Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 14

Contents

Archive 13 created

I noticed this talk page had gotten more than twice as large as Wikipedia's suggested 32K limit, so I've created Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_13 and moved most of the material to that page. I believe I left on this page everything that's had any activity in the last few days. If anyone has an objection to a section I moved, just say so and I'll put it back over here for further discussion. --Aaron 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Alert

The following paragraph was removed:

From the beginning, Fox News has had a heavy emphasis on the visual presentation of news. Graphics were designed to be colorful and attention grabbing, and to allow people to get the main points of what was being said even if they couldn't hear the host, through the use of on-screen text summarizing the position of the interviewer or speaker, and "bullet points" when a host was giving commentary. The network differentiated commentary from interviews with a constant graphic reading "COMMENTARY" during features such as Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo. Fox News also created the Fox News Alert, which interrupted regular programming when a breaking news story occured. Each News Alert was designed to be attention catching with a swooshing graphic filling the screen and a piercing chime instead of the regular news music. At the beginning of FNC, the Fox News Alert was used fairly rarely, giving the chime more cachet, but currently it is used regularly to announce scheduled events or repeat existing news instead of only breaking news stories, with Fox News Alerts sometimes several times each hour instead of just a few times a day. Fox News was also the first network to put up the American flag after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a feature in the upper left hand corner that has persisted to this day.

It was put back in the article. The snide comment about what other networks do actually rings hollow because CNN and Headline News have for years been simulcast over radio. Compare the visual elements of, for instance, The O'Reilly Factor (talking points displayed on screen, video clips interspersed) with Larry King Live, which is basically a radio show transposed to television. Calwatch 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted, and it gets thrown back in again. The visual element to Fox is important in understanding how Fox got so popular. If you disagree, please discuss, or edit, but don't delete. Calwatch 08:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-war Intelligence Coverage

I take it Wikipedia isn't meant to only hold an American point of view. The biggest criticism of all regarding American news media lately has to do with the 'dumbing down' of news presentation and analysis...The entry should reflect some of that criticism. Also, the 'Fox Effect' and the "outfox fox news" ideas have yet to be presented here. I'm considering adding all that information. What do you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs) 20:22, January 9, 2006.

It's not meant to have your POV either--Capitalister 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please not more content for the criticism sections - the edit discussions on that are just unbearable. Trödel•talk 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Own Bias Article

There, I was bold for once. I moved the controversies section into its own article and left only the first paragraph here. Now those of us who want to not have it take up forever on the article can have that and those who want to have it here can have that too. Why wasn't this thought of before? The new article is at Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to do a sockpuppet check on 68.109.223.137. --Aaron 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could. I might report it on AN/I — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like this step. Makes sense. I take it you'll be ok with me talking the same approach with the same section on the CNN page? Amibidhrohi 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. It makes the articles a lot neater. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, it's not nearly as long in the CNN article, and we really should be leaning against forking. The FNC bias section, on the other hand, filled up almost half the article. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The CNN controversy section could use expanding anyway. There's alot of information I picked up that I didn't add previously because of size constraints...well, that and also, because of some highly opinionated editors and admins here, it turns out that it's illegal for me to write such that less than 60% of the Controversy article suggests CNN is pro-Saddam and liberal-biased. Anyway, there's more I can add to the new article. The difference in content between the American CNN and CNN International, for instance. Most articles don't start off full-size, and we shouldn't expect that from this article within 10 mins of its existence. Amibidhrohi 20:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For once Amib and I are in agreement. I like this step too. As for this: "because of some highly opinionated editors and admins here".....talk about the pot calling the kettle black, wow. Amib- I don't know where are you from, but in this country(United States), Fox News is generally considered the more conservative channel and CNN the more liberal channel. It is not suprising that any bias section would reflect this perception. RonMexico 14:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You all raise good points. As for me, I'm strongly in favor of the split. Nicely, nicely done. Matt Yeager 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I also am in strong agreement with Amibidhrohi, RonMexico and Matt Yeager. Keep the fork. --Aaron 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as it is, and not victim of partisan bickering over how to document an apparently high number of controversies surrounding the network. Leave the prejudice aside and stop splitting hairs. Unless you're trying to prove FOX News is so biased as to necessitate a separate article to enumerate its eternal list of misdeeds, why in the world create an entirely different article dedicated to its controversies? That, in itself, seems particularly biased to me. I say leave the politics aside and keep the article as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luis Hamburgh (talk • contribs) 13:41, January 16, 2006.

There're no politics involved. One side wants it in there because they want to document every half-page report that somehow 'proves' Fox' bias, and the other side wants to remove almost everything. Why not give it its own article to make both happy. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Ilyanep, I admire your effort, but am compelled to question your wisdom. I believe you need to step away from the emotional investment of having created a new article, and look at this objectively.

(1) "There're no politics involved" - Well, of course there are. Politics is the art and science of maintaining control -- you obviously want to maintain control of your fork. I don't blame you, I suppose. If I went through the trouble of creating an entirely separate article I'd be hell-bent to keep it around as well. But the fact is maybe your bold move was actually more like a foolish one; think of how cancerous applying your standard to the entirety of Wikipedia would be. Even minor articles would grow into multi-pronged subreferences-gone-mad. Many of those subreferences would become octopi in their own right, and they'd all point back to their originating article's originating article. The best way to discern an originating article? Why, the fact it's 90% external links! Articles without forks would be the ultra-rare exception.
(2) Strange you should imply I'm working as a sockpuppet and cite "strong consensus" in the same proverbial breath - if anything looks suspicious it's an article's sudden, drastic change receiving loads of support. For months the article -- as a whole -- was fine. I'm not one to loosely throw around accusations, but here I am, by myself (still trying to figure out who my sockpuppet persona would be), and I've been cast into question... if someone is supporting me, please point me in their direction!
(3) Forks should illuminate events/phenomena related to, but clearly separate from, the original article itself, and important enough to be considered in their own context(s). These criteria do not describe the controversies and allegations surrounding FNC. Prohibition meets those criteria; Air America Radio's controversies do not. Prohibition was a singular, major episode in the much longer history of Alcohol, and can clearly be considered in the context of religion, politics, or a number of other topics outside of alcohol itself; the controversies surrounding Air America Radio have existed for the network's short existence, and could never be seriously considered or completely appreciated in a separate context. This distinction should not be a difficult one to make.
(4) Some phenomena have been controversial for most of, if not all of, their existence; those phenomena would be, therefore, insufficiently defined by articles that fail to acknowledge these controversies. Air America Radio, Howard Stern, the U.N., Mike Tyson, to name a few. As early as May 1998 the Columbia Journal Review was documenting Rupert Murdoch's controversial methods, and the allegations have befallen FNC like rain ever since.

I don't begrudge your emotional investment in your own handiwork, Ilyanep, nor do I fault others for having their own obstacles to objectivity. Obviously I recognize my own biases as well; there are philosophical reasons to favor the idea of removing the bias allegations from the page on Fox News, just as there are to keep the allegations in the main article. But those biases aside, it is my contention an objective observer would regard what you're doing as wholly unwarranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.223.137 (talk • contribs) .

(1) I meant no politics in the governmental sense. Whether I support conservatives or liberals doesn't matter here. Also, the reason I split this one was because it was taking up 1/2 the article (see my reply to #3)

(2) The bias section has been questioned very many times over the years. I could hardly call that 'fine'. Also, I never called you in particular a sock.

(3) Forks have been created in many cases. See George W. Bush for instance.

(4) Umm?

I don't mean to start any sort of wars (edit, flame, or otherwise) but I don't know if the wiser decision would be to keep the section in one article . — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Forks, prongs, whatever. If my vote matters I say keep the thing intact. So strange to tune in, find half the bloody thing disapeared. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bone (talk • contribs) 18:35, January 16, 2006.

Look - creating new accounts to oppose doesn't strengthen the argument but makes me think all opposition is coordinating and discount the entire thing. Can some of the regular editors chime in on this. I think it is a good idea since the controversies section has been so contentious. Trödel•talk 23:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I hate to break it to 68.109.223.137, but, in response to your #2 point... the reason that we all chimed in for support is that it's a really good idea. Need further assurances that we aren't sockpuppets? Here's all the accounts that have expressed support for the move according to Kate's tool:

  1. Ilaynep (first edit 5/7/03, 4928 edits)
  2. Aaron (first edit 12/7/02, 472 edits)
  3. Trödel (first edit 7/29/04, 2763 edits + 299 edits - edited first as User:Trodel
  4. Amibidhrohi (first edit 10/6/05, 323 edits)
  5. RonMexico (first edit 11/26/05, 176 edits)
  6. Matt Yeager (first edit 5/28/05, 2562 edits)

We're most certainly NOT sockpuppets. The move is sound and good in all of our personal opinions, regardless of our varied locations on the political spectrum. While you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, I think it's important that you respect ours as well. This seems like a solid consensus to me. Matt Yeager 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As of the last edit before the fork, the page was 37K in length, above the 32K limit suggested in Wikipedia guidelines. That's all the justification for forking we need right there. But more importantly, this is an encyclopedia article, not a debate forum. The average person is going to come to this page seeking basic information on the channel, not a political screed. But for those who are interested in the allegations of bias against FNC, the newly-forked version will provide these people with even more data than they had before, since the now-separate page is certain to grow in length beyond what it would have if it remained a mere section of the main page. In short, those with an ax to grind against FNC should be happy with the forking. --Aaron 01:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I admire your Christian sincerity, especially admitting you "hate to break it to" me. Surely that wasn't sarcasm, was it? Or did we momentarily slip on our Pat Robertson hypocrisy helmet?
Sorry, I couldn't resist :)
Speaking of insults, let's discuss civility -- keep in mind Aaron called me sockpuppet first. Once again, it's a fact anyone can easily check. Dish it out, sure, but be able to take it as well. And remember, there are (allegedly) six of you - and only one of me. Yet I haven't run screaming to the WikiMasters with my tail between my legs about your stubbornness -- stubbornness clearly illustrated when one of you knocked down my thoughtful edit within one minute.
Go back to check the time if you're in doubt -- after I wrote some lengthy notes on the debated fork one of you razed my page changes within one minute. Don't feign you're being Mr. Nice Guy when you gave my commentary not a single second of consideration before reverting the page to what you wanted in the first place. Wikipedia asks us for civil discourse - and I assure you I'm only giving you back what you've given me (see: calling someone a sockpuppet, previous paragraph). Slapping down "I did read it...," reverting less than 60 seconds later, and calling it "Civil Discourse" is, again, suggestive of the fact you and I speak two different versions of English. My four points could not have possibly been read, considered, and acted upon within one minute [1].
Additionally, six is a little premature on "consensus," no? Anyone can see there have been several dozen editors of this article over the past two months. Since I started writing this three have pitched in. If you think six of 100 or more is a "consensus" perhaps you should revisit that word in your dictionary.
"37K in length, above the 32K limit suggested in Wikipedia guidelines. That's all the justification for forking we need right there"
Far from it. The notion Wikipedia conveys clearly states that (a) 32K is not a policy, and (b) the ultimate goal is to be flexible. We should all go back and revisit the Wikipedia policy on this issue.
"The average person is going to come to this page seeking basic information on the channel, not a political screed."

