![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
In support of "Drop Fox" editors argued that "War on Fox" had negative connotations and as such was a violation of WP:NPOV. In response, editors supporting "War on Fox" argued that it was the most commonly used term for this; I interpreted this as an implicit argument towards WP:DUE and WP:BALASP.
Further complicating this is the fact that the original wording was added by a politics orientated sock-farm, and that there is an element of citogenesis here; sources are calling this a "War on Fox" because we are calling it a "War on Fox". However, these concerns are lessened because reliable sources don't merely use the phrase "War on Fox"; they reference it as a war on Fox.
This comes comes down to whether NPOV requires that we use the language that sources use, and it does not; it requires us to include the information that sources include, but we are free - and typically encouraged - to use our own language, particularly if the words used by the sources are charged.
As such, I find a rough consensus to call the campaign "Drop Fox", but to mention prominently in the section that it is commonly described as a "war on Fox". BilledMammal ( talk) 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Should the lead section, and section title, be called the "Drop Fox campaign" (article version 1), or "War on Fox" (article version 2). (see the differences in the lead section wording, and in the name of the section "War on Fox") -- Green C 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Background: In 2011-2013 Media Matters conducted a cancel culture campaign to encourage advertisers to leave ("drop") Fox News by issuing reports that discredited Fox's claims to be "fair and balanced". They called this campaign the "Drop Fox campaign". During a March 2011 interview, the CEO of MMFA said they were "at war with Fox News". In December 2013, MMfA Executive VP Angelo Carusone said "The war on Fox is over. And it's not just that it's over, but it was very successful. To a large extent, we won," claiming to have "effectively discredited the network's desire to be seen as 'fair and balanced.'" MMFA further said changing Fox, not shutting it down, was its goal.
marginally reliableand a
a partisan advocacy groupper WP:MEDIAMATTERS and while Fox is obviously worse that has nothing to do with here and makes me just discount your points as trying to right great wrongs. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
...a 2011-2013 campaign called "Drop Fox" (commonly referred to as the "War of Fox" campaign) which...or vice versa. Yilloslime ( talk) 01:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
...a 2011-2013 campaign called "Drop Fox" (commonly referred to as the "War of Fox" campaign) which…. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any resolution to this challenge, which means it probably was unsuccessful and arguably not notable (or at least not deserving of its own subsection on this page). Any thoughts?
![]() | Parts of this article (those related to section) need to be updated. The reason given is: If the 2011 challenge was unsuccessful, that should be reflected here. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (February 2024) |
In 2011, C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for George H. W. Bush and Fox consultant, sent a letter to the IRS alleging that MMfA's activities were unlawful for a non-profit organization and asking the IRS to revoke MMfA's tax-exempt status. [1] Prior to Gray's IRS petition, Politico reported that Fox News had run "more than 30 segments calling for the nonprofit group to be stripped of its tax-exempt status." [2] In another report, Politico said Fox News and Fox Business campaigns held, "The non-profit status as an educator is violated by partisan attacks. That sentiment was first laid out by a piece written by Gray for The Washington Times in June." [3] In an interview with Fox News, Gray said "It's not unlawful. It's just not charitable." [4]
MMfA vice-president Ari Rabin-Havt responded to the challenge saying "C. Boyden Gray is [a] Koch-affiliated, former Fox News contributor whose flights of fancy have already been discredited by actual experts in tax law." [4] Gray denied having been on Fox's payroll while he was a Fox consultant in 2005, but at that time, Fox had said Gray was a contributor, adding: "We pay contributors for strong opinions." [3] [5] Marcus Owens, former director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Division, told Politico in 2011 that he believed the law was on Media Matters's side. [6] Owens told Fox Business that only an IRS probe could reveal if partisan activity takes up a substantial enough part of MMfA's operations to disallow its tax-free status; the IRS allows limited political activity at nonprofits if it does not take up a substantial amount of their operations. [7] Superb Owl ( talk) 04:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
In support of "Drop Fox" editors argued that "War on Fox" had negative connotations and as such was a violation of WP:NPOV. In response, editors supporting "War on Fox" argued that it was the most commonly used term for this; I interpreted this as an implicit argument towards WP:DUE and WP:BALASP.
