Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Intro 2 History 3 President David Palmer 4 Obama Controversy 5 Ratings 6 FOX news and the Chinese 6.1 a tough pill to swallow for the FOX news fans!!! 7 Anna Nicole Smith Overkill? 8 Introduction and "Bias" 9 Cleaning and Expanding History 10 Ainsley Rinehardt 11 Australian-American Roger Ailes 12 Source for "criticized as advocating conservative political positions" 13 Repetitive explainations & template 14 Is it time to call a duck a duck? 15 Not That Interested/Consensus

Intro

I removed the citation to the portal page and kept the second citation to the actual article. Also, someone had deleted portions of the intro and I re-inserted it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the conservative bias be taken out of the introduction. I checked the MSNBC entry and no coresponding liberl bias is put there. Since MSNBC is on the exterme left and Fox is moderate it seem to be POV to put the bias accusation in the Fox intro.Skypad 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. This has already been covered at length. See Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_15#Should_FNC.27s_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction.3F and all the subsequent archived discussions. Before picking off this scab, please show us how consensus has changed.
2. Justification cannot be in the form of Well look at what's happening at article X. Any argument you make must be able to stand on its own merits.
3. Your declaration that MSNBC is on the exterme left and Fox is moderate shows us your unwillingness to adhere to WP:NPOV and constitutes original research.

/Blaxthos 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is according to you Blaxthose. I can quote a UCLA study from 2005 stating that Fox News is the only network without bias. I can quote Bernie Goldberg Bias book. My point is that the crticism of bias is discussed later in the Fox News entry and should not be in the intro. Ramsquire please calm Blaxthos down.Skypad 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is according to about a dozen editors and the outcome of 2 requests for comment. This portion of the article has been debated to such an extent, there is now an editors note hidden within the paragraph informing people of the past discussions. New discussions are of course welcome, but I doubt anything will change unless new arguments can be made. On a side note, let's all remember to keep things civil. AuburnPilot^talk 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to respond, I would appreciate the courtesy of at least spelling my name correctly. Also, I would suggest reading what people are saying to you instead of glossing over it with the same nonsense. Every issue you've brought up has been discussed to death; every point you try to make has been covered; a wide consensus of editors have worked together to craft what you see now, and it is a compromise of all involved. As a side note, it's not according to me, it is according to wikipedia policies and procedures, and the consensus reached herein by RfC and good-faith work . Does anyone else think this guy may be USER:Cbuhl79 returned? /Blaxthos 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

3 points: One I'm not that user, 2 does that mean new editors should not have input, 3 Blaxthos you have had a problem with me from the beggining, please stop.71.233.211.201 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You bring up the same points with the same (refuted) logic that he did.
2. It means new editors should take the time to learn why things are the way they are before trying to re-hash already-decided content. If you would take the time to actually read the discussion, you would understand why your point is being rejected.
3. My problem is not with you -- I don't even know you. My problem is with the content you attempt to change, and your unwillingness to make any effort to understand why (see #2 above). Attacks on your content are not attacks on you.

/Blaxthos 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I went into the archive and it's hard to see a consesnsus as the discussion is dominated by a few editors. My point is the sources cited are mostly on the extreme left and to single out Fox News only demonstrated a POV in the intro.Skypad 10:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the sources are on the extreme left. Of the cited sources, Ref1 and Ref2 are from a study by the "Project for Excellence in Journalism, an institute affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism". Ref3 is arguably liberal, as it is from The New Yorker, but the final reference is a well sourced study by two people from UC Berkley and Stockholm University. Reviewing the fourth reference (UC Berkley/Stockholm) I was surprised to see it actually has more references, charts, tables, and proof than I originally thought; it's quite impressive. I fail to see the extreme left bias with our sources. AuburnPilot^talk 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For reference, User:Skypad has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of MagicKirin. AuburnPilot^talk 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are solutions this conflict. Having the reference to bias in the introduction is sketchy. Doing this will put that word into the readers head for the rest of the article. Since many editors want bias to be mentioned in the introduction just let it be. In return bias will need to be mentioned somewhere in the introduction of ALL major news networks. CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc... (OfForByThePeople 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

The great thing about Wikipedia is that there are talk pages for each and every article. What is deemed appropriate for this article may not be appropriate for other articles. If you or any other editor feels CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc should have accusations of bias in their intros, it should be suggested on the corresponding talk page. Thanks. AuburnPilot^talk 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject at hand is intriguing. I made that suggestion for the purpose of balance. The introductions for all news media networks is relevant to this discussion. We know that FOX news does sway to the right, and the others sway to the left. Politics and news is a very volatile topic. So for the sake of neutrality we need to support equality across all of wikipedia, especially on issues such as politics. If a consensus, like the one I have recommended above, could be reached then this entire issue would disappear. Any other arguments put forward could then be easily dismissed. So I ask you to support my proposal. If you will not support me then a NPOV can only obtained by removing the mention of bias in the articles introduction. (finding relevant sources which accuse bias amongst CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. will not be difficult to do, so again I ask you to support my solution, or remove the mention of bias) Thanks for looking out. (OfForByThePeople 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but ultimatums do not forward your proposal. This is not a "do this or I'll do that" project. We work within consensus, which was achieved in this situation. The current intro is a work of compromise that took over a month to reach. Your "solution" of supporting your proposal or else is not appreciated. Unless you can provide sound reasoning for altering the intro, and that consensus has changed, this discussion doesn't have anywhere else to go. AuburnPilot^talk 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimatums? Or else? Sorry if that is how I came across, but what I said is the truth. Rather than attacking my style of communication please rebute intellectually rather than emotionally; this would be much more productive. A NPOV is much easier to achieve through a cold heart. Thanks for looking out, (OfForByThePeople 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

OfForByThePeople, a consensus has already been reached by the good faith efforts of many editors using the appropriate Wikipedia dispute resolution process. All editors came to a mutually acceptable consensus. Until you can show that consensus has changed, this issue (and most especially your ultimatums) are moot. Additionally, as I have stated before, if you can't make your point without mentioning other articles for justification then you have no point at all. /Blaxthos 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, new to this page, but did a lot of work on the Bill O'Reilly article (mostly changing bullet lists into cohesive paragraphs and summarizing sources accurately from quick links. The problem is that the "consensus" from reading the archive linked to above, is this:

"it's still peoples opinion. It doesn't belong in the intro paragraph just like NY TImes liberal bias doesn't belong in their intro paragraph. It's not the concise snippet of pure factual information that belongs in the introductory paragraph."

"Agreed. The accusations of bias definitely belong in this article, but they DONT belong in the intro"

So, before you accuse someone of not following consensus, I would suggest you research what that consensus is. I also agree that the intro should be facts and not opinion. You have plenty of opportunities to get into the bias of the channel. Another thing to remember, Wikipedia is not designed by consensus, and the bias and POV of Wikipedians for any given subject will ebb and flow as people come in and edit. So assume good faith, blah blah blah, and determine what is best for the article. Bytebear 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your summation of the consensus is absolutely incorrect. In fact, all parties to the consensus-building effort agreed that consensus had been reached, save one user who ended up having RfARB action taken against him and who ultimately ceased editing (with that name). So, you're coming in months later and re-interpreting (misrepresenting?) the result of an RfC (that all participants felt was satisfactorally decided)? /Blaxthos 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You pointed me to an archive. I quoted the last two relevant posts to the topic, and you say I am re-interpreting? I have no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that you are trying to sway any arguements your way by claiming there was a consensus. Clearly there was not. The Wikipedia code of conduct says "Be open and welcoming." So, thanks for that warm welcome. Bytebear 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that your interpretation of the discussion couldn't be further from the actual outcome. The problem is likely that you "quoted the last two relevant posts". The discussion spans two archives (15 and 16), and can hardly be summed up from the last two posts. The actual outcome was that although WP:WEASEL has good points, it is merely a guideline and has exceptions. The claims being made in this article are not exceptionally irrational and are properly sourced within Wikipedia policy. When the debate began, it was whether or not to include allegations of bias. The group as a whole agreed the bias should be mention. The next point of contention was where. Some believed it was best to include in the history section, while others believed it was best in the intro. A compromise was reached, the statement was properly sourced, WP:NPOV concerns were addressed, and we all went on our merry way. AuburnPilot^talk 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference I was given (the archive) didn't have a consensus, so if you have that documented I am more than willing to look at it. While I agree that the aligations of bias are crutial to the article, I don't see them as crucial to the intro. Of course this is all my opinion, but my personal rules of thumb are 1) no references in the heading, 2) only state facts in the heading, avoiding opinions, 3) branch off what you can and avoid duplicating information. The last rule doesn't apply here so much, other than perhaps we should avoid talking about Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdock or other's opinions unless they directly relate to the topic. As I said on my talk page, I don't really have a stake in this article other than I was invited to look at this particular issue. I read the intro of the article, and in my opinion, the only thing that stood out as odd was the comment about right leaning bias. That, to me, is a red flag that the article could be improved. Bytebear 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you really want a clear picture of what occured, you need to read several megabytes of discussion.

• Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_15#Should_FNC.27s_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction.3F
• Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_FNC_allegations_of_bias

As I've encouraged all along, please read the whole history before starting another war. /Blaxthos 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm on the talk page. What is your objection to the edit? (OfForByThePeople 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but I agree that your edits were inappropriate, but that is my point on putting controverial and opionionated things into the intro. It tends to attract people on both sides to edit in their arguments. Better to leave the intro as factual as possible, and leave the debates for the meat of the article. Bytebear 06:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to seek consensus before making changes, especially to portions of controversial articles that have gone through official processes during formulation. Your change (and seeming ignorance of the work done before you came along) does a severe disservice to those who worked so hard to build a consensus. As far as the content you seek to introduce... one, the intro (or even this article) is not the place for you to introduce what YOU think is relavent regarding the survey. Two, I believe that if you would just take the time to read the previous history then you would understand why you're running into resistance -- it's all answered there, and it's not incumbant upon us to continually justify the consensus to those who refuse to read it. Sorry if I am curt; this discussion has been going on for a long time. /Blaxthos 06:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you aren't talking to me, but you are also forgetting two very important things: Assume good faith, and Be BOLD. the recent edits fall in line with both of these. We should not start a revert war, but no one should put up "They claim to be the only fair and balanced news program" without a reference. I personally don't think they make such a claim. any statements like that need to be backed up with citations. Bytebear 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The topic of discussion was your comment, not what has happened subsequently. /Blaxthos 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so why was it deemed necessary for the intro to include the following: "Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions. [3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting and alleges that it is the only "Fair & Balanced" network news station?" Note, the last allegation (major weasel word, btw) was just recently added (and requires a citation). Bytebear 07:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not deemed necessary -- the content was added by an uninvolved editor after my comment on the talk page was made. I have now reverted that change, and request that we narrow the range of discourse in ths heading to the issues you have raised above, instead of having an ongoing discussion of every change in real time. /Blaxthos 07:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But why have the sentence at all. Any sentence that begins "XYZ has been criticized..." begs for a deeper discussion, beyond the scope of the intro. That is why I think it should be removed and elaborated upon, later in the article. Bytebear 07:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know how to be any more clear... the answer you seek (why have the sentence at all?) is contained in the archived discussions, to which you have been directed to read several times. Every point you raise has been asked and addressed (and eventually decided by consensus). Go read! /Blaxthos 08:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did cite my source. It is in the exact same article. In fact, that statistical information is in the last couple of paragraphs that leads up to it stating that Fox News has been critisized as being bias. It is right there, this information bears just as much relevance (if not more) than the current version. This is true, please refer to WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus_can_change. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 13:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Consensus hasn't changed (sock puppets don't count), and this discussion hasn't approached the number of people who participated in the RfC that decided the issue (with or without the sock puppets). Additionally, all this has already been covered (archives!). /Blaxthos 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. The information I added is relevant, it shows that the study that claimed bias, is bias itself due to the participants. If that source is going to be cited, all parts of it become relevant. Not just one sentence. Do you have any objection? Aside from just saying 'conensus has been reached' (thank you for being 'curt'...it is more productive) Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I object, especially in the intro, for reasons listed. Does anyone besides OfForByThePeople think that consensus has changed? As far as I can tell, the only people who clamour for change are either sockpuppets or editors who refuse to read the archived discussions (in which the answers are contained). Regardless, what you think is relevant to the study has no place in the intro -- if nothing else, it is a violation of WP:OR. Additionally, simple votecounting was not utilized in formulating the consensus version. If you would bother reading the actual RfC and consensus-building process that occured, I wouldn't have to take 300KB of talk page to point out what is already on record. I believe you have a much longer journey before convincing established editors for the need to change a painfully-decided issue. The fact that you're harping on the same position as editors who ended up being exposed for sockpuppetry and good faith violations (much less the fact that you haven't read the archived discussion yet) doesn't help your position. Anyone else wanna carry the torch for a while, please? /Blaxthos 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If what I put on is Original Research, then so is the original statement. What I put down is in the EXACT SAME article as the original version. Go look at it, it is just a few paragraphs above the disputed statement. Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, I hoped going to bed would make this go away, but I see I was wrong. I object to the addition by OfForByThePeople because it has no relevance to the article. You may believe it is relevant to the study, but we do not qualify sources. It is our job to "State the facts and let the reader decide". A verifiable source has been provided that meets wikipedia polices on reliable sources and there is nothing else to say. The sources backs up the statement and it is incorrect to qualify that source. You are welcome to provide additional sources to the sentence that states Fox News denies these allegations. To Bytebear who believes criticism should be expanded, please see Fox News Channel controversies, a daughter article. AuburnPilot^talk 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I did not come here to start a firestorm. I do not think the criticism section should be expanded, but I do see an issue puttting a criticism in the intro, as it will cause some editors to elaborate in an effort to add their own POV for balance. There should be no criticisms in the intro. You say there was a consensus, but I have read your archives, and I saw no consensus. I did see an attempt for arbitration, but it failed, so for you to say a consensus was met is just laughable. There is no consesus on Wikipedia and there never will be. And your arguements are futile as new editors (like myself) are welcome at anytime to stir up the waters. If this were a "feature" article I would be more hesitant, but it isn't even listed as a "good" article, which means I have every right as you to come in and muck things up for you. That is not my intent, but clearly you have no desire to assume good faith, so I am just as happy to dig in my heels. The choice is yours. You can cooperate and we can discuss how this article can be improved or you can stick to your guns with your silly argument of consensus. Bytebear 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done. Three months of work and discussion simply disregarded as "silly" and "laughable". This just proves that every person who ever left wikipedia was right. I cannot continue to make the same points in regards to the same asinine arguments. I'm removing this page from my watchlist and this article can descend into chaos for all I care. I'm simply over it. Everything the editors of this page have done to improve the article is obviously meaningless. The rest of you can do whatever you wish; I don't care anymore. AuburnPilot^talk 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building effort

• Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_15#Should_FNC.27s_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction.3F
• Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_FNC_allegations_of_bias -- Consensus building effort by no fewer than 17 editors (not even counting anonymous comments)
• Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_Wording_of_the_intro -- Malformed RfC in Bad Faith in which consensus was upheld

Editors who participated

• Aaron
• Gamaliel
• Blaxthos
• Isarig
• AuburnPilot
• Edders
• FeloniousMonk
• Ramsquire
• Rama
• Cordless Larry
• Cbuhl79 (later brought up on RfArb charges due to conduct)
• Mrmiscellanious
• GTBacchus
• Doldrums
• Tbeatty
• Blueboar
• Doldrums
• Kevin Baas

Not everyone agreed on every point, but every name you see gave input and issued opinion on what became the final compromise version of the introduction. Every point you have raised was rased, and addressed, in the discussions referenced above. So now, you're saying the work of eighteen named editors and several anonymous contributors is laughable? That is the most serious violation of WP:AGF I've ever seen, and speaks volumes about your credibility on this issue. /Blaxthos 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the statement been in the introduction of any article of any group, organization, committee, etc etc the same argument would be put forth, and I would point out the same bias error. Fortunately this type of opinion does not seem to be wide spread amongst other similar orgaizations. I am not here to put my own POV in the article. I am here to make sure that any critical mis-placed opinions are either put in their proper place, or fully explained which is what my last edit did do.

This is what your 'source' says, just prior to what you are citing -

There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).

If a bias source is going to be used then as a service to readers the bias needs to be explained, and reasons for results become relevant. Thank you for looking out. (OfForByThePeople 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Fortunately, Wikipedia is a community based on consensus -- regardless of how much bias you may believe exists, the community worked together to craft an acceptable introduction. No matter how much of a stink you raise, it is not going to crumble twenty editors' collective effort until you can show that very consensus has changed. The issue isn't bias, the issue is consensus, and I (once again) point out that this is a compromise version. Further discussion is moot at this point. I would most strongly advise you to educate yourself on the past before kicking up a shitstorm, and try to understand what the objection is (as opposed to just repeating the same thing over and over). /Blaxthos 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that the bias opionion should be included (which I fully agree), but I don't see anywhere that a consensus was made as to where that information should be placed. You are referencing point A when I am discussing point B. If I am mistaken, forgive me, and show me where I am wrong. Bytebear 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a real problem continuing to assume good faith with you. The title of the section is Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_15#Should_FNC.27s_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction.3F. How are you unable to see the pages and pages of discussion? It's under the heading Should_FNC's_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction . Is this somehow convaluded? Did you actually bother to read the archives? If so, how can you possibly claim to have overlooked the massive conversation? /Blaxthos 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add this. To all of you who feel that the bias opinion should not be in the introduction: I agree. But, what I or you feel is unimportant. It is what the consensus determined. As stated numerous times. The concensus is a) to not mention it in the introduction, since it is one of the factors of Foxnews's notability, would violate NPOV; b) the opinion is held by persons too numerous and diverse to quantify, there it falls into the weasel word exceptions. Do I agree with all of that, no. But the current version is the best compromise we can all reach. Moving it lower into the article was discussed, not giving the bias opinion too much undue weight was discussed, whether there should be sources at all was also discussed. So until there is a showing of a changed consensus, or a new and original argument is raised, I will not argue any more on this. The burden is on the new editors to show that consensus has changed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct! What any of us 'feel' is irrelevant. I make every decision every day based on logic, reason, common sense, and available information. My motto is 'feelings do not make facts'. None of my objections are based on 'feelings' it is based on the truth. I want to leave the mention of bias in the intro since it is so 'important' to some. What is fair would also be an edit which I recommended, but was immediately reverted.

Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions. [3] This same study discloses that only 7% of national and 12% of local journalists used in the survey described themselves as Conservative. The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.