Precisely - which leaves me wondering why in the world you all would hope to leave the article on Fox News with such a dubious distinction. Like you say, what better way to show a news outfit is biased than to have its very own section on bias and prejudice? But note that Luis (above), another reader who said virtually the same thing, is opposed to your idea. I.e., you seem to be arguing against your own point here.

Again, refer back to the Wikipedia policy - it stresses not to be hasty. Calling a consensus at this point, especially given that six of you constitute about 10 to 15% of all editors in the past two months, is more than hasty. Reverting my first edit after giving my TALK no consideration, calling me a sockpuppet, and then snidely remarking "hate to tell ya this, but" is not only discourteous to me, but in large part to anyone who didn't happen to drop by today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.197.126.10 (talk • contribs) 22:32, January 16, 2006.
There is not only one of you; there a few anonymous ip addresses editing the article with exactly the same edit as you. Also, you're the one who reverted first. And we're not saying that Fox News is biased by forking the article off...we're simply saying that there are many allegations of bias. (note difference between 'Fox News controversies and allegations of bias' vs. 'fox news bias'.) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I will simply note that the above comment from 62.197.126.10 is the first edit he has made to Wikipedia in four months, and he has warnings for vandalism and WP:NPA violations on his talk page. Calling you a "possible sockpuppet" is not a personal attack, it is an allegation, one we have every reason to suspect. --Aaron 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, Mr. Anonymous? I (Matt) am the only one who claims to be a Christian... but I certainly never reverted your edit after just a one-minute interval (except for reverting your subsequent changes, which I (or anyone else) could easily tell were identical to each other by checking the differences between the two articles). I only requested semi-protection (which I suppose is what "running to the WikiMasters" means) after you called me a "dipshit".
Anyways, if you would like to request mediation, that's fine by me... but you're not likely to win. A respected editor (respected because he's made countless edits of value to the encyclopedia) made a good-faith change to the article, multiple other respected editors applauded the change... and then there's one anonymous editor who opposes it, and then compounds the problem with personal attacks and violations of the three revert rule. I'm sorry, but that's not how things get done on Wikipedia. We try to assume good faith... I personally guessed that you were unclear on what forking meant (as evidenced by your example of what would happen if the practice was taken up on other articles--ignoring that George W. Bush, United States, Canada (actually, pretty much any country), and many, many others already have forked sections. One wonders how you could have missed all these forks on so many articles!). Forking does not mean that the section is irrelevant; it simply means that the section is too long for the main article. Nobody thinks that the History of the United States is irrelevant to the United States; however, the article would be WAY too long if it were included. That's pretty much what the deal with the bias section is... we're just trying to keep the main article from being overwhelmed. I'm sorry if you were offended by "hate to break it to you", though... I was trying to be concise, and that probably wasn't the best way to go about doing things. Matt Yeager 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


The article being 23% on bias of Fox News does not justify forking. This is a method to eliminate criticism as well as marginalize it. If that standard were held across Wikipedia, for example with the Scientology article, Wikipedia would be reduce to little more than a mouthpiece. I am shocked and disturbed that this has happened. -- --24.87.32.64 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First, some notes:

If you posit the anonymous posts all came from the same source then obviously all but one of the anonymous IPs were proxies. Obviously that person is at ...137 (aren't you?). Hence, the "on his talk page" reference is a total non-starter. Also, the article with debated material was 38K, 27K without it. Nine divided by 38 is 23 and some change. Meaning 23% of the older article was devoted to allegations of bias. That's a lot (though whoever called it 45% risked WikiCredibility in my book). Finally, if any of you seriously wanted to bring the article back down to an acceptable size without losing anything especially valuable, you could have removed all that extraneous New Zealand, U.K. and Brazil stuff at the bottom of the article. I think it's apparent everyone here is being motivated by personal politics.

HOWEVER...

Although I initially reverted, I've given it thought and have concluded the fork is the best solution. I tend to agree with the overall idea of splitting off into a new article.

It works for both political bents. Yes, I'm acknowledging everyone's bias here. If you're a Fox News "friend," you can rest easy the main article on Fox isn't 24% polluted with accusations of bias. And if you're a Fox news "fiend" you can now enrich an article strictly built to house accusations of bias (so long as the material is cited, obviously).

Count it now as seven. I've reverted back to the "consensus" version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keglined (talk • contribs) .

Thank you. That was basically my reasoning in the beginning. Glad to see you agree now. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I notice that there appears to be some personal attacks between users on here. Let me make this clear; personally attacking/insulting another user can get you blocked from Wikipedia. I am aware that this talk page is controversial, but that is not and never will be an excuse to insult people. Please be careful. And please remember, when you use a talk page, Sign Your Comments using 4 tildes (~). We need to keep track of who says what, and when! Thor Malmjursson 03:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Talk with Thor

Content : Shows

One of the minor problems on this article is that information pretaining to some shows is very shallow to nearly nothing at all, if existant at all. One such example would include "On The Record", which does absolutely nothing but link right back to the FNC page, giving no real information about the show itself other than a short description here. In addition, no weekend programming is included in the programming block, leaving out some of FOX's signature weekends shows, such as Weekend Live w/ Tony Snow (SAT) & Brian Wilson (SUN), The Big Story Weekend, The Beltway Boys, FOX News Watch, Heartland, War Stories w/ Oliver North, The LineUp, & Big Story Primetime (all of the Big Stories could probabily be added to the original big story article). Overall, a gap which should be filled

Chris 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added the short little sentence clip below the standard weekday schedule for the moment with most of the weekend shows on their (if I forgot any, feel free to add). Anyway, the pages should start appearing over the following days with their quality improving over time.

Chris 07:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Who's enforcing NPOV on this article? I dislike FOX news as much as the next guy, but this article reads as slanted as a table with 3 legs/

{{sofixit}} ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just got rid of a "conservative" remark in the introduction. Still, yes, this article does have a mild POV, as shown by the person who added the conservative remark | - Chris 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because unlike lying and saying that it's a "top rated news channel" which is pretty much false, as it is neither "top rated" nor a "news" channel, calling it "conservative" is POV, after all, FOX is so ambiguous as to their political stance--64.12.116.133 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Clindhartsen. The conservative remark does not belong in the lead. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
64.12.116.133 is an AOL IP. We may have to do another semiprotect if he wants to keep it up. --Aaron 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Or we could just come up with a system that only keeps agressive POV pushers from editing it--64.12.116.133 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the person that wrote "top-rated" refers to its Nielsen ratings which is pretty much true [2] because the channel occupies the top 4 spots in United States cable evening news & talk shows chart. --J. Nguyen 18:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What else could it be referring to? Isn't that how most Cable channels are rated? — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, I just edited that conservative remark again after it was added again. Chris 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ilyanep, please consider this an official request to semiprotect the page. --Aaron 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, what was I thinking, FOX's political stance is completly ambigous--64.12.116.133 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do! Chris 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this kind of nonsense must stop--Capitalister 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, be very careful, there are non-republicans editing the page, they must be out to push some kind of far left POV that FOX is a conservative run network, they must be stopped before they destroy America!--64.12.116.133 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, whose sockpuppet are you?--Capitalister 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the conservative remark is POV in that it bases the whole description of the network off of the commentators which the network has, rather than the actual news operations that the network runs. In addition, this is also something which should be placed in the Controversies and allegations of bias section, which is the open range for remarks of this type if proof is included. Chris 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Except that someone just deleted the entire section, about 2 seconds after it was protected--64.12.116.133 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right...that exact edit was a little overkill. On the other hand, linking to propoganda model is overkill too. I hope this is a good golden center. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to point out, it also does that for CNN--64.12.116.133 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that has been added back Chris 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that a significant aspect of the POV issue is masking of Fox News's reputation for holding bias. There is no mention of controversy in the introduction (which tells us nothing about the station, only boasts its popularity), and the Controversies and allegations of bias section is limited to three sentences that present the extent of the controversy as not meeting the standards held by their slogans:

"Fox News claims itself as more objective and factual than other American networks. Fox News Channel's two most common slogans are "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced". Even so, the network has had criticism over it's lifetime of alleged bias in reporting and operations."

Although there may be a larger article dedicated to this issue (which I think does a poor job by merely presenting individual points of evidence and not a complete picture), it still should be expounded upon further here. Let's at least present enough of a story that someone who hears a media personality making fun of FOX News can get the joke.Shaggorama 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Most - if not all - news outlets have probably been accused of bias at times, but none to the extent that Fox News has. Perhaps the conservative remark is inappropriate, but I feel there should definitely be some sort of statement in the introduction that acknowledges that Fox News is widely believed (or accused) of having a right-wing slant. At the moment it does feel as though this article is oblivious to this. 81.178.99.223 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that the next best thing to an admission that the rest of the media spends all it's time accusing FOX of bias because FOX provides a contrast to all that leftist dribble out there?
No, that sounds more like your own personal opinion, just as there may be those that conlude that perhaps Fox News is actually biased. That's why the article should stick to the bare facts and let the readers make what they will of it. 81.178.71.79 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain, please

Translation from FOXese to English, how exactly is conservative POV? Does FOX even make efforts to make their politcal stance ambiguous? NO, so why is being removed?--64.12.116.133 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The remark is POV, it does not belong in the introduction, do this again and the page will be protected--Capitalister 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Too late, you're little POV fest is over, the article has been nominated for semi-protection, do it again and your edits will be considered vandalism!--Capitalister 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

