Talk:Fox News Channel controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News Channel controversies article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives
  1. February 2006 – July 2006
  2. June 2006 – August 2006
  3. July 2006 – July 2007

Contents


[edit] dont remove my talk posts again!

two former al jezeera employee's who are Jordanian Muslims who quit fox news because the wernt critical enough on Israel does not count as a controversy. If you dont beleive these people have a bias then feel bad for youTowers84 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

do Not revert without good reasonTowers84 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

you know what your right you wikinas I guess my complaint isn't valid. now I'm off to the spain article to edit that it rightfully belongs to the jihad BECAUSE I CAN CITE A SOURCE! or should I go to the U.S. page and mention that soon it will burn and its whores will be raped as rightful spoils for the righteous because as you know, I can cite a source. consider the source. UNLESS you can give me a reason why this is controversial, and not just two Arabs being sympathetic to hezbollah (yeah thats in the article) I shall continue to remove it. Towers84 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop removing it. Though just because you dont agree with me does not automatically make what I say an "insane rant". I have just as much right to post here as anyone. It is neither fair nor proper to remove my posts on the discussion page. Don't be childish, refute my position. Towers84 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Towers84, your approach is generally not acceptable here at WP. That said, I have reviewed this incident and agree that it does not belong for a couple of reasons.

  1. It is currently factually wrong. These two people were not employed by FNC. They did logistical support for FNC in some capacity, but they were never employed by FNC as the article would suggest. Their "Resignation" letter states that they were never employed by FNC. Thus, they should not be listed as "Producers" for FNC, since they were never in that capacity, and it should not be stated that they "Resigned" since they were never in the capacity to resign in the first place.
  2. Their reason for resigning (which they could not have done) is not specified, outside of simply accusing FNC of being pro-Israel and biased. This is akin to having a freelance writer state they are not going to do freelance work for someone in the future because they don't like that company anymore.
  3. This was not reported in any mainstream news as a story, but simply two freelancers (who were never employed by FNC to begin with) making a political statement against FNC, without stating any specific criticism.

Unless significant reason can be shown why it should remain it should be removed immediately. Even if it is to remain it must be rewritten as it is currently not factual. Arzel 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, it certainly looks like you're making terrorist threats. "should I go to the U.S. page and mention that soon it will burn and its whores will be raped as rightful spoils for the righteous". I'll take it to ANI from now on. /Blaxthos 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now thats just being childish and you know it. First you attempted to censor me by removing my talk posts and when I attempt to make a point you accuse me of terrorist threats! Read the Koran while a beautiful and poetic book is full of dark age morality (hence the whores comment). look up "America" and "burn" on google. While depressing it does make my case, souces could be cited. By ANI what do you mean?Towers84 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ANI. Andyvphil 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the "Anonymous" issue?

Anyone going to add it? (unsigned, by 209.144.25.189; 07:57, 10 August 2007)

[edit] Bias Wikipedia Editing

Should it include the wikipedia editing controversy that they completely rewrite the articles in their favor? One reference is here: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia_is_on.html It was on digg too: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Fox_News_Caught_Editing_Wikipedia_Changes_Included