This is what appears in the source in the few paragraphs leading up to the articles 'conclusion'. This is not OR. It is what the article says. This information is relevant to the statement in question, and should not be censored. Reverting my recommended edit suggests a blatant attempt to insert POV w/no intentions of allowing balance. Unlike the truth, emotions lie. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

No matter how often you repeat your argument, you've had several established editors explaining both the procedural hurdle you need to overcome, as well as why including information about the survey is so important to Fox News that it must be introduced in the first few paragraphs. If *anything* it should be footnoted in the references section at the bottom, but I personally don't see analysis of the survey as necessary in this particular article. /Blaxthos 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please bear with me on this one guys/girls

Gentlemen and/or Ladies (politically correct I think?) First, I am not a 'sockpuppet' in fact I just read what one is. So please do not make incorrect judgements. Also, I have read the archives, and just as Bytebear said above I also did not a consensus from all sides.

I pride myself on coldheartedness when making decisions, but I will turn that off for now. The four of us who have been carrying this on all believe the same thing. That, after considering the matter at hand we are right. I have seen people say they want to walk away from wikipedia (rhyming not intended). These are the same reasons I recently became an editor. You need to understand that I am not trying to push my POV and alienate 'months of work'. I am trying to bring about balance.

What I do appreciate about Auburnpilot, Blaxthos, and Bytebear is the intelligent manner in which each of you present your side, because nothing is more annoying than arguing with an idiot. But I am not an idiot either, and nor am I a 'sockpuppet' or an irrational person. All I want is to help add balance to Wikipedia. Though I am a new editor I am not a new fan of wikipedia. I have enjoyed this product for a long time, and feel it is a wonderful and important tool in society. So for the sake of neutrality I do not see why adding my edit is being so opposed, or supporting the same structure in the intros of Fox competitors is so opposed.

CNN has this in their bias section: CNN has been accused of bias for allegedly promoting a liberal agenda based on previous incidents. It has also been accused of being slanted toward US interests when reporting on world conflicts and wars.[5] Critics such as LA Weekly say it is part of an alleged pro-war news media[1]. CNN denies any bias.

But they do not have it in their intro, and I am not trying to nitpick or argue based on another article. What I am doing is pointing out that there is a lack of balance on Wikipedia, and believe the structure of FOX and its respective competitors is important for the sake of NPOV. Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

The alleged bias of CNN is not as intertwined with its notability as it is with Foxnews. CNN is known for two things, being the first national news channel and changing how people receive their news. Fox is known for two things as well, its ratings, and the perception of bias--both of which are in the introduction. So the bias should not be in the introduction of CNN, but it should be with Fox. But another note, what is in the CNN article has no bearing on this article. Yes there should be some conformity in terms of format. But the content of one has no bearing on the content of the other. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss the format of CNN. I think it is just fine, and (as i stated previously) am glad that this discrepency only appears one time. So CNN aside, the statement and stance I took earlier (in reference to my suggested addition to the intro) I have not heard a solid argument against it yet. So I say again what I said before, This information is relevant to the statement in question, and should not be censored. Reverting my recommended edit suggests a blatant attempt to insert POV w/no intentions of allowing balance. I do not understand why it is wrong to use information that pertains to the topic at hand which is from the same source as the topic at had. Unlike the truth, emotions lie. Thank you for looking out. (OfForByThePeople 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Blaxthos presents a solid argument against your edit. It's unnecessary. The only reason that particular citation was presented was due to weasel words concerns, which weren't valid when made. Since, the citation isn't necessary in the first place, any discussion of it is also unnecessary. It certainly isn't appropriate to argue sources in the introduction, and it gives undue weight to the topic of bias. The introduction is for general overview, and stating what makes the subject notable. Add that stuff into the body of the article. I hope these are solid arguments for one who is looking only for the "truth". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As a moderate who happened to just walk by this discussion, I don't think it is appropriate to have the conservative bias stuff in the lead. It should be in the controversies section. CNN does not have anything like that written even though Ted Turner is "a socialist at heart" and has donated plenty to leftist organizations. --Shamir1 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed the larger point in my post which is--what is in the CNN article has no bearing on what is in this article. Do you have any argument against the position that the perception of right wing bias of Foxnews is not as intertwined with its notability as its ratings dominance? That's why the perception of bias info is in there, it's part of what makes Foxnews notable. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who claims to know what is in the heart of another isn't, in my view, moderate. Once again, what goes on at CNN has no relevance here. /Blaxthos 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence that an editor is using sock puppets to attempt and influence this issue and to make it appear that concensus has changed. Please be thorough in evaluating such claims when determining consensus.

How can a new consensus be done? It seems that there enough editors who dispute the bias to revisit it.Hapkdo 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just about every editor who has tried to claim consensus has changed, or who has brought up additional problems (on already-WP:RFC'd issues) has been busted as being sockpuppets. I imagine they're all coming from the same source. It is fairly clear that consensus has not changed, as there were eighteen participants in the consensus-building effort. Even with all the sockpuppetry we haven't approached that number. Also, please do not remove legitimate warning boxes. Thanks. /Blaxthos 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just another sockpuppet; don't humor it. Look at the contribs of the socks and the contribs of this user; they're identical. auburnpilot talk 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hapkdo has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. auburnpilot talk 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP SOCKPUPPETRY!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE DAMAGING RELEVANT ARGUMENTS AND CHANCES OF ACHIEVING NEUTRALITY!!!!!!!! Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a sock puppet and someone who is censored. The fact is that certain administrators and editors block soneone if they don't like their facts. There is enough consensus to open the bias conversation.Yamlak 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The above user (Yamlak) has been indefinitely block for sockpuppetry and impersonation of Yamla. auburnpilot talk 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE---- Read the above. User:AuburnPilot, User:Blaxthos, and I do not agree on what is the right thing to do with this article. ...YET amazingly you don't see me being blocked. Don't use multiple accounts to achieve your goals. Plain and Simple

If an editor blocks you as a 'sock puppet' without any proof backing it up than file a complaint, prove it, then go have a 'Coke and a Smile'  :-) Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Everytime an editor comes here knowing they are in a position which could warrant blocking you damage peoples efforts. Every time an editor is blocked here as a sockpuppet or impersonator you undermine efforts like mine, and legitimize the misquided good-faith efforts of others Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

History

As a side issue from much of the above discussion, I feel that the sentence 'In the opinion of Ken Auletta of The New Yorker, it was to counter a news media that Murdoch believed was predominantly liberal.' in the history section could be misleading. Whilst the use of the term 'liberal' to indicate a perceived anti-conservative political leaning is commonplace in popular American parlance, this is actually at odds with both the historical meaning of the word, its dictionary definition, the manner in which it is used in academic texts, and the meaning that it holds for many English-speaking people outside of North America (cf. American Liberalism). As such, I would argue for the use of an alternative term or some qualification of the current usage to be provided in the article, possibly as an endnote. This is actually a pretty general gripe that could be extended to a number of other articles and, indeed, the few other usages of the term in this article itself. I just think that the unqualified use of a term that is relatively recent in prominence, often stigmatised, and potentially misleading should be avoided. Benwilson528 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink that I hope clears up the issue. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Mr. Benwilson528 for the same purpose. When the reader ends the first paragraph on a 'liberal bias' note, and starts the following paragraph on a 'liberal bias' note NPOV goes out the window. Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

You're not agreeing with Mr. Benwilson. His position is that the use of liberal without qualification is misleading, and he's right. The wikilink points the reader to what is meant by the term. Also the intro paragraph ends with FNC denying any bias in their news reporting and the second paragraph begins with the opinion of a New Yorker writer. Seems to give both sides of the debate without taking sides, which is NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. My statement was not an interpretaion of Mr. Benwilson528. I was agreeing with him and then adding my view. Sorry for not clarifying this. It would be best to move both statements to other sections to acheive NPOV, but I am having a good week so lets save that one for later. Have a good day! Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

President David Palmer

Does the paragraph about the show 24 really need to be in the intro section? I think we should move it, but I am reluctant to create a trivia or 'in popular culture' section. thoughts? -Taco325i 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree. The mention of '24' in the introduction is odd. The arguments made concerning the mention of bias in the intro were based upon the belief that because this is "wide spread" it should be included in the intro (my interpretation of a misguided argument). But the relationship between FOX NEWS and the show '24' is miniscule and lacks grounds to be included in the introduction. Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Obama Controversy

Shouldn't the recent Obama hoax broadcasted by Fox News, later debunked by CNN, be included on this the controversy section? It strikes at their journalistic integrity which is fairly important topic. --Voidvector 09:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me towards any references? A site that explains what went down? /Blaxthos 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More blog buzz.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is worth including here. The section on Fox News controversy is pretty general, my guess is there's a reason for it. There is a whole article called Fox News Channel controversies that detail controversies and includes the Obama/Madrassa issue.Athene cunicularia 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the CNN article on the whole thing. You can search on google video for the original videos [1]. But yea, I see it's covered on the controversy page, since its only 1 event, doesn't need to be listed here. --Voidvector 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As a British person who couldn't care less about politics (particularly US politics) I find it extremely amusing on occasion to watch FOX news. Anyone who says it isn't a neo-conservative republican soapbox is kidding themselves, nothing but non-stop bashing of Democratic candidates while implying the Republicans have got it right. Personally I find it funny and am happy for them to continue their current course, but I must say I found it particularly amusing to read the sources from this article where Murdoch and others state that FOX news does not have a conservative bias. LOL. Canderra 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ok Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 06:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

The ratings section has a number of vague statements and non verified claims and it possibly contradicts itself.

