![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A large chunk of the Bias section earns a discussion on weather or not it is NPOV. While the defense of Fox and supporters is argued in the beginning, it loses that in the middle and end. The defense should be there, or people will think it is undeniable fact. I realize it's about the bias FOX gets, but their defense should be at least mentioned.
Because the length of this Talk Page I have moved all of the discussions related to Allegations of Bias to a topic specific archive as agreement seems to be reached. The following are included there: moving to a seperate article, discussion of length of the bias section; and Archive of the proposed changes as they got settled. If you archive this talk page - please be sure to include this section to retain quick access to the history of this carefully crafted section of the FOX News article.
Alai - I edited this section at the same time as you, but I wanted to let you know why I didn't keep your language. I think that the link to the section plus a brief description to be more positive about views that are not popular in the mainstream press is a better NPOV description of the way I read the memos - I notice also that we ahve been linking to media matters - but I would prefer to link to the originals if you (or anyone) knows where they might be. Thanks - Jim Trödel| talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tony - I took out the "falsly claimed" wording because by describing the wording (with less charged words than Gibson did - we are guilty of doing the same thing. I see the description of "herorically defending against" as poetic license to describe what he actually did say, "I'm in the center of Baghdad," said a very dubious Gilligan, "and I don't see anything… But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." Gilligan was referring to the American TRUE claim that they had taken control of most of Baghdad’s airport. NOTE also that Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren't. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying. An hour or two later, a different BBC correspondent pointed out that Gilligan wasn't at the airport, actually. He was "nearby". I think we should avoid any description of the claim especially here. Trödel| talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, you're quoting directly from unverified claims published in the National Review by Denis Boyles. Those claims are beyond the scope of this piece, so I won't argue about them here except to say that they're no more than claims. OfCom's finding on what Gibson claimed about Gilligan is, however, relevant and so I've rephrased. I hope it's acceptable. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Although I have reverted Silverback's removal of the PIPA bullet points, I sort of agree with Silverback's reason for removing it. There are explanations other than FOX News bias. However, I think that it should be included on this page. The report is widely known. Whatever the significance of the report is, it is relevant to FOX News. It's the kind of thing that readers might reasonably hope to find here. Many people believe that the findings are the result of FOX News bias (or error or dishonesty). In case some do not realise that it could be that people who choose to watch FOX News already believe those "misperceptions," or are predisposed to, we might want to say something to that effect. Tim Ivorson 12:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(moved this from above section) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While I'm opposed to removing material appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia, I agree, in principle, that the section is too long. If TDC had proposed moving the bulk of the material to a sub-article on aesthetic reasons, rather than prunning the section on the basis of NPOV, and if the material was a bit less controversial, I would've agreed. But a previous conversation, further up the page, has wisely ruled this out. So, as an alternative, in case we decide not to use your rewrite, how about this: Incorporate this section as part of a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" article (or something similar), along with similar sections from other major news sources' articles. Hopefully, the combination of several different edit wars into a single article will lead to there being some non-committed voices in each individual edit war. This might avoid the problem of a "debate" article, which tends to attract only POV warriors. We would still be left with the task of creating a 1-3 paragraph summary for this article. crazyeddie 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or we could do it both ways. We could use your bullet point version as the summary. Moving a detailed discussion of this topic to a different article would certainly quiet my inclusionist objections. And if later POV balancing does lead to the section becoming bloated again, it would serve as a prepared fallback position. We could simply remove the bullet point version and replace it with a shorter summary.
But before we do this:
First: Is this a good idea? Since I have a tendency to use too much shorthand when explaining a new idea, I'll try to spell it out. I think the presence of moderates is needed for the successful completion of edit wars, and preventing them in the first place. Moderates may have POVs which they would like an article to reflect, but they are willing to compromise and will defend the consensus version against extremists of any stripe.
It was previously suggested that the Allegations of Bias section be moved to a seperate sub-article, leaving behind only a short summary. However, it was decided that this would create a "debate" article. Moderates tend to avoid these, which means that only full-fledged POV warriors participate. Which means non-stop edit wars.
What I'm proposing is that we move the Allegations of Bias section to a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Intergerity" article, alongside copies of similar sections or passages from the articles regarding other major news sources.
While an article of this nature may attract POV warriors, I hope it will at least attract POV veterans from several different edit wars. A pro-CBS warrior might be a moderate when it comes to Fox, for example. Plus, the general nature of the article would hopefully attract some people who are curious about AVoJIs in general, but don't have any particular axe to grind.
Would some experienced Wikipedians care to comment?
Secondly: Could somebody please come up with a better name for the proposed article? crazyeddie 09:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An earlier attempt was made to split off the Allegations of Bias section into another article. This was nominated for deletion and the motion was carried by the "rough consensus" standards of VfD, and the split-off article was deleted. I infer from this that consensus is that the Allegations of Bias section is fine where it is. It has no grown significantly since then; indeed I believe that other parts of the Fox News article have grown greatly since then while it has not. Let's leave it as it is. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The VfD discussion is here.
While an appropriate-sized section on Fox News might be included in a more article on bias in news reporting, the kind of coverage provided on Fox News should either be presented in the Fox News article or in an article on Fox News bias; the VfD effectively closed off the latter avenue. You would still have to find a home for the main section on Fox News allegations of bias. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Damn. Well, good thing the rewrite is going well. So far anyway. crazyeddie 07:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An NPOV notice was added on 7 January by an anonymous user but no NPOV discussions seem to be taking place at present. I have removed it for now. Please restore if you disagree. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The anon was probably TDC. He was objecting to the length of the Allegations of Bias section on NPOV grounds. crazyeddie 18:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
WP style guidelines suggest that a link per line is probably excessive. The article currently has large sections with more than one dead link per line. If someone's actively engaged in filling out these articles, fair enough, but if not, I propose to de-link the text until they show signs of going somewhere. Alai 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This section:
The reason I want to get rid of the addition in italics above is that it's an opinion. In the opinion of X, Y, or a number of people, the slogan disagrees with some theory of news dissemination. This is POV pushing. It is not an agreed fact that the asserted disagreement exists, nor that it is relevant, since Fox News exists in the real world and not the world of the academic theorist (even when that theorist is of the caliber of Noam Chomsky). -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tony, thank you for giving your reasons for you earlier deletion. Is the propaganda model an "opinion"? I wouldn't think it correct to say that the propaganda model is any more an opinion than saying the theory of evolution is an opinion. Is it a model, perhaps some might say a theory, although I think it has been fairly well proven, hasn't it? It even seems to me to be fairly common sense. I do agree that if the propaganda model were only an opinion then a relatively unqualified source then there might be cause for it being removed, but as you said youself, Noam Chomsky is a well respected authority on such matters, so I believe it qualifies for a mention in the current context. - Plus it was in the article for quite some time before that paragraph was recently rephrased. -- Rebroad 01:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Chomsky is an authority, but the field isn't a hard science. What's happening here is that you're introducing Chomsky's ideas about the way the media work into a description of the Fox News slogan. Wikipedia is not a Chomskyist endeavor, it's neutral. We have no opinion on whether the Fox News slogan contradicts the Propaganda Model, but if somebody famous expressed such an opinion widely, then we might report his opinion. If we ourselves did have an opinion and we did report it (as you want us to do here) then that would be original research, which we don't do. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If this reference should be included at all I think it should be near the end of this section. The notable part of this reference is that provides one explaination of why FOX would be biased not that it is a response to their slogans. Trödel| talk 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have put the mention of the propaganda model back to the proximity of the claim of being "unbiased", as it is more relevant there. It doesn't flow if mentioned out of context, at the end of the section. The field might not be a hard science but I don't see how that is relevant - does wikipedia only report things that are hard science? No. Is Wikipedia a Chomskyist endeavor? No, of course not. Is it a Fox Newist endevour? No also - therefore both sides must be included. I'm not stating any opinions here, I'm merely stating facts that disagree with one another. It is a fact that the Fox New's slogan claims they are "unbiased". It is also a fact that the propaganda theory exists, and claims that they must be biased. I am not suggesting to the reader which to believe, I am merely presenting the known facts. If you prefer, you could swap the order of the facts over so that the propaganda model is mentioned just prior to Fox New's slogan. I would have no objection to this if you feel that the order in which the facts are presented in is biased. But to suggest that only the facts that shine favourably on Fox News are presented would be to suggest that the article should be biased. That's not Wikipedia policy. -- Rebroad 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, (you forgot to sign you above text by the way). Please re-read my above explanation again. The two facts belong together as they are short, sweet, to the point, yet opposing. As the discussion is ongoing, I do not suggest that anything is deleted at this time - so that other people can read the section and contribute the the debate. -- Rebroad 13:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it's original research here even to mention the Propaganda Model; it's a bit like incorporating a Marxist critique of Darwin in the article on Darwin. While it may be appropriate sometimes to mention the view of Marx or of prominent Marxists in the context of Darwin's theory, it's wrong to compose an artificial essay on the implications of Darwin's theory for Marxism.
This is why I draw the line between on one hand quoting what person X or Y has said (if anything) about the Propaganda Model and Fox News, and making it up as we go along (as the article does here). If there is a generally recognised, or widely supposed, implication of the Propaganda Model for the slogans of Fox News, then it should be possible to identify a significant person who has said as much.