Please sign your posts. The digg is just a link to the same oreilly radar article. I salvaged a dailykos link from the edit war history for that paragraph I added (temporarily, just in case it has legs) on this subject. Any more? (Feel free to add refs, but please don't lengthen the maintext unduly unless the subject acquires some weight.) Andyvphil 09:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) ...Er, actually it was in Fox News Channel that I split this subject from the "bias" subheading. Did gastric bypass surgery here too, now. Up to four cites, by combining. Andyvphil 10:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that blogs are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. As such, the "Wikipedia Edits" section should be removed as there is no sourcing that a) the alleged conduct is considered controversial or b) that the Foxnews employee or employees did anything wrong on the site. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The cites to the blogs verify the statement that it received much attention w.r.t. Fox News editing of WP articles on the blogoshpere. The reliable sources are online sites such as The Guardian, InformationWeek and The Huffington Post (the last being a politically liberal site, but a reliable source nonetheless, with a real-name byline the presentation of which is sanctioned by the publication, as opposed to being an anonymous blog). All three present verifiable evidence in support of the assertions they make. Thus far this issue has been seen by editors as inadequately notable for the article on Fox News Channel, but is sufficently notable and widely discussed to be notable in the context of this article, which specifically has to do with public controversies related to Fox News Channel. ... Kenosis 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is big enough. All this shows is that a few employees on one or two occasions made a few brief edits. This is hard to see as serious enough to be included here. JoshuaZ 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Most users editing this article have an anti-Fox agenda, it's no use trying to persuade them to be neutral.-DMCer 08:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick look at FOXNews shows it has carried two articles on the story, one by AP[1] (which mentions AP) and another by the London Times[2], neither of which mention Fox. Andyvphil 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that FOX News was directly involved in such issues volates WP:OR. Singling out Fox News from a news story about the issue in general violates WP:UNDUE. This issue should not be in this article. Bytebear 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried, I really tried to rewrite the paragraph about this issue in a NPOV way, but to say that FOX is somehow at fault for something that is so commonplace is just not particulararly controversial. It's like saying Oprah is controversial because she jaywalks. Bytebear 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing controversy with malfeasance. Andyvphil 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, so you're agreeing that it doesn't belong in this "controversies" article?-DMCer 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am observing that something can be a controversy even if FNC did nothing wrong. The response in this article ought not be omission, but NPOV treatment that allows the reader to discern that FNC did nothing wrong without that being said in Wikipedia's voice. Andyvphil 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not. There is no LAW that says you can't edit Wikipedia in a POV way. There is no LAW that says that you cannot edit Wikipedia if you are related to the subject. There are policies in place, but no one is going to be fined or arrested for editing Wikipedia. However, thre are laws against jaywalking, but the practice is so common, that it is a non-issue, but it is technically more controversial to jaywalk than to edit Wikipedia. So what makes this an issue, and Jaywalking a non-issue? I really on't want to be the Fox News Channel babysitter, but you give me no choice. Your claims of NPOV are so blantently false, that it's laughable. And your sly removal of the "fact" tag simply illustrates my point. Bytebear 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your response indicates, again, that you are in fact confusing controversy with malfeasance. Please read my answer to DMCer. (I can in fact imagine a scenario in which jaywalking becomes controversial.) And I removed the {{Fact}} tag because choosing to characterize Radar O'Reilly, Huffington Post , DailyKos etc. as "liberal blogosphere" was a matter of editorial choice of words which can be argued about here but for which a citation request is inappropriate. Since I commented the removal at length it hardly seems "sly".Andyvphil 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If I may, I want to firmly support the inclusion of the section on Wikipedia edits. This was discussed at the main article Fox News Channel and it was decided that it wasn't adequately notable to include there, but was reasonable here. I see no indication that it's not reasonable to include among the Fox controversies, because it has, according to notable reliable sources, been controversial -- not major, but controversial nonetheless. And this is an article about Fox News Channel Controversies. ... Kenosis 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, consensus was that adding a list of controversies on that page is generally a bad idea, and that this particular issue was so debatable on it's merit, that it definitely did not fit the criteria. That said, the jury is still out as to whether this is a controvery given WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, along with a lack of substantial references singling out Fox News. Bytebear 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A reference which "singles out" Fox News is not required, so long as the source adequately describes Fox's activity. Sources support the article, not vice-versa. Italiavivi 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
But when the reference states that Fox is among hundreds of similar companies with the same issue, it becomes not-notable (at least not on an individual level). Bytebear 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what policy are you using to support that argument? /Blaxthos 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, Blaxthos. Bytebear, the argument to dismiss Fox's actions based upon other companies doing the same thing is baseless. Italiavivi 06:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is nothing that definitively identifies FNC as the editor, other than IP addresses. I am still waiting to see the ultimate decision, but I don't think this should be an issue on any article because it involve WP self-reference. Arzel 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What else do you need? Fox News owns the IP that was used, ergo a FN employee made the edits. Beyond that, I don't think anyone is saying that FNC directly "ordered" or "authorized" the edits. Please stop trying to gloss this over. /Blaxthos 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on the content itself, there is no proof that the person who made those edits is an employee of FNC. If I logged out right now, I'd be editing from an IP address owned by Auburn University. That does not by any means make me an employee of the University.; it simply means I'm using their wifi. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So good to see you finally engaging, AuburnPilot.  ;-) A few points to consider: (1) I think we should make a distinction between a public university (which, last I attended Auburn University you had to have some sort of credentials to use their computing network; and my current University requires radius authentication before using WiFi) and a company (which, I can assure you, has strict access control policies). (2) The articles edited and the content of those edits are directly related to Fox News. Are you really asserting that someone unaffiliated with FoxNews just happened to scrub Shephard Smith's bio, or made the other edits? Some random WiFi thief who just happens to be stealing FNC's (unlikely) unsecured signal to make pro-FNC edits? I think that's a stretch of believability. (3) See Respondeat superior. (4) I think we're simply pointing out that the edits came from FNC's network. No statement needs to be made about WHO or WHY the edits were made; readers can use their own powers of deduction to determine if they think that FNC or its employees were responsible for said edits. In any case, not mentioning it is unacceptable, IMHO. /Blaxthos 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Point (2) would fall under WP:OR. It's a good theory, and probably correct, but you need a reliable source outside of our little discussion group to say it. My second point is Notability. Is it notable that Fox News has done this? Or is Fox News just one of many. The phenomenon is notable, but the individual participants and their contributions are not. Bytebear 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Notability is a concept that applies to the existance of articles, not to the content therein -- perhaps a subtle, but very significant, difference. Regarding original research, as explained elsewhere, there are now reliable sources that directly implicate Fox News, thus removing your WP:OR concerns. Regarding your claim of notability, assuming said concept applied here (which it does not, as has been explained countless times in the past (not directly related to this particular dispute)), who gets to decide what is "notable"? Are they anointed by you, or is there some sort of secret guideline? What exact requirements are you using to determine if you think something is notable? Obviously, my questions may include a small amount of hyperbole... You can't just censor away information you deem as being "not notable", and you certainly can't go shopping around for policies to use to exclude... first it's an WP:NPOV problem, then it was a violation of WP:OR, then it became a WP:RS issue, and now you're trying to use a notability guideline on article content? Where have I heard this logic before...? /Blaxthos 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Respondeat Superior does not apply to all conduct done by an employee during work hours. It only applies to conduct which is related to the duties of the employment. So if a janitor at FNC decides to start editting Wikipedia on his lunch break, that would not be imputed to FNC. However, if FNC hired someone (if it's a PR firm, that is under a different aspect of the law) to scour the Internet, to sanitize articles relating to the company, then respondeat superior would apply. There is obviously no proof of any of these companies doing that, so we'd have to keep that assumption out of the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Websites