The first claim is not sourced and just flat out says that fox is number one in the cable market. I have heard otherwise personally but can't find any good data on the subject. (I've also heard that 9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest toothpaste).

Also the claim, In July 2006, Fox had the 55 top rated episode telecasts on cable news. The first non-Fox show to appear on the list was number 56, Larry King Live. is a little hard to swallow. It has a reference to some random excel spreadsheet that doesn't say a lot about the claim except that its says "TOP NEWSCASTS".

I'm thinking it would be good to clean that up and find some verifiable/accurate references or go an head remove the claims. ZacBowling 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. I provided 2 sources from American Journalism Review and one from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is conducted by these fine people. I believe these all meet the requirements of WP:RS. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 01:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

One other note: I didn't do any searching in regards to the "55 top rated...". I have no knowledge on that. auburnpilot talk 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across this interesting article that goes into detail that CNN has more viewers but Fox has higher ratings. [2] Maybe more clarification? ZacBowling 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I found this article that says that Fox might lead in ratings because of Neilson for television viewers, but it comes in last for the website visitors [3] ZacBowling 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the sentence "While more people are actively watching Fox News Channel at any given time, CNN still remains the leader in unique viewers." [4] [5] - auburnpilot talk 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and correct. /Blaxthos 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change. auburnpilot talk 19:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you're back.  :-) /Blaxthos 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Good afternoon, good day, or good evening. I have just started looking at the new sources and additons to the article so am unsure as to their relevance. Regardless of what I find once I delve into this more deeply, are their any other suggestions as a substitute to the word "unique" it seems to be a weasel word. Unique? Compared to what? What is un-unique? What people are defined as un-ique? What people are defined as unique? etc etc etc. Suggestions anyone? Thanks for looking out!(OfForByThePeople 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

No. There is no better word and "unique" is not a weasel word. Unique is the term used when referring to viewers and it is the actual term used; not something we made up. See it defined here. auburnpilot talk 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That definition places all viewers under the term. So there is no distinction between the viewers of CNN and/or the viewers of FOX. So, therefore you can't describe CNN viewers as 'unique' because the term as your link described draws no distinction between the two. A term like 'total' or 'gross' viewers just seems more appropriate. Thank you for looking out!!! (OfForByThePeople 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

I wouldn't try to read so much into the words... it looks like you're trying to find a problem. Unique is understood universally -- websites talk about unique hosts, tv shows unique viewers, etc.. If I tune into Fox or CNN at 7am and again at 7pm, I'm still only one unique viewer. To interpret the added sentence, a higher number of people watch CNN, but Fox viewers watch for longer. /Blaxthos 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This interaction is so much more pleasant than previous. Thank you for assuming 'good faith'. Despite my suspicion as to whether matters concerning another network (CNN) bears any relevance to this article...I am not trying to find a problem, if so I would be trying to remove the entire quote. As of yet I have not found any reason to dispute this (aside whether it should be here at all). Mr. Blaxthos your interpretation is excellent, and seems much more appropriate for the article. Anyway look here [[6]] Unique indicates special characteristics. So what makes CNN viewers unique? Why talk about CNN in a FOX NEWS article? It should probably be moved to the FOX Controversies article. Thank you for looking out!!!(OfForByThePeople 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

I think you still are not clear on what unique means. CNN viewers are not unique -- unique is describing the metric that is being used. It is a very common industry term; you are trying to assign it a particular connotation. CNN is mentioned because CNN was, until recently, the cable news ratings king for almost two decades. /Blaxthos 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to stating (as the article says) that CNN has the most viewers, where as FOX NEWS has a higher retention rate. Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 06:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

I personally see no reason to change the sentence in order to remove "unique". As with many words, unique has more than one definition/connotation and in this case, it refers to one, individual person (not a description in the sense of "special"). It is pulled directly from the source: "Despite the ratings data, CNN has always made the argument that it is more popular over all than Fox News because more people, or unique viewers, watch it. This remained true in 2005 as well, though the gap was narrowing." Generally it is better to use the source phrasing than attempt to interpret its meanings; doing so can lead to that slippery slope of original research. auburnpilot talk 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- there is no good reason to reword what the actual source says, especially in such a way that clouds the meaning or introduces concepts (most viewers, retention rate). AuburnPilot's version is excellent, IMHO. /Blaxthos 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FOX news and the Chinese

well its interesting that FOX is controlled by a Chinese-Australian couple since 1999 (or slightly before when they started their affair)...yet i wonder...the other networks and news platforms could really hit at Wendi Dengs and Murdochs market share if they were able to get the message out that FOX is owned by a chinese-australian couple...if they saw that FOX was potentially half controlled by a young Chinese woman (perhaps she has more sway than even this over the far far older Murdoch)...if the typical FOX news viewer was presented with this fact (which i doubt if hardly any actually know)...we could end up seeing a radical market share adjustment...with FOX and its support of Bush & the iraq war...then this chinese involvement in FOX that dates pre 2000 election...the american public might even get rather upset that they have not been seeing the true picture...the other platforms could really hit at FOX's market share if they played it well...they need some hard hitting aggressive marketting people to take advantage of this situation...to bring the entire american population to the awareness that its an aussie-chinese couple that owns FOX wouldnt be too hard...they could really play up the current battle over the inheritance to bring it to public awareness...and ironically its FOX viewers themselves that are the ones that would most be shocked and angred over Chinese control over american propaganda outlets...isnt it a silly world...Benjiwolf 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if i was one of the other networks...i would start an "NBC dateline expose" type show devoted half to FOX news, rupert murdoch, and wendi deng, and the current inheritance battle with the other children...put it inside a show about lisa nowak (have lisas part the second part as the hook)...booom..."nuclear marketting and market share grab tactic"...if several of the netwoks and CNN did it and spread it out some, FOX would have a hard time simultaneously countering all of them with some sensational high-ratings show of their own...Benjiwolf 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for coming off rude, but that's the most ridiculous rant I've seen in some time. Nobody cares about the ethniciy of an owner of a news outlet. Please read the talk page guidelines. These pages are not for discussing the subject, but improvements to the article. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

shes born and raised in China, man...shes a chinese citizen for all intents and purposes...shes even spent the majority of her years in China, the fact that one of americas main propaganda/news outlets is owned by a chinese-australian couple is big big news...they may have successfully attempted to get american citizenship too so they could maintain control within US law, yet its all true man...and its not about ethnicity...its about what country are these owners really beholden to?...and marry who you want please please...yet when u start to control a vast portion of the media outlets then its time to scrutinize...& definitely past citizenships...Benjiwolf 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

and...this is no country bumpkin news station they own...this chinese-australian couple own the largest, most vast media empire, ever in the history of the world, including FOX news...the fact that their original (might i add true) citizenships are chinese and australian and the fact that they are australian-chinese in ethnic makeup allows me to always describe them as a "chinese-australian" couple if i wish...(of course you could argue murdoch is british, and not australian aboriginal in ethnic makeup, yet when i call someone australian in ethnic makeup it realizes this...id say australian aboriginal if i meant the other)...anyways its not about ethnicity...its about their citizenships, why they got new ones, and just who are they really...does wendi deng now have ami citizenship?...chinese too still?...totally ami citizenship now???...whats her INS status???...Benjiwolf 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research, anyone? The conclusions you draw from the race/ethnicity/citizenship/whatever of a person or couple is completely and totally irrelevant. Adding your commentary on the situation breaches Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Neither of your "sources" even comment on this topic; one is nothing more than a glorified wedding announcement, and the other speaks about an inheritance. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you can provide reliable sources which actually discuss this topic, you are free to re-include the information. auburnpilot talk 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

go to wikipedias page on Wendi Deng...most of my info is from there...go to ruperts page...info for him is from there...and this is all open source info...its all over hundreds of internet sites...Benjiwolf 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways...yes... ill make it one of my new pet projects...extensive referencing this fact about FOX news that is well hidden, that in fact its a chinese australian couple that own them...ur going to see a bunch of info about this on this page...im just getting started...ive seen many articles on this...including some talking about her true level of control in News Corporation...yet for now everything on the page is factual as far as i have seen...its just been hidden till now...Benjiwolf 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways as to citizenship and not ethnics thats most important...i come to the article in that attitude...and with the fact that wendi deng was & is (ive never seen anything saying she isnt still) a full chinese...yet as to me personally...the pass paperwork means little to me...my loyalty is to my ethnic group first...(& im a bit of a mutt)...then the pass and paperwork comes into it after this...citizenship???...what is that...its a piece of paper...im a citizen of earth...these arbitrary boundaries???...for now they are practical till things are worked out between the various ethnic groups that control the various territories...someday theyll be gone...for the super rich like murdoch and wendi deng they already are...currently its a boundaryless world for the elite...& u can even be full chinese born and bred, with papers from them, and rule over FOX news in america...its the masses that have the boundaries...wendi deng can go where-ever she wants on this globe instantly...is she still chinese?..american now???...who cares...most people cant go anywhere they want...and she'll always be chinese...she cant change it...only the paperwork...yet she should be proud of the fact that she is a Chinese...and the Chinese will be proud of the fact that its a Chinese-Australian couple that own FOX news...really really proud...they must be laughing...Benjiwolf 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point entirely. For one, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. You cannot reference one Wikipedia article in another. I don't have time to get into this right now, but you really need to take a look at what this project is about. WP:SOAP may be of interest. auburnpilot talk 18:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this is why Wikipedia can be addictive. Unbelievable!!!!Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, any information offered for inclusion will be thoroughly subjected to WP:Verifiability via reliable sources and neutral point of view policies. Any original research will be summarily rejected. I do not believe it is our obligation to repeat the same argument ten times before removing questionable material -- the burden of proof (and the rules he's subjected to) is the responsibility of the submitting editor. /Blaxthos 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!!! What have I been missing??? I seriousssllly can't stop laughing. That is absolutely hillarious. Sorry that my comments have nothing to do with this article...but WOW!!!! I am going to save this one, not just for future immusement, but something to show to my grandkids as well!!! Even if he gets some whacked out conspiracy theory jounalist for citation, this doesnt even qualify for the controversy section. Maybe a new FOX Conspiracy Theory article can be started. I would love to have more stuff like this to tell my grandkids about, and to share at cock-tail parties. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As incredulous as the editor's claim may be, I try to tread very lightly when blatantly not assuming good faith and making fun of their points of view. It's best just to stick to the policies and guidelines. /Blaxthos 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I was out of line. Thanks for checking my ego. But blatant/ridiculous rants like that go so far beyond incredulous that other 'feelings' !!:-)!! come about. AGF is hard to take on AFTER being told multiple times where they are mistaken. I didnt start to laugh until i saw your initial responses...followed by more "misguidance" in proposals. Any way I dont need to try and qualify. Have a good one!

