Talk:Fox News

Moving the Criticisms Section

I am removing this from the summary. There is no equivalent in any other media outlet section. The fact that this has been allowed to stand is fairly alarming.

For example, take this report: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

Fox scores a 39.7 whereas CBS Evening News scores a more extreme 73.7. (Note that a centrist voter was rated at 54)

The study isn't perfect but it at least gives us a more deterministic way of defining bias.

Finally, by the Wikipedia community's own admission, the Washington Times is similar in ideology to Fox News yet its summary section doesn't have this veiled attack. Fox has been singled out and has been held to a different standard than other news outlets on Wikipedia.

What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant. If you wish to bring up the fact that other pages do not have this type of statement then bring it up on those pages. The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias, and because the criticism is notable it should be stated in the lead. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

TO:NcShu

"What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant."

Why is it not relevant? Facts and statements on other Wikipedia pages would seem to be relevant, after all, most pages have links connecting to other pages. What is someone to think if he reads something on one article and follows a link to find the exact opposite stated in another article.

It is almost certainly desirable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be as consistent as possible across its articles.

The above quote does not seem right to me.

"The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias"

When you say "almost all broad criticism" ... from what population are you sampling? I cited a scientific paper which defined a measure for bias. This is a more superior source than the others cited according to Wikipedia's rules.

I'm removing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you might find some help there. Dock^Hi 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To DockU:

Appreciate the reference .. but nothing in the link you provided seems to apply.

"you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" I'm not talking about articles that do and don't exist. I'm talking about an inconsistency between two or more articles which needs to be fixed. My contention is NOT that the WS Times or CBS news articles need to be fixed, it is that THIS ONE DOES.

"'there are lots of other bad articles' is also common" All of the articles mentioned are fairly updated. My contention is NOT due to the lack of updates of certain articles. It IS due to an apparent slant in the writing of the articles and we are trying to correct it.

I encourage anyone to come up with or reference some kind of reasonable systematic analysis of news sites that shows fox news is slanted more to the right than the major networks are slanted to the left. I have provided one above which refutes this.

If I added an equivalent statement to CBS News it would be deleted because the liberals think CBS is not biased. However, I also agree that it does not belong there but for a different reason: that such criticisms don't belong in the summary section of ANY of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of a lead is to essentially introduce the article...when examining the Criticism section all I see are arguments pertaining to Fox News's conservative bias, but when I look at CBS, for example, I see more of a variety of criticisms, ones that can't be grouped and summed up in one statement and don't all focus on the network being 'too liberal'. But again, though WP:OTHERSTUFF is pertaining more to article deletion/creation arguments it does still have relevance in this argument. This isn't a case of consistency as the article's content is obviously going to be different depending on the different article subjects. Consistency only comes in to play with article formatting and such graphic presentations. Claiming liberal conspiracy won't get you far, I've been fairly well unbiased with my editing of this article. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four ~ after your responses, thanks! NcSchu_(Talk) 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy implies some type of cooperation among the actors. I don't claim this. The liberal bias found on Wikipedia is merely by accident, though it is clearly apparent. The people who tend to read/post to Wikipedia are probably more from academic circles (I would bet) and therefore are more liberal.

The criticisms section of this article is much larger than others (due to the aforementioned bias). However, I agree that the large amount of this article that is devoted to criticism is consistent with having a few sentences in the summary.