I have removed the Fox Attacks external link. This website actively encourages people to contact local advertisers and pull their advertisement from FOX. I realize the external websites do not have to be NPOV to be included, but this website crosses the line in that it targets local FOX affiliates. If you don't like FNC fine. When you tell people to contact FNC about specific content (Media Matters) fine. Then you tell people to contact their advertisement for no specific content you have crossed the line. Arzel 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This was quite sensible. Thank you, Arzel. ... Kenosis 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We can't link to the websites of political organizations that advocate boycotts? This is a policy you'll need to quote to me. Then we can start making a list. It'll be an interesting list. Andyvphil 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
See Truthiness. It doesn't actually violate any policy, but Arzel tends to go with what "feels" right to him, regardless of what is actually stated in policy. /Blaxthos 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh Blaxthos, why do you make assumptions? I didn't realize I needed to quote policy when something is obvious. FOX Attacks, fails both WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. This is undue weight because you have an external link for no specific reason, other than stacking. FOX is not a relevant source for anything, other than the recent WP edit minor incident. To include their site within the external link section is obviously a situation of undue weight. FOX Attacks also fails because they are an extremist site.
Extremist sources
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
From FOX Attacks own website they acknowledge their goal to attack FOX by targeting FOX Advertisers and starting petitions targeting FOX. As such, they can not be viewed as a reliable source. From their own FAQ.
Q: I cannot stand to watch FOX Noise Channel, is there something I can do?
A: Yes! You can still contact advertisers without having to actually watch the channel. There are lots of brave folks out there willing to overload their TiVos.
Q: What about national advertisers? It looks like you're just focused on local ones.
A: Yes, for right now we are targeting local advertisers for calls, but we are collecting information on national advertisers for the future.
As I stated earlier. If you want to contact FOX about specific comment and call them on it (like Media Matters) fine, but when you are actively attacking the entire organization, you have crossed the line. Arzel 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If the site isn't being used as a source, then we don't really need it, do we? If it doesn't add anything to the article, cut it. Parsecboy 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
FoxAttacks need not be a RS to appear as a WP:EXTernal link. It appears to be a site "which fail[s] to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". The fact that it advocates boycotts doesn't make it extremist, merely highly partisan. I didn't add it, but the weakness of the arguments so far for removing it is enough to convince me to revert until someone makes a better argument. My bias is in favor of supplying navigation to relevant material, trusting the reader to make up his own mind. Andyvphil 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) WP:RS doesn't apply to WP:ELs. The extremist argument doesn't hold much water, and is highly subjective -- any organization that calls for a boycott of a particular organization is "extremist"? Negative. See Andyvphil's comment. /Blaxthos 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The link isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Whether or not it calls for a boycott shouldn't even matter specifically, it's the content and goals of the site that make it unsuitable. -DMCer 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you justify that with policy, or is this just a personal opinion? It seems to fall under a site "which fail[s] to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". /Blaxthos 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Can someone explain to me what part of WP:EL is being claimed to be violated here? JoshuaZ 23:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed it because it fails as a WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. It was intially used as a source for the Wikipedia Edits and then added as an External Website. It fails as a reliable source because it advocates a financial attack on local FOX affiliates. I believe this is a good example of an extremist website, where the only purpose of the website is to hurt a business finanically, and is certainly not appropriate for an encylopedia. I also removed it because of undue weight. There are already watchdog sites within the external link section, the inclusion of this website seems to say that anyone that has an anti-FOX website should get to include theirs as well regardless of whether it is used as a reference. Seriously, I wish everyone would get over their own personal bias and dislike of FOX, the inclusion of sites like this makes WP a worthless pile of mudslinging. Blaxthos and Italiani are going to disagree with me because they already don't like me. Arzel 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment on content not the contributor. I would agree that this site should not be used as a source of information as it fails WP:RS. But as an external link for the controversies article, it seems to be ok, as the bar for this portion of articles seems to be ridiculously low (and if you don't believe me, check out the JFK assassination articles. You'll see some of the dreck, lying and slanderous sites that are listed in the external links).Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am guessing you are probably right about some of the drevel on other articles, and they should probably not be included either. But that is neither here nor there because, as I have been told numerous times, you can't compare article content (which I think is crazy because that is what everyone does anyway). The fact of matter is that this is basically a mirror site for MoveOn.org, Media Matters and others. Only this site goes a step futher and tells you to contact anyone advertising with FOX and complain with them about FOX so that FOX is hurt financially. I seriously don't see how a source can fail RS but still be used as an EL in this regard. Extremist Vigilantistic sites should simply not be allowed as external links. Arzel 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned the other sites as an example to see how low the bar had been set at this project. It's not my intention to engage in saying that if it's OK there, this particular link is OK. To be honest, I don't really have an opinion either way on this issue. I don't even know how these discussions on external links gets legs. Do people ever read these links and go to those sites? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly use ELs as navigation aids. So I think the conspiracy sites certainly should be linked to at the JFK assassination articles, though I would prefer them to be identified as "Conspiracy Theory Sites" rather than just "External Links". Anyway, this discussion doesn't have legs, just partisans. The idea that calling for economic secondary boycotts is "extremism" is nonsensical, and if the site is otherwise just a mirror of relevant (to this article) Media Matters and MoveOn material...well, that's convenient. Yes, it's mostly drivel, but it's part of the function of this article to cover "controversy" drivel in an NPOV fashion and thus expose it for what it is. Andyvphil 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how often people go to them, but linking within a WP article, gets you bumped up on Google search engines. Other sites already have credibility outside of simply being linked within a WP article, but FOX Attacks doesn't. Nothing more than free advertisement IMO (this is not why I feel it fails WP policy however). Arzel 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia sets the attribute (rel="nofollow") on its pages so that doesn't happen Andyvphil 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are correct. I am not sure when Wikipedia changed this, but I do know that less than a year ago sites listed within external links showed up on google searches. I think it is a good that they have changed this. Arzel 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Been sitting out for a while, but I just have to jump in here with regard to Arzel. First of all, stop making comments about editors instead of content. I'm getting tired of wandering along somewhere and repeatedly finding that you're talking shit about *me* instead of the arguments I make. Repeated violations of WP:NPA will get you censured -- count on it. Also, please double check your facts before asserting truth, because more often than not you're just plain wrong. By what you've said here, it's not a far stretch to believe that you want to remove said EL because you think "linking within a WP article, gets you bumped up on Google search engines" which is "free advertisement" and gives it "credibility". Absolutely incorrect (on all accounts), and it seems like you're hunting a policy to try and use to keep out external links with which you don't agree. When questioned directly by several editors about what part of WP:EL is being violated, I saw no response (but only accusations of people disagreeing with you because "they don't like [you]." I'm asking (for the third time) that you stop this kind of behavior or take it elsewhere. Thanks. /Blaxthos 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
His argument is that the Fox Attacks site violates WP:EL's "extremist" provision, I believe. Italiavivi 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
His risible argument... Andyvphil 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Blaxthos, why not read what I have written before becomming unglued. I have stated numerous times that FOX Attacks fails because of undue weight and for being an extremist website. I submit as futher evidence from their site.
Bravenewfilms is a proxy for FOX Attacks. Robert Greenwald started an supports both sites, and they contain the same content. He is also a well known activist in support of hurting FNC.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/5287-fox-attacks-the-environment
Seen enough? Now it's time to get to work. Join with us, the Sierra Club, and MoveOn to put an end to this propaganda and distortion by appealing to Fox's advertisers. Specifically, Home Depot. Why? Because Home Depot says they care about the environment. So we're giving them a chance to prove it by asking them to stop advertising on Fox until it changes its lies and distortions about the climate crisis.
Tell Home Depot to stop advertising on Fox!
No responsible company claiming to support the environment should be advertising with a corporation that consistently deceives America about the climate crisis. Rupert Murdoch says he wants to "get their house in order." Let's help him along by applying pressure to his bank accounts.
Thank you for joining us in this next FOX ATTACKS battle.
I don't support Fox's arguement regarding the climate, but this is clearly an extremist site, and advocate threatening FOX advertisers. Please explain to me why this site doesn't violate WP policy regarding external links. Arzel 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I said the list would be interesting. To FoxAttacks we can now add the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org. And the United Farm Workers (they boycotted Safeway). And the University of California (South Africa!). And... Yeah, we can keep ourself busy all over Wikipedia without half trying. Andyvphil 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel that further replies to Arzel will only result in more flaming and commentary on editors vs. arguments ("coming unglued", etc.). Please also add Focus on the Family to the list, along with other extremists like Martin Luther King, Jr.. /Blaxthos 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that what they (fox attacks) are proposing is quite different from a boycott. if someone were to boycott fox news, that would mean they stop watching, take it a step further and going after say, Home Depot, that would mean you stop shopping at home depot. demanding ads removed just to damage Fox is not protest, it is however petty. I personally can't stand any of the major news networks. so I don't watch them. thats a choice. freedom means the right to choose. And blaxthos was right this does draw a parallel to Dr. King, when people disagreed with him they tried to silence him instead of letting people make up there own mind. it's called free market, when people stop watching, the advertisers stop paying. pulling the plug before that is both restraint of trade and censorship. I say remove the link. Towers84 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop

Please refrain from edit warring re: Fox Attacks. This is not an endorsement of one side over the other, only requesting that we attempt to reach consensus on the talk page rather than continue reverting the same link. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk discussion was ongoing, they decided to start deleting mid-talk. They can hold their horses, and I'll revert so long as the Talk is ongoing. Italiavivi 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
How have we not reached a consensus? It's like, 8-1 in the previous thread to remove the "FOX Attacks" link.-DMCer 03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't count too good. Andyvphil 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to recount it, then work on your grammar. "You don't count too WELL", is correct English. -DMCer 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nitpicking minor grammatical errors on a site where not everyone speaks English as a first language does not help your case at all, DMCer. Keep it up, if your arguments are that weak. Italiavivi 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would think you'd agree that everyone should be able to count. Luckily, I'm not worried about weak arguments, as it seems you have just 2 people who agree with you.-DMCer 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You should have been perceptive enough to realize I was choosing not to use correct English. Someone who goes all Valley Girl in their written communications ("It's like, 8-1...") has no business playing grammer guru. Especially when it was, like, wow, 3-2, really, and now appears to be, like, 4-3. Andyvphil 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep digging.-DMCer 08:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep digging yourself, friend. Italiavivi 14:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) By my reading, this discussion appears to be about evenly divided on this issue — so, I think everyone should just stay calm and avoid name-calling and keep the discussion going. --Haemo 08:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
ha ha he called you friend.Towers84 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of bad external links

I am looking through the links on this article, and more than a few are in conflict with Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Bytebear 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the links in question, as we can only guess as to what you're referring right now. Parsecboy 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing a quick check, these should be removed:

I am sure there are many more that fit other criteria. Please review the list of objectionable linkings on WP:EL. There are a lot of links in this article and each should probably be reviewed. I an hesitant to keep many of the blogger type opinion links without corroborating sources. Bytebear 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those should be removed, especially the Daily Show clip, which we can all agree is comedy, and not really suitable as a reference. Parsecboy 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The controversy he is responding to is actually about the actions of FN rather than FNC, but comedy is just the medium. The point is serious enough. Andyvphil 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as longs as the facts are there and the point is valid the medium should not really matter.In fact I cant remember the last time the daily show needed a retraction. unlike FN,CNN, or MSNBC. Towers84 08:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A retraction for what reason? The Daily Show is a parody, just like SNL, the Colbert Report, and I am sure there are others. Everything they say is to assumed to be under the guise of a parody and not to be taken seriously. They can say pretty much anything they want without any fear of retraction. From that end they should never be used as a reference regardless of whether it is true or not. Arzel 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this Biography of Living Persons?

Why does this whole article have the Biolgraphy of Living Persons template on it? Thanks •smedleyΔbutler• 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Bytebear 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you •smedleyΔbutler• 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggested change by me

The section on Joseph Cafasso is not NPOV, IMO. It starts out 'The New York Times'. A lot of RW's think the NYT is not a RS. This Cafasso hoax and scandal is proven fact, and more important than this article makes it. I would like to change it to below:

  • For over four months in 2002, Fox News used fake 'military expert' Joseph A. Cafasso who said that he was a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces, won the Silver Star for bravery, served in Vietnam and was part the failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980. Cafasso assisted and shared tips with reporters, producers and on-air consultants at Fox. It was discovered that Cafasso had only served 44 days in Army Boot Camp and was discharged as a Private. After he left, Fox was criticized for using him as a 'Military Expert' without ever checking his record and credentials. [3] [4]

What does everyone think of that? Okay? •smedleyΔbutler• 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

First, fake 'military expert' is not neutral NPOV to me. Why not simply say,
  • For over four months in 2002, Fox News used Joseph A. Cafasso as a "military expert". He said that he was a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces, won the Silver Star for bravery, served in Vietnam and was part the failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980. Cafasso assisted and shared tips with reporters, producers and on-air consultants at Fox. It was later discovered that Cafasso had only served 44 days in Army Boot Camp and was discharged as a Private. After he left, Fox was criticized for using him as a 'Military Expert' without ever checking his record and credentials. [5] [6]
Second, your primary source is still the NY Times. A lot of RW's will continue to think the NYT is not a RS and there is nothing that can be done about it. All you can do is present the information and let the reader decide about the reliability of the information. Ursasapien (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would remove the quotes and italics for a more neutral version. Bytebear 06:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your wording is good Uruspan and Bytebear. I would use the Italics. Uruspan, look at the article on Cafasso. His fakery was proofed by many sources. There is no argument about it. To start this section out with 'The New York Times wrote' is (IMO) a attempt to discredit or slant the info. It can be put at the end that this was first discovered in the NYT and then confirmed in dozens of sources. By the way, the NYT published the phony BUSHGOV WMD claims through Judith Miller. Theyre RW too. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence

I reverted this unless this can be sourced. Thanks, --Tom 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of undiscussed name change

I've reverted the name change:

  • 18:58, 27 August 2007 Night Gyr (Talk | contribs) m (moved Fox News Channel controversies to Criticism of Fox News Channel: controversy indicates two active sides; many of these are unanswered)

This was completely unilateral and undiscussed. I don't really follow the logic in the one-line edit summary, either. Please discuss it here first... thanks! /Blaxthos 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed. It's had so long to have objections raised that the discussion is now in the archive. No one had any objection to the name, just someone complaining that the page was a list of criticisms or biased. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was discussed, but that was over a year ago, by people who aren't even participating in the discussions here. That's hardly a legitimate excuse to moving the page without asking anyone for consensus first. Parsecboy 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was about a month and a half ago, and I was the one who proposed it. See Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies/Archive_3#naming. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My take would be that these are two different/seperate topics/titles, so I guess nobody will be happy with a single title :). Could there be two articles or is that overkill/ridiculous? Anyways, what do I know :) Cheers, --Tom 13:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I must've missed it when I did a quick scan of the archives. Parsecboy 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a little overkill to have two articles of this type. You're right though, that they are two different things. Perhaps "Criticisms" would be the broader title (controversies would of course generate criticism). Any thoughts? Parsecboy 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the controversies crowd is going to like that title much. Two articles with seperate content might not be the worst thing? Anways, --Tom 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if any of them are around to comment. I agree that some sections of this article (such as the "Criticism of pundits") aren't really "controversies", and as such, do not belong here. I think "criticism" would be a better title. Parsecboy 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's based on precedent, since we have Criticism of Wikipedia for example. I think it's OR to diagnose a controversy in most of these cases, but "criticism" is obvious. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "criticisms" over "controversies" as it is less subjective. A "Controversy" is subjective to opinion, but a criticism can be presented as fact. Although, we should be careful about who is doing the criticism and remove most of the Blogosphere rhetoric. Bytebear 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "criticism" would be more appropriate. Similar media organizations have "criticism" in their title in this context. DMCer 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The only "similar media organization" would be CNN, and the Wikipedia article is named CNN controversies. I think we have two choices here. Retain the "controversies" name for both articles, and then prune all irrelevant non-controversial content from them. Or we change the names of both articles to "Criticisms of...".-Hal Raglan 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hal, you're incorrect. I'm not sure what you looked for, but you ou might want to see Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of The New York Times, Al Jazeera#Criticism and controversy, etc.-DMCer 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You´re not sure what I looked for? I said the only similar media organization would be CNN, and that article is named CNN controversies. I did no search, and never claimed I did. However, now that you have very helpfully pointed out some other articles, I do believe that precedent has indeed been sent for such a change. My only concern, which you did not address, is that if the Fox article is changed than the CNN article should also. I have made a proposal for such a title change on the CNN controversies talk page. I would assume that everybody here who is so eager to change the Fox title would fully support the CNN title change?-Hal Raglan 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the name change:

  1. Not all controversy comes from (or is related to) critics. See the substantial debate regarding (and the current state of) the introduction to the main article, Fox News Channel (specifically the sentence "critics and some observers...").
  2. "Controversy" has no implied or explicit connotation in the English language. Please show some supporting evidence from a reliable source (Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc.) if you're going to use this as rationale to change the name.
  3. It seems like some people want to change the name of this article, and then use that name change to justify culling out some content. While I may think that there is some extra content that shouldn't exist, changing the name of the article can't be used to sanitize the content contained therein, and definitely can't be used as a justification to change the name either.