Jimbo has put it like this:
-- Tony Sidaway| Talk 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I could find no justification for the Propaganda model - i.e. no references or prominent adherents other than reporting on the model by news organizations. But I am not sure I am searching using the best terms. However, if no one else can come up with support I will remove later today. Trödel| talk 13:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We really need to have more than just Chomsky probalby said that in order for it to be encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. I could mostly find bloggers using Chomsky to try to prove FOX News is biased see google search. However, the proposer really should provide some evidence that the proposed language is NPOV and accepted per the standards for deterimining whether something is original reaserach quoted above BEFORE it is pur in the article. Trödel| talk 15:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, I think your edit is okay. I could make a good case that all broadcast news organisations in the USA are strongly biased to the right, but I am not sure such a view would gain consensus. There does seem to be a strong perception in the USA that the media organisations are usually left wing in some way, although I don't personally understand why this perception exists. You edit bypasses that and so I think it is better. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 15:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since you asked for opinions that the US Media is biased to the right (which in my country is regarded as something of a truism) here are a couple:
These really aren't unusual opinions. I'm always amazed at how many Americans believe that their media is biased, of all things, to the left. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe this at all, in my opinion, but it seems to have gained currency by dint of repetition by the extreme right. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that they do:
I think all of these show my point that critics of FOX News tend to consider much or most media slanted to the right. I've reverted to my version. Best, Meelar (talk) 04:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think these are necessary and warranted:
"that the US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"
That a few Al-Qaeda indivduals visited Iraq or contacted Iraqi officials does not mean that that Saddam was working closely with Al-Qaeda. To work closely with someone means to engage in deep collaboration of some kind. It is important to note that the original PIPA question (as stated in this article) was "found clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with", not "had contacts with", in which case the counterpoint would be valid.
"That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq"
Finding WMD here is not defined as finding a few chemical shells (as you put it, "without much knowledge of how to use them"). Weapons of mass destruction are weapons which can inflict mass damage and rain death upon those whom it targets. Clearly a few chemical shells do not constitute evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
"That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war."
This counter-argument is clearly invalid. The poll merely measures whether Fox viewers had a greater or lesser propensity to hold a miscontrued view of actual events. Taken literally, the poll question was simply whether the viewers believed the US received widespread internation support or not. Clearly the answer is no. The possible alternative explanation is clearly irrelevant because it is up to the reader himself to determine whether the poll results show (by way of this question) that FOX was misleading its viewers on international support for the Iraq war. Ethereal 03:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Chameleon (sp?) misses the mark with his latest attempt too. The PIPA does also cannot be used to state that Fox encourages or causes misperception in anyway. The audience may well be self selected, and if you don't think it could be that and not bias or erroneous coverage that explains the results, read the study, you will find that the CBS audience is very close to the FOX audience in its "misperceptions", although one would not pick their coverage as being similar among all the networks. The PIPA survey is poorly designed to demonstrate that the viewers have these misperceptions. It wasn't designed to measure the bias or the tendency to cause "misperceptions".-- Silverback 16:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The PIPA report is a chicken-and-the egg problem. Corelation is not neccessarily causation, but corelation is generally a sign that there is some sort of caustive link. Maybe Fox News tends to make people have those views. Maybe people who have those beliefs tend to watch Fox News. Or maybe some third agent causes people to both have those views and to watch Fox News. Any three of these theories, or some combination of them, would make a strong argument that Fox is biased towards the right (since the right tends to have those views, apparently). I'd say that the PIPA report belongs in this section. crazyeddie 23:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A recent edit was made to the PIPA report without regard to any of the above. The report is totally useless to show bias at FOX News. However, I have edited it to be as short as possible (I think). Please comemnt if you restore this section on why a flawed report whose conclusions are not supported by its own evidence should be included anywhere on wikipedia. Trödel| talk 02:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I personally feel that the PIPA report, while not proof of bias at FOX, is strong contributing evidence. If we take it out, it is very likely somebody else will put it back in. For the love of all that is holy, leave the friggin' thing in. The point isn't whether or not the views are correct or not (I personally believe "not", but that's neither here nor there), the point is that FOX viewers tend to hold those views relative to other groups. Is there some other flaw in the report I'm missing? crazyeddie 00:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, other than that. crazyeddie 01:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe CBS is biased to the right also. Or for some reason, conservatives tend to watch CBS. (Doesn't CBS appeal to the elderly demographic, relative to other news sources? Don't the elderly tend to be conservative?) Or the mysterious third factor is working on the audiences of both networks. I certainly don't watch either channel, so how would I know? For that matter, I haven't read the report, and don't plan on doing so, so I'm relying on y'all to tell me if it has any flaws. So far, I don't see any dealbreakers. The results of the report seem to be valid, how to interpret those results is a matter of opinion.
How about just laying out the meat of the report and let the readers figure it out. Start with taking out that stupid "misperception" sentence. That just leaves the report open to endless ad hominem attacks. Call them views, even if PIPA didn't, and let the readers sort it out. crazyeddie 02:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the item has enough detail of the report. I would be ok with getting rid of the "PIPA labled these 'misperceptions.' " Trödel| talk 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think misperceptions are central to the conclusions of the PIPA report, they purposely were surveying for things they considered misperceptions. I've put forward new "counterpoints", which like the "points" merely deal with what is or is not in the report.-- Silverback 20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<it would be best to quote the poll questions directly from the report>>
I'm in favor of this. I wasn't aware that the subpoints differed from the poll questions. The questions should be quoted directly. Would somebody be willing to dive into the report and get them? crazyeddie 21:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here's my proposed compromise. Comments? crazyeddie 21:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here are the original questions:
For the last time, Silverback. I am not in favour of inclusion of your counter-points, especially when they are not the words of any notable commentator nor the findings of another study. Please don't engage in personal research for political purposes. Ethereal 01:10, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal to include the original questions. Any suggestions on how to do it more elegantly? crazyeddie 02:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal to take those percentages into account. Still think it reads a bit funny. crazyeddie 02:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Even so there is no need to create a separate sub-bullet for the first counter-point. The PIPA report merely states that
So PIPA did not explicitly state that it acknowledges that a few terrorists visted Iraq or had Iraqi contacts, only that there is "some evidence". It turns out the original counterpoints were unjustified (surprise surprise). If you want to include this point, I suggest you quote directly from the report instead of inserting yet more bias within this article. I would allow including a brief statement within the same bullet as the first misperception (include the fact that PIPA labelled it a misperception) instead of writing out a separate bullet. Ethereal 05:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is any consensus in favor of counterpoints, either from the pro-Fox or anti-Fox POVs. Does anybody besides Silverback want counterpoints? Let's put this question to rest.
Other than that, any comments on the proposed language? crazyeddie 07:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I could go either way on that one. Ethereal, would removing the percentages make it short enough for you? If so, whose in favor of putting in the percentages of the competitors also? I'm slightly in favor of it. I was a bit surprised by how low the percentages were in the last two cases, and surprised by how high the first one was. Putting up the percentages for the other networks might reveal some surprises also. crazyeddie 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The reason I think the percentages are important, is this PIPA report is being proposed as evidence of bias, presumably bias to the right based on the "misperceptions". If it is evidence of bias (I dispute this), then while it might suggest that Fox news (and CBS) is to the right of the other networks, since the percentages of two of the three are well less than 50%, perhaps this is evidence that Fox is to the left of center. Frankly I don't think it computes.-- Silverback 14:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If the percentages are higher than other networks, then that is contributing evidence (not proof!) of bias. If the difference is extremely high, say FOX is up above 50% and everybody else is down around 10%, then that wouldn't be so much a sign of bias as a sign of actual mind control. Not everybody who watches FOX is a conservative. Not everybody who is a conservative has the same views. But it does appear that people who watch FOX tend to have certain views, relative to the rest of the population. Maybe it's because people who have those views tend to watch FOX. Maybe it's because watching FOX causes people to have those views (relative to the rest of the population). Or maybe some third factor causes people to both watch FOX and to have those views (relative to the rest of the population).
I think (and I could be wrong), in the case of CBS, the third option is what is operating. Elderly people tend to watch CBS, relative to other networks, and elderly people tend to have conservative views, relative to the rest of the population. So CBS viewers tend to hold the listed views (relative to the rest of the population), regardless of bias in either direction on the part of CBS. Maybe CBS is biased left, maybe it's biased right, maybe it's perfectly neutral.
In the case of FOX, I think it's a combination of the first two options. Conservatives tend to watch FOX because they like a news source that confirms their previously held beliefs. Once they start watching, they tend to become more conservative because of the biased reporting. Of course, all of this presupposes that FOX is, in fact, biased. :-)
I'm actually very surprised at the high percentage on the Al Qaeda question, since that is the one with the least actual evidence supporting it (IMHO). I'm curious about how viewers of other networks answered it.
Finally, it doesn't matter if you think the evidence is compelling, it only matters if the detractors of FOX think it is compelling. We are trying to report their views, hopefully in a way that doesn't require counterpoints. The way to do that is to just state the raw data, and let the reader interpret the results themselves.