If you had a bad relationship with your father as a child, then you probably shouldn't contribute to this article because you most likely hate entities with authority such as the Fox News network, the government, and rich people. If you don't agree with me, check your contribution history then try and convince me you aren't bitter. Oh, and by "you" I mean everyone here. Haizum 13:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will admit I got myself into that whole mess above but only since the conservative description is something which doesn't belong in the introduction in that the network has a generally mid stance on their general news coverage but the network does have more conservative commentators than liberal, or so I believe. Moving on, my main contributions to anything FOX related has been trying to make progress or create pages for the network programming including the Fox Report, Studio B, Your World with Neil Cavuto, "The Cost Of Freedom" bussiness block, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News Live, in addition adding some minor information to other shows and adding most of the currently listed hosts and correspondents to the Fox News Channel Personalities category. Anyway, just wanted to let my contributions to be known. Chris 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by "you" I mean everyone here.
Oh, and by "you" I mean most everyone here. Haizum 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
All I've been trying to do is keep this from being a liberal biasfest. No offense to anyone, but it reads 'Fox News is a cable channel. Some people say it sucks. Others say it doesn't, but we don't care about them, do we?' — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think this shows a lot more POV from Haizum than from the editors here. If my calculations are correct, recently, there have actually been quite a few more conservative editors here than liberal editors. It is fairly close to NPOV (still needs small tweaks, but not absolutely terrible), so Haizum saying it's very anti-conservative probably says more about Haizum than the article. Just my thoughts. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Mayhaps. But thank god this article took a turn for NPOV. It used to be really bad. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see the older versions since I have only been here for a short while, but it does seem relative close to a NPOV standard. In addition, I will admit to being a daily watcher of the network and a moderately conservative person, so even I can say this article gives the network a fair shot. Anyway, now just to finish all the different items attached to this network. - Chris 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I can direct you to Fox and Friends which is a poor stub. In case you have any more information. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What it needs to say is "'FOX NEWS' is PURE 100% POV knee-jerk entertainment, which relishes, communicates and incites the instinct to bark, and as such is inherently impossible to address in detail on an encyclopedic, Neutral Point Of View source. " (Something we can all agree on) MotherFunctor 08:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Allegations Section

I feel that this is clearly small and fairly innocuous, due to the existence of the seperate article. However, I also think that it really ought to mention that the channel has had so much more allegations than others. This is not an attempt to discuss the accuracy of the allegations, but to emphasise their frequency. Thoughts as to how this cold be done? Robdurbar 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should confuse quantity with quality. There are think tanks out there where people are literally paid to attack FNC 24 hours a day, so it's hard to take most of it seriously. But if you want to propose a rewrite of that paragraph, give it a shot. --Aaron 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I did, and it got reverted quite quickly, hence me wanting to discuss the change here. My point is relate to exactly what you said above. The regularity and amount of allegations is notable and worth a mention, whether these are valid or not. I would like to introudce this to the article, but accept that it would be difficult to do this in a politcally neutral way. My current thinking would be along the lines of: Since its conception, the channel has been among one of the most heavily criticised media associations for its supposed political bias. However, their motto is 'Fair and Balanced' and Fox News reject all alegations of bias. This is a bit more meaty than the current weasely statement in the article. Robdurbar 16:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I might want to tinker with the wording a bit, but in general I personally wouldn't have a problem with such a statement. --Aaron 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth noting all the fuss that bleedy hearts make over FOX, you'd think they'd have something better to do than constantly stalk an online encylopedia--IworkforNASA 01:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
one would think. it's weird, i think a couple of them maybe work for cnn? i have no clue the need for amib and others to constantly vandalize/edit here. RonMexico 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't expect much from you Mexico, but at least be original. I've voiced my suspicion that you're an employee of Fox News ages ago. Come up with something original. Maybe accuse us of being terrorists or something. I'm just a fair and balanced concerned citizen who fears the skewed presentations of the major news networks have caused the mediocre American people to develop a false image of the world and their place in it. I fear the people have digested poisonous political propaganda, thinking that the sweet crap they ingested was actually news. For all the allegations of treason that come out of right wing mouthpieces, the true treason, in my opinion, is when journalists cunningly twist their reporting of events to support a particular political philosophy or political party. It's true when it's done to support conservative causes, it's true when it's done for liberal ones. Fox News is more guilty of that than most other networks, and you'd have to either be outstandingly dumb or somewhat financially compensated to not see that. That's not to say I'm a fan of liberal talking heads either, I'm not. Amibidhrohi 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction & Bias

In many respects, FNC has been a network which has been critised as being more biased compared to many of it's different competitors. For that relative fact, the point that the introduction of the article doesn't include any sort of inclusion of this relative fact seems almost of a POV. Personally, I am extremely against the whole addition of a "conservative" remark in the very introduction in that is not the point the article needs to make, the article needs to make a point about it's alleged bias.

Does anyone have any good ideas on how we could format this information into the introduction with it smoothly fitting in and not actually being a full bombardment? (Also, I will admit I watch the network daily) Chris 09:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That sums up my position completely [3]. Not sure what would be the best way to word it though, obviously it shouldn't imply any conlusion from this other than the fact that Fox News have received criticism. 81.178.71.79 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agreee with this. Fox News is known far too much for the criticism it receives for us not to mention it. Although this argument is wholey subjective and original reserach, as a Brit it is one of only two US news channels I'm aware of - alongside CNN - due only to the controversy it has caused.
For this reason, I do feel that something should be mentioned in the intro; I agree too that conservative need nto be mentioned - perhaps 'Fox has received a number of allegations of bias, though these are strongly refuted.'?Robdurbar 12:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
there's a whole article for liberals to list their complaints about Fox being "too conservative". (see the link at the bottom of the article). This article is to discuss facts, not opinion. and this has already been discuss, which is why fox and cnn both have separate "controversies and bias" sections. RonMexico 13:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. But subarticles are not there to perge content out of the main article. The article on George W. Bush contains a link to the Professional life of George W. Bush, but mentions in the introduction that 'he was an entrepreneur in the oil industry and served as the managing general partner/owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team'. To create sub article does not mean that a brief mention of the topic, paticularly in the introduction (which should be thought of as an 'overview') should not be mentioned. Robdurbar 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
'Fox has received a number of allegations of bias, though these are strongly refuted.' sounds pretty good to me compared to what has been put in place in the past. I will admit I got rid of the past versions though I didn't believe they worked that well. Still, this is part of the vast history of FNC and should have a mild inclusion in the intro, though any inclusion of the word "conservative" is over the line Chris 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The idea would then be to make an undisputable statement that would state Fox's featuring conservative personalities and viewpoints without sounding like a critique. The term 'bias' would be unsuitable for an opening paragraph. Something along the lines of '... particularly controversial for featuring conservative personalities and opinions'. Amibidhrohi 16:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
'FOX features a relatively larger amount of conservative personalities and opinions which has made it open to certain convtroversies.' ? I'm pretty sure that's not the best we can do. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm note sure - I think that the word 'conservative' is simply too pov to place into this article, withou qualifier after qualifier. I'm happy for the article to reflect that there are allegations of bias in the intro; let the reader find out more about them if they are interested. Robdurbar 17:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Omitting the propaganda allegation is POV

The criticism of Fox news is that it is a propaganda arm of the GOP. That is a very widely circulated and held criticism that virtually everyone on the left considers to be fact. The failure to mention this criticism in the article and the refusal to even provide a summary of the criticism that has been eliminated from this article makes it POV. It also appears to be EBMF - Edited by marketing flacks. This highlights a problem with Wikipedia, Fox News are certainly going to have a greater determination to keep criticism out of this article than neutral editors are to ensure it remains in. --Gorgonzilla 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that people editing here work for Fox News? If so, when do I get my check? I'm just a little confused. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
To even say "Widely circulated and held criticsm," in and of itself is POV, lest you can demonstrate otherwise... Mhking 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
agree with MhKing. gorgonzilla's paragraph is POV. where is your evidence that this criticism is held by "virtually everyone" on the left? some people on the left-wing sites mediamatters.org, outfoxed and a couple others make the complaint of a conservative bias and these complaints have an article(controversies and bias). this column should be devoted to facts. there was a big debate about this, and people agreed at the time to create a separate article. ETA: not to mention, the article DOES mention the criticism, so i'm not even sure what gorgonzilla is talking about. RonMexico 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
POV doesn't apply to talk page entries. Nobody who bothered editing these topics do so without some pre-concieved biases. The obligation is to put those biases and opinions aside when editing the article. Quit complaining. As long as the edits to the actual article are as NPOV as possible, it's all gravy. Amibidhrohi 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat what I wrote in my edit summary when I reverted Gorgonzilla's graf: I didn't pull it because it was POV, I pulled it because it was written in a way that directly violates WP:WEASEL. However, Mhking and RonMexico are correct in that it was a WP:NPOV violation as well. I don't think anyone here is against the very concept of that graf being edited, but you can't do it in a way that makes opinion sound like unquestionable fact. Also, on issues of ideology it's irrelevant how many people believe something to be true; it will always be a mere opinion regardless. Anyway, since nobody is stopping Gorgonzilla from adding to this page so long as it's factual and NPOV, and because it's only one section that's in question instead of the entire page, I'm pulling the {{NPOV}} tag. BTW, Gorgonzilla, you're never going to be able to call FNC a "propaganda outlet" in this article. The term "propaganda" has a very specific meaning, and it's an accusation that is both unprovable and libelous. --Aaron 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Just rolled in from the request for outside opinions posted at the Pump. That is a very widely circulated and held criticism that virtually everyone on the left considers to be fact. Lots of folks consider creationism to be a fact, but that doesn't make it one, and of course, the "virtually everyone" bit is absurd. The statement "Fox News is the propaganda wing of the GOP" is unverifiable and POV, and it violates the Wikipedia is not a soapbox restriction. After a scan of the logs, it appears that the reversions were appropriate. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To add my twopence - I would remove that extra criticism from the sub section, but introduce a sentence to the introduction, relfecting the criticism. There is a sub article so further expansion of the paragraph under the controversies title is not necessary; but the allegations are so well known and wide spread as to be deserving of a mention in the intro. Robdurbar 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"Propaganda arm of the GOP" is POV. Way to push the self destruct button on your own argument in the first sentence. Haizum 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, discussion pages do not have to be NPOV. If it was entered into the article, however, then a cite would almost certainly be required. However, from my own experience from people I have talked to, Fox is perceived as little more than a mouthpiece of the Republican party. I think a cite to that effect that people believe this would not be difficult to provide. However, it is clear that the article has had almost all criticism removed and put hidden in a marginalized article. The article fails to report any of the controversies about bias that Fox has had. --24.87.32.64 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid POV and weasel words

Cite sources! Avoid blogs!

For example, I remember a news story about Rupert Murdoch sending a memo dictating what reporters at Fox should report. Find a news story in a major newspaper about that memo. Quote the story and list the source.

I remember a report that people who watch Fox news are less informed than people who get their news from other sources. Find a news story in a major newspaper about that report. Quote the story and list the source.

Anyone who cannot find that citation isn't looking very hard - one such source is PIPA http://www.pipa.org/ here is a direct link to the study http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf - it found that 80% of Fox News held misperceptions while only 23% of NPR/PBS viewers did - the other seven networks were spread between perhaps i should log in an add this to the main article 65.125.133.211 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I should additionally add that it was found that support for the war, and the administrations policies, were directly correlated with the number of misperceptions held, and that republicans were far more likely to hold these misperceptions that democrats.

