Talk:Fox Business Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox Business Network article.
Article policies
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Flag
Portal
 Fox Business Network is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


According to the page, Fox Business is on channel 223 on Dish Network, but as a Dish Network subscriber, as of this date, channel 223 is a home shopping channel. I cannot find FBN anywhere on Dish. ...The Foot "# Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel president and Fox TV Stations Group chairman, held a staff meeting the Friday before the launch to prepare reporters, anchors, producers and others for the Monday launch. From the newsroom, Ailes talked about how the press covered the launch of FNC 11 years ago. The Fox executive dismissed negative comments from doubters by noting FNC grew to become the number one news channel, less than six years after launch. He told the staffers to focus on integrity, attitude, teamwork and excellence in everything they do" ... this isn't cited, and probably came from the inside. I have contacted Janet Alshouse the VP in charge on international distribution of FOX News and FOX Business Network, who advises that contrary to what the Australian newspaper article says, no deal has been done for Australia yet or for the UK. FBN will not be offered internationally until the first quarter of 2008, when Foxtel in Australia and Sky in the UK will be strong possible customers to take carriage. If anyone wants proof of this please email me on stuart.fanning@gmail.com Stuartfanning

Contents

[edit] Missing Sections

The network has been on for over 24 hours. Where's the "Criticism" and "Controversies" sections? patsw 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

what criticism? I don't know of any major things the network has done "wrong" for a network that's been on, what, five days? The network needs time to fill itsself out first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.83.150 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly this? [1] [2] - Mike Beckham 03:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's all they have? Infomercials to whine about? The Fox Haters are really digging themselves into a hole with this. --4.239.60.84 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What do you guys think of shitcanning the Criticism section? The Olbermann "source" doesn't work and so what if they ended up playing some more infomercials. Is that really a big deal? I don't think so. HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that your opinion of what is a "big deal" is the necessary requirement for inclusion. The information is valid and sourced (and increasingly more relevant, given the reports about the Nelson ratings that came out a month or so ago). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why I asked for other people's opinion about whether it is valid. Do you have that Olbermann source or not? HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Olbermann critique

Criticism is fine, but to count Olbermann's windmill-tilting among is it akin to using Limbaugh quotes to discuss criticism of CNN. --Mhking 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a valid criticism of Olbermanns 'windmill-tilting', what was the point of your comment ? 81.130.211.218 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A guy who regularly refers to the news channel as Fox Noise? Hm, no you guys will have to do better than that. Removed 129.15.131.248 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)HaroldZoid

That's what we call an ad hominem fallacy. The criticism is both sourced and neutrally presented. Reverted. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source? The youtube link doesn't work. I'm not talking about the NYT article. If you want to keep the second part then fine, but what about the Olbermann? I don't see what you mean by neutrally presented. --HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the criticism? Just stating the KO is critical without a specific example of the criticism is rather pointless. Removed. Arzel (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I was going to give him some time, but this works too, lol. HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos, you know better than that. The Olbermann criticism is OR as it was currently presented, just posting a YouTube video without any context is rather pointless, try to show some objectivity. Arzel (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The actual link is dead, removed for violation of YouTube, so it is a non-issue right now. Arzel (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Issue resolved -- all we need to do is cite the actual episode.  :-) Fixed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
BS, what is the actual criticism? KO's opinion need not be in this article. Arzel (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Bullshit" is not an acceptable or appropriate response, Arzel. The "actual criticism" is neatly spelled out in the article, but if you insist... Olbermann is being critical of FNB's re-tooling of the reviews of the channel to change the meaning. It's an issue, it's properly sourced, and it will remain in the article per WP:NPOV. Despite what you think of Olbermann, to try and exclude it on that basis is an ad hominem fallacy, as has been explained dozens of times in the past -- it won't fly this time any more than it did the last three dozen times you tried it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. - It seems you think that references must be hyperlinked and accessable via the web -- absolutely not. In this diff you cited the revert reason as "You linked back to WP". Actually, the reference cites a specific broadcast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann as the source, and only hyperlinks to the Coundown article as a courtesy. The reference need not be accessable via the web to be valid. Please slow down and actually read what you're doing before clicking "Undo". Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You insert criticism which cannot be verified, and your logic is that it only needs to be referenced to the actual broadcast? That is what I call BS. I ask again, what is the criticism? KO is giving HIS opinion of FBN. You claim he is being critical of the FNB re-tooling the reviews, but where is this evidence? No one can research it, plus since the average reader has no way to easily view this supposed criticism, there is no way to determine if it even exist. Until you can provide actual references to the material such that someone can verify it, it does not belong for a number of reason. Previsouly, your logic was that it was referenced and presented neutrally, yet you have yet to provide what the actual criticism is, and now that the reference is not available there is no way to review it. Arzel (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a little more research, and the problem is that it is not FBN to which KO is criticizing. He is criticizing Ailes for not using the entire quote from reviews of FBN. As it is, if a better more complete reference could be found it might belong on the Ailes article. Regardless the more I looked at it, the more ticky tacky it is. KO, who already dislikes FNC, and pretty much anything FNC related, called Ailes his worst person in the world for using a partial quote from the Toronto Globe on a commercial for FBN on FBN. Seriously, is this what constitutes major criticism these days? Arzel (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's break down your points:

  1. You insert criticism which cannot be verified... No one can research it, plus since the average reader has no way to easily view this supposed criticism, there is no way to determine if it even exist. Until you can provide actual references to the material such that someone can verify it, it does not belong... now that the reference is not available there is no way to review it.