I'm agreeable to Tim's proposed changes. I'm also agreeable to including the percentages of other networks. crazyeddie 17:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
unless
Agreed. Is there consensus for inserting percentages for all other networks? How many other networks were involved in the study? crazyeddie 00:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PIPA is a well-known organisation. It has been quoted by well-known and prestigious news sources such as the BBC: [7] [8] [9] [10]. To suppose PIPA is a fringe organisation which is virtually unknown is hilarious. Silverback is intent on decorating just about every Wikipedia article with his right-wing bias. He did it in the article on Depleted uranium (check article history), and that's just what I've come across casually. A quick search through his contributions should reveal just about all the right-wing misinformation he has managed to smear Wikipedia with. Apart from that, deleting valid studies and quotations from news sources detrimental to the right is also another hobby.
The PIPA study was quoted by IPS: [11], which means that it is good enough for inclusion within this article. Silverback's charge falls flat because the PIPA report is newsworthy. Ethereal 07:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
*<whistles>* Do we have to send you two to sit in the corner? Silverback, the overwhelming consensus is to leave in the bulletpoint. That's not negotiable. If you want to have input in final compromise version of that bulletpoint, behave. Don't make large scale changes to the section until we have worked out a consensus-backed compromise. Or does one of us have to go out and find a moderator?
I have explained, two times now, why I, a person who is inclined to believe FOX is biased, but is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, believe that the PIPA report is contributing evidence - but not proof - of possible bias at FOX. Your attempt to refute my logic shows a such a poor grasp of statistics that I'm left wondering at the "semi-degree-ed philosopher scientist" bit on your userpage. The PIPA report did not set out to examine possible bias - but surely you are familar with the principle of serendipity? Furthermore, my logic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the views in question are valid. Maybe FOX and CBS are islands of truth in a sea of liberally biased media. Maybe my answer to those questions is wrong. Maybe the moon really *is* made of green cheese. I don't care!
I believe that my logic is self-evident enough to the average Wikipedia reader - if not you Silverback - that I'm willing to let the data speak for itself, without any interpretation on our part, to the furthest extent possible.
Ethereal, I believe that showing the percentages for the other networks involved in the study would be helpful. It would let the reader judge for themselves how significant the effect is. My sole concern is space. I was involved, along with Trodel and Tim Ivorson, in creating the present workably sized version of this section. I would hate to see it become bloated again.
It is because of that concern for space that I'm flat against any sort of point/counter-point monkey business. Let the data speak for itself, and let the best viewpoint win.
Ethereal, while Silverback is apparently quite capable of being difficult, let's give him some space and see if he is also capable of acting like a civilized being. crazyeddie 07:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then let's forget about Silverback for now. If he can negotiate like a human, we'll let him in. If he can't, we'll call in a moderator and take it from there. Let's concentrate on Silverback's proposed changes instead. I'm against his proposed counterpoints. His counterpoints seem to be aimed at the "misperceptions" label. Drop the label, and you drop the need for the counterpoints.
However, he does have a point about the percentages. Let's see if we can come up with a compromise that lends some scale to the effect the report is talking about, while not causing the bulletpoint to be overly bloated. I was surprised by the actual percentages involved. I was also surprised by CBS's results. I imagine other readers would be also. How many networks were involved in the report? If we can't list all of them, how about a sample? Say, three or five networks, counting FOX and CBS? crazyeddie 08:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, skimmed the report. (@#$% PDF) Looks like there is only 7 sources. For that matter, only three questions. Looks like it might be doable. Should also give the overall percentage "Respondants with one or more "misperceptions"". Did I mention I get my news from PBS/NPR? Also, for the record, I'm pretty much perfectly balanced between liberal and conservative. Anyway, I'll try to put together a proposal tomorrow. crazyeddie 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, why don't we just give the overall percentages for "Respondants with one or more "misperceptions""? That would be quite doable I think. crazyeddie 08:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the third time: While biased coverage is not the only possible explanation for the established fact that, relative to the audiences of other news sources, the viewers of FOX tend to hold the cited views, it is a possible explanation.
Not that it really matters, but what explanation do you propose for "conservatives" (or rather people who hold the cited views) tending to watch FOX? Or rather, how do you explain the strong correlation between view-holding and network viewership?
Also, are you suggesting that the result of the survey is the product of some sort of widespread conservative bias at local FOX affiliates, but not FNC itself? If so, then why?
Would it matter if we based the bulletpoint on the published version of the article (assuming that the results are the same, of course)?
I'll get busy writing a new proposal as soon as I get Adobe Reader installed. crazyeddie 23:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I invite you to look at Tables 4 through 8, inclusive, in the PSQ version of the article. This peer-reviewed version clearly contains the data that this bulletpoint is based on.
While I believe you that the intention to vote for President Bush was the strongest predictor of holding one of these "misperceptions" (not having read the report that closely), 80% of FOX viewers surveyed held at least one of those views, compared to 47% of "print media" readers. Why do you suppose that was? crazyeddie 00:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, you make several factual errors with regard to your above response. The two reports were very similar to one another, and several of your charges are erroneous in nature. The point about the difference between Fox and Fox news is trivial, unless you can come up with evidence that the findings were due mainly to the difference between local affilates and national news coverage. I strongly suspect you cannot. In fact, Silverback seems to have omitted a footnote at the bottom of the page:
In other words, the results themselves were statistically significant and suggestive even if some FOX viewers got their news from local affilates rather then the national news network. The report notes that the conclusion stands regardless of whether there were those who obtain their news from local affilates or national sources. Silverback's reasoning on this matter is flawed.
Also deliberatedly omitted (or overlooked) by Silverback was that:
In other words, a total of 4 networks (including FOX) were affected, and the results still indicate that FOX viewers were the most likely to hold right-wing misperceptions. If the difference between local affilates and national news networks were that significant, they why is it that FOX viewers were consistently more likely to hold such misperceptions, as compared to others?
Secondly, the combination of PBS-NPR was nothing new. It was already present within the original report referenced within the FOX news article. As for the other case of Iraqi involvement in Sept 11, I should say that it was not counted as a misperception. So PIPA did not label it as a misperception, and in any case they did admit it was a little ambiguous, hence this should not be included. In fact this seems to mean CBS is more biased to the right than previously believed, contradicting assertions by conservatives that CBS is liberally biased.
As for your claim that there is "no evidence tying the alleged viewer misperceptions to biased coverage", again you have omitted (or overlooked) the following crucial conclusion which refutes your argument from the report:
In other words, Silverback, yet again your reasoning is flawed. Furthemore, I remind you that I have addressed this point a long time ago. The current revision which includes the PIPA report does not allege that watching FOX news makes one more likely to harbour misperceptions in the long run, but this itself may suggest that FOX News itself was a factor:
Nowhere in this statement is there a claim that FOX was responsible indoctrinating bias in their viewers. For heaven's sake, the title of the section is "Allegations of bias", not "Evidence of bias". Also, as I have pointed out earlier, the PIPA study should be included because it was reported by a media outlet and is therefore newsworthy. Eddie, I think both you and I are sick of these same old arguments. Call in a moderator, I have a feeling we'll need him/her soon. Ethereal 03:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comments? crazyeddie 00:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still think there needs to be further qualification to the first "misperception", it is such a poor question. The US had good evidence of of al Zarqari being harbored and rendered aid in Iraq, before the invasion, so hanging a question on whether the evidence was "clear" or "found ... in Iraq" is a red herring.-- Silverback 04:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since you can't prove that FOX viewers were aware of Zarqawi in Iraq in that time, you can't prove that it was responsible for causing them to think Al-Qaeda and Iraq were working closely at that time. Otherwise other factors could have been possible. The reason for not including that news report is that in any given time period, there would always be news reports which are both detrimental and supportive for the case for war with Iraq. Further proof is needed to demonstrate that FOX viewers were somehow aware of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq at that time. This is what needs to be proven. Hence you need to find a survey or poll which shows that they were aware at that time. EDIT: Furthermore your reasoning fails to take into account the fact that given that it was CNN which reported the news about the terrorist capture, it was FOX viewers who had the highest no. of misperceptions. All of the above notwithstanding, you still haven't explained why, if we assume all news network reported the terrorist capture, FOX viewers still rank the highest for most misperceptions. Ethereal 09:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I like crazyeddie's version, but I think that it should mention only the Political Science Quarterly report. Perhaps we should use Silverback's version up to the external link and crazyeddie's from there. I also have some nitpicks. I dislike "people from all over the world". I would prefer "people in the world", which is the wording used in the first part of the question and is used in the Political Science Quarterly report. PIPA spells "favour" as "favor". Tim Ivorson 09:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agreed that giving percentages isn't useful unless we give the percentages for the other news sources. That being the case, I think we should just give the percentages for the "overall score". Otherwise, it will take up too much space and adversely affect the readability of the article. The point isn't that a majority of Fox viewers hold those opinions, it's that they tend to hold them more often than the users of other news sources do. If anybody besides Silverback thinks we should throw in the percentages for each question, along with the percentages for the other news sources as a comparision, I might be talked around. Until then, no.