You guys would do well to update the criticisms section (since I am apparently not allowed to). McClellan has since admitted that he lied about his statements regarding the talking points. 68.198.48.12 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no bias here. Everything in the article is referenced. Please let us know if there is anything unreferenced and we will remove it. You might also want to think about creating an account which might help establish some rapport with the community if you are planning to stay here for a while. It also makes it easier and comfortable for others here to know whom we are talking with. It is just a suggestion, you dont necessarily have to take it. Dock^Hi 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By the by, in that video McClellan only says the White House did not send talking points to O'Reilly specifically; his assertion that the White House was doing it to Fox News in general still stands and that's what's reflected in the article. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, at first he made a general claim Fox News commentators. But when Matthews forced him to be specific, he said not journalists or daytime guys like Brit Hume. He restricted it to the "nighttime" guys. Now it doesn't take any speculation or any advanced forms of reasoning to deduce the two main nighttime guys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. The only other nighttime people are either liberals (Alan Colmes) or not very political either way (Greta). So, when he apologized to O'Reilly the only person left is Sean Hannity. This article makes it seem like an indictment of the whole network and does not make it immediately clear that he retracted arguably his most important allegation, which was about Bill O'Reilly. But not only that, it made his only remaining accusation about Hannity much less believable. This section totally biased by any reasonable interpretations and all the other edits have been attempts to make the apology part as insignificant as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

---

'Just a note - conservative and right-wing/Republicanism are NOT the same. There are conservative Democrats (blue dogs) and conservative Republicans, just as there are moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans. Thus, Conservative and Right-Wing are not exactly synonomous. '

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)

OP, you are wrong. Right-wing denotes extremist conservative views, i.e. on the fringe. All conservatives, though liberals believe otherwise, are not extremists.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:24, 1 July 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)

Civility be damned, we are not having this discussion. If you blank the section again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing, and removing a product of a larger consensus than any I've seen. For more information, read Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 21, beginning at section 19, titled "19 Opening Paragraph POV?". However, I cannot be more clear: blank it again, and you will be blocked. - auburnpilot talk 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to say "We've actually had this discussion before" than to say "We're not having this discussion again." You are going to see unaware people wandering in again. Count on it. Urzatron (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is a new, unaware person, I'll eat my foot. - auburnpilot talk 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is someone we all know. Kid gloves are no longer appropriate. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. My bad, then. Urzatron (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This ip (and (65.30.76.58 (talk · contribs), 24.27.130.12 (talk · contribs), 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs), 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs), 64.126.34.118 (talk · contribs)) has been used by a troll(s) engaged in mostly racist/anti-semitic disruption and harassment on the talk pages of various articles and users. I have to say it seems so formulaic, so stereotypical that the sincerity of the ip is debatable. But, regardless of sincerity, this is a troll that should probably be blocked on sight whenever the ips revert to type. SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

and i concur it does not belong since it is there in black and white in the controversies section and i have removed it and will contiue to do so it is very obvious that it is not useful and frankyl is out of place,and i dont have a horse in this race one way or another but it is not a matter of disagreeing with content , its an open and shut case its just a repeat statement that is why there is no need for a consenus and you dont start off a criticism about a news media organization in the opening section it suppose about the news channel its self the criticism sections comes later down the section like in any aticle this seems to be just a political motivated stunt--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is no need for consensus"? Allow me to point out that the version in place is grounded in a very strong consensus, and removal of such (especially if you "contiue[sic] to do so") will assuredly get you blocked as a vandal. Please move on. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really more "inappropriate edit warring" than "vandalism." I think if you were to report it as "vandalism," you'd really be reporting it to the wrong place. Urzatron (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro is there to summarize the content of the major points of the article, so repetition is not a valid reason for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 13 May

2008 (UTC)

so puting the rebuttle statement after that one would make it neutral if its okay to repeat one it okay to repeat the other--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The only consensus on the conservative bias of FOX News was reached by liberals and liberals alone. I would first ask that all who voted on this consensus to identify if they are liberal or conservative. A large number of them, mark my words, will be liberal.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the statement to make it more neutral. The previous version was anything but.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is a form of personal attack and I suggest you avoid making them in the future. Consensus was reached not based on the individual political stances of involved editors, but based on a compromise following lengthy discussion/debate. I suggest you take a step back and slow your approach. - auburnpilot talk 03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone who came to said "concensus" was indeed liberal, then the consensus would be obvious. It is undoubtably what happened here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions are unfounded swirls of conspiracy theory. It's quite clear from your userpage and recent contributions that you are here to push a conservative agenda, and a recent discussion on AN/I confirms this. Please restrict yourself to maintaining a neutral point of view and do not attack fellow editors. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize this issue has been dissected time and time again; both on the MSNBCtalk, and here. I'm still not convinced why the Fox News wikipage rates opening criticism, as MSNBC and CNN pages remain clear, and any criticism is found in the appropriate section. The Fox News entry here has at least seven instances in sporadic sections accusing the network of having a "Conservative agenda." Hardly objective. I believe the opening criticism should be removed, not only because of the issue of objectivity, but because it plainly doesn't belong there. Just as many people, including the Clinton left has accused MSNBC of being biased. Wikiport (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Critics and some observers" in the INTRO?