/Blaxthos 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism doesn't mean it has to come from a professional "critic". The "other observers" you referenced ARE critics. Once again, see Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of The New York Times, Al Jazeera#Criticism and controversy, etc.-DMCer 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)-DMCer 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" is too narrow, and if some criticism isn't controversial...well, let's just let it in anyway. So, leave the title the way it is. Andyvphil 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I´m not sure I agree with the assumption that the name change will result in a justification for content being culled. It seems to me a ¨Criticisms¨ article would allow for much, much more content to be included. As the article is now, only a proven controversy should be detailed. With the name change, presumably the editors who wanted the change would then allow ANY criticism of Fox News to be included. As DMCer notes, criticism doesn´t have to come from a professional critic, simply from "other observers". Apparently any individual who makes a criticism automatically becomes a critic with views worth inserting into this article. I just hope that people so hellbent on making the name change understand that this will become a monstrously huge article.-Hal Raglan 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just get to the real point of this discussion. This and articles like this have become a repository for any and all issues that anyone has with the organization or person. Those that want to make sure everyone knows how much they dislike the person or organization are defending the current standard because they think those that want the change are trying to backdoor the article into "whitewashing" the article. When it shouldn't even matter, half the crap in here doesn't belong in an encycolpedic article one way or the other. As such I don't see a reason to change the name as it won't make any difference in the content or the attitude regarding these types of articles other than a pointless edit war and bickering between the two opposing sides. Arzel 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much of the info here, as well as most of the content in the CNN controversies article, is not notable. Anything that can´t be definitively shown as an actual controversy should be deleted from both articles. As I mentioned above, changing the name to ¨Criticisms of Fox News¨ will probably result in much more ¨crap¨ being inserted, not less, so I don´t understand the complaint about any potential ¨whitewashing¨ after the name change.-Hal Raglan 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above two points.DMCer 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion is pretty much dead, with Arzel, Hal, Andy, and myself all opposing a change. Though our rationales may differ, I think it's notable that Arzel and I actually fall on the same side of the fence on this one. I don't see a consensus to change forthcoming with so much opposition, so I think it's probably time to shelve the proposal. /Blaxthos 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Add me to the list of editors opposing the change, for the reasons given above (too loose/open, slightly less neutral, etc.) — xDanielx T/C 03:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trent Reznor Controversy

From wikipedia's page on nine inch nails:

In 2006, after being alerted by a fan website, Reznor issued a cease and desist to Fox News for using three songs from The Fragile on air without permission. The songs "La Mer", "The Great Below", and "The Mark Has Been Made" appeared in an episode of War Stories with Oliver North detailing the battle of Iwo Jima.[88] A post appeared on Reznor's blog, which read: "Thanks for the Fox News heads-up. A cease and desist has been issued. FUCK Fox Fucking News."[89][90]

It has citations. Anyhow, Fox Networks/News getting entangled in a violation of copyright laws obviously doesn't speak so well to their business practices. Does this merit a mention on this page?

160.39.129.60 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The citiations don't seem to be RS, one of them might be, but there is no followup on whether what FNC did actually violated any laws. It appears that FNC used some NIN songs, to which a blogger posted a message or email to NIN, and then Trent claims to have sent FNC a cease and desist note, but that is it. No further context as to what happened. I don't think it should be mentioned here without any context or better sources. Arzel 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News bent to pressure from Monsanto?

I've removed the following addition to maintext, made by RyanMatheuszik, until it can be improved upon.

* Former Fox News reporters have stated on camera that they were coerced by management to report the news in a specific fashion in line with major advertising concerns for the station.[7]

Inasmuch as "Fox News" redirects to "Fox News Channel", and the video alleges corporate involvement, I don't see any reason why we can't cover this here, as well as in the Jane Akre and Steve Wilson articles. I think the best way to do this is write an adequate NPOV treatement more or less identical in each of those two articles, with a shorter mention here, with crosslinks. Thanks to RyanMatheuszik for bringing this to my/our attention, but we need more specific text (see the section title above), dates, details, etc. and, better, a cite that is not a possible copyvio (though it is possible to link to Youtube if the owner can be found to have done so, as MSNBC does here (it's the link on "she called in...")).

So, I'm inviting Ryan to try again, and hope others will agree. Andyvphil —Preceding comment was added at 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also covered here. Andyvphil 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Per my previous comments on the primary FNC talk page, perhaps a link to the BGH controversy subpage should be included. Perhaps under "See Also" after mentioning of "The Corporation" a link to the BGH controversy since that is the most direct link to the story. Arzel 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with placing this here is that "the corporation" referred to by the reporters is not the Fox News Channel, but Fox Broadcasting Company. I understand that there was allegedly some threat to the Fox News Channel by Monsanto, which may have alerted NewsCorp but there is nothing to link this story to the FNC, an entirely different and separate entity. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Stewart

This paragraph has no reason to be in there other then he made a joke. I'm taking it out if no one disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CNN controversies versus FOX controversies-- night and day difference

Loaded lanuage, double standards, editorial biases that could only be described as perverse. I'm not sure hwo wikiepdia will ever get any real credibility when you have such overt bias all over the place.66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. You have the right to complain, just please point out specific examples instead of using blanket statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.217.183 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAIR and MMfA

FAIR and MMFA both describe themselves as Progressive (see liberal) groups. To say that FNC recieves criticism from interest groups without context of who they are is disengenious. Furthermore with the recent complaints by Democratic presidential contenders about FNC it is common knowledge that Democrats and liberals alike criticize FNC for what they claim is a conservative bias. Another alternative would be to label them by what they do, which is crititize those they feel are conservatively biased. Both groups state that they look only for what they feel is conservative bias. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a huge number of blanket statements in your comment that you need to document. To focus on the subject you need to find references that: One, that when they describe themselves as progressive that they by progressive means liberal (both of those terms are extremely vague, they can mean anything). Two, that they only look for conservative bias, only MMfA has stated anything like that. Carewolf (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what do you mean? FAIR declares themselves as Progressive on their own website, as does MMfA. Progressive is used interchangably with Liberal under almost all circumstances as an anti-thesis to conservative. I challenge that they are extremely vague, especially under the context by which FNC is criticized as being conservatively biased. Lets look at it another way. To say that they are "interest groups" implies a political agenda. FAIR and MMfA accuse FNC of taking a viewpoint consistant with Conservatives (ie Republicans). FAIR and MMfA both claim to be Progressive (ie Democratic, Liberal). Perhaps I should ask why you feel the label is unwarrented when both groups are quite proud of it themselves. Arzel (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Arzel, when does this ever end? You are not going to start labelling or characterizing the critics of FNC, not on the Fox News Channel article, not here, not anywhere on Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's sourced, he certainly can. Arkon (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only can. Should. Andyvphil (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Effect

Apparently Fox news made some hiddeously untrue statements about Mass Effect and very biased statements about games in general. I wonder where we should put this into the article.