Any way I was out of line...So now I will go have a 'Coke and a Smile' Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. This person is consistently attempting to add garbage to the article. Is being told not to do it, and continues to behave this way, claiming he is being censored. If it doesn't stop, I'll post something on WP:ANI. But for now, I'll just laugh in private. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Benjiwolf was blocked for a period of 24hrs due to "disruption by revert-warring on Fox News Channel". auburnpilot talk 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

a tough pill to swallow for the FOX news fans!!!

i think y'all are missing the point...actually a vast sum of FOX news profits could head staight to mainland china if she were to split with him, or else if he dies...and actually a vast amount of FOX news profits will head to the two half chinese kids no matter what, they may wish to live in China or the US...its hard to say, i think the Chinese government would wish them to live in the US for several reasons the chinese government would have...as to the control over the company...well thats being worked out in the courts as we speak...its not a conspiracy theory man...its reality...wellcome to FOX news and News Corporation...go ahead...search around...ur going to find that the couple that runs News Corporation: Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng..is a chinese-australian couple...and its one of the most incredible yet true stories of our time...have fun!!! heres another pic of rupert & wendi if you still dont believe it[7]...yet you can find them on any major news source, not just american ones...its no conspiracy (or have i somehow managed to control the entire world wide web???)...yet go ahead and remain in denial!...its a tough one to swallow for the FOX news fans isnt it!!!...ha ha!...take a few aspirin and think of something else for the next week or two...and remember...everytime u tune in to FOX...your adding pennies to the Chinese coffers!!!...ha ha!...oh its great to know the FOX news fans were so easily duped by the Chinese!!!...its great!!!...Benjiwolf 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: and FOX knew it would be a hard pill to swallow too, thats why they didnt even mention it until 2006 seven years later!...ha ha!!!...actual news souces reported on this long ago...FOX is a tabloid, Murdoch always was a tabloid owner, and of course hes not going to report on this story in his own tabloids...it sensational yes, yet runs quite counter to how he wants to present himself and his tabloids like FOX news...or...or...and this of course is speculation and i think my first thoughts most likely...yet there is a very very tiny chance he was always china-red and just was waiting to use his own story to flip the tables on y'all and totally discredit FOX as tied to the chinese even!!!...he could be a liberal mastermind genius!...maybe hes kept FOX over the top for a reason...i dont know really...ud have to ask him i suppose...Benjiwolf 14:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways all i can say at this moment is..."cheers!!!" mr murdoch!...your story and wendis is so sensational it almost beats em all!!!...what a couple...what a coup!...the chinese and FOX news!!!...ha ha!!!...all the way back in 1999 even!!!...Benjiwolf 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You have now been reverted yet again by yet another editor over concerns of original research and WP:SOAP. It's not that we don't believe they are married, it's that we know your additions are not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please, I ask again, stop re-inserting this material. It is ridiculous. You must provide sources for your claims that being Chinese somehow effects anything; your sources simply confirm the marriage.auburnpilot talk 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i havent made any statements about this affecting FOX news except for what documents say...i havnt made any conspiracy claims...this is all true, they are married, she is full chinese, there is an inheritance battle, as she is full chinese and has control over this media empire then that means chinese have control over it...and the two kids are half chinese and inherit vast profit from FOX this is fact, the issues over controlling shares are unresolved which i clearly state...this is not conspiracy...im not saying FOX news is out to control the world...im not saying anything like that...im stating the owners of FOX, who they are, what citizenships they have...and the inheritance issues...Benjiwolf 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i am referencing this...even with FOX news sources...and i am going to further detail all of this with many many references...your not going to keep it out...you cant silence the facts...i already have a dozen references yet i can get hundreds people...this is all public information...its just FOX itself that hasnt been reporting on it until 2006...Benjiwolf 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

my additions are totally legitimate...this is the owning couple of FOX news...talking about FOXs owners, control and profit isssues, and inheritance issues is fully legit using public sources i have begun to cite, including FOX, new york times, australian papers, ill put in the washington post picture if u need...face it...this is true, public information, and totally relevant...these are the owners of FOX and they have the controlling interest...FOX is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng...they have then delegated themselves down the line from there...if FOX is going to broadcast something they dont like...they can stop it...simple as that...and i can find u plenty of articles that show rupert has indeed done such things as determine actual content...yet i havnt put anything on the page yet...i have so far just been talking about controlling interest, and monetary profit, and inheritance issues to see who gets the control over FOX and who will profit...Benjiwolf 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are a riot, but the problem is you are providing no credible sources...Plus No One is denying that Murdoch is of Australian discent, and Wendi is of Chinese discent...The problem is that no-body cares...guess what? every American is a descendent of another country...nobody cares. The Governor of California is Austrian...nobody cares. My dog is a German Sheppard...nobody cares. Pizza came from Italy...nobody cares. My TV came from Japan...nobody cares. Respectfully stop this nonsense. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided a dozen credible sources including FOX news themselves, i was blocked before i was going to add yet another major newspaper source as to the 100 million dollar profit shares being handed to the two kids, that could even be chinese citizens if they wished, and that will clearly be at least half loyal to the people of China...the governor of california is from a closely allied country to the US, not from China, plus he has considerably less power than a media mogul couple such as murdoch & wendi deng, in fact without their support he couldnt have been elected, he cant run for president as he was originally a foreigner, if he could he would need rupert murdoch and wendi deng to support him to win, and even if he won and was the american president i question whether he would have more power than wendi deng & rupert murdochs global media empire. The bottom line is the Chinese wont allow americans to control their propaganda, they are not so foolish, the americans allowed chinese into their most powerful mass-media empire. That is questionable considering the stance america takes towards china and vice versa...yet i have taken no side on this really, just documented it mainly, and remorked that it is ironic in some ways it was FOX news they got into back in 1999, yet this is my last breath on the issue, and one of my last breaths on wikipedia, the wikipedia character benjiwolf has been slain...these are the last breaths of a ghost...

a totally different character has risen in his place: "Silence of the Wolves", he has already tried to edit this page once, and will continue, yall took care of removing the mention of wendi deng and china for him from the article, if anyone adds this information to the article, he will remove it, now he wishes to remove this discussion of it from public view as well, he does not contribute to english version wikipedia much, mainly adding material to non-english wikipedia, and wishes this entire discussion and all mention of China and FOX be removed from american & australian versions of wikipedia at least, justifying it as removing a POV rant, benji wolf was a neutralist character...this new creature "silence of the wolves" is decidedly hard right and wishes the media to fall into fewer and fewer hands, at least in certain countries, & it doesnt matter who they are that controls it, chinese or not, the fewer the better. In addition there is much material & information he wishes to add, yet not to the view of american or australian users, he is hard right, he believes in excluvisity, and yall have been excluded...some fall into the exclusive group, even some entire countries, and they will receive the full accurate information about things...the ghost of-Benjiwolf 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

he is thru!...and now i again propose this entire discussion about FOX and China be removed...this is a POV rant "benjiwolf" has engaged in, it should all be erased!...i again reinstate my argument this was a POV rant, & it is against wikipedia policy to soapbox on wikipedia, benjiwolf has engaged in soapboxing...it should be removed from display... Silence-of-the-Wolves 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia? You just have to love when the sockpuppets talk to each other. The suspected sockpuppet report can be found here. auburnpilot talk 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its been mentioned...one wikipedia character has been retired, after publicly announced retirement there were just a couple comments on talk pages to respond to, no article pages were edited after the retirement, yet since u are concerned with "sock puppeting", then i propose we erase everything "benjiwolf" has contributed to this talk page. So is it OK?...Im going to erase on next edit since you seem to be concerned, indeed i already tried and it was blocked...while i had proposed that a POV rant justified an erasure, your "sock-puppeting" charge provides yet another justification and makes it easier...it sounds like you support erasure auburnpilot??...and this solves your sock-puppeting concerns quite simply doesnt it...and you helped kill the character off, it had a dozen valid references to back up its edits on the article page, yet was blocked, and theres no bringing it back, that character is dead, so whats the complaint here?...lets erase those POV rants, and it eliminates any sock puppet problems on the page too, youve got a radically different editor in this character, it agrees with you completely, is in full agreement about the block of "benjiwolf", is in full agreement about removing its edits from the article, and now is in full agreement that those were POV rants on the talk pages, and the charge of sock-puppeting cements a decision to erase, so lets erase...Silence-of-the-Wolves 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Until his accounts are blocked, I will revert any information added to the FNC article by any of this guy's sockpuppets, and I will revert any removal of historical information from the Talk page. Hopefully an admin will come along and block his accounts soon. /Blaxthos 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your powerless...that character is gone, this one is actually on your side, and you will find you have a highly effective editor on that side, wikipedia regulations are being followed, and there isnt any attempt to weaken this side, only to strengthen it...plus there was never an attempt to hide the connections, the new name chosen was similar...its a legitimate switch to the other side, sort of to a different wiki-nationality of sorts actually, anyways several editors ganged up, and you successfully slew the character, (you can consider that you convinced it of your reasonings and thereby slew it), this new character is 100% in agreement with yall, yet the name has to change, it really is a totally different editor for all intents and purposes, anyways you achieved agreement: the chinese stuff shouldnt have been included, so lets also remove it from the talk pages...yall gained a convert, what exactly is the complaint?...Silence-of-the-Wolves 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith Overkill?