Why is there mention of the 'controversy' in the intro? The articles of every other media corps that have been accused of bias (MSNBC, NYT, BBC, etc.) make no mention of this until their "criticism" or "controversy" section. Can't imagine an reputable encyclopedia jumping in to these claims so early on in an article.—DMCer™ 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FNC's article mention it in the lead because the allegations of bias from tha network are so extreme (there is even a sub article about them, there are so many). Contrast with the other media corps you referenced, which do not have so many allegations of bias against them. TheNobleSith (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when is that a unique thing? Maybe you should see CNN controversies (which have more sections than the corresponding FNC article), Criticism of The New York Times, BBC controversies, and Criticism of the BBC. All of these deal with bias on the part of the organizations. It seems a bit bias of Wikipedia that FNC is the only article that mentions these allegations in its intro; though it unfortunately seems these things are becoming increasingly common here.—DMCer™ 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All of these deal with bias on the part of the organizations. That is true, however FNC is the only news source where all of it's supposed bias is on one side(conservative, in this case). As such, it's controversy is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a statement in the lead for CNN. If you check the archives you will see I suggested that this statement not be in the lead, it was supported and the statement removed, and has been gone since. The same cannot be said here. Is there a double standard? You tell me. The rational usually given is that you can't compare articles. Arzel (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for using the statement in the intro here included the fact that the perception of Fox's conservative advocacy was incredibly widespread. CNN and the BBC, etc., simply do not compare. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually we didn't use public perception because there were no reliable sources that discussed public perception. The primary sources were members of the DMC, liberal web sites like MMfA, and a PEW research study report on Journalists opinions. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Arzel... there is no "double standard" that you imply exists. The controversy itself is what is so widespread that it warrants inclusion in the lead here; controversies regarding allegations of bias involving the other news sources mentioned are not nearly as massive as the one that surrounds Fox. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am hearing is a lot of opinion, but the real story is that the DNC buckled under to MoveOn.org. Interestingly, FNC has been viewed as the least biased network on the 2008 presidential election. You want bias, how about MSNBC, I suprised they don't have a ticker listing the number of days until Obama is elected president. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about MSNBC or it's supposed support of Obama. Even if you want to make the case about MSNBC being biased, you could easily say FNC is even more biased in the other direction. Everyone surely saw their coverage of the Reverend Wright controversy, when all they did was run a loop of Obama's pastor 24/7, despite other important events going on. MSNBC is only seen as liberal by conservatives who are upset it doesn't bash Obama 24/7 as FNC does. Once again though, this is all beside the point. The article is not talking about actual bias, it's referring to FNC's widely perceived bias. Two different things. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead mentions the criticism because WP:LEAD suggests notable controversies should be mentioned, and because consensus determined it should be mentioned. The FAQ at the top of this page outlines the basic points, and links to the archives that contain previous discussion. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a "reputable encyclopedia" that didn't mention that controversy in the lead... it's so prevalent that one of the two major political parties in the U.S. refuse to participate in debates hosted by FNC. The presence is firmly grounded in policy and consensus, as AuburnPilot referenced. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