I am, of course, against any counter-points or additional interpertation, for much the same reasons. People can ask "what did they know and when did they know it" questions in their own time - we gave them the date of the report, and the article should have information on when the surveys where held.
Furthermore, I don't think it really matters right at the moment if the views in question are misperceptions or not, for reasons I refuse to give for a freakin' fourth time.
The external link points to the PSQ version of the article. I also made it a bit more precise about what exactly a "Fox viewer" means.
I'd also like to say this: Could PIPA have made that last question any more awkward? If you aren't paying attention, you might not notice the first bit about "people in the world". And since Americans tend to only think of Americans when they hear the word people... crazyeddie 09:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The last sentence: "The survey did not distinguish between FNC and Fox local affiliate viewers." is now redundant, but I'll leave it in for emphasis, unless there are any objections. crazyeddie 10:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just a few changes to the English and the acknowledgement tha PIPA considered them misperceptions. And also, drop the repetition of the last sentence because it has already been mentioned. Note that FOX isn't the only one who is affected. As the report noted above, ABC, CBS and NBC were all affected as well. As for the ambiguity of the last question, note that it stated [19]:
Options were:
'kay. Still leaving off the misperceptions label unless there is a consensus in favor of keeping it. I personally would have phrased the last question like this: "Internationally, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?" I'm not saying that it's phrased ambiguiously, just awkwardly. crazyeddie 17:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The fact that PIPA labeled these misperceptions should still be on there since that is what the report was about, and making it clear that it was just PIPAs opinion, should stimulate the reader to make their own assessment.-- Silverback 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll leave it in on one condition - that you stop trying to prove that these views aren't misperceptions!. crazyeddie 19:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't care what PIPA's interpertation is. I only care about their hard, factual, results. I see this insistance on the "misperceptions" label as an ad hominem attack. It implies that PIPA was biased against proponents of the Iraq War. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But unless this alledged bias expressed itself as a systemic flaw in their experimental methods, it shouldn't affect their hard results. Whether or not such systemic errors exist is an entirely different issue. The fact that the report was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal argues that there were no major flaws, but doesn't rule it out. However, somebody attempting to prove that the study has systemic flaws would have a high burden of proof.
Making note of the misperceptions label will not "stimulate the reader to make their own assessment". Instead, it will stimulate the reader to have knee-jerk reactions based on their existing views about the Iraq War. Opponents of the War will certainly agree that all three views are, indeed, misperceptions. Proponents of the War will scramble to prove that these views are not misperceptions, leading to a morass of counterpoint and counter-counter point.
Maintaining an agnostic view regarding the validity of these views will actually bolster the pro-Fox argument. If the views are invalid, then that would mean that Fox viewers are woefully uninformed. If, on the other hand, we do not assume that views are necessarily invalid, then this leaves the option of all other news sources being liberally biased. IIRC, one of the major arguments of the pro-Fox POV is that Fox is uniquely fair, balanced, and objective, that all other news sources have a varying degree of liberal bias.
Might I suggest that people who use print media as their primary news source is the closest thing the study has to a control? Print media readers are arguably well-informed, so why do 47% of them hold incorrect views? Furthermore, "print media" is a very generic term, and it is unlikely that the sample group all read a single biased source. Seen from this point of view, FOX and NPR/PBS are almost equal and opposite ends of the spectrum, as opposed to NPR/PBSers being vastly better informed than FOXers.
Silverback, you seem to favor the pro-FOX POV. So why are you insisting on an interpertation that maximizes the anti-FOX argument? crazyeddie 19:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You know, you actually had a point there Silverback. Perhaps we should include that one statistic. I'm sure that you actually having a valid point is just an accident - even a busted clock is right twice a day. It's because you occasionally have a valid (if not necessarily correct) point that I'm willing to listen to you at all. But then you go and unilaterally remove the entire bulletpoint when it is clear that there is overwhelming consensus for its inclusion. I'm trying very hard to be accommodating, but you aren't willing to compromise on a single point. Unfortunately, removing you from this discussion (assuming that the policies of this wiki allow it) would leave us without a pro-Fox advocate (even though you bizzarely deny that you are a pro-Fox advocate). I've contacted Trodel, a pro-Foxer who I've worked with in the past, but he is on a hopefully short wikivacation. Maybe we can just work on an interim compromise, which will just have to do until he can help us create a more balanced version. Until then, what options do we have for removing Silverback's disruptive presence from this discussion? crazyeddie 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<How can you say I'm not willing to compromise, when the PIPA entry was in the article for months with my knowledge until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>
That is like saying that the Palestinians are willing to compromise with the Israelis because their representatives didn't wap the Israeli representatives upside the head during the peace conferences. You can't take credit for such restraint because it is demanded by the most basic requirements of decency. And you didn't even do that! Two times now you have unilaterally removed the bulletpoint from the article, despite it being clear that there was overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping it - at least in some form. Do we really have to wait for a third incident before taking action?
<<until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>
As one of the three people involved in the creation of the original compromise, I can testify that we weren't entirely happy with the final form of this particular bulletpoint. We basically accepted this version as "good enough" because we were getting tired and loosing perspective. We agreed to review it after some time had passed and create a more acceptable version. Now is a good of a time as any - but only if all parties involved are willing to compromise and negotiate.
Your unilateral removal of the bulletpoint is only the most extreme example of your failure to compromise. The secret to compromising is to pick your battles. You have to be willing to give up certain points and fight only the battles you stand a chance of winning. Yet you insist on fighting battles already lost. You continue to fight against these consensus decisions:
I'm "post-modern" enough to admit that you may be right on these issues, and the consensus (as well as I!) may be wrong. But for now, the decision of the consensus stands. After some time has passed, after the current round of negotiations has finished, you may take the opportunity to swing the consensus your way. Until then, accept the decision and move on.
<<Eddie, is there anyway we can seek some kind of mediation?>>
That is exactly what I'm proposing. I would like to give Silverback a chance to change his spots, but if that proves to not be practical, I would like to have him banned from editing this article or participating in this discussion for a month. That will give us a chance to work out a compromise without Silverback wasting our time and his on issues that have already been decided. I'm hoping that the mediator might have some suggestions. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Wikipedia to know how to initiate such a procedure. Any ideas?
Unfortunately, removing Silverback will leave us without a pro-Fox advocate in this discussion. It is in the interest of the anti-Fox side to create a NPOV version of this bulletpoint, and we need an effective pro-Fox voice involved in the negotation to do that. If the bulletpoint is slanted towards the anti-fox side, that will alienate anybody who is still on the fence and might lead to the bulletpoint being removed. I would like to avoid that scenario.
I'm hoping that by the time we have completed the mediation process, Trodel will have returned from his wikivacation or another acceptable pro-Fox advocate will have been found. So I'm proposing tabling this discussion until the completion of the mediation process.
I have just said that I'd like to table the discussion. But before we do, I'd like to point out for the record certain issues that I believe are negotiable:
There is room here for negotiation. But I am not willing to negotiate with Silverback at the present time. crazyeddie 20:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is there mention of the 'controversy' in the intro? The articles of every other media corps that have been accused of bias (MSNBC, NYT, BBC, etc.) make no mention of this until their "criticism" or "controversy" section. Can't imagine an reputable encyclopedia jumping in to these claims so early on in an article.— DMCer ™ 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've tried to stay out of this particular discussion, but Arzel you're out of line and just plain wrong on your assertions. Maybe you should try reading the archives, and the FAQ. Since the initial RfC, the consensus has always had the lead stating "conservative political position" (perhaps during one of the dustups someone changed it to bias, but it was changed right back). Also your position that anyone has changed their position is likewise without merit. It has never been about stating FNC has any actual bias. If it had, AP, myself and others would never have consented to its inclusion. You lose credibility when you make up stuff that just doesn't exist. There is a difference between "allegations of bias" (the term Noble Sith used) and "actual bias". No one is taking the position of "actual bias" (in the article at least). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that if you believe the CNN page or MSNBC page needs to have information in them about their notable controversies in their leads, then the thing to do is to go to those pages and edit them. That really is not a valid argument for changing this page, because it could just as easily be said that those pages need to be more like this one. Therefore, I would have to say that that is a nonstarter. At the same time, contrary to what some editors would have you believe, it IS appropriate to raise the issue again if you believe that a NEW CONSENSUS is possible. The page-ownership "we" language and "It's not changing" language used on this discussion page over and over needs to stop. Bottom line, it's good that you raised the issue again, but I do not believe you've demonstrated that this article needs to change. Urzatron ( talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I commend the lOP for bringing this topic up. It needed to be said. I'm personally ashamed at the responders for their obviously liberal biased claims. "Widespread and most well known bias"? How can you even begin to prove that? There is enough EVIDENCE to the contrary claiming that Fox News is anything but biased. The fact is, they SHOW both sides to an issue, something the major networks rarely if ever do. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The controversy here isn't one at all. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats will always decry Fox News for being biased. End of story. The fact is, they don't want "risky" uestions asked of them by conservatives. That's why they don't debate on FNC. They should though, considering FNC beats the three main news broadcasts in ratings every year... PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
166.217.62.192 ( talk) 22:54, 20 November 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A large chunk of the Bias section earns a discussion on weather or not it is NPOV. While the defense of Fox and supporters is argued in the beginning, it loses that in the middle and end. The defense should be there, or people will think it is undeniable fact. I realize it's about the bias FOX gets, but their defense should be at least mentioned.