This obsession with Anna Nicole Smith since her death, I believe has bordered on overkill for the last week with all the networks; but it's especially bad on Fox News. Does anyone think this could be considered a controversy? WAVY 10 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen endless coverage of Anna Nicole Smith on every news channel, including the nightly national news progams on ABC, CBS, and NBC. (though I can't stand Katie Couric, and rarely to never watch CBS). Unfortunately, this isn't limited to FNC or the cable news stations; it's everywhere. Too much time, too little news. auburnpilot talk 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be anything until third party sources assert it is a controversy. I'd be more inclined to believe there just isn't a whole lot of good news out there for the sorts of people who watch FNC -- slim pickings. Let's stick with the properly sourced existing controversies for now.  :-) /Blaxthos 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what....I'm not even going to say the truth...lets find some more spiffy wiki words oh yeah...NPOV Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and "Bias"

I would appreciate having the article revised as follows (bold and italics enclose the proposed changes):

The channel was created by Australian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. Like other news sources (ABC, CBS, NBC), Fox News has been criticized as advocating political positions, although it is seen as aligned with conservative politics rather than liberal positions;^[1] the channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.

Lynn 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) I checked on the articles for ABC, CBS, and NBC. None of them had such a criticism within the opening paragraphs. There was mention in the CNN article about being criticized for both conservative and liberal bias.

FNN is hardly unique in being criticized for political bias. ABC, CBS, and NBC have had several best selling books written about their alleged bias. (see "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg)

A reader who did a quick read of the four articles would get the impression that FNN is less professional than ABC, CBS, or NBC.

I will check back on this discussion before doing any revisions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2007

This has been discussed to death. Given your lack of editorial history and seeming unfamiliarity with how to post (and sign) talk page comments, I am going to assume you have not read the (considerable) history regarding the intro. Please do so for an explaination as to why that change is probably not forthcoming. /Blaxthos 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I am disagreeing with you. This has been discussed to death w/out any disapproving that this article is meant to make FNN look unpofessional, and I am going to support this. Who=ever this new user is that has brought up this again...good and please I do encourage him to go read the previous intro discussion, and there is proper opposition for change Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 08:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, does anyone need to link back to the last few dozen pages of "should we put a notice about the bias in the introduction"? We've debated this a million times and the general consensus is that it is valid to place a notice about the alleged bias into the introduction. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, fourteen sockpuppets and one editor do not change consensus. As previously stated, more than eighteen editors participated in formulating the consensus version -- we haven't even approached that number here, and also keep in mind that most of the editors who participated in the consensus version are still actively participating in the development of this article (and have not advocated a departure from the consensus version). Beyond all of that, what occurs at other articles or on other news stations is irrelevant in this article. /Blaxthos 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be forgetting this conversation earlier in this talk section

That discussion and changes conderned changing the article when comparing to CNN, so if what happens w/ other news media outlets is unimportant,,,than why was this agreed with so quickly and allowed to change....after all since when two two editors agreeing create a consensus or change???? I find it somewhat offensive to see such quick agreement and change over this, when my simple recommendations considering the change of one word are met with such extreme opposition. again what happens at CNN holds no relevance here, Right? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and dumptrucks. The topic of that particular change was the ratings (as compared to other news outlets). When the content deals with other news agencies, it's appropriate. When you're trying to justify a change by pointing to another article, or trying to weasle a comparison in to the article, it is inappropriate. Please, we've had enough of this over the last half a year! /Blaxthos 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Blaxthos I am sorry if I got you in a tuffle, but that was not my attention, again I admire your conviction as I hope you do mine. I am also sorry that this has gone on for over half of a year. But come on, it is still open for discussion I believe you have the time to respond to my most humble replies..so the matter is not closed it is still under conversation...bear with me on this. Also I am sorry that so many loser, cry-baby sockpuppets have come in here. as you know I am simply an editor trying to do what I see as right, and you should be able to understand this. But what a sockpuppet says has nothing to do with me. I am a separate entity so do not lump me into that category. With all due respect for your great Wiki contributions Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Until you can demonstrate that consensus has changed then no, it's not an open-ended dialogue that can be re-visited every time someone (or sock puppet) comes along and questions why the current format exists. Perhaps what [you] think is right is not the best approach -- you need to respect the WP:CONSENSUS that was reached by more editors than have participated in any subsequent discussion (even if you count all the sockpuppets). Instead of pushing your own viewpoint, please adopt the consensus version (as the rest of us have) and move along. Thanks.  ;-) /Blaxthos 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, under Wiki guidelines no topic is ever closed for discussion, so as long as I am here this is open-ended. I much appreciate your Wiki contributions as a great editor who will probably be an admin. someday, but I have asked you nicely to discuss this without hostility. or outside of this forum through e-mail. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's be fair here -- no issue is ever terminally "closed", however it is incumbant on you to recognize that this is a controversial topic in which a wide rangs of viewpoints exist. More than eighteen editors of various viewpoints addressed the intro issue months ago using approved wikipedia consensusbuilding methods (opinion poll, multiple RfCs, etc.). Everyone compromised to come up with a version acceptable to all viewpoints, and we all gave a little (that's what a compromise is).

Now, please regonize that it is your responsibility to review what has already occured, especially the fact that the same position you advocate was represented in the forumalation of the current version. Likewise, it is the responsibility of those who advocate change to show how consensus has changed. It is not our responsibility to continue to point out the reasoning for the consensus over and over, and it is especially bad form for you to try and dig up this corpse every time a new editor (or sockpuppet) comes along.

Many, many editors have pointed out the same. If you truely want to help, then accept that we all have to live with the compromise version (until consensus changes and we formulate a new version). Help new editors understand the why instead of immediately jumping up and down and trying to push your viewpoint through. Also, don't act surprised or upset when other editors lose patience with you -- you've been told several times. It's time for you to assume good faith that the current version was formulated properly, instead of disrespecting everyone who participated by repeating the same position every two weeks. /Blaxthos 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note! I have complimented you and your contributions, and have shown no disprespect, so I expect the same Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would believe we are respecting your opinion, but we also believe that the consensus on this issue in the past has been to compromise on leaving a mention of the perceived bias in the introduction. At the moment, this may be worth re-debating, but the past arguments are worth referencing to. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 05:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of effort that was put into the current consensus version (which included two RfC's and lead to two formal RfARB requests), I counsel caution when trying to re-open discussion. I still believe that it is necessary that a more-or-less clear demonstration of WP:CCC before asking all of us to re-hash this issue. Also keep in mind we've been hit with countless sockpuppets, and when good faith editors new to the discussion try to push through a change at every opportunity (instead of adopting the consensus version, as the rest of us did) it may result in less patience than some other situations. It's hard to continue to WP:AGF when we seem to be repeating the same explaination every week. Offense not intended, OFBTP, but I'm not really going to sling compliments around when editors have to continually explain this to you. /Blaxthos 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I will review all past recommendations, but so far the ONLY editors to try and 're-explain' have been Blaxthos and Chris. SO I dont seem to be upsetting all these other editors you speak of. But I agree with you and will review to see if there is cause to perhaps re-open discussion for change. Thank you for your patience with me (a new editor). But Please stop lumping me in the same category as these sockpuppets that is what I find to be disrespectful. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Offense not intended, but I think you'll find us more accomidating if we don't have to repeat this over and over. I have no ill feelings towards you (nothing on wikipedia is ever personal, IMHO). I find your lack of faith regarding the formulated version disrespectful to all of us who worked so hard on formulating it, mainly because the points you bring up were covered at length previously. Do due dilligence before you jump on the bandwagon. I believe that there are dozens of editors (most of whom participated in the consensus building effort) watch this page -- just because I'm the only one who takes the time to explain this to you over and over doesn't mean it's any less valid. And just to be fair, I've seed editors and admins tell you the same thing I have (repeatedly) -- AuburnPilot, Ramsquire, etc -- so please be very careful when saying "so far the ONLY editors to try and 're-explain' have been Blaxthos and Chris", because it's simply not true. If you want more respect and less association with sockpuppets then it's probably a good idea to make sure your claims are accurate (see previous sentence) and start working WITH the community instead of siding with every sockpuppet that comes around. Just to be clear, I welcome your input and your additions to the article, but only insofar as you act as part of the community. I have no doubt you will become a part of our little community. Again, no personal offense is intended. /Blaxthos 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one of "all these other editors", I don't see any need to repeat what Blaxthos has repeatedly and patiently explained to you. I fully support his comments here. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos, we know your position on this issue. We cannot, however, after months still accept your comments in new and consistent discussions that arise. I am asking you, respectfully, to remove yourself from any and further discussions about the subject of percieved "bias" of the network in this article; consensus can change, and you are not an authority to submit to when users are editing Wikipedia. Especially on controversial subjects such as this, we are expected to hold differing opinions. However, disallowing any such change for months without a significant reasoning is a sign of undeclared authority; Wikipedia is open for this reason. Now, the report that is used as a source specifically states that 69% of national media (let's not forget, these may be competitors) respondants to the survey identified FNC as a "conservative news organization." The current version of the opening states:

“

Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions

”

This is not detailed enough. The NPOV policy makes it as clear as possible that when there are details to express about a controversial opinion being added in an article, be sure to include all details known to "excuse" Wikipedia from allegations of contributing or "passing on" any bias. Quite honestly, the opening statement is in a grey area for the NPOV policy right now; it surely does not pass the WP:VERIFY policy, however. There is no criticism of FNC of being a percieved "conservative news organization" in the source, just a statement that the national media who responded to the specific study identified FNC as a "conservative news organization." Editing it to conform to these policies is the only thing that should be discussed right now; if we cannot come to a conclusion shortly, expect this article to be tagged appropriately. --Mrmiscellanious 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth should he remove himself from the discussion? That's absurd. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, every point you've brought up was covered at length in the formulation of this version -- please read the archive. As far as changed consensus, we've established that (save one or possibly two editors) all subsequent "editors" pushing this (same) point of view (that was brought up in official WP:RFC actions) was covered at length. It is my understanding and belief that when more processes and procedures are used to formulate a consensus version, more proof is necessary to show consensus has changed. I do not claim to be any sort of sergeant at arms here, however I will continue to be dilligant in ensuring that we indeed follow the rules and respect the decisions we worked so hard to achieve. As I said previously, while I don't speak for everyone (or anyone else), I believe there are many who are following this conversation and who implicitly agree with my stance -- you've now seen two admins explicitly agree. Additionally, I find it severely distasteful and indicative of a lack of understanding of the principles of wikipedia that you would ask or tell me to remove myself from the discussion (that's called censorship). I accorded great respect to all viewpoints during the consensus building effort (go read my comments). From WP:CCC: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. -- this is exactly what I have done: adopted the consensus outcome (a process in which you participated!) and advocated it as my position (which it was not, originally). I have no doubt that if I got hit by a bus in an hour, there would be many others who would carry the same torch in the same way. Thanks. /Blaxthos 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FTR-- I also support Blaxthos's comments on this issue supporting the consensus. I just don't feel the need to reiterate that support for every sockpuppet or new account that raises the old argument. As Blaxthos points out above, I didn't agree with the outcome, but I did agree to abide with the current version. I ask other editors to do the same. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning and Expanding History

Reading through the history section, it seems that it might be worth it to see if we can revise the first paragraph in the History section back to the previous editions which focused more on the actual introduction, not the perceived bias which has followed the introduction of the network. Additionally, it seems it might be worth it to expand upon the network's slow rise into the top of the ratings, though that might have already been covered in the Ratings section of the page. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the removal of the slogans, and I removed the changes you've made. Using words like "innovative" seems to be pushing a POV (which seems to align with your self-identified political views); adding stuff like Graphics were designed to be colorful and attention grabbing, and to allow people to get.. is completely original research -- you're telling us why instead of the previous version (which just told us what). Reverted. /Blaxthos 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who did the rewording, but the removal of the slogans seemed needed in my own perspective in that it seems like trivial information, not actually crucial for the article in large. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Could I please have a glass of water to go with my foot?  :-) I should have paid more attention to the diffs; my sincere apologies. As far as the slogans go, I believe that the controversy surrounding their choice of slogans (as illustrated in this article and a sub article) provides reasonable justification for their inclusion. /Blaxthos 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ainsley Rinehardt

She is a new contributor to the channel. -Amit, 03/10/07

Australian-American Roger Ailes

Since when did Wikipedians begin to state the ethnic backgrounds of United States Citizens? I have spent very little time on Wikipedia over the past week...so did I miss something here? Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since early 2003. As the diff shows, this is because FNC is an american-based news channel with a foreign history, which is entirely relevant considering the impact this organization has on the United States writ large. In four years years, I don't think this has been raised as a significant issue, and considering that the station was founded while still under Australian control, I can't see how this is an issue now. It almost looks like you're looking for ways to find problems, with an ultimate goal of sterilizing this article. You're reaching a little too much, IMHO. /Blaxthos 18:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a simple question, it appears tht you are 'looking for ways to find problems' Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it sure looks like you're nitpicking the intro, and I've seen editors in the past find other things to take issue with when they don't agree with a consensus. My apologies if this isn't the case, but if it's truely a simple question you could simply take two minutes to dig through the diff's and answer it yourself... asking it here, and in the manner you did (along with the other tensions) makes it appear that ulterior motives could be in play. /Blaxthos 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking this b/c the last time I heard mention of Roger Ailes, was, when the Chinese conspiracy theory editor came on-board. So I was wondering if there was actually a compromise w/ such a "character" Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 00:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Nah, his point was so far off the radar that it had no chance of affecting the article -- there is an ongoing sockpuppet case against him for similar conduct on other articles. My only question is if he really believes the things he says, or if it's just an elaborate troll attempt. /Blaxthos 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the elaborate attention to "detail" contained in his comments...He is most likely a 'true believer'. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Source for "criticized as advocating conservative political positions"

Regarding this statement:

"Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions"

Is there a better source available? (That's a mostly rhetorical question, I'm pretty sure there is). I went to the cited source, and the closest thing I found is the paragraph around this statement:

"And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists."

All this says to me is that a lot of journalists think Fox News is conservative. It seems like too narrow a group to support the broad statement in the intro, and it doesn't even explicitly criticize Fox News for said bias. As it stands now, it seems like the opening statement is a little weaselly. I think this would be much improved by just finding a reliable source out there that simply says "Fox News has been criticized for being conservative", or even "Fox News is biased and here's why...". Can anyone help me find a good one? Cogswobble 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that several prominent Democratic Party leaders have boycotted Fox and vocalized a dislike for the network would certainly cover it adequately, I would think. Did John Edwards, Harry Reid, or Howard Dean ever say anything concise on the matter last month? Italiavivi 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cogswobble: Your concern has been both voiced and addressed many many times in past. Surf through the last three or four talk page archives above.  :-) /Blaxthos 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...well I just read more bitter argument than I cared to. I'm afraid I can't say I was totally thorough in my reading of the archives, but it seemed to be mostly about the wording of the intro, and not about the source. Can you point me to some discussions of the citation?

I originally brought this up because I followed the link to check it out, and I didn't really find the information I was expecting. Cogswobble 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The information is general knowledge so it really doesn't need a citation in the intro. The source was added to satisfy one editor's concerns about weasel words or verifiability. The source is there not as support for the assertion, but as evidence that the perception exists, and that said perception is widespread. Even among this sample of journalists, who all can't be considered left-wing, or critics of Fox News, the perception was very strong. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need citation? It's pretty clear from going through these talk pages that the statement is a pretty controversial statement - which from my understanding of wikipedia policy means that it does need citation, am I wrong in my understanding of policy? Like I said, all I'd like to see is a better source for this. I went to the source not expecting a statement as "soft" as the one I found. Cogswobble 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nosir, it does not. Check out WP:LEAD as well as the megabytes of discussion that has already settled this issue, as well as the (admittedly under construction) FAQ at the top of this page (or the discussion about the FAQ at the bottom of this page). To save you a little bit of legwork, the intro is just an overview -- to elevate one particular source above the rest into the intro violates WP:NPOV and assigns undue weight to whatever source is mentioned in the intro. The real test is that the infro summarized is WP:Verifiable later in the argument, which it most assuredly is. Again, go read past discussions, or watch the evolving FAQ at the very top of this page. /21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Cogswobble, the language of the intro has changed slightly from the post RfC period. Back then it read, "Fox News is seen by critics and observers of the channel as advocating conservative political positions" which in conjunction with the survey of journalists nively illuminated the perception of bias. The current version seems to require a source stating this criticism (if one was needed, which it still is not). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wouldn't hurt to find a better source for the current version then, would it? Cogswobble 23:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or to simply revert back to the original text. As I have just done.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ramsquire, let's stick to the consensus version. My apologies for not checking before assuming the version hadn't changed. /Blaxthos 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you guys have a problem if I just added some references? Something like:

"Fox News is seen by many critics of the channel as advocating conservative political positions^[2][3]; the channel denies allegations of bias in its news reporting.^[4]"

As I said, my only concern was that I followed the link to find some criticism of Fox News, and didn't really find what I expected. The Journalism report does (IMO) satisfy the "observers" part of the new (old?) statement, so I'd just like to add a reference to satisfy the "critics" part. Cogswobble 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object, as this was both explained and covered in previous RfC's. The only requirement in such a claim in the intro is verifiability, which occurs later in the article. Elevating any sources gives them undue weight, and WP:LEAD specifically states only a brief overview is prudent. /Blaxthos 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't object as strongly as Blaxthos, but there are two problems. One it isn't just critics that hold those views, as evidenced by the journalist poll-- that many people can't all be critics. Two, undue weight as to the opinion of fair.org, and three, if we use Fair.org it would open up an unnecessary can of worms concerning it's political bias, and there is no reason to that considering a citation isn't really necessary as this perception is such common knowledge. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO - the best citation would be something that just flat out stated that there is a perception of bias at Fox News, which is actually what I was looking for when I first visited the current reference. What about adding this reference to the sentence:

[8]

I just noticed that in that interview Rupert Murdoch says "People think we’re conservative but we’re not conservative". It seems to nicely cite both the claim of perceived bias, and Fox News' denial of the bias. Cogswobbletalk 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And because of that statement, I've added it to the end of the sentence as a source for the denial of conservative bias. The quote is listed within the reference for easy access as well. - auburnpilot talk 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job finding that cite, Cogswobble. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetitive explainations & template

I am considering working on a template or talkspace box to be placed at the top of the page with an attention grabbing graphic and something alone the lines of This article is the subject of much controversy and has been crafted by way of WP:CONSENSUS. The following are topics often of concern to editors not familiar with this article (click for explaination):' Followed by explainations of the intro wording, the bias sources, any other issue we seem to be covering every seven days for johnny-come-lately's. Anyone want to help me with that (both in terms of constructing the template/box, and formulating accurate/acceptable explainations of any controversies)?