In short, do your homework. It is lazy and sloppy writing to say, "Somebody says..." or "Many people say..." or "People believe..."

The truth is out there!

Rick Norwood 23:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole second article giving chapter and verse. I note that the Fox rebuttals are not cited either. --Gorgonzilla 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. If there are rebuttals to the allegations, add them. I'm removing the POV tag until you demonstrate some willingness to correct anything wrong with the articles. Otherwise, it will appear as if you simply resent that these facts are being presented at all. If the points added to the entry are factual, they should remain. That isn't POV, that's accuracy. Amibidhrohi 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please define "ridiculously POV," in terms of your suggestion...Mhking 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Fox links

Why are there so many to begin with? (and why add more?) Mhking 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Because so many people are anti-fox, and they come to wikipedia looking for anti-fox links. As to why so many people are anti-fox, you would do well to follow the links to find out why.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mhking 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But Fox News is most certainly a soapbox, and as such, it should be the subject of open discussion, and yes, even parody. Why is your skin so thin that you felt it your duty to delete the link to SimFaux, but you didn't delete any of the other anti-fox links? Where do you draw the line?

You're the one who brought up the question "Why are there so many to begin with?" So instead of deleting ALL the anti-fox links, let's finish the discussion you started, before arbitrarily deciding to delete one link but not the others. I have already answered your question "Why add more."

Why is it OK to discuss Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right", but not SimFaux?

Stop deleting the link without any comments, and please explain here why you want to delete one particular link, but not any of the others, or (as one example of many instances) any of the discussion about "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right", which is Al Franken's soapbox.

What is the bar for making reference to parodies of Fox News on Wikipedia? Does SimFaux have to be sued by Fox News and win in order to qualify, like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right"? Xardox 15:39, March 20, 2006

The Link is progressively deleted since it doesn't work! I will fix the link to work properly since I just found it via. Google. Please, if you are going to add something, make sure it is tryped properly! Also, please place this in the bias/controversies page, the link is not even an informative point towards the channel, just an utterly pointless website compared to the Faux logo and Faux News links. Chris 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This probably doesn't belong in this section, but searching "Faux News" will redirect you to "Fox News". While funny, this is a prank and should be corrected. - Luke.

Why shoul this be corrected I can't see the problem

Adamcobb 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Highly-rated?

What does highly-rated mean - that the channel has large numbers of people watching or that it is generally considered to be a quality source of news coverage? TreveXtalk 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The former. Mhking 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Then I'm changing it to 'popular' because 'highly-rated' is misleading. CGameProgrammer 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that -- the actual numeric Nielson ratings (which is what the statement refers to) bear out the statement. --Mhking 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it isn't misleading. As said above, Nielson ratings (as also noted in the intro last time I checked) proves that point valid, FOX News is highly rated | Chris 22:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, "highly rated", whilst (perhaps) literally implying high ratings/viewer numbers, undoubtedly SOUNDS like it means well-regarded. Clearly the two aren't mutually exclusive: large numbers of people DO regard FNC highly, thus big numbers of people watch it. But definitely "popular" or something of that nature makes the point much more straightforwardly and unconfusingly.
Like what Ilyanep said, "highly rated" is usually not interpreted to literally mean, "has high ratings". However I approve of the current version, "one of the leading". CGameProgrammer 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It really scares me that people would be editing a page about a television network and have such little knowledge about the subject. Television stations are rated. That is a fact. The company is called Nielsen [4] and every advertiser who buys ads on a television network goes by Nielsen Media Research's ratings. You may love Fox, you may hate Fox, but there is no disputing that they are far and away the highest rated cable news network. [5] [6] [7] [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.137.22 (talk • contribs) 23:30, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we put this article up for AfD. It's never going to amount to anything, and it's just a playground for political POV. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is on a valid topic for Wikipedia. I believe the article can amount to something. Being a "playground for political POV" is not a good reason to delete the article as their are many article on highly controversial entities like FNC is, the present large amounts of back and forth support and criticism. Obviously, the highly controversial nature of FNC means that the article will unlikely never satisfy everyone with regard to NPOV but that is no reason to delete. --Cab88 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
1 April 2006 (UTC) ... anyways, obviously I think this article should be kept. I think it could use a Peer Review or something. Anyone else? — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, dude, you totally got me. I thought "this is the sort of hing some anon troll would say", and then I was like, "wait a second, why on earth is freaking Illyanep saying this?" and I thought it was weird, maybe the Wiki-frustration. Now it makes so much more sense. Dude. Totally got fooled. At least I didn't respond to it... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Well now that our fun is over I guess it's time to get back to work :D — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It really scares me that people would be editing a page about a television network and have such little knowledge about the subject. Television stations are rated. That is a fact. The company is called Nielsen [9] and every advertiser who buys ads on a television network goes by Nielsen Media Research's ratings. You may love Fox, you may hate Fox, but there is no disputing that they are far and away the highest rated cable news network. [10] [11] [12] [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.137.22 (talk • contribs) 23:30, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

Reference to links to Repub. and Dem. websites on the FN website

In the section on the Fox News Website, someone claimed that Fox News occasionally provide a linked to the GOP's main website, though no references for such a claim where provided. Someone else added the claim they also have linked to the Democratic Party's main website, again no references provided. As such I have moved the following to the talk page until proof of either or both party having had links to them on the FN website.

Occasionally, the FOX News website will feature an Internet link to both the GOP.com, the official website of the Republican Party, and the Democrat Party's democrats.org.

Also, I think that unless one party's website link is favored over another by the FN website then it really isn't that noteworthy. --Cab88 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Fox News banned in some countries since they criticize foreign leaders

Some examples of leaders Fox News have criticized recently

I was just wondering seeing that if Iran is creating controversy about their nuclear program, and Fox News labeled, Prsident Ahmadinejad as a threat to America, is that country prohibited from using Fox News? LILVOKA 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

little NPOV attacks [on Ailes]

"Ailes, often agitated and verbally abusive..." Have we got any sources for this, or are we just adding bits like this as cheap shots? Perrymason 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim Groseclose and study of bias