    That's ridiculous... by your logic, any reference that can't be reached by hyperlink is invalid (for instance, a print version of Encyclopedia Britannica). That's so far off base that I am having trouble even processing how you could come to that conclusion. Where on earth did you get that idea? It's dead wrong. The actual episode is cited; if you want to verify it you simply need to get ahold of that episode and watch it. There is no burden of hyperlink availability anywhere on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to back up your claim with policy or guideline.

  2. ...the problem is that it is not FBN to which KO is criticizing

    He is criticizing Ailes in his capacity as an officer of News Corporation, which owns FBN. The subject of criticism is FBN; the actions which draw criticism were perpetrated by FBN specifically (in airing a misconstrued review). By your logic, we must limit criticism to individuals... utter nonsense. The network aried the dishonest statement, and Olbermann called them on it. Look up vicarious liability.

  3. ...KO, who already dislikes FNC, and pretty much anything FNC related...

    How many times must I point out the ad hominem logical fallacy? Beyond that, it's speculation and completely irrelevant. There is no requirement for the person being critical to "like" or "dislike" the subject being criticized... personal feelings are irrelevant. Please show us a policy or guideline to back up your statements.

  4. ...you have yet to provide what the actual criticism is

    I did not realize that the text was that hard for you to comprehend. The criticism is that they changed the quote to misrepresent the meaning entirely.

  5. Seriously, is this what constitutes major criticism these days?

    Absolutely. Beyond that, there is no requirement that criticism need be approved by Arzel to be valid. I challenge you once more to give any policy or guideline stating otherwise.
/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It all boils down to Synthesis of material. What did KO say? He didn't criticize FBN, he criticised RA. Now, if you want to change the policy regarding what is synthesis of material, then by all means go ahead. I further question the validity that this is criticism worth including here. I have done quite a bit of searching, and have been unable to find any RS that actually mention the incident. The KO source is marginal because there is no RS to link to, so it handly fails WP:V, since it is something that is likely to be challenged and it is not easily accessible for the average reader. The fact that the criticism was missqouted to begin with is quite ironic in itself.
The way it was originally in the article was factually incorrect, do you question that? That RA missquoted the paper is up to interpretation, I personally think it is quite funny. The Toronto Globe gave a review to which it was easy to take one sentence and just use that sentence, you see it with movie reviews all the time, and I certianly don't see the same kind of scrutiny leveled against them.
You may consider the fact that KO hates FNC to be Ad Hominen but it is a fact. They have been feuding for the past few years with a great deal of documentation to the fact. I still feel it violates WP:V and is undue weight so I'll leave it up to you to find additional sources. Arzel (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Further sourcing is not necessary. Since you did not bother to address any of the points raised above, I don't really feel like repeating the same things over and over. I strongly encourage you to re-read my pointes, especially point number 1, which you still seem to have problems understanding. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - I acknowledge and appreciate your willingness to try and move past all this. I've added a few words to the end of the version you inserted, and I hope that this will be an acceptable compromise. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, I understand what you are saying, but this is my problem with using a source which is not easily verifiable, even if it is true. Olbermann, BOR, Rhodes, Shultz, Gibson, and so on criticize people pretty much everyday in someway or another, or they make outrageous claims. For example, Randi Rhodes said on Tuesday that if Clinton gets the Dem nomination because of superdelegate then she is going to vote for McCain. It is true, I heard it, and I am sure it is somewhere on the internet, however, it wasn't picked up by anyone (that I am aware). Yet if I apply the same logic here, I could say truthfully on her page that she would support McCain under that situation, by just noting the date of the broadcast, yet no one would be easily able to verify that it is true. Thus, I don't have a problem with your addition to my version, but I do seriously believe it requires some addtional reliable sourcing that can back up the statement, without any I feel it has weight issues. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Like a NewsChannel?

Is it just me or does FBN seem more news based than business based? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.68.213 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's much more broad compared to CNBC or Bloomberg Television, but I guess that's how you attract "Main Street" Vik —Preceding comment was added at 18:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Or given FBN's poor ratings, maybe it's not. 71.203.209.0 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

We must have an MCO from the channel editing wikipedia ;-). I enjoy the pics, but four or five is overkill. Let's just pick one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHANNEL NUMBER???

How can I find this channel on dish satelliye? w8okk@bigstring.com

72.66.196.50 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Does this network have a Republican Bias, like all the other "fox" networks. Please let me know? Viper55 (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)