Further complicating this is the fact that the original wording was added by a politics orientated sock-farm, and that there is an element of citogenesis here; sources are calling this a "War on Fox" because we are calling it a "War on Fox". However, these concerns are lessened because reliable sources don't merely use the phrase "War on Fox"; they reference it as a war on Fox.
This comes comes down to whether NPOV requires that we use the language that sources use, and it does not; it requires us to include the information that sources include, but we are free - and typically encouraged - to use our own language, particularly if the words used by the sources are charged.
As such, I find a rough consensus to call the campaign "Drop Fox", but to mention prominently in the section that it is commonly described as a "war on Fox". BilledMammal ( talk) 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Should the lead section, and section title, be called the "Drop Fox campaign" (article version 1), or "War on Fox" (article version 2). (see the differences in the lead section wording, and in the name of the section "War on Fox") -- Green C 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Background: In 2011-2013 Media Matters conducted a cancel culture campaign to encourage advertisers to leave ("drop") Fox News by issuing reports that discredited Fox's claims to be "fair and balanced". They called this campaign the "Drop Fox campaign". During a March 2011 interview, the CEO of MMFA said they were "at war with Fox News". In December 2013, MMfA Executive VP Angelo Carusone said "The war on Fox is over. And it's not just that it's over, but it was very successful. To a large extent, we won," claiming to have "effectively discredited the network's desire to be seen as 'fair and balanced.'" MMFA further said changing Fox, not shutting it down, was its goal.
marginally reliableand a
a partisan advocacy groupper WP:MEDIAMATTERS and while Fox is obviously worse that has nothing to do with here and makes me just discount your points as trying to right great wrongs. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
...a 2011-2013 campaign called "Drop Fox" (commonly referred to as the "War of Fox" campaign) which...or vice versa. Yilloslime ( talk) 01:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
...a 2011-2013 campaign called "Drop Fox" (commonly referred to as the "War of Fox" campaign) which…. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any resolution to this challenge, which means it probably was unsuccessful and arguably not notable (or at least not deserving of its own subsection on this page). Any thoughts?
![]() | Parts of this article (those related to section) need to be updated. The reason given is: If the 2011 challenge was unsuccessful, that should be reflected here. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (February 2024) |
In 2011, C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for George H. W. Bush and Fox consultant, sent a letter to the IRS alleging that MMfA's activities were unlawful for a non-profit organization and asking the IRS to revoke MMfA's tax-exempt status. [1] Prior to Gray's IRS petition, Politico reported that Fox News had run "more than 30 segments calling for the nonprofit group to be stripped of its tax-exempt status." [2] In another report, Politico said Fox News and Fox Business campaigns held, "The non-profit status as an educator is violated by partisan attacks. That sentiment was first laid out by a piece written by Gray for The Washington Times in June." [3] In an interview with Fox News, Gray said "It's not unlawful. It's just not charitable." [4]
MMfA vice-president Ari Rabin-Havt responded to the challenge saying "C. Boyden Gray is [a] Koch-affiliated, former Fox News contributor whose flights of fancy have already been discredited by actual experts in tax law." [4] Gray denied having been on Fox's payroll while he was a Fox consultant in 2005, but at that time, Fox had said Gray was a contributor, adding: "We pay contributors for strong opinions." [3] [5] Marcus Owens, former director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Division, told Politico in 2011 that he believed the law was on Media Matters's side. [6] Owens told Fox Business that only an IRS probe could reveal if partisan activity takes up a substantial enough part of MMfA's operations to disallow its tax-free status; the IRS allows limited political activity at nonprofits if it does not take up a substantial amount of their operations. [7] Superb Owl ( talk) 04:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
References