Sorry, Amibidhrohi, but I feel that I have to revert your change. There was a study cited in this article, and this was a study led by a full professor of Political Science at UCLA (see his CV here). If there is anyone on this planet qualified to have findings on this subject, this is the guy. Moreover, I looked at the study and it looks reasonable, and in any case, the conclusions are what are claimed in this article. It is much more appropriate to say that "Groseclose found Fox was most centrist" as opposed to "Groseclose claimed Fox was most centrist"; this guy is the epitome of an expert on the subject, and his conclusions were pretty strongly stated in the study. To call the findings of an expert a claim is POV. --Deville (Talk) 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, to call it 'found' is highly POV, it implies that the study is definitive and beyond argument. It clearly is not. --Gorgonzilla 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The study is junk. He is using the frequency with which certain think tanks are mentioned to measure bias and comparing this with the frequency they are mentioned in Congress. The problem here is that of the 200 odd think tanks in Washington 150 or so are not research bodies at all, they are paid shills for whatever point of view you want to promote. What Groseclose is measuring here is the frequency with which the media outlet regurgitates the talking points issued by the 'think' tanks. --Gorgonzilla 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I suspect that you don't quite understand what WP:NPOV and WP:OR say. First, let me say that your argument is a direct and obvious case of original research. You are reading the professional research of an obvious expert and deciding to throw it out because you don't like his methodology. This is a new synthesis of published material by definition. Now, if you were to find third-party academics of equal stature who think this study is junk, and quote them, and then put in the text "Groseclose found that Fox was most centrist etc., but Jones and Smith find that Groseclose's methology was flawed", then this is fine. But for you to come to your own conclusions about the professional findings of an expert is WP:OR, nothing else but.
Moreover, it is not POV to call the professional findings of an expert findings. When one says "Scientists X, Y, and Z in their study Q found that . . .", it does not imply that this is an established scientific theory or that there is even a preponderance of evidence for it. And it certainly doesn't imply that the theory is definitive and beyond argument. What it implies is simply that XYZ had a hypothesis, collected evidence, and showed that there was more reason than not to accept the theory. This does not mean that ABC won't come along later and find something else entirely. In summary, though, if we are quoting a guy on a blog, we say "claim", if we are quoting a recognized expert in a field, we say "find".
As for remedies here: I think it is fair enough to have a statement something along the lines of "Groseclose et al. found that Fox was the most centrist network, the results of this research are published here. However, several other experts in the field have found problems with this research, cite cite cite," as long as citations exist for this. I would be surprised if such citations did not exist in this case. But it is not appropriate for us (as Wikipedia editors) to discount the findings of an expert because we have decided that we don't like what he did. --Deville (Talk) 11:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The study is not notble, it is junk. The study does not demonstrate bias or lack of bias. all the study measures is the frequency with which certain think tanks presumed to be partisan are measured. Pointing out such twaddle has no place in an encyclopedia is not original research. For the paper to be accepted as a 'finding' it would have to be an empirical measurement of the actual claim cited. You can state that the professor found that Fox news mentioned conservative think tanks with the same frequency as GOP politicians but you cannot insert the subjective claim that this demonstrates existence or lack of bias which is a subjective question. The paper has not been published in a peer reviewed journal and the source you cite does not even mention it in his publications. Looks to me as if it is a grad student paper that has the prof's name on as is standard practice in some schools. --Gorgonzilla 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to ask a question and I really, really don't mean to be snarky, I do mean this seriously: why do you think that you have better credentials and are more of an expert than a full professor of Political Science at UCLA? This guy is an a priori recognized expert in his field. My guess is that you are not. So how are you qualified to characterize published research of an expert as "junk"? This paper is part of the scholarly record, and for you to assess the quality of the work, for whatever reason, is original research on your part. For you to quote other experts who criticize this paper is another story.--Deville (Talk) 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The guy teaches a course on statistics at a University, big woopsie. The paper was published in an Economics journal, not a political science journal. I don't think thats an accident. The authors must know that any serious political science journal would reject the paper's assertion that its 'findings' demonstrate bias. As for your peculiar idea that the words of a tenured professor should be considered gospel, I am pretty sure that a poll of tenured professors of the leading PolySci departments in the US on the question Is Fox news right wing propaganda would return at least 80% yes responses. I don't need to be an expert in the math, anyone with a science degree should be able to spot the lack of connection between the evidence produced and the claim made, as many others have done. The most charitable explanation of the paper is that the authors are trying an old academic farce where you write a paper making a highly controvertial claim, preferably making an argument that gives as much opportunity for rebuttal as possible. Your citation index score then rises as people take the bait and refute your argument. --Gorgonzilla 04:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Gorgonzilla, but I'm starting to get the suspicion that your arguments stem at least somewhat from partisan considerations, because you're using completely different standards for information depending on the conclusion it comes to.
  1. He doesn't "just teach statistics at a University". At the risk of repeating myself, let me say again that this guy is a full professor of political science at UCLA. He is not adjunct instructor of polital science at Podunk Community College. In any case, in the US the title "professor" is usually defined to be a scholar with a respected international reputation for their research, and this is certainly how it would be defined at a research institution such as UCLA. Don't go all ad hominem on the guy just because you disagree with his conclusions.
  2. You're criticizing his peer-reviewed article because it was in an economics journal, and then you claim below that a rebuttal blog post is on equal footing?!? Forgive me, but I can't imagine that you actually believe that.
  3. I have never said that the words of a tenured professor are "gospel". I have never even said that they are "probably true". What I have said is, when a respected scholar does a study, and then subsequently gets that study published in a peer-reviewed journal, then these are what are known as "findings". It doesn't make them "true", or even "probably true", it means they are the published conclusions of an expert. I think from your posts above that you might be a little confused on this point: your original claim was that using "find" in the article suggests that Groseclose's conclusions are "definitive and beyond argument". This is simply a misunderstanding of the scholarly process. Experts findings are frequently overturned by other experts' later studies. This is the way knowledge acquisition works.
  4. In light of the last point, I don't think a poll of political science professors really matters here. Here's the thing: if Groseclose's study is obviously junk as you claim, then of course there will be many published articles, by other scholars which criticize his study. Find these and put them in the article. If you can't find such rebuttals in the record, you should at least entertain the thought that maybe this study isn't obvious junk after all. --Deville (Talk) 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to cite the paper you would also need to cite the rebuttal [14] The author has equal standing on the subject. His point that sand sifted is still sound is spot on. The authors have a re-rebuttal on the same site which is a recognized schollarly forum where they entirely fail to address the issues. Ignoring the output of ideologically driven propaganda outfits such as Heritage, the Independent Institute &ct does not demonstrate bias, quite the opposite. There is no similar infrastructure of left wing ideological foundations pumping out bogus research. Objective news reports typically consider only the output of the reputable research outfits such as RAND and MITRE which are generally considered non-partisan, Cato and Brookings which have distinct leanings but not necessarily partisan ones. --Gorgonzilla 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is better. At the very least, you're finding sources which criticize the original work. Now, I'd be hard pressed to say that Liberman has equal standing in the field, because Groseclose is, again, a professor of political science, and Liberman is a professor of linguistics. I'd be much happier to see a rebuttal by someone who really is in the field. Moreover, the link you give is not to a peer-reviewed article, but to a blog entry. This makes it a little more suspect, again I'd be happier to see an actual published article by Liberman as opposed to an unreviewed blog entry. But, that being said, I'm ok with adding the following to the article:
Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, published a study in which he finds that Fox News is the most centrist of the ...blahblahblah... However, this study itself has drawn criticism. In particular, Mark Liberman, a professor of linguistics at Penn, criticized the methodology of the study and says that its conclusions are invalid.
Are we on the same page here, could we go with something like this in the article? --Deville (Talk) 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you can state that Groseclose finds that Fox News mentions allegedly partisan research institutes with the same frequency as members of Congress and on this basis claims that Fox is the most centrist, a claim that is disputed by Mark Liberman. You cannot state that there is a finding of anything beyond the actual analysis Groseclose and his co-author performed. Their interpretation of their finding is not objective, not widely accepted in the field and has not been subject to peer review by a journal in a competent field. When academics peddle a paper making claims in political science to an economics journal it is because the poly sci journals would never touch it. --Gorgonzilla 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a claim. A claim would be a statement with limited evidence. It's a finding, based on his methodology in the experiment. You can argue with the methodology, and we provide the actual methodology so the reader can make up their own minds. However, I agree with editor DeVille here and "findings" of research is sufficient. Nevertheless, I have rewritten the paragraph to be more precise about what Groseclose actually found. Calwatch 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw the latest rewrite and I think that that is a pretty good compromise statement. I'm still not entirely happy with using a blog post as the "official rebuttal" to a scholarly paper, but this is fine for now. Presumably, scholarly rebuttals exist and will come to light in the future edits of this article, so I'm cool with it for now. --Deville (Talk) 13:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody wants to do a rebuttal in a paper, that would only feed his citation-trolling. I don't think the paragraph as currently presented really adds anything to the article, it would be better cut, but the claim made only slightly exceeds the substance of the paper. --Gorgonzilla 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading this article and came across the ‘Rebuttal of Bias’ section and read the supporting research provided by Tim Groseclose. The section currently states, "Groseclose found that Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was closest to the political center, and concluded that Special Report was the most centrist news program on television." However, in the cited source, Groseclose clearly states "The first, second, and third most centrist outlets are respectively Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s Newsnight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America." Brit's broadcast is listed as fifth most centrist (all on page 33). These results are also echoed in his "TABLE IV Rankings Based on Distance from Center" on page 58. His research makes no mention that supports the statement currently in the article so we should concede to a change in this statement. The closest the research comes to this statement (that I could find) is his sentence about “adjusted Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). It states that ‘[a]ll of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress (page 2). If you read his research, then this is clearly not his conclusion. Also, this ‘Rebuttal of Bias’ section uses Groseclose's research to 'prove' a point, but then immediately attempts to discredit the basis of his research. I think we should revise or remove this conflicting section because it contradicts itself. Anyone agree/disagree? --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Groseclose definitely needs to stay because it is a legitimate academic peer-reviewed (albeit not from his own peers) study about media bias. I would support a change in the wording based on what you come up with. The only reason that the "rebuttal" has a debunker is to make the paragraph "fair and balanced" by pointing to critics of Groseclose that think that this research, despite being peer-reviewed, is bunk. Such criticism is not peer-reviewed by any stretch of the imagination, nor was it published as a letter to the journal in question. Instead, it is a blog post. However, the criticism was kept there in order to satisfy those who didn't like the Groseclose study. I would support the second half of the paragraph being cut out for clarity. Calwatch 02:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
So I read the thing, and it turns out you're right, the study doesn't claim that Fox News is the most centrist at all. Not sure where the original poster got that from. So we should change the text to reflect this. A correct statement that might have been what people intended to say originally is that Hume's show is the "most centrist of the right-leaning shows". And it does conclude that Fox is more centrist than many other major sources, albeit to the right of center. I do think it makes sense to keep this information in the article, although of course we need to rewrite the text. Furthermore, I'm really not happy with the blog post rebuttal. I'm all for adding any scholarly source whose purpose is to debunk this study, but a blog post is quite a bit of a stretch. --Deville (Talk) 03:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Groseclose study. I removed the following recently-added sentence:

However, it should be noted that Groseclose's study additionally claimed that the Wall Street Journal and the Drudge Report, two openly conservative publications, were, in fact, deemd as "liberal" by his study.

At the very least, this sentence is OR, since it requires an a priori assumption on the part of the writer that these two publications are themselves conservative, for which I have seen no citations. Moreover, what does "openly conservative" mean in the first place?--Deville (Talk) 23:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are showing your own rubber logic here. Any inconvenient fact is to be excised by calling it original research. You are as ridiculous a caracature of bias as Faux News itself. The fact that the twits study claims that Drudge is liberal demonstrates that it is deeply flawed and the presentation of his conclusions deeply dishonest. Even tenured proffessors can be charlatans you know. --Gorgonzilla 06:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted what I think is a more neutral wording... -GTBacchus(talk) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this wording is much better. There's nothing wrong with mentioning this, but we should be careful not to make our own analyses. You've come a lot closer to what we should be shooting for.--Deville (Talk) 12:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Gorgon: First, please be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Second, we all know you don't like Fox, but please also let's try to get this thing WP:NPOV. Anyway, I am in no way showing inconsistent, or "rubber" logic; I've been completely consistent (both self-consistent and consistent with WP:V). All I'm saying is that we should only write statements in the article if these statements are backed up by reputable third-party sources.
A paper in a professional academic journal? Yes. The personal opinion of you and User:69.249.195.232? Not so much.
For what it's worth, I have no problem with this information being contained in the article, as you can see from my response to Bacchus. However, we should simply state the facts and conclusions of the study. For an editor to inject their personal opinion into the statement is to be discouraged. Look, here's the question I have for you: Is it true, or not true, that the fact that the study rates the WSJ as somewhat liberal discredits the study in your eyes? And, moreover, should this fact discredit the study in anyone's eyes?--Deville (Talk) 12:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The claim that Fox is liberal must be put in the correct context of his claim that Drudge and the WSJ are liberal. The paper does not separate out the conclusions. Your cherry picking of the conclusions that suit your claim is highly POV. --Gorgonzilla 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not expressing myself well enough, and that is the source of your confusion. Would you be so kind as to read my earlier reply to Bacchus (five paragraphs above this one) and please tell me how that comment is consistent with the motives you are ascribing to me here?--Deville (Talk) 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Subscribers

Would anyone object to removing the term 'subscriber' at the start of the article as it gives the impression that 85 million people in the US specifically request to subscribe to fox news when this is not the case. Maybe that it is accessible to 85 million people would be a fair compromise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam1234 (talk • contribs) 20:25, May 6, 2006

I think this is ok, as this is comparable to the language used in CNN. However, I think the edit as it stands may be incorrect. I think the 85 million figure refers to households, not to individual people. By way of comparison, the CNN article claims that CNN is available to 88 million households, and my guess is that Fox and CNN would be available in roughly the same numbers. I'll check on this to be sure. --Deville (Talk) 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla's Biases

Gorgonzilla, you are clearly biased. I have a hard time believing you're trying to be objective, whatsoever. First, you cite a blog entry to refute an academic study. Fine. Then a rebuttal to that exact blog entry by Stanford and UCLA professors appears, and you remove it. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.60.51 (talk • contribs) 13:27, May 7, 2006

A lot of unsigned remarks on this page of late.... please sign your posts with ~~~~.--Deville (Talk) 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, you can't be selective in picking peers. Either you include all professors or you don't include any criticism of Groseclose at all, aside from similar peer reviewed journal articles. Calwatch 02:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I am curious to see how Gorgonzilla feels about including the study now, given the recent comments by Clark above. --Deville (Talk) 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
First I don't consider scholarly journals any more noteworthy than scholarly blogs, it is the standing of the person making the statement. That is particularly so where rebutals and disputes are concerned. Very little debunking of the bell curve took place in the scholarly journals. Come to that there are very few rebuttals of creation science in scholarly journals. Second the article does not justify more than a few lines. It is not necessary to provide a blow by blow account of an academic dispute, it is enough to note that there is a dispute.
"I don't consider scholarly journals any more noteworthy than scholarly blogs" -- maybe you don't, but the community does. Would you mind taking a look at WP:V#Self-published_sources?--Deville (Talk) 12:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, your deletion of the Groseclose study without consensus is unacceptable. Just because you believe it "does not merit" this attention does not make it so. I will place the Groseclose language back in. Calwatch 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the study, merely the re-rebuttal which if it were admitted would require a re-re-rebuttal to also be admitted if anyone thought it was worth it. At this point I think that the paragraph pretty much demonstrates the bizare lengths people go to in order to cling to the peculiar idea that Fox has no right wing bias. The only way that is possible is to define the political center as being somewhere between the right wing of the Republican party and the extreme right. --Gorgonzilla 06:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I confused you with the anon who deleted that. My apologies. Calwatch 06:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Leading

Murcdoch owns the London Times and the Sun. The circulation of the Sun is many times that of the London Times but nobody would ever describe the Sun as the Leading UK newspaper except a Sun journalist. The Telegraph has a larger circulation than the Guardian, Times and Independent, yet anyone following the UK political scene knows that those three (plus the Economist) are the leading UK newspapers. The term leading means that there are followers. The only follower of Fox is Air America. So the use of the definite article in the introduction is subjective not objective. --Gorgonzilla 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do with this?