/Blaxthos 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with such a template. I think in one of the archives, I gave an explanation of the intro and the consensus about various arguments. If you want to use it go ahead. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. I'm out of town and only have about 5-10mins of dial-up access a day right now, but can lend a hand when I'm back early next week. It would definitely help relieve the repetitive tendencies of this talk page. auburnpilot talk 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

After having given explainations for most of the often asked queries (at least a dozen times each) I have a basic idea of how to address those issues (incorporating Ramsquire's summary). I don't think I'll be "all over" this one (real life sometimes interjects), but maybe I can get something together in a week or two. I have zero experience coding templates. Appreciate the help. I'll update when things have moved forward some. /Blaxthos 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Though it's probably not exactly what we are looking for, {{FAQ}} might be a good place to start. It can be seen in action on Talk:RuneScape with its corresponding page Talk:RuneScape/FAQ. If nothing else, the coding could be easily manipulated into a more detailed format. auburnpilot talk 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed another page where it is used: User:Z-vap/Image FAQ. Might actually work quite well for our purpose. auburnpilot talk 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have constructed a very basic FAQ. I only jotted down a few mental notes -- it's not anywhere near production ready. Guys, feel free to jump in and help clean up the language, clarify points, add any controversies or points i missed, expand and whatever else. I'll try to put more time into it in a few days. /Blaxthos 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to call a duck a duck?

After seeing this:

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

I think it is time to lable Foxnews propaganda.

Mayorcheese 03:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a violation of our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. auburnpilot talk 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What would Fox have to do before it could be labled as Propaganda? Mayorcheese 04:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It would actually have to be propaganda. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, so you would have to provide reliable sources to back up the statement. Simply characterizing their screen captions as questionable doesn't meet the requirements. - auburnpilot talk 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would a news anchor on CNN qualify as a reliable source?

Mayorcheese 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context. CNN is a competitor, and is it a "news" story or an "editorial"? Even if you do find a source, you still can't say "Fox News is propaganda". You have to say "XYZ claims that Fox News is propaganda". Bytebear 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mayorcheese - there's already a section in this article about Fox News controversies, and there's an additional entire article about it [9]. If there's a reliable source for a statement about Fox News as propaganda, I'd say feel free to add it to one of those places, as Bytebear suggested. Cogswobble 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not That Interested/Consensus

Well, after reading much of the last few archives, I'm not really interested in getting into a fight here, I'd rather spend time on things care a little more about.

I will say that after reading the archives, as you've suggested, I find it striking that the primary objections to any changes that various editors have suggested to this area have consistently fallen along the lines of "This has already been decided by consensus, please read the archives."

What's striking is that the handful of editors that have taken that advice (including myself) have disagreed that consensus has been reached.

e.g. - Bytebear "it seems to me that you are trying to sway any arguements your way by claiming there was a consensus. Clearly there was not.""

When I first visited the page, I didn't think much of the intro other than think that the sources could be improved. Ironically, after reading the archives, I'd be more inclined to remove the bias statement than leave it in.

And yet editors here are planning on applying a template to this page to imply that consensus has been reached, and therefore new editors shouldn't bother discussing changes. I don't mean to imply that if some editors here feel strongly that something should (or shouldn't be included) that they shouldn't be willing to vigorously patrol the page and engage editors in discussion. I just don't think that they should be trying to end discussion abruptly by insisting that consensus has been reached. Cogswobble 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, but I posit that you simply did not read back far enough. In the most recent archive (if not on this page) I provided links to the actual discussions where the points that have continually been asked were covered (still by more editors than have subsequently raised concern). We have several administrators and longtime editors who have explicitly supported the Consensus argument (read a few sections up). Dig a few archives back if you want to find the meat (october-november 2006 IIRC) -- I promise we wouldn't say a consensus was there if it wasn't there (and hard-won). /Blaxthos 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to "be more inclined to remove the bias statement than leave it in," you'd be more wrong than right. The introduction, or lead, should be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article," while also "briefly describing its notable controversies". If anything, the intro needs to be expanded. While a source is not required, as this is an overview of a topic addressed later in the article, one was provided to address the concerns of weasel words. Personally, I don't object to additional sources so long as the wording (which was the main focus of this discussion, which started in Oct. '06) stays the same. But, I bow to consensus and a great deal of work was put into the current version. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the section in WP:LEAD that you mentioned, and I agree that it's a compelling argument for leaving the statement in the intro...as I said, whether or not the statement should exist wasn't even something I personally considered before I read the archives. However, WP:LEAD also says "should be capable of standing alone" and "should be carefully sourced as appropriate", so I'm not sure why you say a source is not required. Again, after reading the archives, I can understand why some of the editors are frustrated, but it doesn't seem necessary to try to terminate discussions on improving the article. Cogswobble 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with changing or even removing the citation. As stated repeatedly, it was originally placed there in an attempt to placate one holdout editor and isn't even necessary. Is there any real doubt that many people feel Fox News advances conservative political positions? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Blaxthos' comments above:

I had in fact read back through all the archives that you mentioned, and I did not see strong consensus. I do see a lot of emphatic assertions by a some editors that consensus was reached. But I also see at least several different editors who at least claim that they've read the archives (including myself) who don't see strong consensus.

I also find it curious that you mention that one editor was "brought up on RfArb charges due to conduct". After digging around, I found a rejected arbitration request for this user, and when I looked at their block log, they had never even apparently been blocked (unless I'm looking at the wrong logs, which is possible). You appear to be trying to discredit this user, but that seems a little hollow given that no arbitration took place, and that the user never appears to have actually been censured.

I applaud the efforts of editors who are vigilant in engaging editors in discussion about controversial changes to this article, I just think that it could be done with a more welcoming attitude, and without using claims of consensus as a singular point of argument against discussion. In fact, a few of the editors here were willing to discuss some references I wanted to add, instead of making a blanket refusal on the basis of "consensus has already been reached".

Also, please note that I don't actually want to change the wording of the intro, I really don't have a strong opinion about it. I just think that this talk page could stand to be a lot friendlier. Cogswobbletalk 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_FNC_allegations_of_bias

I don't know how to make that anymore clear. RfC's (two) were called for consensus. My apologies if I'm a little short with newbies at this point, but please please please re-read ramsquire's comments, my comments, and auburnpilot's comments regarding this. We're going in circles here -- please assume good faith that the current version was properly formulated via a massive consensusbuilding effort. Several administrators have made comments validating my position above. It also doesn't help that you're re-arguing points that were brought up/considered/answered in previous discussions, and that the majority of accounts bringing up the same issues over and over have been sockpuppets. Sorry if you got caught in the crossfire.  :-) Regarding cbuhl79's conduct and arbitration action, if you bothered to read the case and subsequent discussions (as well as the actual archive) I think that it's obvious he discredited himself (and has since left wikipedia). Also, please note that his case was precident setting, in that more ArbCom members voted to accept the case than reject it -- the fact that it actually was rejected caused a major review of the ArbCom acceptance procedure. /Blaxthos 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that it was not reviewed by ArbCom - the reason for the rejection of the request is moot, as is the fact that he has left wikipedia. Frankly, from what I read in these archives and on the failed Arbitration request (and a few tidbits on talk pages I glanced at), that editor did no more or no less to discredit himself than several of the other editors involved.

As far as the sockpuppet issue, there appear to have been some postings by sockpuppets removed from the talk pages, so I can understand some of the frustration, but otherwise, on this page alone there are three different editors (Mrmiscellaneous, Offorbythepeople, Bytebear) who it seems clear are not sockpuppets who share my questioning of the "consensus" argument. (Note that I don't necessarily share their opinions on the content).

As far as the consensus issue, I have re-read several times and I stand by what I said. Cogswobbletalk 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. This is the talk page for discussing changes to the article's topic. It is not the place to discuss involved editors' actions during that discussion. The change has been made, the citation was added, and unless there is something more to add, it's time to move on. Otherwise, take it to the individual editor's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My initial comment was objecting to the template which is still applied to the top of this page. Incidentally, at least one section of the template "The introduction mentions controversies about Fox News without citing references." seems totally irrelevant now, since a source has been cited. Cogswobbletalk 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.