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/22/1993/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU

Father Time89 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FNC is known for presenting issues in a decidedly biased way. That being said, of course they seemed to misrepresent the issue and make some false claims. However, in the large scheme of things this is just another minute example of a very vast problem and probably does not rise to the level necessary for inclusion. Should you find a reliable source that is critical of this exchange further discussion might be warranted, but for now it's probably a violation of WP:OR in general, and WP:SYN specfically. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is a very good example of falsities made by Fox News. We can use Jeff Brown's letter of view the game itself as a source.

link: http://kotaku.com/348187/ea-calls-fox-out-on-insulting-mass-effect-inaccuracies (letter from Vice President of Communication at EA that is critical of this exchange) 70.185.107.180 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see so far we have EA (the publisher) and the ECA (a consumer group).

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/24/ea-calls-out-fox-news-over-mass-effect-smear/

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/28/ecas-hal-halpin-calls-on-fox-news-to-retract-mass-effect-story/

And one of the speakers in the segment has since retracted her statements whilst Fox News has said nothing.

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect/

Do you think this makes it good enough for inclusion, (and to be fair the issue is still ongoing so it is not too late for Fox News to say something in the matter)? Father Time89 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul reporting

I believe that the plentiful criticism of Fox News' coverage of Republican candidate Ron Paul is notable of an edit. Please tell me your thoughts and I would be happy to include it. --Screwball23 talk 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are the critics? are there any reputable critics? Paul has 2% in the Florida polls. Any comments that he is not a real contender are valid. Bytebear (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He came in second in either Nevada of South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Any comments that he is not a real contender are valid"' This is not the place to float your political opinions, bytebear, and your POV is (again) noted. Regarding the actual issue at hand, I'm sure that any dedicated editor could find more than a few articles regarding this (at which point it will be included). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mort Kondracke

Under the Criticisms of Individuals section, Mort Kondracke is identified as a moderate. According to who? That's pure opinion and not backed up. What I don't understand here is why it's necessary that somebody should have to be a "far left" liberal to be a liberal. I mean Hillary Clinton can be considered a Centrist/Moderate, but you wouldn't hear any complaining if she filled Kondracke's seat. The whole section should be edited.Flproject131 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about his political leanings, but the section was linked to a topic that had nothing to do with the section (MM link was not relevant to the criticism). Second link was to Think Progress, which is a Blog site. So I removed the section all together. Arzel (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins

The section on Richard Dawkins also says quote "When Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, who is an outspoken atheist, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, he was simply labeled: "Atheist".[98]" I don't see how that is a conservative controversy. The man is an atheist, it's not a crime to label him as such on the television screen. This could possibly be reworded in a better way or removed all together. Flproject131 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and it has been removed. For one, it was simply a link to YouTube without any actual criticism. Additionally, the actual video didn't just label him as an Atheist, it switched back and forth between Atheist and Author. He was on the program specifically discussing views relating to his atheism, and his book which are both relevant to the labels he was given. Ultimately this appears to be OR. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree; there has been criticism on this point and will be re-inserted with appropriate citations in the near future. Also, please refrain from simply removing with the summary "removing youtube", as youtube is a delivery vehicle (not the actual source); cite the specific issue instead of blanket removal of sources that are delivered via youtube. In this particular instance the statement you removed violated WP:OR, not because the segment carried was via youtube. If the youtube video was of a reliable source/critic uttering criticism of the athiest(/author) issue then it would have been proper. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I still don't see what the problem (nor has it really been addressed) of why it is inappropriate to label somebody as an Atheist on TV when they are exactly that. It's hardly a controversy. It's just nitpicking at Fox. Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and its not inappropriate for Fox to label him as such. However, it may have been MORE appropriate to label him an author and atheist, but that doesn't make it inappropriate to label him an atheist. Anybody who really thinks this is a controversy has to have an anti-Fox agenda here.Flproject131 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They actually did label him both an Author and an Atheist for what appeared to be about equal time. It is nit-picking by FNC haters. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion of the criticism is irrelevant. The fact that it is criticism (or will be, once it's reliably sourced) is the crux of the issue. Again, your ad hominem characterization of those who support said criticism as "nit-picking by FNC haters" is yet another example of inappropriate behavior. When will it end, Arzel? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is no more irrelevant than yours. Why not get off your high horse. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't try to use my opinion of criticism to remove it from articles; you do. I try to remember that it's not my opinion (or yours) that means anything. The criticism exists, is germane, neutrally presented, and reliably sourced. Just because you think "It is nit-picking by FNC haters" does not give you any justification to remove it. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've explained this to you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brit Hume

"Brit Hume created controversy when he made the misleading claim that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California". Based on population, rather than unit area, a United States soldier in Iraq is actually 60 times more likely to be killed than an individual in California."

Both sources lead back to the original column by Brit Hume, and a criticism by Al Franken. You can't get any more biased than that. This is another section that needs to be edited or deleted entirely. Flproject131 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show the policy that suggests criticism by Al Franken is to be removed? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a policy, but if your trying to make a fair criticism Al Franken is hardly the person to use. The man is a self professed liberal. There isn't one person in the middle that would agree that a criticism by Al Franken serves a neutral purpose. Controversies occur when there is some kind of consensus amongst everybody from all sides of the political spectrum about the issue (like the discredited military contributor). There is no controversy when Al Franken says I don't like Fox News. Thats merely his opinion. And any numbers that come from Iraq that he disagrees with also fall within his opinion. Flproject131 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The first four words of your reply are sufficient. The rest is completely irrelevant -- please see our core policies and guidelines for additional explaination why. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you want to argue policy it violates Wikipedia:neutral point of view. You know it and I'm going to continue to fight for this to be a neutral article. The entire article should be renamed to Media Matters Criticisms of Fox News, because thats where about half the sources are coming from. To quote, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."Flproject131 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about Al Franken; now it's morphed into "the entire article should be renamed to Media Matters Criticism of Fox News". I'm sorry if you disagree with the criticism, but that's not justification to excise criticism. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-emptive warning

Notice to Arzel and Flproject131: Please don't start agreeing with each other, calling it a consensus, and begin removing proper & compliant information. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos. Please don't start with your assumption of Non-Good-Faith. Arzel (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't made any changes to this page at all, I've merely brought up important discussion points to make this a much more neutral and fair criticism of Fox News.Flproject131 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Good faith is assumed until there is reason to doubt such. That being said, I'm simply suggesting that you attempt to be more inclusive of established editors' opinions before falling into the pattern described above. It certainly would help assauge any worries of bad faith.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout - why not use sub-headings instead of bullet lists?