Because the length of this Talk Page I have moved all of the discussions related to Allegations of Bias to a topic specific archive as agreement seems to be reached. The following are included there: moving to a seperate article, discussion of length of the bias section; and Archive of the proposed changes as they got settled. If you archive this talk page - please be sure to include this section to retain quick access to the history of this carefully crafted section of the FOX News article.
Alai - I edited this section at the same time as you, but I wanted to let you know why I didn't keep your language. I think that the link to the section plus a brief description to be more positive about views that are not popular in the mainstream press is a better NPOV description of the way I read the memos - I notice also that we ahve been linking to media matters - but I would prefer to link to the originals if you (or anyone) knows where they might be. Thanks - Jim Trödel| talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tony - I took out the "falsly claimed" wording because by describing the wording (with less charged words than Gibson did - we are guilty of doing the same thing. I see the description of "herorically defending against" as poetic license to describe what he actually did say, "I'm in the center of Baghdad," said a very dubious Gilligan, "and I don't see anything… But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." Gilligan was referring to the American TRUE claim that they had taken control of most of Baghdad’s airport. NOTE also that Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren't. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying. An hour or two later, a different BBC correspondent pointed out that Gilligan wasn't at the airport, actually. He was "nearby". I think we should avoid any description of the claim especially here. Trödel| talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, you're quoting directly from unverified claims published in the National Review by Denis Boyles. Those claims are beyond the scope of this piece, so I won't argue about them here except to say that they're no more than claims. OfCom's finding on what Gibson claimed about Gilligan is, however, relevant and so I've rephrased. I hope it's acceptable. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Although I have reverted Silverback's removal of the PIPA bullet points, I sort of agree with Silverback's reason for removing it. There are explanations other than FOX News bias. However, I think that it should be included on this page. The report is widely known. Whatever the significance of the report is, it is relevant to FOX News. It's the kind of thing that readers might reasonably hope to find here. Many people believe that the findings are the result of FOX News bias (or error or dishonesty). In case some do not realise that it could be that people who choose to watch FOX News already believe those "misperceptions," or are predisposed to, we might want to say something to that effect. Tim Ivorson 12:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(moved this from above section) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While I'm opposed to removing material appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia, I agree, in principle, that the section is too long. If TDC had proposed moving the bulk of the material to a sub-article on aesthetic reasons, rather than prunning the section on the basis of NPOV, and if the material was a bit less controversial, I would've agreed. But a previous conversation, further up the page, has wisely ruled this out. So, as an alternative, in case we decide not to use your rewrite, how about this: Incorporate this section as part of a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" article (or something similar), along with similar sections from other major news sources' articles. Hopefully, the combination of several different edit wars into a single article will lead to there being some non-committed voices in each individual edit war. This might avoid the problem of a "debate" article, which tends to attract only POV warriors. We would still be left with the task of creating a 1-3 paragraph summary for this article. crazyeddie 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or we could do it both ways. We could use your bullet point version as the summary. Moving a detailed discussion of this topic to a different article would certainly quiet my inclusionist objections. And if later POV balancing does lead to the section becoming bloated again, it would serve as a prepared fallback position. We could simply remove the bullet point version and replace it with a shorter summary.
But before we do this:
First: Is this a good idea? Since I have a tendency to use too much shorthand when explaining a new idea, I'll try to spell it out. I think the presence of moderates is needed for the successful completion of edit wars, and preventing them in the first place. Moderates may have POVs which they would like an article to reflect, but they are willing to compromise and will defend the consensus version against extremists of any stripe.
It was previously suggested that the Allegations of Bias section be moved to a seperate sub-article, leaving behind only a short summary. However, it was decided that this would create a "debate" article. Moderates tend to avoid these, which means that only full-fledged POV warriors participate. Which means non-stop edit wars.
What I'm proposing is that we move the Allegations of Bias section to a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Intergerity" article, alongside copies of similar sections or passages from the articles regarding other major news sources.
While an article of this nature may attract POV warriors, I hope it will at least attract POV veterans from several different edit wars. A pro-CBS warrior might be a moderate when it comes to Fox, for example. Plus, the general nature of the article would hopefully attract some people who are curious about AVoJIs in general, but don't have any particular axe to grind.
Would some experienced Wikipedians care to comment?
Secondly: Could somebody please come up with a better name for the proposed article? crazyeddie 09:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An earlier attempt was made to split off the Allegations of Bias section into another article. This was nominated for deletion and the motion was carried by the "rough consensus" standards of VfD, and the split-off article was deleted. I infer from this that consensus is that the Allegations of Bias section is fine where it is. It has no grown significantly since then; indeed I believe that other parts of the Fox News article have grown greatly since then while it has not. Let's leave it as it is. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The VfD discussion is here.
While an appropriate-sized section on Fox News might be included in a more article on bias in news reporting, the kind of coverage provided on Fox News should either be presented in the Fox News article or in an article on Fox News bias; the VfD effectively closed off the latter avenue. You would still have to find a home for the main section on Fox News allegations of bias. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Damn. Well, good thing the rewrite is going well. So far anyway. crazyeddie 07:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An NPOV notice was added on 7 January by an anonymous user but no NPOV discussions seem to be taking place at present. I have removed it for now. Please restore if you disagree. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The anon was probably TDC. He was objecting to the length of the Allegations of Bias section on NPOV grounds. crazyeddie 18:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
WP style guidelines suggest that a link per line is probably excessive. The article currently has large sections with more than one dead link per line. If someone's actively engaged in filling out these articles, fair enough, but if not, I propose to de-link the text until they show signs of going somewhere. Alai 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This section:
The reason I want to get rid of the addition in italics above is that it's an opinion. In the opinion of X, Y, or a number of people, the slogan disagrees with some theory of news dissemination. This is POV pushing. It is not an agreed fact that the asserted disagreement exists, nor that it is relevant, since Fox News exists in the real world and not the world of the academic theorist (even when that theorist is of the caliber of Noam Chomsky). -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tony, thank you for giving your reasons for you earlier deletion. Is the propaganda model an "opinion"? I wouldn't think it correct to say that the propaganda model is any more an opinion than saying the theory of evolution is an opinion. Is it a model, perhaps some might say a theory, although I think it has been fairly well proven, hasn't it? It even seems to me to be fairly common sense. I do agree that if the propaganda model were only an opinion then a relatively unqualified source then there might be cause for it being removed, but as you said youself, Noam Chomsky is a well respected authority on such matters, so I believe it qualifies for a mention in the current context. - Plus it was in the article for quite some time before that paragraph was recently rephrased. -- Rebroad 01:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Chomsky is an authority, but the field isn't a hard science. What's happening here is that you're introducing Chomsky's ideas about the way the media work into a description of the Fox News slogan. Wikipedia is not a Chomskyist endeavor, it's neutral. We have no opinion on whether the Fox News slogan contradicts the Propaganda Model, but if somebody famous expressed such an opinion widely, then we might report his opinion. If we ourselves did have an opinion and we did report it (as you want us to do here) then that would be original research, which we don't do. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If this reference should be included at all I think it should be near the end of this section. The notable part of this reference is that provides one explaination of why FOX would be biased not that it is a response to their slogans. Trödel| talk 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have put the mention of the propaganda model back to the proximity of the claim of being "unbiased", as it is more relevant there. It doesn't flow if mentioned out of context, at the end of the section. The field might not be a hard science but I don't see how that is relevant - does wikipedia only report things that are hard science? No. Is Wikipedia a Chomskyist endeavor? No, of course not. Is it a Fox Newist endevour? No also - therefore both sides must be included. I'm not stating any opinions here, I'm merely stating facts that disagree with one another. It is a fact that the Fox New's slogan claims they are "unbiased". It is also a fact that the propaganda theory exists, and claims that they must be biased. I am not suggesting to the reader which to believe, I am merely presenting the known facts. If you prefer, you could swap the order of the facts over so that the propaganda model is mentioned just prior to Fox New's slogan. I would have no objection to this if you feel that the order in which the facts are presented in is biased. But to suggest that only the facts that shine favourably on Fox News are presented would be to suggest that the article should be biased. That's not Wikipedia policy. -- Rebroad 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trodel, (you forgot to sign you above text by the way). Please re-read my above explanation again. The two facts belong together as they are short, sweet, to the point, yet opposing. As the discussion is ongoing, I do not suggest that anything is deleted at this time - so that other people can read the section and contribute the the debate. -- Rebroad 13:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it's original research here even to mention the Propaganda Model; it's a bit like incorporating a Marxist critique of Darwin in the article on Darwin. While it may be appropriate sometimes to mention the view of Marx or of prominent Marxists in the context of Darwin's theory, it's wrong to compose an artificial essay on the implications of Darwin's theory for Marxism.