The following text, which I just removed from the entry, was in the section on ratings:

In the Introduction written in 2004 to the new edition of her 2002 book, New Nuclear Danger (publisher: New Press), the Nobel Prize nominee and author Dr. Helen Caldicot claims on page xvi of that 2004 Introduction that Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News, has in the past helped with "[p]reprations for the second U.S. Iraq invasion (the first invasion had taken place in 1991) [which] were started in 1992 by a small group of 'defense intellectuals'... [who] began to publish a series of letters in The Weekly Standard [also owned by Murdoch] calling for another U.S. invation of Iraq, as well as advocating support of Israel's campaign against the Palestinians and warning about the rising power of China."

I'm not sure this should even be in the article at all, but it certainly shouldn't be in the section on ratings as it has nothing to do with them. Suggestions? Lawyer2b 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section

So it occurs to me that as of now, given the recent deletions, the section entitled "Controversies and allegations of bias" now has exactly zero sources in it. And, frankly, most of what is in this section is more polemic than statement, and it seems unlikely that much of this content would stay once we had the section NPOV. What should we do here? I'm sort of tempted to remove this section entirely and start over, but I wanted to hear other thoughts on this. --Deville (Talk) 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How about trying to summarize the Controversies and allegations subarticle? Be sure to include Fox's response to the allegations of conservative bias and academic studies both pro and con on bias (the Groseclose study, also [Fox News and voting http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/pdf/sdellavigna.pdf]). If you don't want to write it, I will take a stab at it this weekend. Calwatch 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What the heck happened? I come back two days later...and everything's gone. 71.131.3.45 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've figured it was Amibidhrohi, who has a history, who deleted the "Rebuttal of Bias" portion (along with the "Claims of Conservative Bias" header). I'm going to un-delete them. This is actually getting really, really ridiculous. After I un-delete them, feel free to modify the section any way you think works best objectively. 71.131.3.45 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called bowdlerizing; creating a POV fork to dodge WP:NPOV. I've restored a reasonable summary per WP:POVFORK. FeloniousMonk 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That PIPA study

There's right now a mention in the "Controversies" section of that infamous PIPA study that supposedly proved that Fox News viewers are less informed than the general public. The obvious flaw in the study is that it only asked questions whose correct answer is more favorable to those with an anti-war or anti-Bush position. I put in a sentence after the cite noting that some have made that accusation of the study, with a link to this blog post. That sentence was removed because, apparently, it's against Wikipedia policy to cite blogs. I think this policy is clearly phrased to refer to citing blogs as sources of information, not of commentary, though - after all, if the commentary holds up, what does it matter who's making it? And of course there are blog opinions cited in many other spots in Wikipedia. But what do other people think? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the point about the study's flaws made in any mainstream media sources. Surely, there should be some way of noting this obvious rebuttal to the study. Korny O'Near 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, your blog does not meet the standards of WP:RS. I have yet to see any credible, neutral evidence that the University of Maryland PIPA study was biased. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias article has a cite for newshounds.us, which is also a blog; that one doesn't seem to have raised any objections (and, per Jeff Berg below, there's even a link to Newshounds in the "External links" section). I think that's fine; to quote a blog on, say, when Christopher Columbus first set sail is not credible, but to quote it as an example of someone holding an opinion seems entirely fair game. The link is not there to prove the validity of the opinion, just to show that such an opinion exists and to provide more details on it. (By the way, it's not my blog). As to credible evidence, I think the evidence is very persuasive: all of the questions in the PIPA study were those favorable to the anti-war side; I'd think an objective study would want to have a 50/50 distribution. You probably disagree; but our opinions probably have more to do with our political views than with the evidence itself. I say, put the link in and let readers make up their own minds. Korny O'Near 13:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The only time an exception to WP:RS allowing blogs as sources is made is when they are of exceptionally notable participants in the debate, a widely acknowledged professional expert in their field and there's no reasonable doubt about their identity, and even then caution must be used, because if the comment were interesting or important enough for WP to publish, someone else will have published it, and if they haven't, that should tell us something. Patterico's Pontifications fails to meet these standards on all accounts. Again, do you have any other credible, neutral source that says the University of Maryland PIPA study was biased? FeloniousMonk 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me note that the "Reliable Sources" entry indicates that its contents are general guidelines, not policy. I do see what you're saying; in any case, I found a link for a more established source, Ann Coulter, making a related argument against the PIPA study, so I'll stick that in instead. Problem solved. Korny O'Near 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
AC meets WP:RS, but tit-for-tat rebutals don't go in the summary here, but in the subarticle; add it there. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting a little out of hand. If there isn't enough room in the summary to show both sides of an issue, then it probably shouldn't be in the summary. I'm removing it, which may have been the right thing to do all along. Korny O'Near 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Subarticle summaries are not the place for rebuttals found in the subarticle. Deleting necessary and relevant summary information because a rebuttal is disallowed strikes me as simply a pretext for deleting content that you've been struggling to discount. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Subarticle summaries are not the place for rebuttals found in the subarticle - says who? Even the barest of summaries should strive for even-handedness. The more I think about it, the more I think this report doesn't belong here at all, not because the study may have had problems, but because the section is called "Controversies and allegations of bias", and that this report is neither a controversy nor an allegation of bias per se. But let's say it does belong: surely a single sentence indicating that some disagree with the study would help give readers the full picture. Korny O'Near

Removed External link

to blog site "Fox and Friends". Per Wiki policies, links to blogs and fan forums are not considered appropriate external links. Jeff Berg

What belongs in the "Controversies and allegations of bias" section?

