Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/News sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Is Fox News a real news source?

(from user talk:Wik) Im asking this question on behalf of User:Wik who seems to be confused enough about the matter to take it upon himself to automatically delete links to Fox news. Any comments? --戴&#30505sv 23:53, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not confused at all. I just remove POV where I see it, thank you. --Wik 02:22, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

The problem with allowing openly biased sources (the leftist equivalent would be Indymedia) is that our link could be interpreted as an endorsement of that particular POV. The same problem exists with allowing links to any other biased website. The solution is not to remove the links but to describe them properly. However, this may not be an option for the compact Current events listing, where it may be preferable to concentrate on sources which have no obvious bias, and to list these alternative perspectives on the page about the event in question instead.—Eloquence 23:58, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Conservatives consider CNN, CBS, and BBC biased in certain areas. Who decides whose opinions weigh more? If I decide that CNN is biased can I delete links to it? I think not. Nor would I want to. In fact I used a source from BBC because it had the info needed. I'll refrain deleting CNN and BBC links because of my political opinions.Ark30inf 00:08, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fox News is no more biased than CNN, the BBC, or the New York Times. Comparing it with Indymedia is a ludicrous comparison. I've used both the BBC and Fox News (as well as numerous other sources) in Wikipedia articles. Deleting Fox News links because someone has an axe to grind against their style of reporting is unacceptable. They are the #1 or #2 cable news outfit in the United States, not an agendaized reporting group catering to some small hard code readership. I don't think there's any evidence that they've lied or distorted their reporting although some leftists may believe they are biased (it is true, compared to CNN, they are further to the center or right). This is in contrast to, say, NBC, who like blowing up trucks and certain prominent US newspapers, who have problems with their journalists doctoring stories [1], altering photographs [2], and covering up torture [3]. Simply put, links should be judged by factual content and an overall NPOV should be presented. The way that certain editors censor some of "their" articles and refuse to allow any contrary viewpoint to their own to appear at all in articles is unacceptable. Daniel Quinlan 00:38, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Fox News is no more biased than CNN, the BBC, or the New York Times. Tee-hee. Now that we've all shared a laugh, hopefully we can agree on a serious policy of how to treat openly biased links on the current events page. As for the Indymedia comparison being "ludicrous", you may intentionally ignore the fact, but Indymedia has both an open newswire and an editorially controlled story section. The edited stories are usually biased in the same way that Fox News, Newsmax etc. are biased, but with a leftist slant.—Eloquence 01:04, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

The humor of the situation seems to be a matter of political opinion as well. Comparing Indymedia and Newsmax (google doesn't consider them news sources) is a valid comparison. But comparing Indymedia with FOX is indeed ludicrous. Fox does not appeal to some limited right wing audience unless the majority of cable news viewers are somehow all right wingers. I cannot go deleting CNN links willy nilly just because I think they are biased and use the firmness of my opinion as the reason. My personal opinion does not trump everyone elses. Refusing to allow external links to the highest rated American cable news network because someone has a bad personal opinion of it is silly and censorship.Ark30inf 01:23, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're overlooking two things. First, our POV policy is not about presenting the "majority view" or a "centrist view." It is about sticking to demonstrable facts, and not passing off controversial opinions as fact. Where appropriate, opinions should be described but clearly identified as opinions. Second, if or when a majority view is relevant here, it should be the global majority view, not the U.S. majority view. Some opinions that are perfectly mainstream on a global scale may be considered left-wing fringe views within the U.S. (Majorities in most countries consider the U.S. the greatest threat to world peace, for example.) And views that may be considered mainstream within the U.S. may be considered far-right globally. But this is not an "American" encyclopaedia. So FOX's ratings within the U.S. are of zero relevance. --Wik 02:22, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Its ratings are pertinent to the extent that they indicate that maybe what they put out is not as 'controversial' as is being indicated here. On the other point, American news sources will be biased in some manner to the American point of view and dominant culture, even if its NPR, CBS, or CNN. BBC will be biased to the British point of view and culture in some way. If you disallow links because they come from some country with a cultural bias towards its dominant culture then you are out of luck for having any external links at all. What I would prefer is a variety of links from a variety of points of view. I would prefer a sampling of links from Indymedia, CNN, FOX, Xinhua, and Newsmax ALL. Let the reader look and decide. Ark30inf 02:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The inevitable minimum bias is not the problem. But there is a huge difference between FOX and BBC, for example. BBC generally sticks to facts and does not take a side, not even that of "general British opinion". But anyway, I can accept FOX links if comparable left-wing links are also accepted. Contrary to what sv said, I didn't start an edit war over the links, only over the use of the term "homicide bomber" (in the Current events article itself, not in an external FOX article). --Wik 02:51, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Homicide bomber sets my teeth on edge.Ark30inf 05:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ratings are irrelevant. Bias is relevant. Links to stories that use clearly biased (and idiotic) vocabulary like "homicide bomber" should have their source clearly labeled and their content described, and the Current events format does not accommodate this kind of neutral linking. Thus, if you want to have this type of biased links, they should be placed on the article about the incident instead.—Eloquence 01:36, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

