Talk:Fox News

Moving the Criticisms Section

Its not fair to start the Criticisms so close to the beginning of the article, especially when CNN is towards the bottom of their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 Apr 2008

God man, sign your posts and read the above discussion. What do you think we're debating about? TheNobleSith (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is a bit long for a section that has it's own sub-article. We don't need to duplicate information, but rather, sumamrize. Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to the FAQ

Based on recent discussion, I'd like to add the following to the FAQ. Please advise.

The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal, shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well. No. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories. Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies. Please review the lead again. The introduction takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. It's only point is to highlight that a notable controversy concerning the network is that it has a perception of promoting conservative positions. The lead takes no position on whether such a perception is in fact accurate; to do so would violate WP:NPOV.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the first part. Is including the idea that Fox News might be liberal really a "frequently asked question"? It almost seems like the question itself is fringe.

The second part seems solid. Urzatron (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of these two points. I agree with Urzatron, as I'm sure Ramsquire would, that the insinuation that FNC has a liberal bias is in fact fringe, but we have had that question raised before. I'd be nice to have a solid answer hammered out, and the two summaries don't appear to take a stand on either side of the issue (reads neutral). - auburnpilot talk 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion of these points as helpful and valid. There might be a few grammatical improvements (punctuation and form), but the language seems fine and the points seem spot-on to me. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the second point. The first point sounds a bit harsh in it's wording, and it should point out that the lead does give an alternative view. It currently sounds a bit "biting." Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Kevin Baas^talk 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'm all for it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To Bytebear-- I don't see the "biting", perhaps you can point out specifically what the problem is. These are proposals, so I didn't do a spell or grammar check before posting. I just wanted to know what people thought of the idea. All grammatical and style suggestions are greatly appreciated. To Urzation-- The point of the first sentence is to respond to users who want the "some say x, others say y, and some even say z" formulation that editors often want in the lead. As AuburnPilot has noted, it has come up from time to time. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The biting issue is just a matter or rearanging things so the reader isn't repremanded for asking the question (starting with a "No" is not particularly polite).

The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories.

How's that? Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed the "No." and swapped the remaining first two sentences. You're right, it is less biting, and I think I know why: it's generally good communication to restate what the other person is saying first, so they know you understand them and are taking their thoughts into account. Additionally, it helps to clarify how what you're saying relates to what they're saying. I like. Kevin Baas^talk 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the improvements made by Bytebear. Of course, I didn't mean to be biting or impolite with the no. I was just trying to give a short answer first with explanation to follow. But BB's version is better. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the FAQ, as there did not seem to be any objection. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong in the first paragraph at all and must be relocated much further down in the article; or you can start a new article about Fox News controversies and criticisms. 64.126.34.118 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what "this" refers to. The proposals in this section are not for the article but for the FAQ. The disputed language which is the subject of the FAQ is not located in the first paragraph of the article, and there already exist a FoxNews controversies and criticisms. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't going in the article. It's just going here, on this talk page. Urzatron (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have made an archive run, removing a lot of material (about 500kB) to Archive 21. Some of the regular editors here may want to break that up into smaller chunks. If some threads were unresolved, I urge editors to reference the archived material, *if necessary*, but try not to reintroduce any inflammatory posts/edits to the current discussion. Please, everyone, be on your best, most polite behavior. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've been meaning to do a history merge of this talk page, as the first archives were done using copy/paste and the most recent archives were done using the move method. I'll likely get to it tomorrow, but may make a stab at it tonight if I can't find something to entertain myself. - auburnpilot talk 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just cut and pasted, feel free to archive however you think best. R. Baley (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (edit to add: Hell, I just noticed that this page is still 88kB big . . .probably need to archive a bit more. R. Baley (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Looking at the archives, only 4 of the 21 were created by moving the page, so we'll stick with the copy/paste method; it's easier anyway. Feel free to archive as you see fit, as we can always reference previous discussion. A fresh start might be the best approach. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Much easier than I expected, but with just under 4400 revisions, I think I nearly killed the server. Never seen so many consecutive database locks... - auburnpilot talk 01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the UCLA section as well. Discussion petered out, and since the consensus is to avoid referencing the lead the point is now moot. We can revisit if the source is proposed for the body at a later time. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems an overzealous vandal fighter reverted your edit, readding the UCLA discussion. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of archiving, has anyone ever considered archiving by topic since many may seem to get ressurected whether here or elsewhere? Sometimes archiving chronologically makes it harder to find previous discussions. It would be a good way to guide newcomers to see how we got to the current affair of things. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty decent idea, though I think we'd need a consensus-blessed blueprint of topics (and what goes where) that we all agree to abide by. Anyone know of any precedents or similar situations? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it may be quite difficult to implement on this page. Our discussions tend to weave in and out of their intended topic, frequently changing subjects more than once before coming back to the original thought (the "Response: UCLA Paper" section being a good example). It may be easier to simply create an index, where we can list certain topics and the chronological archives where related discussion can be found. - auburnpilot talk 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen something before like this, thought it was the Evolution article but that does not to appear to be it. The FAQ gives somewhat of a topic-based archive but maybe something more specific. Those who have been around this article more would know which topics get brought up more so I would defer to them as to what topics could be specifically archived, obviously one-time discussions don't merit this. I think one example for archving could be based on a particular source. The UCLA study comes to mind. Archiving threads devoted to this discussion go in one topic. Another could be the discussions about issue of bias. Basically, highlight topics that keep coming up. Also, just to clarify, this does not mean we shouldn't keep the chronological arhciving. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I remembered seeing a bot that would auto-index talk archives, so I've set it up to do a test run. Should run sometime in the next 5-6 hours. - auburnpilot's sock 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive index for the bot's work. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, it wasn't what I was picturing but still addresses my issue. This is good for articles that draw a lot of discussion. MrMurph101 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Viewership