This is why I draw the line between on one hand quoting what person X or Y has said (if anything) about the Propaganda Model and Fox News, and making it up as we go along (as the article does here). If there is a generally recognised, or widely supposed, implication of the Propaganda Model for the slogans of Fox News, then it should be possible to identify a significant person who has said as much.
Jimbo has put it like this:
-- Tony Sidaway| Talk 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I could find no justification for the Propaganda model - i.e. no references or prominent adherents other than reporting on the model by news organizations. But I am not sure I am searching using the best terms. However, if no one else can come up with support I will remove later today. Trödel| talk 13:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We really need to have more than just Chomsky probalby said that in order for it to be encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. I could mostly find bloggers using Chomsky to try to prove FOX News is biased see google search. However, the proposer really should provide some evidence that the proposed language is NPOV and accepted per the standards for deterimining whether something is original reaserach quoted above BEFORE it is pur in the article. Trödel| talk 15:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, I think your edit is okay. I could make a good case that all broadcast news organisations in the USA are strongly biased to the right, but I am not sure such a view would gain consensus. There does seem to be a strong perception in the USA that the media organisations are usually left wing in some way, although I don't personally understand why this perception exists. You edit bypasses that and so I think it is better. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 15:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since you asked for opinions that the US Media is biased to the right (which in my country is regarded as something of a truism) here are a couple:
These really aren't unusual opinions. I'm always amazed at how many Americans believe that their media is biased, of all things, to the left. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe this at all, in my opinion, but it seems to have gained currency by dint of repetition by the extreme right. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that they do:
I think all of these show my point that critics of FOX News tend to consider much or most media slanted to the right. I've reverted to my version. Best, Meelar (talk) 04:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think these are necessary and warranted:
"that the US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"
That a few Al-Qaeda indivduals visited Iraq or contacted Iraqi officials does not mean that that Saddam was working closely with Al-Qaeda. To work closely with someone means to engage in deep collaboration of some kind. It is important to note that the original PIPA question (as stated in this article) was "found clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with", not "had contacts with", in which case the counterpoint would be valid.
"That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq"
Finding WMD here is not defined as finding a few chemical shells (as you put it, "without much knowledge of how to use them"). Weapons of mass destruction are weapons which can inflict mass damage and rain death upon those whom it targets. Clearly a few chemical shells do not constitute evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
"That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war."
This counter-argument is clearly invalid. The poll merely measures whether Fox viewers had a greater or lesser propensity to hold a miscontrued view of actual events. Taken literally, the poll question was simply whether the viewers believed the US received widespread internation support or not. Clearly the answer is no. The possible alternative explanation is clearly irrelevant because it is up to the reader himself to determine whether the poll results show (by way of this question) that FOX was misleading its viewers on international support for the Iraq war. Ethereal 03:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Chameleon (sp?) misses the mark with his latest attempt too. The PIPA does also cannot be used to state that Fox encourages or causes misperception in anyway. The audience may well be self selected, and if you don't think it could be that and not bias or erroneous coverage that explains the results, read the study, you will find that the CBS audience is very close to the FOX audience in its "misperceptions", although one would not pick their coverage as being similar among all the networks. The PIPA survey is poorly designed to demonstrate that the viewers have these misperceptions. It wasn't designed to measure the bias or the tendency to cause "misperceptions".-- Silverback 16:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The PIPA report is a chicken-and-the egg problem. Corelation is not neccessarily causation, but corelation is generally a sign that there is some sort of caustive link. Maybe Fox News tends to make people have those views. Maybe people who have those beliefs tend to watch Fox News. Or maybe some third agent causes people to both have those views and to watch Fox News. Any three of these theories, or some combination of them, would make a strong argument that Fox is biased towards the right (since the right tends to have those views, apparently). I'd say that the PIPA report belongs in this section. crazyeddie 23:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A recent edit was made to the PIPA report without regard to any of the above. The report is totally useless to show bias at FOX News. However, I have edited it to be as short as possible (I think). Please comemnt if you restore this section on why a flawed report whose conclusions are not supported by its own evidence should be included anywhere on wikipedia. Trödel| talk 02:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I personally feel that the PIPA report, while not proof of bias at FOX, is strong contributing evidence. If we take it out, it is very likely somebody else will put it back in. For the love of all that is holy, leave the friggin' thing in. The point isn't whether or not the views are correct or not (I personally believe "not", but that's neither here nor there), the point is that FOX viewers tend to hold those views relative to other groups. Is there some other flaw in the report I'm missing? crazyeddie 00:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, other than that. crazyeddie 01:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe CBS is biased to the right also. Or for some reason, conservatives tend to watch CBS. (Doesn't CBS appeal to the elderly demographic, relative to other news sources? Don't the elderly tend to be conservative?) Or the mysterious third factor is working on the audiences of both networks. I certainly don't watch either channel, so how would I know? For that matter, I haven't read the report, and don't plan on doing so, so I'm relying on y'all to tell me if it has any flaws. So far, I don't see any dealbreakers. The results of the report seem to be valid, how to interpret those results is a matter of opinion.
How about just laying out the meat of the report and let the readers figure it out. Start with taking out that stupid "misperception" sentence. That just leaves the report open to endless ad hominem attacks. Call them views, even if PIPA didn't, and let the readers sort it out. crazyeddie 02:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the item has enough detail of the report. I would be ok with getting rid of the "PIPA labled these 'misperceptions.' " Trödel| talk 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think misperceptions are central to the conclusions of the PIPA report, they purposely were surveying for things they considered misperceptions. I've put forward new "counterpoints", which like the "points" merely deal with what is or is not in the report.-- Silverback 20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<it would be best to quote the poll questions directly from the report>>
I'm in favor of this. I wasn't aware that the subpoints differed from the poll questions. The questions should be quoted directly. Would somebody be willing to dive into the report and get them? crazyeddie 21:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here's my proposed compromise. Comments? crazyeddie 21:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here are the original questions:
For the last time, Silverback. I am not in favour of inclusion of your counter-points, especially when they are not the words of any notable commentator nor the findings of another study. Please don't engage in personal research for political purposes. Ethereal 01:10, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal to include the original questions. Any suggestions on how to do it more elegantly? crazyeddie 02:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal to take those percentages into account. Still think it reads a bit funny. crazyeddie 02:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Even so there is no need to create a separate sub-bullet for the first counter-point. The PIPA report merely states that
So PIPA did not explicitly state that it acknowledges that a few terrorists visted Iraq or had Iraqi contacts, only that there is "some evidence". It turns out the original counterpoints were unjustified (surprise surprise). If you want to include this point, I suggest you quote directly from the report instead of inserting yet more bias within this article. I would allow including a brief statement within the same bullet as the first misperception (include the fact that PIPA labelled it a misperception) instead of writing out a separate bullet. Ethereal 05:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is any consensus in favor of counterpoints, either from the pro-Fox or anti-Fox POVs. Does anybody besides Silverback want counterpoints? Let's put this question to rest.
Other than that, any comments on the proposed language? crazyeddie 07:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I could go either way on that one. Ethereal, would removing the percentages make it short enough for you? If so, whose in favor of putting in the percentages of the competitors also? I'm slightly in favor of it. I was a bit surprised by how low the percentages were in the last two cases, and surprised by how high the first one was. Putting up the percentages for the other networks might reveal some surprises also. crazyeddie 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The reason I think the percentages are important, is this PIPA report is being proposed as evidence of bias, presumably bias to the right based on the "misperceptions". If it is evidence of bias (I dispute this), then while it might suggest that Fox news (and CBS) is to the right of the other networks, since the percentages of two of the three are well less than 50%, perhaps this is evidence that Fox is to the left of center. Frankly I don't think it computes.-- Silverback 14:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If the percentages are higher than other networks, then that is contributing evidence (not proof!) of bias. If the difference is extremely high, say FOX is up above 50% and everybody else is down around 10%, then that wouldn't be so much a sign of bias as a sign of actual mind control. Not everybody who watches FOX is a conservative. Not everybody who is a conservative has the same views. But it does appear that people who watch FOX tend to have certain views, relative to the rest of the population. Maybe it's because people who have those views tend to watch FOX. Maybe it's because watching FOX causes people to have those views (relative to the rest of the population). Or maybe some third factor causes people to both watch FOX and to have those views (relative to the rest of the population).
I think (and I could be wrong), in the case of CBS, the third option is what is operating. Elderly people tend to watch CBS, relative to other networks, and elderly people tend to have conservative views, relative to the rest of the population. So CBS viewers tend to hold the listed views (relative to the rest of the population), regardless of bias in either direction on the part of CBS. Maybe CBS is biased left, maybe it's biased right, maybe it's perfectly neutral.
In the case of FOX, I think it's a combination of the first two options. Conservatives tend to watch FOX because they like a news source that confirms their previously held beliefs. Once they start watching, they tend to become more conservative because of the biased reporting. Of course, all of this presupposes that FOX is, in fact, biased. :-)
I'm actually very surprised at the high percentage on the Al Qaeda question, since that is the one with the least actual evidence supporting it (IMHO). I'm curious about how viewers of other networks answered it.
Finally, it doesn't matter if you think the evidence is compelling, it only matters if the detractors of FOX think it is compelling. We are trying to report their views, hopefully in a way that doesn't require counterpoints. The way to do that is to just state the raw data, and let the reader interpret the results themselves.