Surely we should use sub-headings instead of bullet lists? It is impossible to create a new paragraph within lists - and sometimes, for the sake of readability alone, that is required. Subheadings can be as small as you want - you can even use can use up to 5 of these '=====' - giving the same effect as bold: Smallest heading.

You don't have to use the sizes in sequence - ie. sub headings under a section heading can be any size you choose.

We are given these headings for this purpose, why not use them? Bullet lists are designed for a point or list system, where the elements are related in some way - not to separate different topics, like how we're using them now.

Sometimes heading can be hard to get right, granted - but we should stick to the style guidelines here, IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attacking FNC viewers???

I don't see how what the viewers believe is relevant to the bias of the network, rather it shows the political beliefs of the viewers. I don't think anyone is going to question that more right-of-center people choose to watch Fox News than left-of-center people, just like more left-of-center people would listen to NPR or watch Public Broadcasting. That doesn't prove or disprove network bias. Conservative-thinking people would be more willing to believe that there was a link between AQ and Iraq, or that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction. That doesn't really warrant mentioning in the article at all. It neither proves nor disproves a systematic bias by the network, rather it simply means nothing. Sadistik (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This information you refer to wasn't stating that people that watch Fox News have conservative opinions, it was that they believe things to be true which aren't. Which reflects somewhat on Fox News' ability to inform. In saying "Conservative-thinking people would be more willing to believe that there was a link between AQ and Iraq, or that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction." you're saying that Conservative-thinking people are more likely to be ignorant, which is obviously POV without sources, and shouldn't be reflected in the editing of the article other, e.g. by the removal on information regarding the viewers beliefs. --88.108.232.211 (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of Synthesis

Arzel has once again tried to cull valid criticism, with this in the edit summary: "Source was from 2004 and did not mention this study. Too be sure MM attacked CMPA, but this is SYNTH in this form.". The text removed is the following:

Media Matters has attacked the credibility of the study, claiming that it was "funded by right-wing foundations and conducted by individuals with conservative ties."

I have re-instated for the following reasons:

  1. There is no synthesis going on here. There is a direct quote from the source, and Arzel himself admits that "Too[sic] be sure MM attacked CMPA". The accusation of synthesis of thought carries absolutely no weight, and I am having trouble understanding how Arzel even draws that conclusion.
  2. The fact that the reference is three and a half years old is of no consequence. Wikipedia relies on reliability and verifiability, not recentism.

Arzel, before you go removing any more information using buzzwords in edit summaries please bring them up on talk and ask for the community's input. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


  1. My comment in the summary should have stated "To be sure MM HAS attacked CMPA in the past."
  2. Well how about the fact that it reads like Synth by stating that MM criticized THAT study, when in fact they have not, they have criticized CMPA in the past. Hardly the same thing.

So. Please tell me how comments made by MM in 2004 can possibly criticize a study done in 2007? Arzel (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional searching has shown that MM has made no comment on this study. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, the study (as referenced IN THE ARTICLE) has been ongoing since 1988. They need not re-iterate the same criticism every year. Restored. As stated before, since this is a contentious article, please consult with the community before attempting to remove sourced information./Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, Read what MM has said. They were not criticizing the CMPA study on presidential elections, nor where they criticizing previous CMPA studies regarding presidential elections. That link has NOTHING to do with that study. There is no requirement that discussion be required to remove patently false information. I see now that you have changed the wording to fit your POV regarding the issue, but that doesn't make it any better, as it is still a Synthesis of material. Unless you can find a somewhere that MM has talked about this issue specifically it has to go. Arzel (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, this is not an article on CMPA, so if you want to take this coat and put it in the CMPA article, go right ahead. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, guy, but you're just plain wrong. There is no "patently false information", as your own edit summary specifically admits. When you're trying to use the CMPA study to refute information contained in this article it is absolutely appropriate to include challenges to CMPA's methodology and objectivity. Now, for the last time, ask for the community's input before scrubbing content. Why is that so hard for you? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets review.
  1. The statement read originally "Media Matters has attacked the credibility of the study, claiming that it was "funded by right-wing foundations and conducted by individuals with conservative ties". Now as I pointed out, the ref did not mention the study. The ref, in fact, is unrelated to the subject entirely. I removed the information because 1) it did not reflect what the ref said, plus the ref was referring to Krauthammer and Barnes miss-representing a Pew Study in 2004 when this is related to a 2007 study.
  2. You, Blaxthos, reverted my good faith edit without even examing why I did what I did.
  3. I removed again, because of the previous reasons.
  4. You, reverted again, chaning the wording to "Media Matters has attacked the credibility of CMPA studies, claiming that they are 'funded by right-wing foundations and conducted by individuals with conservative ties.'" However, the link is still unrelated to the paragraph for which it is included. You reinserted Synthesis of Material.
  5. I removed again, because of the previous reasons.
  6. You reverted again, in viloation of the 3RR. Again inserting the Synthesis of Material.::::::Now, I ask you, why do you feel I need community input to remove information that is both incorrect, and Synthesis of material? Arzel (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your (incorrect) accusation of WP:3RR violation, simply see this reply. Regarding the rest... Isn't it possible that maybe your interpretation is just plain wrong? Especially given your past track record on these sorts of issues, I would hope that you would be more willing to listen to community input... this certainly wouldn't be the first time that your ideas were refuted by the community. Consensus is not what you alone think, and I should certainly hope you'd be more willing to consult the community before making controversial changes. Yet again you've shown you're more interested in enforcing removal of material unflattering to things related to FNC than you are in finding out what consensus acutally is. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, you did not revert more than 3 times. This however, does not validate your continued insertion of synthesis of material. Nor does it excuse your intitial revert of mine reverting to include again a false statement. You have still not explained how MM's position is germaine to this issue when they did not even comment specifically on it. Arzel (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

I've reviewed the material for a third time, and I have to retract. The source does specifically cite a past poll, and I can see how Arzel wants to limit the criticism to one particular poll. A more specific source needs to be found. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it and seeing what I have been trying to say. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons

Should thier censorship of the simpsons be mentioned? or thier treatment of obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain Daily Show removal

