and their were varying terms of the study (19 week period for one Brit Hume, more than a year for O'Reilly). Also the choice of example title on Jackson is slanted, the report actually says:
As far as formatting - I like the subbullets, I think we should use x% and 1 of 12 shows, or something similar. I will see if I can think of something useful to propose. Trödel 23:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering why they didn't compare the white percentage of CNN's guests. If y'all don't mind, I just trim that off. For Jesse Jackson, I'll see what I can come up with. crazyeddie 02:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or we could just trim that off as well. So Fox (or rather, O'Reilly) has an anti-Jesse Jackson bias. Big whoop. crazyeddie 02:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some time later: Basically, this is what I get for not reading the original source. If the source isn't being accurately reported, we need to read the friggin' thing ourselves and write our own summary. But, if I'm not mistaken, this is the last sticking point before consensus. Let's just hurry up and get a "good enough" consensus bullet point together, so we can get this thing done. We can come back later after we've read the report and fix it up. We can also see how our fellow contributors have treated the rewrite in the elapsed time.
I don't know about you all, but I'm to the point where I can no longer see the forest for the trees. As soon as we have a good enough version of this bullet point, let's archive all of this and take a look at the finished product. crazyeddie 07:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, Trodel. Let's combine what we got, and look at it altogether. crazyeddie 01:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network ( [31], link in PDF). The study lists three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions", that are more common among FOX News viewers:
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter ( [32]), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the " Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
Probably ought to keep the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference". crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix that bullet point? crazyeddie 07:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. Might want to do whatever voodoo you do to Trodel's also. crazyeddie 20:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I prefer Trodel's version and I think that both would benefit from removing the (PIPA), as it is not needed to explain a subsequent use of the acronym. Tim Ivorson 11:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the information about PIPA from my version, for the same reasons as the FAIR bit. The only difference between mine and Trodel's version is the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference", which I find a rather important point. crazyeddie 19:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've adopted your changes for aesthetic reasons. I believe that the sponsors list came from the PIPA article, along with the progressive tag. In context, the progressive tag establishes a parrellel between PIPA and a similar conservative group. I removed the sponsers list in interests of space. crazyeddie 21:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is Tim's version except I removed "even" from "...reports that, even after adjusting..." Trodel 13:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The "even" means that the difference was even more extreme before the adjustment. And they seem to be pretty extreme even after - something like 90% of the regular audience, if memory serves. I'd hate to fight over one friggin' word, but that word is kinda important. The "even" version represents both mine and Tim's opinion. (Last I checked, anyway.) It's not like it causes a line wrap or anything. crazyeddie 19:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Memory, you're fired. "80% held one or more of these beliefs". Not as extreme as memory reported but still pretty bad. crazyeddie 19:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Added the "even" back in. I foudn this logic compelling Trödel 22:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online ( [35]). They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an ax to grind."
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In early 2004, when the Hutton Inquiry had just closed, FOX News broadcast an opinion piece by presenter John Gibson which claimed that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [36]. Viewers filed twenty-four complaints with Ofcom, the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator, regarding the incident. In its case, FOX News claimed that the "heroic repulsion" quote was mere paraphrasing and pointed to a Google search for "BBC anti-American" to support Gibson's claim of bias. Ofcom ruled on mid- June, 2004 that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: failing to honor the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Its report highlighted the fact that the BBC was not given a chance to respond, Fox News failed to respond to Ofcom by backing up Gibson's claims with reliable evidence after complaints were made, and the broadcaster did not make it clear that Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan's words ( [37]).
I have problems with the drastic removal of text from the OfCom section. OfCom regarded this as a very serious breach indeed, and made it plain that this was o technicality. OfCom found that Fox News failed to respect the truth, failed to give the BBC a chance to respond and failed to ensure that an expressed opinion did not rely on false evidence. This should be reflected in the text. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the heck OfCom is, but I think allegations of bias coming from it are at least as important as allegations coming from a domestic watchdog organization. Trodel, I'd suggest keeping all of the "bullet points" in the section, and focus on trimming as much fat as possible from each individual bullet point. We can discuss which bullet points are worthy of inclusion in a seperate discussion. crazyeddie 07:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, looks like it was just slimmed down, not removed entirely. Sorry, I misread Tony's comment. However, his comments does underscore my point that interpertation provides a buffer that can balance out the material's POV. More comments later, after I've actually read this when fully awake. crazyeddie 07:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Offtopic: I would suppose something like OfCom is needed when one the largest players in the media business is a government entity. Plus, I think OfCom only monitors broadcast media, kinda like the FCC. Since spectrum is limited, it's a national resource that has to be protected. How is laying down ground rules for public debate that much different than saying what body parts can't be shown? I don't like censorship any better than the rest of you, but, like the FCC, OfCom does seem to be limited to just broadcast. Would any UKers like to comment? crazyeddie 09:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Offtopic discussion continued on my talk page. crazyeddie 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated ( [39]). FOX News later retracted the story and apologized ( [40]), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.