Well this is my fourth attempt to try to get this note. Footnote #2 does not support the statement for which it is cited. This website does, and should replace #2 http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=2&media=7. Thank you Biccat (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. For those who haven't looked, the current Footnote No. 2 is from 2004, and is being cited as a source for which network has the most audience currently. Urzatron (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it outdated, but the link (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214) doesn't even reference viewership, but is a survey of journalist perceptions. Could be a formatting issue that got mixed in.Biccat (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Biccat's point is well taken and the citation should be changed. Also, I think the most recent debate has died down and maybe unprotection is in order. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for unprotection would be more helpful? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That, or Stifle's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected; edit as needed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right-wing"

Someone keeps on removing "right-wing" from the section about the slant that critics have accused FOX News of having at first claiming that it was redundant or unnecessary. I don't think it is, since neither "conservative" or "republican" are exactly the same as "right-wing" something that FOX has been called (and I even added a reference to it, but the main entry that goes with that section describes these criticisms in more detail). Now I've been reverted again with a dictionary.com link in the edit summary. Please explain what the problem seems to be. These words are not redundant or synonymous and "right-wing" is something that Fox News has been called. I see no reason for removing it. Please also see the main entry Fox News Channel controversies and the relevant Wikipedia entry on right-wing politics.PelleSmith (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN have been accused as being left-wing, should we change that on those pages as well? Also according to dictionary.com, conservative and right-wing are synonymous[1][2]--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline about "other crap exists" also applies to "other crap doesn't exist." Please do go to those entries and have a field day, but that has nothing to do with this one. Did you look at the main entry for that section or the "right-wing" entry? We all know that "right-wing" is a term used to describe certain types of "conservatives" but it is also not something used to describe all conservatives or all members of the republican party. I'm afraid dictionary.com does not end a dispute simply because it states what we know ... that "right-wing" is a phrase used to describe certain conservatives. The phrase is cited. You should merge the entries for "right-wing" and for "conservative" if you truly think they are simply synonymous and then maybe you have some ground to stand on.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because some people use the words "right-wing conservative" does not mean they are gramatically correct either. It's like saying a person is "a conservative that leans right", it's not necessary. Why add in another word that means the same thing? We get the point.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Although each word has different connotations globally, I think there is an important distinction here. "Conservative" is often understood to mean an association with conservative economic principles. "Right wing", at least in the U.S., is more often associated with the socio-conservative Republican party. In my opinion, the "social conservative" and the "economic conservative" movements came together in what we now refer to as the "right wing" in the U.S.. I don't know if this is helpful in discourse, though I will say that I personally think that "right-wing" more embodies the allegations made. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "right-wing" is much closer to the criticisms being made than simply "conservative" and if one of the two words needs to go its the latter and not the former. The two do not simply "mean the same thing." There are plenty fiscal conservatives that would never be considered "right-wing." I think we should change it to say "right-wing conservative or republican." Mitch can you please answer two rather simple questions here. 1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong? 2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms? It is not quite right to say "why add another word" when this word is pretty apropos to the subject matter at hand (criticisms of Fox in terms of political slant) and when the word was already here, and the matter is one of you removing it, not someone else adding it.PelleSmith (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to get involved here, but I decided to google left-wing conservative and right-wing liberal. Seems they don't necessarily entail one another, but are definitely synonymous. --Ubiq (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to get this serious. The only thing I was concerned with was getting too wordy here, nothing more. We could go on and on saying Fox News has been accused of having a socially conservative, fiscally conservative, neoconservative, economically liberal (which is embraced by american conservatives), christian right, right-wing, rightist, right-leaning, and liberal conservative bias or we could just keep it at a bias favoring Conservatives or Republicans.