Someone removed the part in this entry about an episode of the Daily Show critical of Fox News. Why was it removed? I've tried putting it back but get reverted as soon as I do so. The initial edit summary said that the Daily Show is not reliable, but there is no reliability issue here since no one is trying to use the Daily Show as a source of facts but only to source its own "criticism" of Fox News. The next edit summary said "agree" with the last guy and now I'm hearing that my own POV opinions do not belong here. Can someone explain this, because there is no reliability issue nor does this have anything to do with my opinions? Perhaps there is too much space given to the mention of this episode, but at the very least shouldn't we have a one liner about being criticized by a notable political satire show?PelleSmith (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem was that I used the wrong summary for my edit. The thing is, the Daily Show is a comedy show, and so things that Jon Stewart and the other comedians say in the course of reporting the fake news should not be considered to be reliable, except as an indicator of what the writers of the Daily Show think their audience will find funny. It's not even reliable as to what the Daily Show staff actually believes. Do people seriously believe "Randolph was a quarterback of war; Murdoch — he's a cheerleader." Maybe, maybe not... but the fact that it was said on the Daily Show tells us nothing.
Now, if there was a "In Popular Culture" section, then it might make sense to include this there. But it shouldn't be lumped in with people who are legitimately criticizing the network. — PyTom (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks for straightening that out. However I still say that reliability is not an issue here, and I don't think anyone is taking John Stewart literally in the example you site which is a claim that sits at the foundation of your new explanation. The Daily Show is a political satire show, and as such does what satire has done for centuries, utilize comedy to offer social critique. In other words the Daily Show is not just some "fake news" show that panders to the whims of its audience by whatever means necessary to get a laugh. This would be like saying that any show offering social or political critique, however "serious" it may seems on its face, is simply a show that maximizes utility by pandering to media consumers of one kind or another. Do you think that the (liberal) audience of the Daily Show doesn't actually take something substantive out of this show? Do you think its all just a laugh to them? Do you seriously think it is for Stewart? He's dead serious with his critiques, however "funny" they may seem in presentation. His critics and his fans certainly know this. The fact that he gets a laugh while doing this should not be a basis to discount what he has to say, and there is a long historical tradition of various forms of satire that backs this up. What's next? Are we going to claim that Mark Twain's "War Prayer" wasn't actually a critique of what he saw as the religious and patriotic fervor motivating war? I'm sorry but the fact that its comedy doesn't change anything. Its notable critique. I might agree that the length and detail of what was originally there is unnecessary. How do you feel about a one liner instead?PelleSmith (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There must be some threshold for inclusion, otherwise every and any barb directed at FNC could be placed in the article. Since this particulary satire has not received any independant mainstream coverage, listing it here comes awfully close to trivia. The fact that the Daily Show is a critic of FNC can be noted in the article but to get into a specific skit or criticism without outside independant sourcing may not be the best way to go. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, i think what was written was ok in itself but it seemed like it was more suited to a trivia section (which is not really encouraged) or as another person said a "In Popular Culture" section. compared to more serious studies etc this bit just seems out of place and not really a worthwhile entry. Perry mason (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ramsquire. It'd be hard to demonstrate why this particular criticism is any more notable than any other jokes directed at FNC. The Daily Show has actually done entire segments satirizing FNC, so it seems you'd have to maintain a stricter criteria for inclusion in cases like this. One good question to go on is: has the criticism itself received any "independent mainstream coverage"? --Ubiq (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point, but you'll find that very few criticisms of anything mentioned here on Wikipedia have received this kind of "independent mainstream coverage." Generally when criticisms are included they are so because the source of the criticisms is notable enough, and not because the the criticisms themselves have been noted, attributed and commented on by reliable and notable third parties.PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As others have pointed on in the past, satire is a form of criticism (even if it is comedy). That doesn't necessarily mean an individual incident (especially every incident) should be covered, however I do believe that a general mention of the criticism oft mentioned on The Daily Show is appropriate (preferably via reliable secondary sources). It is not an issue of reliable sourcing (as alleged in the repeated removal), but since The Daily Show is a primary source, Ubiq is correct in noting that secondary sourcing is preferred. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A general mention that TDS has criticized FNC is probably appropriate, but as others have mentioned, specific skits should probably not be covered unless they recieve specific coverage outside the show itself. For example, the SNL fake news regarding Obama and Clinton was covered outside SNL and became a story in itself. However, TDS and others criticize through satire on a daily basis, and it becomes a point as to where the line is drawn for inclusion, less articles become littered with satirical comments from various sources. Furthermore, satire is usually in the form of an extreme point of view done for laughs, and not an objective view of the situation. Arzel (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So we agree that a one liner short reference is appropriate here? I'm not opposed to that at all and don't think that this particular mention is that noteworthy in and of itself. However, I objected to the rationale for removal, which was that the Daily show was not reliable as a source for criticism, and then as seen above because it the show is done within a humorous medium. If we can agree that these are not reasons to exclude a reference I'm more than happy to admit that this particular episode isn't necessarily notable, and or that a much more general reference to TDS is appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute.

The article begins with five paragraphs of Democrats saying they hate Fox, followed by one paragraph depicting exceptions. This is a bias of uneven venue, ironically the same thing Fox is being accused of. The first paragraph also contains four blatant ad-hominem insults against Fox, and the fact that they are cited does not change that. What is the relevance of including them? Is Wikipedia a collection of fart jokes now? The "Wikipedia edits" section is also not noteworthy to anyone except Wikipedia contributors, and shouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia's internal edit wars are not content for external controversy. The site is world-editable. Grow the fuck up. --76.202.226.195 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many primary sources that are basically stating opinions. We need either second or third party references to comment on these accusations, or we need an independent non-bias study of the accusations. Bytebear (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we will not be performing "studies" on the criticisms. Also, the nature of this sort of article requires primary sourcing. We should, of course, limit inclusion of trivial criticism, or criticism from voices without due weight; we should not, in any case, attempt to evaluate the correctness of their assertions or "comment" on them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos, I don't think you understand how references work. Primary sources are never as good as commentary by secondary sources, because using primary sources introduces POV and OR. See [[8]]. Bytebear (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If we didn't use primary sources here there wouldn't be much of an article, almost the whole thing is one party criticizing FNC without a third party even talking about it. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the article needs to be paired down, or removed altogether. Bytebear (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The fact my updated ref points to something I did has no bearing on the fact it predates anything else of its kind.

(1) "Spam" is unsolicited. A reference that denies me my rightful credit is about as solicited as it gets.

(2) Before my first edit, this page alluded to the use of "Faux News" as a derisive term for "Fox News." I can provide an earlier instance of this derisive term. If that instance happens to be something I did, so what? If you're genuinely interested in accurately representing the history of this term, and still think my reference needs to be removed, I'd submit you need to find an ealier instance of "Faux News" online (you won't - I was the first) before doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauxnewschannel (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI. What is more important, that the content is in here, or that you get credit? That's why I reverted. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a change to the reference only. I'm not selling anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauxnewschannel (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you are selling your website/blog. My only position is that YOU shouldn't be the one changing the reference to link to your website/blog since its a conflict of interest. If another non-affilliated editor did it, I wouldn't care (I barely care now, honestly). Especially since the point is that "Fauxnews" has been said, not who said it first and the Colmes/Franken tidbit is really trivial. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI, WP:SPS / WP:RS, WP:NPOV, take your pick... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that some reverting is in order? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearly. Done. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)