I'm agreeable to Tim's proposed changes. I'm also agreeable to including the percentages of other networks. crazyeddie 17:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
unless
Agreed. Is there consensus for inserting percentages for all other networks? How many other networks were involved in the study? crazyeddie 00:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PIPA is a well-known organisation. It has been quoted by well-known and prestigious news sources such as the BBC: [7] [8] [9] [10]. To suppose PIPA is a fringe organisation which is virtually unknown is hilarious. Silverback is intent on decorating just about every Wikipedia article with his right-wing bias. He did it in the article on Depleted uranium (check article history), and that's just what I've come across casually. A quick search through his contributions should reveal just about all the right-wing misinformation he has managed to smear Wikipedia with. Apart from that, deleting valid studies and quotations from news sources detrimental to the right is also another hobby.
The PIPA study was quoted by IPS: [11], which means that it is good enough for inclusion within this article. Silverback's charge falls flat because the PIPA report is newsworthy. Ethereal 07:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
*<whistles>* Do we have to send you two to sit in the corner? Silverback, the overwhelming consensus is to leave in the bulletpoint. That's not negotiable. If you want to have input in final compromise version of that bulletpoint, behave. Don't make large scale changes to the section until we have worked out a consensus-backed compromise. Or does one of us have to go out and find a moderator?
I have explained, two times now, why I, a person who is inclined to believe FOX is biased, but is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, believe that the PIPA report is contributing evidence - but not proof - of possible bias at FOX. Your attempt to refute my logic shows a such a poor grasp of statistics that I'm left wondering at the "semi-degree-ed philosopher scientist" bit on your userpage. The PIPA report did not set out to examine possible bias - but surely you are familar with the principle of serendipity? Furthermore, my logic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the views in question are valid. Maybe FOX and CBS are islands of truth in a sea of liberally biased media. Maybe my answer to those questions is wrong. Maybe the moon really *is* made of green cheese. I don't care!
I believe that my logic is self-evident enough to the average Wikipedia reader - if not you Silverback - that I'm willing to let the data speak for itself, without any interpretation on our part, to the furthest extent possible.
Ethereal, I believe that showing the percentages for the other networks involved in the study would be helpful. It would let the reader judge for themselves how significant the effect is. My sole concern is space. I was involved, along with Trodel and Tim Ivorson, in creating the present workably sized version of this section. I would hate to see it become bloated again.
It is because of that concern for space that I'm flat against any sort of point/counter-point monkey business. Let the data speak for itself, and let the best viewpoint win.
Ethereal, while Silverback is apparently quite capable of being difficult, let's give him some space and see if he is also capable of acting like a civilized being. crazyeddie 07:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then let's forget about Silverback for now. If he can negotiate like a human, we'll let him in. If he can't, we'll call in a moderator and take it from there. Let's concentrate on Silverback's proposed changes instead. I'm against his proposed counterpoints. His counterpoints seem to be aimed at the "misperceptions" label. Drop the label, and you drop the need for the counterpoints.
However, he does have a point about the percentages. Let's see if we can come up with a compromise that lends some scale to the effect the report is talking about, while not causing the bulletpoint to be overly bloated. I was surprised by the actual percentages involved. I was also surprised by CBS's results. I imagine other readers would be also. How many networks were involved in the report? If we can't list all of them, how about a sample? Say, three or five networks, counting FOX and CBS? crazyeddie 08:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, skimmed the report. (@#$% PDF) Looks like there is only 7 sources. For that matter, only three questions. Looks like it might be doable. Should also give the overall percentage "Respondants with one or more "misperceptions"". Did I mention I get my news from PBS/NPR? Also, for the record, I'm pretty much perfectly balanced between liberal and conservative. Anyway, I'll try to put together a proposal tomorrow. crazyeddie 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, why don't we just give the overall percentages for "Respondants with one or more "misperceptions""? That would be quite doable I think. crazyeddie 08:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the third time: While biased coverage is not the only possible explanation for the established fact that, relative to the audiences of other news sources, the viewers of FOX tend to hold the cited views, it is a possible explanation.
Not that it really matters, but what explanation do you propose for "conservatives" (or rather people who hold the cited views) tending to watch FOX? Or rather, how do you explain the strong correlation between view-holding and network viewership?
Also, are you suggesting that the result of the survey is the product of some sort of widespread conservative bias at local FOX affiliates, but not FNC itself? If so, then why?
Would it matter if we based the bulletpoint on the published version of the article (assuming that the results are the same, of course)?
I'll get busy writing a new proposal as soon as I get Adobe Reader installed. crazyeddie 23:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I invite you to look at Tables 4 through 8, inclusive, in the PSQ version of the article. This peer-reviewed version clearly contains the data that this bulletpoint is based on.
While I believe you that the intention to vote for President Bush was the strongest predictor of holding one of these "misperceptions" (not having read the report that closely), 80% of FOX viewers surveyed held at least one of those views, compared to 47% of "print media" readers. Why do you suppose that was? crazyeddie 00:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, you make several factual errors with regard to your above response. The two reports were very similar to one another, and several of your charges are erroneous in nature. The point about the difference between Fox and Fox news is trivial, unless you can come up with evidence that the findings were due mainly to the difference between local affilates and national news coverage. I strongly suspect you cannot. In fact, Silverback seems to have omitted a footnote at the bottom of the page:
In other words, the results themselves were statistically significant and suggestive even if some FOX viewers got their news from local affilates rather then the national news network. The report notes that the conclusion stands regardless of whether there were those who obtain their news from local affilates or national sources. Silverback's reasoning on this matter is flawed.
Also deliberatedly omitted (or overlooked) by Silverback was that:
In other words, a total of 4 networks (including FOX) were affected, and the results still indicate that FOX viewers were the most likely to hold right-wing misperceptions. If the difference between local affilates and national news networks were that significant, they why is it that FOX viewers were consistently more likely to hold such misperceptions, as compared to others?
Secondly, the combination of PBS-NPR was nothing new. It was already present within the original report referenced within the FOX news article. As for the other case of Iraqi involvement in Sept 11, I should say that it was not counted as a misperception. So PIPA did not label it as a misperception, and in any case they did admit it was a little ambiguous, hence this should not be included. In fact this seems to mean CBS is more biased to the right than previously believed, contradicting assertions by conservatives that CBS is liberally biased.
As for your claim that there is "no evidence tying the alleged viewer misperceptions to biased coverage", again you have omitted (or overlooked) the following crucial conclusion which refutes your argument from the report:
In other words, Silverback, yet again your reasoning is flawed. Furthemore, I remind you that I have addressed this point a long time ago. The current revision which includes the PIPA report does not allege that watching FOX news makes one more likely to harbour misperceptions in the long run, but this itself may suggest that FOX News itself was a factor:
Nowhere in this statement is there a claim that FOX was responsible indoctrinating bias in their viewers. For heaven's sake, the title of the section is "Allegations of bias", not "Evidence of bias". Also, as I have pointed out earlier, the PIPA study should be included because it was reported by a media outlet and is therefore newsworthy. Eddie, I think both you and I are sick of these same old arguments. Call in a moderator, I have a feeling we'll need him/her soon. Ethereal 03:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comments? crazyeddie 00:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still think there needs to be further qualification to the first "misperception", it is such a poor question. The US had good evidence of of al Zarqari being harbored and rendered aid in Iraq, before the invasion, so hanging a question on whether the evidence was "clear" or "found ... in Iraq" is a red herring.-- Silverback 04:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since you can't prove that FOX viewers were aware of Zarqawi in Iraq in that time, you can't prove that it was responsible for causing them to think Al-Qaeda and Iraq were working closely at that time. Otherwise other factors could have been possible. The reason for not including that news report is that in any given time period, there would always be news reports which are both detrimental and supportive for the case for war with Iraq. Further proof is needed to demonstrate that FOX viewers were somehow aware of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq at that time. This is what needs to be proven. Hence you need to find a survey or poll which shows that they were aware at that time. EDIT: Furthermore your reasoning fails to take into account the fact that given that it was CNN which reported the news about the terrorist capture, it was FOX viewers who had the highest no. of misperceptions. All of the above notwithstanding, you still haven't explained why, if we assume all news network reported the terrorist capture, FOX viewers still rank the highest for most misperceptions. Ethereal 09:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I like crazyeddie's version, but I think that it should mention only the Political Science Quarterly report. Perhaps we should use Silverback's version up to the external link and crazyeddie's from there. I also have some nitpicks. I dislike "people from all over the world". I would prefer "people in the world", which is the wording used in the first part of the question and is used in the Political Science Quarterly report. PIPA spells "favour" as "favor". Tim Ivorson 09:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agreed that giving percentages isn't useful unless we give the percentages for the other news sources. That being the case, I think we should just give the percentages for the "overall score". Otherwise, it will take up too much space and adversely affect the readability of the article. The point isn't that a majority of Fox viewers hold those opinions, it's that they tend to hold them more often than the users of other news sources do. If anybody besides Silverback thinks we should throw in the percentages for each question, along with the percentages for the other news sources as a comparision, I might be talked around. Until then, no.