Okay, instead of this silly revert war, can we hash out what belongs in this section and what doesn't? It appears to me that the tendency has been to use this section to launch attacks against Fox News in a non-neutral way. I'd say the FAIR analysis is fine, for instance, because it's a respected organization and it's their opinion. But the PIPA poll strikes me as out of bounds for three reasons: (a) there are problems with the study which some people (ahem) refuse to allow to be mentioned, (b) it's presented as some kind of fact instead of an opinion, and (c) maybe most importantly, it's neither a controversy nor an allegation of bias. The only thing the study judges is the viewers of Fox News, which of course the channel has no control over. But that's my 2 cents, what do other people belongs in this section? Korny O'Near 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just made a change or two to that section, but I tend to think that there should be less in this summary. I'm not sure the FAIR assessment should be there, but I think that's borderline ok as it is "summary-ish". But there is really no need to put the PIPA study there. As stated above, this doesn't really fit into "controversies and allegations of bias" in the first place, and even if we postulate that it did, it shouldn't be here. It is in no way a summary of the other article, it is a data point that belongs in the other article. -- Deville (Talk) 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Umn, no. Read WP:Content fork. The section should contain a summary of the subarticle. Since FAIR and PIPA are meat behind the primary criticisms found there, they should be mentioned here as well. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk - please respond to the assertion that the PIPA study makes no claims about Fox News, only about its viewers. Let's say, for instance, that the study also asked respondents whether they were NASCAR fans. I don't think anyone would be too surprised if it turned out NASCAR fans had percentages similar to Fox News viewers on the various questions (not a slur on NASCAR fans, since, as I said before, I think the study was inherently flawed). Does that mean NASCAR is politically biased? Of course not. So what exactly is being alleged?
Here's another hypothetical - let's say you polled everyone who read "The Communist Manifesto" in the last year, and it turned out that 90% of them believe in capitalism. Does that mean "The Communist Manifesto" has a pro-capitalist bias? There's a fundamental gap between content and viewership that you haven't bridged. Korny O'Near 20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of news is to inform. Fox News exists to inform its viewership. How informed Fox's dedicated viewership is on the relevant questions reflects directly on the quality of the news they choose to watch. If you want to attack the relevance or methodology of the U of M PIPA study, wikipedia and this article are not the place to do it. Considering that the quality of the study has not been challenged by anyone other than partisans who have a dog in the race, it's both relevant and credible. FeloniousMonk 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So it's an allegation of lack of quality, not of bias. I think you're making my point for me. As far as it being only "partisans", that's the nature of the sources on both sides. The main "Fox News controversies" page, for instance, is chock-full of links to the partisan "Media Matters". Partisans are the ones doing the research, there's nothing we can do about that. Korny O'Near 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The section should be a summary, that's it. A quick summary such as "The network has recieved criticism, and has been accused of bias in its reporting. For more detail, see Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias." In addition, these following "see also" links should be removed: Propaganda model, Conservative bias. Reason being: (a) "Propaganda model" is an implication that the network is used for propaganda. (b) "Conservative bias"? That's another implication that this article is used to show an unfavorable view of the network. The wording and examples in the current revision are simply not under compliance of WP:NPOV. --Mrmiscellanious 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion runs counter to wikipedia's guidelines on the how to summarize subarticles. Please read:
  • Wikipedia:Content_forking: "the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article."
  • Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others."
  • Wikipedia:Summary_style: "Longer articles are split into sections (each about several good-sized paragraphs long; subsectioning can increase this amount) ... Ideally many of those sections will eventually summarize entire separate articles on the sub-topic covered in that section (a {{details}} link would be below the section title). And so on."
How is it the one sentence you propose can meet the guidelines above? It doesn't, and it can't. FeloniousMonk 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The "see also" links are highly POV and definitely need to go --rogerd 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No they aren't. They are important in understanding some of the greater foundations of what is perceived as bias on Fox. Calwatch 22:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No, they are. You are implying all the items are fact, but they are only opinion. FeloniousMonk, you are not understanding that there is another article for all the controversies... there is no need for them to be cited here, but there should be a statement of their existance, with a link to that article. Adding "conservative bias" in the "see also" section is an opinion. Adding "propaganda model" in the "see also" section is an opinion. It is not factual to state that FNC is biased in any way, or that it has ever been used for propaganda. I am requesting that you revert your edits, because you are adding opinion, not fact, to this article. If you refuse, this will be tagged NPOV until the implications of personal opinion are removed. --Mrmiscellanious 20:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The links were not appropriate standing alone. I've removed them and the NPOV tag they prompted. The summary content though is relevant and necessary, per Wikipedia:Content_forking and Wikipedia:Summary_style, so it stays. The same links wikilinked in the summary content would be appropriate per policy and guideline though, if someone wants to bother doing it. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
By the Wikipedia guidelines you've quoted here, "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material." That means any allegation in the summary that's disputed (such as the PIPA poll) should have a brief summary of the other side, to prevent "POV forking". I don't even think the PIPA poll belongs here, since, as you concede, it's about lack of quality, not bias, but if it is here then there should be a cite showing the other side. I don't see why you're opposed to that. Korny O'Near 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Because the "other side" as you call it consists of unsubstantiated and uninformed partisan criticism of a legitimate academic study, by Ann Coulter no less. Unless there's any actual informed, substantial academic criticism of the study, statements such as Coulter's fall under the category of partisan polemics. FeloniousMonk 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So what about the "Outfoxed" documentary, given prominent mention? Does that represent some kind of neutral, academic analysis? As I've said before, partisans on both sides are the ones doing the analyzing, for the most part, on the issue of Fox News. I have no problem with including "Outfoxed", even though it takes cheap shots, because it's noteworthy. Similarly a partisan opinion on the other side is noteworthy. Korny O'Near 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
(deindented) My thoughts on the matter is that we should avoid using anything from explicitly partisan sources when it comes to establishing facts. Clearly, both Ann Coulter and MoveOn.org are shameless partisans for their respective causes, and we should of course not ever use either as a source for any claim of fact. However, in this case, the MoveOn.org documentary, OutFoxed, is used as an example of criticism, whereas Ann Coulter was being used to make the argument that the PIPA study is biased. I think it is fair to leave a mention of "OutFoxed" in this article. The link makes it clear what the source of OutFoxed is. I would also be ok with modifying the sentence to include something like "OutFoxed, a documentary distributed by the liberal interest group MoveOn.org, is one such criticism", perhaps Korny would be happier with that?
In short, I agree with Felonius in this case that the Coulter criticism of the PIPA study should stay out of the article. And at the end of the day, I don't really think it matters: I would find it shocking that any adult would read the PIPA study and not see the obvious flaws therein. We don't need Ann Coulter telling us the PIPA study is fundamentally flawed, as it will be obvious to any intelligent reader. (Another way of looking at it is that if it is blatant enough for Coulter to notice it and write about it, it's not a subtle statistical flaw: her analysis tends to the extremely superficial, in my experience.) Yet another way of looking at it is that it is obvious to all of us that the study has a certain bias, which is why we're all having this discussion in the first place.
Now, at the end of the day, I think this discussion is moot as I reiterate my original claim that the PIPA study should not be contained in this article but should only be in the sub-article, as it is not part of a summary but is a "data point" in the argument contained in the subarticle. I don't know that we've ever reached concensus on this point.
But if we leave the PIPA study in, it is better to not have that Coulter link.-- Deville (Talk) 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I have no problem with the inclusion of "OutFoxed"; I just think it's proof that partisan sources make up a lot of the debate. As to the PIPA study, do we have some kind of consensus that it doesn't belong here? For two main reasons: (1) it's non-summary, and (2) it doesn't fit into the section, being an allegation not of bias but just of lack of quality. Korny O'Near 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Rasmussen poll to the other article. -- Deville (Talk) 02:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and FeloniousMonk, the self appointed arbitor of this article, reverted you. What's the point of having a sub-article if you are going to keep adding to the "summary", now up to 4 paragraphs. Maybe we should just delete the sub-article and put the whole content in the main article. Or maybe we should just put all of wikipedia on one huge page. That way he couldn't accuse anyone of "bowdlering". --rogerd 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that they can shuffle-off uncomfortable criticisms to a subarticle without leaving a summary in the main article can and should expect to be reverted; that's called bowdlerizing and it's against policy and guideline. One more time: If you're going to move a significant paragraph of criticism to a subarticle, then a sentence or two is necessary as a summary in the main article. I'm not against placing the Rasmussen poll at the Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias article, I'm against violating the rules in doing so. FeloniousMonk 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There have been many polls and other opinions about this subject done over the years, and there isn't room to reference all of them in either article. The purpose of the summary is to give the reader a flavor of the content of the sub-article, so they can look at it themselves, or not. You are making it appear that someone is purposely trying to hide something, an implication which I resent. This level of detail is not needed in the summary. Anyone can see all of the gory details with one click. --rogerd 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We have to somehow decide what we want to put in the summary. The size of this summary has oscillated back and forth for months. Should we include a summary of every single thing which is in the Controversies article? -- Deville (Talk) 04:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of you should take a look at an example of a section and its subarticle for reference. It's pretty clear to everyone that there's a group of people here that are just trying to remove legitimate and relevant information from the main article simply because they dislike it, regardless of what actual the Wikipedia guidelines are. - 85.210.45.253 02:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your logic is to reach your conclusion. It sounds like you are trying to imply that since the section and subarticle you give as an example don't follow the spin-out guideline of having only a paragraph summary, that we should ignore the guideline in this case. If so, I disagree. If someone were to reduce those large sections you cite to one paragraph summaries of their main articles, I would support their edit. Their topics, though, are so large that doing so would be difficult and probably why it hasn't (won't?) been done. That notwithstanding, I think the guideline is a good one which should be implemented where possible, like here for example. Lawyer2b 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Still no one has explained why a study that alleges only lack of quality belongs in a summary of "controversies and allegations of bias". Korny O'Near 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Clean-Up Tag

Earlier this month, the "This article may need to be cleaned up" tag appeared to be added but the reason exactly is not completely known or at least I am not sure what exactly the problem with the article is at this point. For whoever added this tag, what sections do you believe need to be cleaned up other than the controversies section? Was it put up due to the inflating size? | Chris 21:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing comedians

Right now, in the new paragraph, three of the four "critics" listed as claiming Fox News is biased are comedians. I'll give Franken a pass, since he's now become a semi-serious commentator, but I don't think Stewart and Colbert belong here. They may play newscasters on their respective shows, but they're comedians; their training is in comedy.

(And interestingly, the fourth person cited, Chris Matthews, though a serious commentator, himself used to work for Democrats Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neil - somewhat undercutting the point of the paragraph).

Also, all claims made in a section as contentious as this one should be cited. Korny O'Near 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Their shows aren't just comedy, they're political satire. Jon Stewart is also well known for being a critic of traditional news sources in addition to being a comedian. Your argument that comedians are somehow except from issuing criticism doesn't really hold up anyway. - 81.179.104.66 21:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, they criticize, and they have every right to do so, but they don't have the credibility to be cited as sources on Wikipedia. Korny O'Near 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jon Stewart's Daily Show shows provides a political review and criticism by pointing out alternative view points, providing it either in a satirical news story format or by pointing out comical points overlooked or provided by other media outlets. Yes, the show is comical in nature and most of the corospondents are comedians by trade but that doesn't mean that their opinions and the points they make are not valid or make them any less of a valid critic. The Daily Show and several of its corospondents were even awarded a Peabody award, not once, but twice for their coverage over various topics and for the political debates they brought up between 2004 and 2005. A few of the corespondents have backgrounds in political fields, as well as many of its writers. We are not talking stand up comedians or skits on Saturday night live here. My university even has a class that focuses directly on this type of journalism. --ZacBowling 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is obviously a greater point of contention than I thought it would be. It's all a bit academic at this point, though, because there are no citations for any of the critics. There really need to be examples cited for all of the supposed criticisms; I think that will clarify both how serious the criticism is, and whether it's worthy of inclusion in the overview section. Korny O'Near 14:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports in Controversies and allegations of bias

"A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during October, 2004 found that the public perceived Fox news as the second most politically biased news network, with 34% respondents saying they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush", leaving Fox second only to CBS, which was perceived by 37% as being biased in the wake of the memogate scandal.[1]"


so basically this is saying FNC is not the most biased, CBS is. Im pretty sure this section may as well be removed.


The whole Controversies and allegations of bias section is a mess really. Put it all on its own page, this bit only needs to be a brief summary of complaints

One poll in which 34% of respondents think Faux is a pile of steaming GOP propaganda is hardly a sufficient basis to eliminate all mention of Faux propaganda from the article. Nice try but any attempt to execute on it will be reverted as POV peddling --Gorgonzilla 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone calling Fox "Faux" and complaining of other editors pushing a POV. How nice. I agree that the Controversies section has gotten out of hand, with every barely-notable critic's minor accusation getting a paragraph. It needt to be a summary of the main criticisms, and the bulk of the material moved to Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias. I'll hopefully get around to it later today. Isarig 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
sounds like you a little ill Gorgonzilla, Isarig is right and has edited the Controversies and allegations of bias perfectly. And i will help it remain like it currently is. put all your non issues about "faux" on its own "Controversies and allegations of bias" and stop being so childish. Perrymason 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (sorry i keep forgetting to sign my comments)