Making clear that the quotes, were, in fact, fabricated. crazyeddie 23:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Altbhough I think the term fabricated is duplicative since it was retracted I am leaving it in since there have been no other comments to the contrary. Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that I slightly rewrote crazyeddies version to use attributed instead of purported, and removed the word later after FOX News since the retraction was the same day. Trodel 13:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. crazyeddie 19:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [43]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [44]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [45]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. However, the vast majority of critics do not claim that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the channel as a whole has a systemic bias.
I would leave out the response of critics to the response of ailes. I put a reworded version of this sentence in the intro - and took it out of here. thougts? Trodel 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't see this as a summary of the allegations but as the response from FOX News. Trodel 23:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough on the section name change, since it will be taken out when we put the pieces back together. I think Ailes' statement is too misleading not to be commented on. I'd advise moving the reworded version back to here. crazyeddie 23:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to find a place to put the Media Matters link. Not quite sure where yet. 66.189.230.243 07:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind... crazyeddie 07:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we don't need a summary at the end - and that labeling this the response using bold in the paragraph is sufficient. This would then move the vast majority comment to the intro. thoughts? Trodel 13:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a summary. And I think that the "Fox News responds" in bold is clear enough that I retract my rebuttal. Which means we should also use your intro, Trodel. crazyeddie 20:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Below is a consensus proposal. Edit the talk page to discuss. |
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
white | male | Republican | conservative | ||
Hume (FOX) | 93% | 91% | 89% | 71% | |
Blitzer (CNN) | 93% | 86% | 57% | 32% |
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ( [51]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.
See proposed text - we can discuss notablity if the above is not sufficient.
...
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ( [52]). The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives. FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
...
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter ( [53]), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the " Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
...
By "notability check", I meant checking each "bullet point" one by one, to see if they should be stripped from the article on notability grounds, instead of NPOV. I would advise holding off on this discussion until we see how the first two proposed solutions work out. crazyeddie 07:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favor of leaving the current section as it is. It seems to be pretty well written and (looking at the sections that I know about) accurate. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Below is a consensus proposal. Edit the talk page to discuss. |
Added the notice to the article; hopefully, that will generate comments from more than me, crazyeddie, Tim Ivorson, Tony Sidaway, and TDC. I think a change of this nature should be widely reviewed and discussed. Trodel 23:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: I moved the recommendation to the article after getting agreement from Tony Sidaway. I will remove the notice above in a few days depending on feedback. Trödel 17:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed the above notice today Trödel ( talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See FOX News#Allegations of bias for recommendation. Discuss language below. For additional history of discussion section by section and original language see Talk:FOX News/Allegations of Bias.
Although I have left all accusations in the section; that shouldn't imply any opinion of mine about their worthiness. I am editing to eliminate unneeded details and explanations of the accusations. The goal being to leave just the bare facts – I tried to be NPOV – Please comment. -- Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll look again tommorrow, when I'm more awake. I'm a bit worried about such a massive change in this section. The current version is the result of several edit wars. (At least that's my impression, I haven't done any digging into the history.) The result of these wars is a balanced NPOV - or at least I think so. This major of a change might upset that balance despite our best efforts. If so, it might cause additional edit war(s) trying to restore the balance, leading to the section being bloated again. To tell you the truth, I suggested trimming the fat from the section as a debating tactic - I didn't have much actual hope for success.
I've been very busy today, so I still haven't had a chance to get a good look at the proposed changes. So I'm stuck with commenting on the proposal in general. First off, I believe we Wikipedians should offer intepertations of facts, or, when possible, quote other people's intepertations. Facts, without context, do not speak for themselves. Secondly, I think it is safe to say that most, if not all, of these allegations were added by contributors of an anti-Fox POV. The ability to add context or interpertation to the bare facts is what makes the section acceptable to the pro-Fox side.