I am, of course, against any counter-points or additional interpertation, for much the same reasons. People can ask "what did they know and when did they know it" questions in their own time - we gave them the date of the report, and the article should have information on when the surveys where held.
Furthermore, I don't think it really matters right at the moment if the views in question are misperceptions or not, for reasons I refuse to give for a freakin' fourth time.
The external link points to the PSQ version of the article. I also made it a bit more precise about what exactly a "Fox viewer" means.
I'd also like to say this: Could PIPA have made that last question any more awkward? If you aren't paying attention, you might not notice the first bit about "people in the world". And since Americans tend to only think of Americans when they hear the word people... crazyeddie 09:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The last sentence: "The survey did not distinguish between FNC and Fox local affiliate viewers." is now redundant, but I'll leave it in for emphasis, unless there are any objections. crazyeddie 10:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just a few changes to the English and the acknowledgement tha PIPA considered them misperceptions. And also, drop the repetition of the last sentence because it has already been mentioned. Note that FOX isn't the only one who is affected. As the report noted above, ABC, CBS and NBC were all affected as well. As for the ambiguity of the last question, note that it stated [19]:
Options were:
'kay. Still leaving off the misperceptions label unless there is a consensus in favor of keeping it. I personally would have phrased the last question like this: "Internationally, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?" I'm not saying that it's phrased ambiguiously, just awkwardly. crazyeddie 17:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The fact that PIPA labeled these misperceptions should still be on there since that is what the report was about, and making it clear that it was just PIPAs opinion, should stimulate the reader to make their own assessment.-- Silverback 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll leave it in on one condition - that you stop trying to prove that these views aren't misperceptions!. crazyeddie 19:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't care what PIPA's interpertation is. I only care about their hard, factual, results. I see this insistance on the "misperceptions" label as an ad hominem attack. It implies that PIPA was biased against proponents of the Iraq War. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But unless this alledged bias expressed itself as a systemic flaw in their experimental methods, it shouldn't affect their hard results. Whether or not such systemic errors exist is an entirely different issue. The fact that the report was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal argues that there were no major flaws, but doesn't rule it out. However, somebody attempting to prove that the study has systemic flaws would have a high burden of proof.
Making note of the misperceptions label will not "stimulate the reader to make their own assessment". Instead, it will stimulate the reader to have knee-jerk reactions based on their existing views about the Iraq War. Opponents of the War will certainly agree that all three views are, indeed, misperceptions. Proponents of the War will scramble to prove that these views are not misperceptions, leading to a morass of counterpoint and counter-counter point.
Maintaining an agnostic view regarding the validity of these views will actually bolster the pro-Fox argument. If the views are invalid, then that would mean that Fox viewers are woefully uninformed. If, on the other hand, we do not assume that views are necessarily invalid, then this leaves the option of all other news sources being liberally biased. IIRC, one of the major arguments of the pro-Fox POV is that Fox is uniquely fair, balanced, and objective, that all other news sources have a varying degree of liberal bias.
Might I suggest that people who use print media as their primary news source is the closest thing the study has to a control? Print media readers are arguably well-informed, so why do 47% of them hold incorrect views? Furthermore, "print media" is a very generic term, and it is unlikely that the sample group all read a single biased source. Seen from this point of view, FOX and NPR/PBS are almost equal and opposite ends of the spectrum, as opposed to NPR/PBSers being vastly better informed than FOXers.
Silverback, you seem to favor the pro-FOX POV. So why are you insisting on an interpertation that maximizes the anti-FOX argument? crazyeddie 19:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You know, you actually had a point there Silverback. Perhaps we should include that one statistic. I'm sure that you actually having a valid point is just an accident - even a busted clock is right twice a day. It's because you occasionally have a valid (if not necessarily correct) point that I'm willing to listen to you at all. But then you go and unilaterally remove the entire bulletpoint when it is clear that there is overwhelming consensus for its inclusion. I'm trying very hard to be accommodating, but you aren't willing to compromise on a single point. Unfortunately, removing you from this discussion (assuming that the policies of this wiki allow it) would leave us without a pro-Fox advocate (even though you bizzarely deny that you are a pro-Fox advocate). I've contacted Trodel, a pro-Foxer who I've worked with in the past, but he is on a hopefully short wikivacation. Maybe we can just work on an interim compromise, which will just have to do until he can help us create a more balanced version. Until then, what options do we have for removing Silverback's disruptive presence from this discussion? crazyeddie 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<How can you say I'm not willing to compromise, when the PIPA entry was in the article for months with my knowledge until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>
That is like saying that the Palestinians are willing to compromise with the Israelis because their representatives didn't wap the Israeli representatives upside the head during the peace conferences. You can't take credit for such restraint because it is demanded by the most basic requirements of decency. And you didn't even do that! Two times now you have unilaterally removed the bulletpoint from the article, despite it being clear that there was overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping it - at least in some form. Do we really have to wait for a third incident before taking action?
<<until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>
As one of the three people involved in the creation of the original compromise, I can testify that we weren't entirely happy with the final form of this particular bulletpoint. We basically accepted this version as "good enough" because we were getting tired and loosing perspective. We agreed to review it after some time had passed and create a more acceptable version. Now is a good of a time as any - but only if all parties involved are willing to compromise and negotiate.
Your unilateral removal of the bulletpoint is only the most extreme example of your failure to compromise. The secret to compromising is to pick your battles. You have to be willing to give up certain points and fight only the battles you stand a chance of winning. Yet you insist on fighting battles already lost. You continue to fight against these consensus decisions:
I'm "post-modern" enough to admit that you may be right on these issues, and the consensus (as well as I!) may be wrong. But for now, the decision of the consensus stands. After some time has passed, after the current round of negotiations has finished, you may take the opportunity to swing the consensus your way. Until then, accept the decision and move on.
<<Eddie, is there anyway we can seek some kind of mediation?>>
That is exactly what I'm proposing. I would like to give Silverback a chance to change his spots, but if that proves to not be practical, I would like to have him banned from editing this article or participating in this discussion for a month. That will give us a chance to work out a compromise without Silverback wasting our time and his on issues that have already been decided. I'm hoping that the mediator might have some suggestions. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Wikipedia to know how to initiate such a procedure. Any ideas?
Unfortunately, removing Silverback will leave us without a pro-Fox advocate in this discussion. It is in the interest of the anti-Fox side to create a NPOV version of this bulletpoint, and we need an effective pro-Fox voice involved in the negotation to do that. If the bulletpoint is slanted towards the anti-fox side, that will alienate anybody who is still on the fence and might lead to the bulletpoint being removed. I would like to avoid that scenario.
I'm hoping that by the time we have completed the mediation process, Trodel will have returned from his wikivacation or another acceptable pro-Fox advocate will have been found. So I'm proposing tabling this discussion until the completion of the mediation process.
I have just said that I'd like to table the discussion. But before we do, I'd like to point out for the record certain issues that I believe are negotiable:
There is room here for negotiation. But I am not willing to negotiate with Silverback at the present time. crazyeddie 20:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is there mention of the 'controversy' in the intro? The articles of every other media corps that have been accused of bias (MSNBC, NYT, BBC, etc.) make no mention of this until their "criticism" or "controversy" section. Can't imagine an reputable encyclopedia jumping in to these claims so early on in an article.— DMCer ™ 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've tried to stay out of this particular discussion, but Arzel you're out of line and just plain wrong on your assertions. Maybe you should try reading the archives, and the FAQ. Since the initial RfC, the consensus has always had the lead stating "conservative political position" (perhaps during one of the dustups someone changed it to bias, but it was changed right back). Also your position that anyone has changed their position is likewise without merit. It has never been about stating FNC has any actual bias. If it had, AP, myself and others would never have consented to its inclusion. You lose credibility when you make up stuff that just doesn't exist. There is a difference between "allegations of bias" (the term Noble Sith used) and "actual bias". No one is taking the position of "actual bias" (in the article at least). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that if you believe the CNN page or MSNBC page needs to have information in them about their notable controversies in their leads, then the thing to do is to go to those pages and edit them. That really is not a valid argument for changing this page, because it could just as easily be said that those pages need to be more like this one. Therefore, I would have to say that that is a nonstarter. At the same time, contrary to what some editors would have you believe, it IS appropriate to raise the issue again if you believe that a NEW CONSENSUS is possible. The page-ownership "we" language and "It's not changing" language used on this discussion page over and over needs to stop. Bottom line, it's good that you raised the issue again, but I do not believe you've demonstrated that this article needs to change. Urzatron ( talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I commend the lOP for bringing this topic up. It needed to be said. I'm personally ashamed at the responders for their obviously liberal biased claims. "Widespread and most well known bias"? How can you even begin to prove that? There is enough EVIDENCE to the contrary claiming that Fox News is anything but biased. The fact is, they SHOW both sides to an issue, something the major networks rarely if ever do. PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The controversy here isn't one at all. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats will always decry Fox News for being biased. End of story. The fact is, they don't want "risky" uestions asked of them by conservatives. That's why they don't debate on FNC. They should though, considering FNC beats the three main news broadcasts in ratings every year... PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
166.217.62.192 ( talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)