Turner criticism

Ted Turner is the CEO of a Fox competitor, who has recently been losing market share to Fox. It is expected and totaly non-notable that he would have nothing good to say about his rival. The forum in which such comments are made is irrelevant. Unlike the other criticisms in this section, which are based either on the results of public opinion polls or are from notable media critics, Turner's comments are not based on any sourced facts - they are the opinions of a compatitor. As such, they are not notable. Isarig 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ted Turner addressing the National Association of Television Program Executives is not notable? Sorry, but that reasoning is flawed. It's perforce notable. A better argument would have been it's not inline with the NPOV policy. But since WP:NPOV clearly states that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly... All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one... Debates are described, represented, and characterized... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." Since Ted is a significant player in the field, including mention of it in the article is perfectly inline with the NPOV policy. So either way you cut it your objection doesn't wash with policy. I'm restoring it. FeloniousMonk 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not notable as a criticism of Fox. It is badmouthing by a competitor based on no facts. If Turner had said, at the same forum, that it is his sincere belief that the moon landing is a hoax, it would similarly not warrant mention in the Apollo 11 article. It might, marginally, warrant mention in the [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations] article alongside the other cranks who belive in this conspiracy. Isarig 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It was justified and Turner is not a competitor, he sold CNN decades ago and no longer has a board seat in TimeWarner. Badmouthing by a competitor is in any case notable when the competitor is notable. Turner is not a noted expert in astronomy he is considerably more expert and notable in the news business than Isarig. --Gorgonzilla 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you need to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks - this is not about me or my opinions. Second, your edit summary says "criticism by a news magnate is news" - and I agree with this, but "News" does not equal encyclopedic worthiness. Third, you are making false claims. Turner is currently a director of AOL/TimeWarner, and was one when he made that speech. And finally, badmouthing by a competitor is never notable in and of itself - that is expected, common and trivial. Isarig 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." So what part of "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly... All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one... Debates are described, represented, and characterized... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular..." don't you understand? FeloniousMonk 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yet another vioaltion of [WP:CIVIL]]. Who ever made you an admin... To the arguments: The subsection is clearly POV. I'll make it NPOV now. Isarig 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV??? "All significant points of view are presented"?? Debate??? Every word of this now seven paragraph section presents the same side of the argument. There is nothing in this section that refutes any of it. I don't understand why there is a sub-article at all if certain editors keep adding more one-sided bulk to this section. It is presented as if it is an irrefutable fact that FNC is biased and slanted. --rogerd 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, we are talking about the "controversies" section, right? Of course it's going to present the opposing viewpoints. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to trump all of you and remind you that that except for a summary paragraph, the rest of this section (and debate) needs to be moved to the "controversies and allegations of bias" article. This was mentioned early on this talk page when someone correctly cited the content forking guidlines. The controversies and bias section in the main Fox News article should be kept to about a paragraph in length summarizing the overall spin-out article, Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias. Interestingly, this is exactly the same kind of thing that was going between Bill O'Reilly and his controversies article. Lawyer2b 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I support this 100%. Go ahead and move all everything but the intro paragraph in this subsection to the controversies and allegations of bias article - if it's not already there. Isarig 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Ironically appropriate, everyone should check out the quite short summary paragraph at the CNN article linking to the main "controversies and allegations of bias" article. I think it's a paragon of following the spinout guideline worthy of emulation. Lawyer2b 04:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There's been some debate here as to what constitutes a reasonable summary here, so not everyone may agree with your idea of what that is. WP:POVFORK will be the guiding prinicple here. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, I think you and I are saying the same thing. Your link WP:POVFORK and the link I cited above for how a summary paragraph should be done (content forking guidlines) are the same. Do you agree? Lawyer2b 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not a POVFORK - the subsection article already exists, and includes all the information in currently in this section. The CNN article is a good example of how these controversies are handled on WP.Isarig 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Fox News and CNN is that for most people who don't watch it the single defining feature of Fox is that it is a tabloid propaganda outlet rather than a news station. Plenty of people have problems with Time Warner and CNN, the Cyberporn story was yellow journalism at its worst. But very few people claim that CNN is first and foremost a propaganda outfit. That is pretty much the consensus view in the US media though and 35% of the population agree with that assement. --Gorgonzilla 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome to that POV, but from the NPOV of an encyclopedia, they are not different. Isarig 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary very few academic media histories written accuse CNN of systematic bias. There are plenty that make the same accusation against Fox and several that dispute the allegation of systematic bias. An NPOV coverage of CNN should point out Turners own commitment to the UN and the way that this has frequently intruded on the editorial line. Another item that should probably be mentioned would be the frequency with which CNN used to do stories on fat Americans in the Jane Fonda years. But making such points without doing original research would be pretty hard, I don't know any primary sources that make those observations. There are plenty of primary sources on Fox News being propaganda. --Gorgonzilla 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. There are criticisms of Fox news, and there are (possibly different) criticisms of CNN. Both networks have a WP page, and another WP page dedicated to those criticisms. The main page for CNN has a 2-line summary of the criticism, and points you to the criticism page - which is as lenghty, if not lenghtier, than the Fox controversy page. That is as it should be here - a short summary, and a pointer to a detailed page. The criticisms of Fox on this page are not, as you claim, "academic" - they are for the most part partisan opinions from competitors, or left wing media criticism sites. The CNN controversies page has similar criticism, from some of the same sites -e.g FAIR. Isarig 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't lie or distort the truth to support your preferred course of action. "criticism page - which is as lenghty, if not lenghtier, than the Fox controversy page." We can clearly see that the CNN_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias is around half the size of the Fox News one. - 81.179.104.66 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fox News / Fox News Channel

It strikes me (as a non-American) as very odd that Fox News is a disambiguation page, when most international users would expect it to be the channel.

Surely a link to Fox News Sunday could be effected at the top of the article, rather than having a separate page.

Almost all the links to Fox News are expecting the page for the channel. It seems like a sloppy move. — OwenBlacker 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Or sloppy linkage. ;-) It was argued that Fox News Channel refers to the cable channel, but Fox News could refer to the cable channel, the show, Fox News Radio, etc. I think there is a slight difference, but would be open to a rename. Thoughts? --LV (Dark Mark) 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree, I guess. Fox News isn't much to talk about outside of FNC. If and when Fox starts up a nightly news program, then Fox News can serve that purpose. For now, Fox News should redir to FNC. Squiggyfm 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ditto Lord Voldemort's comments above about "sloppy linkage". These should be cleaned up to go to the destination, and "Fox News" should redirected back to the disambig. page, while "Fox News Channel" remains here. --Mrmiscellanious 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Fox news coverage to other media coverage

The following is the transcript of Fox news interviewing Scott Ritter about WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62916,00.html

The following is another interview on the same subject with William Pitt.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htm __________________________________________

Why was the above deleted?01001 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It belongs on the allegations of bias page. Squiggyfm 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not belong there, either. This is OR Isarig 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What makes this OR?01001 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Because you are trying to use those transcripts to make your own, personal argument in a dialog to the reader. That is not encyclopedic; an encyclopedia can report the argments of others, when those arguments themselves become an encyclopedic topic, but an encyclopedia's editors should not advance their own arguments in its text. --Aquillion 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case the thing speaks for itself, but there is a more fundumental problem with your argument and the argument I anticipate from Isarig. The tone of this article suggests that Fox news is a legitimate news organization. The mainstream view of Fox News is that it is right wing radical propaganda machine. If this article is to ban comparisons of Fox news portrayal of the news with the portrayal of the news by more mainstream news organizations, and further let us assume that it is true that the mainstream view is that Fox News is a right wing radical propaganda machine, then this article by portraying Fox news as legitimate and mainstream and denying comparisons with mainstream news organizations distorts reality and the truth. Certainly, an encyclopedia should not distort reality and the truth.01001 19:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If, as you claim, the mainstream view of Fox News is that it is a right wing radical propaganda machine, you should have no problem to quote a mainstream source that says this. This article does not ban such comparisons - it bans comparisons made by editors such as yourself, because it is original research. You've been asked multiple times to read the relevant WP policy - please do so.Isarig 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
First, you have not given one reason at all why comparisons are in violation of WP policy, but to respond to the related issue that this whole article is seriously biased and quote mainstream sources:
Please, this is getting tedious. Both I, and other editors, have explained to you at length why this violates WP:OR. I will do so once more, and from here on revert your edits without further explantion, as I do not intend to waste any more time on someone who stubbornly refuses to aquaint himself with WP policies: I removed your OR contribution because the comparison was being made by you, not by any one of the articles you cited. You cited one source which is a Fox interview wqith Ritter, and another source which is a different interview with Ritter. Neither interview mentions the other interview. You are making the original claim that if one reads both interviews, the conclusion one will have is that Fox is biased. That may or may not be true, but is original research. It will continue to be removed without any further explantions.Isarig 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This may be getting tedious but your logic is seriously flawed. I gave two interviews made by two different media organizations of the same person on the same subject with no claim made whatsoever. You still have not stated any reason why this is against WP rules, except to assert that a claim was made that was never made. In this case the thing is what it is and no more and no less. It is a purely objective post.01001 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ip/foxpenguin80703cmp.pdf http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2002/Nov/26.html http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/51534p-48314c.html http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html http://www.poynter.org/forum/default.asp?id=letters http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/index_media_notes.htm http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1073216,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/ http://www.nynewsday.com/nyc-fran0823,0,1365110.story?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left http://villagevoice.com/blogs/pressclipsextra/archives/2005/02/index.php http://stateofthemedia.com/2005/index.asp http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000837511 http://www.prweek.com/news/news_worldwire.cfm?ID=238636 http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=240207&site=3 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/03/fox/index_np.html http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-david12nov12,0,1163112.story

If any of these sources make a claim that is not already covered in Fox News Channel controversies, feel free to cite that claim on that page and cite the relvant source. A brief skimming through them leads me to believe most are already mentioned in that article. Isarig 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright yo, anybody else agree that the opening paragraph is a little biased?

I mean really, sure I respect what this channel has done, but c'mon now, with ALL it's controversies, we HAVE to include it in the opening paragraph. Let me also just say that if you keep this biased opening for your article, u WON'T have it a featured one, since a featured article has to be DOWN THE MIDDLE from beg to end. :) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs)

  • This whole article is too biased, and deserves a good rewrite. I will start one right now. --Mrmiscellanious 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, you won't. The article is fine as is. Abacab 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This whole article is not too biased, but sections of the article may be open to modifications. If anyone has paid attention to the article, the two basic sections in dispute have always been the introduction and the introduction to the "Bias & Allegations" page, two sections of the entire article, not the entire article. Reading through, information on this article is rather balanced and neutral. If anything, we need to come to just figure out how to get the introduction and introduction to bias/allegations settled. Chris 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How can fox be the most trusted news source when PBS is?

In a 2006 poll conducted by Reuters and the BBC, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News as the most trusted news source, which is more than any other source in the U.S. including ABC (4 percent), NBC (4 percent) and CBS (3 percent).[1]

How is the above not biased and below is biased?

Close to 3 million people tune in to The NewsHour each weeknight (1.1 HH rating) and more than 8 million unduplicated viewers watch at least one night a week. In addition, the Erdos & Morgan Opinion Leader survey ranks The NewsHour first among all television news programs as the most credible, most objective, most influential and most current news program on television.

Well, could you link to the direct page that the information comes from? Nevermind, I just found the page on the website [15]. Chris 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
To update on my last comment, the one note to make about the survey listed is that it is a "bi-annual study of influential business, government and public policy leaders." [16] In that sense, the actual public (generic person, mass population) doesn't necessarily agree with their position on PBS. Chris 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides, News Hour may well be the Most Trusted News Program while Fox News may still be the Most Trusted Name In News (As a network), whatever that means. 167.24.104.150 06:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)