Plus, I'd hate to leave out the details. In addition to being anti-Fox, I'm also an inclusionist :-) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since we're condensing each individual point, not changing their order or deleting them outright, I think we should do a point to point comparison, not whole to whole. I'm changing the layout here to that effect. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've finished making alternate versions. Trodel, let's see where we can work out a compromise version between the two of us, or see where we have to agree to disagree for the time being. For the bits we can't agree on, we can wait for the peanut gallery to propose a tertium quid or come to a consensus on which version they want. crazyeddie 07:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It has been a while since I watched FOX News since it is no longer included in my satellite subscription; however, my evaluation was that FOX News has biased opinons, but it's news is fairly even handed - the problems it that it intersperses 5 minute updates of real news in the middle of its opinion shows. It is the blurring of the distinction between news and opinion that has led to these allegations. I guess I see less of a hidden agenda than most - especially since the first few claims my friends made turned out to be exagerations. Though like Tim I don't watch it enough to know first hand anymore. Trodel 13:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So none of us watch Fox? That's just... beautiful. crazyeddie 23:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I personally get my news from NPR, PBS, and the New York Times. I was blissfully unaware of the details of the Peterson case until I had to make a computer repair housecall, and the client was watching Oprah in the other room. I was mainly commenting on the fact that three people, with limited direct experience of Fox, are performing a major rewrite on a section in an article on Fox. crazyeddie 19:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I pretty much get all my news from Google News and the Wall Street Journal but I do listen to O'Reilly during lunch at least once a week when I am driving to do errands. Listening to his radio show is one reason I am interested in this as the accusations I have heard from others have not reflected what I heard on the show - especially in tone. I would like to see this get presented in a respectable way - I do think that, from what I remember of FOX News (and some of the coverage I saw on election night), FOX News goes out of its way to be sure to present the conservative side of issues.
Well it look like we are getting close - and the problems with wikipedia lately have made this a draining process - I hate losing info - luckly I began copying and pasting before the error occured. Trödel 23:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know what you mean Tim. Fortunately, most of them have been too desensitized by the mind control rays to be able to edit the Wikipedia. The few trolls we get are actually the brightest of the lot. <j/k> I really hope the developers fix the @##$ servers. Judging from the numbers, Wikipedia might not be "the encyclopedia slashdot built" much longer. crazyeddie 01:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well I have summarized it all under Concensus - I tried to take what seemed to be the objections and merge the FAIR bullet point, and the Ellis bullet point to make decent items. I hope you guys are ok with what I did there. If you need it the [Talk:FOX News/Allegations of Bias|history/archive] is available. I think they will get it up and running - it is getting enough press they should be able to get some corporate donations soon without running ads for them other than identifying them on the contributors page. let me know if I missed anything. Trödel 03:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also - is there a style or rule about quoting non wikipedia articles by not having them underline words in the paragraph. This seems fairly common although there are some places where the link is in the paragraph and part of the text though in most cases it is an after sentence reference. [56] If you know of one and can point me to the style article I would appreciate it. tia Trödel 03:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I never believed that the section needed a rewrite; I still prefer the current version. I realise that some people have put a lot of work into it, and I thank them for the effort, but for my money the new version does not improve the article. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My objection isn't strong enough to make me a stick-in-the-mud on this. I think it's acceptable. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's wait until Monday. I've nobody has any objections, we'll go ahead and make the switch, then sit back and watch the fireworks. crazyeddie 20:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See above and archive for prior discussion - new discussion here to make it easier to navigate. Trödel 17:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Language has been up for almost 3 days without any objections - I am thinking of removing the notice after 5 days - any thoughts on if it should be done sooner or later Trödel ( talk · contribs) 15:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd recommend watchlist this article if you haven't already, and keeping watchlisted for, say, 6 months. crazyeddie 19:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks like we reached a concensus on this - removed the comment (banner) - Thanks to all making this my first entry into a significant edit on a controversial subjetct a good one. Trödel ( talk · contribs) 18:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This criticism does not belong in the opening paragraph. There is no consensus to have the information remain 24.27.151.226 ( talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
and i concur it does not belong since it is there in black and white in the controversies section and i have removed it and will contiue to do so it is very obvious that it is not useful and frankyl is out of place,and i dont have a horse in this race one way or another but it is not a matter of disagreeing with content , its an open and shut case its just a repeat statement that is why there is no need for a consenus and you dont start off a criticism about a news media organization in the opening section it suppose about the news channel its self the criticism sections comes later down the section like in any aticle this seems to be just a political motivated stunt-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC)
so puting the rebuttle statement after that one would make it neutral if its okay to repeat one it okay to repeat the other-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The only consensus on the conservative bias of FOX News was reached by liberals and liberals alone. I would first ask that all who voted on this consensus to identify if they are liberal or conservative. A large number of them, mark my words, will be liberal. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I edited the statement to make it more neutral. The previous version was anything but. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If everyone who came to said "concensus" was indeed liberal, then the consensus would be obvious. It is undoubtably what happened here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)