But biased in who's opinion? Yours? I am at a loss to know why your opinion would trump mine, Daniel's, or the majority of the news viewing public. Reuters for instance refused at one point (and may still do so) to use the word 'terrorist'. Thats just as idiotic as 'homicide bomber' but I must in good conscience still consider Reuters a valid news source.Ark30inf 01:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A quick search does not indicate that Reuters does indeed avoid the term "terrorist". Of course, they may have different rules for when to call soemone a terrorist and when to call someone a "freedom fighter".—Eloquence 02:04, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

article referencing policy IIRC they would not use the word terrorist to describe the 911 hijackers. There are reasons to be careful with use of the word. But the word does not really ascribe motives it describes method. That is why I am opposed to Reuter's policy on usage. Calling the 911 attackers terrorists is not a value judgment, its a description of their method. A person or group can be "freedom-fighters" AND terrorists at the same time. An otherwise nice person here in the US can be accused of terroristic threatening which describes the manner of threat, not a value judgment of the individual.Ark30inf 02:26, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A memo is different from evidence that this suggestion was actually followed. That evidence would be interesting and relevant for the Reuters article.—Eloquence 02:55, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

It was on NPR so I thought you would like it :-) Seriously, I put a response from Reuters that indicates the policy (they consider terrorist an emotional term). I'm not castigating Reuters, I just disagree completely with this view (just as I do the homicide bomber view by FOX). In any event, I think this subject is milked dry for the moment. I think we both have the same goals.Ark30inf 03:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All that said, I think we can agree that its not proper to decide to remove links in favor of other links. Add the polar opposite Indymedia link if you want, and put them both at the bottom after BBC, PBS, etc.. but dont just remove them. Current events is a bit different due to its limited space -- still, Wik was unjustified in starting an edit war with Reddi over such a trivial matter as a link. Let this be the consensus.-戴&#30505sv 01:41, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Ark has made an interesting point: "Google doesn't consider them news sources." Perhaps a simple solution would to make an extension of the Google test. Call it the Google news test if you like it. It states the following: if the article or parent site is accessible through Google news, then the source is valid enough to be a Wikipedia source. Yes? No? Comments/criticisms? --Ed Cormany 01:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is at least a valid third party test. Even if they put Indymedia back I would accept that test.Ark30inf 01:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think each article should be judged on its own merits. Some Fox articles are indistinguishable from CNN articles, some Indymedia articles read like something from the NYT etc. But the whole homicide bomber affair is a classic example of a news organization engaging in political advocacy, and this kind of bias should not be hidden or treated as normal.—Eloquence 01:47, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm for judging each case individually rather than as a group also.Ark30inf 01:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"homicide bomber" is not a very good term, but it does point out the similar weakness in the "suicide bomber" term. I would prefer the term "suicide killer" or "suicide murderer" or something that captures both aspects clearly. "homicide bomber" neglects the suicide. "suicide bomber" neglects the killing of others. Daniel Quinlan 01:59, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

The intention to kill others is implied in the "bomber" part, and many suicide bombers have actually failed to kill others.—Eloquence 02:04, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Everyone knows what a suicide bomber is up to. We haven't had a case yet of one having only the intent of killing himself alone by the lake yet. As for your 'homicide bomber' stance. I feel the same about Reuter's 'no such thing as a terrorist' policy. But they are still a valid new source IMOArk30inf 02:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The killing part is naturally mentioned in the news item, e.g. "A suicide bomber killed 20". However if you say "A homicide bomber killed 20" you have just added a redundancy and actually reduced the informational content by removing the suicide part. --Wik 02:22, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

As far as the standard goes, I think articles should be judged individually as a rule. For example, why should an opinion piece from the NYT be okay because Google lists it, but a factual article from a less prominent source not be okay. Some of the news sources used by Google are blatantly POV such as several state-run newspapers in the middle east. I fear that Google's use has more to do with permission-to-use than journalistic integrity. Daniel Quinlan 01:58, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Well the "use Google" argument is persuasive -- (I used it below ;) but Im with Daniel (though Im suspect of his examples) that Googles news isnt necessarily editorial based in its selections. We should find out. Still - more is better and we shouldnt advocate blanket-removing links (which I just did on the Zionism and racism article...==Oh my GOD, Im not NPOV! -戴&#30505sv 02:08, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Its got to be a combination of Google test, case by case, and common sense then. That can't be too hard :-) Ark30inf 02:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree Google News can't be a standard here. They have all kinds of biased sources, from the Christian Broadcasting Network to the World Socialist Web Site. --Wik 02:22, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