For your 2 questions-

1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong?-- No because political conservatism is an ideology while right-wing refers to a place on the political spectrum. Often when many people use the term right-wing, they actually mean radically rightist or far right. It's the same for many people who use the term left-wing as well. Right-wing is like an umbrella term that refers to the entire right side of the political spectrum. There is no reason to put right-wing in with conservatism unless you are really trying to think of a nice way of saying far right which is basically facism which Fox News simply does not advocate.

2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms?-- If you are refering to the very begining of the article where it says "Critics and some observers of the channel accuse it of political bias towards the political right" I think the language is correct. In fact I think we should change the sentence we are arguing about to "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality." Would you agree?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but I want to point a out a couple of important things here. As you explain yourself in point one "conservative" and "right-wing" are not the same, and given your explanation it should be clear that the accusation of a "right-wing" bias is more extreme than simply a "conservative bias." Removing "right-wing," again given your own explanation, therefore seems like toning down the criticism in a way that is out of sync with the reality of this criticism. Also, the idea that "Fox News simply does not advocate," something or other is moot in this particular section which is not about what they advocate at all, but about what critics claim. To your first point, above your answers, I would say that whatever your intentions were, this explanation is a bit of a straw-man argument. No one was advocating using hundreds of descriptors--only three were present in the text and only one was being haggled over. That said I think your compromise is fine with both wikilinks: "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is more than one strawman and at least one logically false argument made by LuckyMitch. That being said, I do think that the proposed version is fine... let's just avoid the false absolutes and strawmen arguments. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: conservative and right-wing are different. Proof: G.W.B. is right-wing. G.W.B. is definitely not a conservative. Many republicans that I have spoken to have echoed this assessment. extreme right wingers tend to be neoconservatives, like G.W.B. and most of his appointees, and traditional conservatives agree that neoconservativism is quite far from traditional conservative values. I've heard people even go so far as to say they're considering voting democratic because some democrats are more conservative than right-wingers currently in office. right-wing is generally held to be synomymous w/republican, but conservative and right-wing are not synonymous. Kevin Baas^talk 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although the definitions of right wing and conservative overlap quite a bit, they are not exactly the same. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

what term do the sources say. Do they say "Conservative," "Right Wing," or both? Bytebear (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. The "sources," a good number of which can be seen on Fox News Channel controversies use all three of these descriptors. "Right-wing" is commonly used within these, however, in case that's what you were wondering. The reason why I preferred what was there originally before Mitch altered it was because all three are used in the sources--"conservative," "right-wing" and "Republican." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information from opening paragraph

This criticism does not belong in the opening paragraph. There is no consensus to have the information remain24.27.151.226 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)