My POV: Anyone who registers the phrase "Fair and Balanced" as a trademark deserves to be shot. Mkweise 06:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you delete links to a news site, be sure to replace them with equally informative links from alternate news sources. Also, do not delete links to a news site, when that site was used as a reference for the article - that doesn't help us to cite our sources. Martin 13:47, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We have a policy of verifiability here that is frequently being used. When someone writes an article, they want a source. If there is no source, it is often deleted. Fox news (or any other source) is an external source of verifiability and it may be biased, but it is a still a source. As far as I know, there is not a Wikipedia policy that states that external websites, books, or other sources must be NPOV for us to use them. Next we will have to ban Harry Potter article links because the books have a "biased world view". Or maybe we should ban links to the KKK from a KKK article because they are biased about themselves. We must definitly delete the article on Jesus because so much of his life is based on the biased Bible. Give me a break! This is nothing more than censorship. -- Ram-Man 16:45, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

This is a very interesting subject for me. I have just recently discovered and taken an interest in the Wikipedia but have some reservations about investing the time to make contributions. Foremost among those reservations, the concern that many contributors will use it as a soapbox, or that contributors with competing opinions will get into endless edit-remove-replace loops with one another. The fact that someone has taken it upon him/herself to eliminate links to a news source that he/she doesn't like reinforces that concern.

Let's be realistic here. There are NO universally accepted NPOV news sources in existence. There are doubtless many which try but none which 100% of the world agrees is truly NPOV. The appropriateness of a link must be determined on its content--nothing more. Readers are free to dismiss a link's source as biased but, unless the content of the individual article can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate, then it should remain. If someone else wishes to edit and place a competing or contradicting piece alongside, I have no problem with that. But removing the link altogether, or changing the original intent, should be reserved for cases of provable inaccuracy only.

I would expect that the contributors to this work understand that all news sources provide editorial/opinion articles as well as "straight" news pieces. The two are expected to be kept separate. Expressing political beliefs in editorial articles or segments that differ from one's own political opinions is not "proof" that their news reporting is inaccurate. If, on the other hand, opinions are presented as "news fact", that would be an instance of inaccuracy which all here should agree must be corrected.

I will be very interested in seeing exactly how (and whether) this issue is resolved. I personally believe it will be among--if not 'the'--most critical milestones for this work (the Wikipedia) to overcome if it is to become a widely accepted and respected source of information.

                 --SlowMovin, 21-Aug-2003

That is a well thought out response. I recall the serial sniper in the washington D.C./Baltimore area a few months back. Now the case has not been decided in court, but most of the articles that i've read in news sources on the topic pretty much assume that the two people caught are the real snipers even though they have not been found guilty in a court of law yet. Does this mean we should eliminate references to news items about the sniper? I think in a situation like this the link should remain because it does describe what people thought at the time. Shockingly it might even describe the bias that American's felt: that the two people caught really were the snipers. But this seems acceptable to me. -- Ram-Man 16:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

I personally think this is a very simple issue. I'm not in a position to watch Fox News, but I have read many reports that describe its right-wing bias and, after extensive experience reading Murdoch tabloids, I have no doubt its coverage treats news as entertainment and slavishly reflects the commercial interests and political views of its proprietor.

However, Fox News is a major, well-resourced source of news to a significant fraction of the American population, and its coverage represents a significant perspective on many world events. Therefore, as one of a representative set of external sources, it is entirely appropriate to link to its material. This is of course particularly important on politically sensitive topics.

Anybody systematically removing links to Fox News material is acting like a goose, and just inviting somebody else to start removing links from articles to The Guardian, Salon.com, or the Australian Broadcasting Commission because of perceived left-wing bias.

So, in essence, Wik, stop it! Everybody else, I would recommend the reversion of those removals.

As to the wider issue of external links to news sources, until recently it has simply been assumed that people would try to provide a representative set of sources, which may include everything from Indymedia to the Spectator, Xinua, Voice of America according to relevance to the specific issue (as they would need to read such to write the article anyway) and that we could assume our readers to be intelligent enough to appreciate that external links are going to provide a variety of perspectives on an issue. Maybe we need yet another policy on this issue. *sigh*--Robert Merkel 14:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How to tell an honest person from a dishonest person:

An honest person will admit that BOTH CNN and FOX have news biases.

But a dishonest Liberal will deny CNN news biases while attacking FOX news biases while a dishonest conservative will deny FOX news biases while attacking CNN news biases. 128.138.86.182 14:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

-Phil .