From the FNC Controversies page. "A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush".[33]". Does the CBS page have controversies listed in the lead....I think not. Your ground is mud. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, unless you have a new point to make that hasn't already been addressed, the intro will remain as it is. Arzel, you were a witness and participate in the discussion, so you are aware of how we reached the point where we are. Any new editor to this discussion should read the FAQ and the archives, and if they have something new to add, we'll address it. However, the tired argument that CNN or MSNBC doesn't mention bias isn't persuasive and has zero validity. - auburnpilot talk 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to point out a little of the hypocrisy here. FNC is obviously the most biased new source, everyone says it is. If you can't see that it is then you are a naive rube, hence this is why it only presents here. However if anyone presents any evidence that FNC is not regarded the most biased source then we must fall back on the rule that you can't use other articles as a guide for this article. So which is it? FNC is obviously the most biased so it is apt to include in the lead? Or you can't compare articles? Because the argument above seems to be the former. AuburnPilot I have no beef with you, but if the former is the reason (which Gamaliel, Blaxthos, and The Noble Sith seem to be arguing) then that reason is not valid. Personally I don't see why it should be included in any, unless there is a major specific instance that is a topic within the article. Bias is hugely subjective, one person's bias is anothers unbiased reporting, and to say that FNC is significantly more biased than the others is purely opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The FNC bias controversy is more significant than any related controversy with any other news organization. This has nothing to do with what happens on other articles. Also, Wikipedia is not adjudicating fact, we're simply noting the fact that the controversy is widespread. The policy is clear, the consensus is clear -- three RFC's and the wording has changed maybe two or three words over the last two years. I, for one, grow tired of having to explain this to you every month, Arzel, most especially since you were here for at least half of the consensus-building. Whether you fail to comprehend the logic, or you fail to respect consensus, I really don't think we should have to explain it over and over ad infinitum. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, my opinion is this: The controversy about FNC's supposed bias is far more widespread and controversial than any other news source. That has nothing to do with whether I think it's biased, whether you think it's biased, whether Howard Dean thinks it's biased. The controversy needs to be mentioned because that is a significant portion of what FNC is notable for (not the majority of what it's known for of course; it is the highest rated cable program). Notice that the article does not make a stand on whether the claims of bias are true, it merely mentions them. It also mentions that FNC and others deny the allegations. It mentions the cotroversy without taking a side. I see no problem with that. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that it has nothing to do with whether you or I think it is, but then state that it is. Isn't that your opinion? See this is the problem I see. Everyone here assumes that it is, yet I just pointed out above that CBS is viewed in a Rasmussen poll as being the most biased. So which is it? And if you are going to use that as a reason, then the previous concensus is based off the opinions of editors and not the facts. Blaxthos, I am not the one that brings this up on a regular basis. I will state that I don't think your argument is a strong one. And I find it ironic that the Rasmussen poll which finds that CBS was the most biased networked is not even mentioned there, yet it is used here to prove that FNC is biased.  :) Now you can all talk your way out of that if you wish, but until you or others can prove to me that FNC is the most biased, this argument that you are presenting holds no weight. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. The article isn't saying the FNC is the most biased and no one wishes it to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, Arzel... this is about the controversy, not the bias. And regarding "you don't think the argument is a strong one": How many RFC's do you need to consider the argument a "strong one"? Wikipedia has spoken at least three times in the last two years, and it's always been in line with what I've pointed out to you every time you try this. I don't think we can get much stronger than that... Best of luck! ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading what The Noble Sith said in the second paragraph of this section. Try also reading what the lead says. It doesn't say controversy, it says Bias, well at least it had, now it uses the politically correct term of conservative political positions. I'll say it again, the reasoning is based purely on opinion with no solid factual evidence to back up the comparison to other major networks. You should have just stayed with that logic like you did when I first brought this issue up, because this sudden switch by several editors only confirms what the real reason is. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arzel, I thought you had a firmer grasp of the fundamental difference between the controversy and the bias. WP:LEAD says that "notable controversies" should be detailed in the lead. The controversy surrounding FNC's alleged bias is enormous... many believe that it is the single most defining issue surrounding the organization. As we all know, the lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. As such, Wikipedia must address the controversy in the lead of the article -- this is without question. Wikipedia must, of course, address the issue neutrally and take no position regarding the correctness of the allegation... however we could no more ignore it than we could omit the fact that the White House is White. Please stop trying to confuse the issue, or argue it's not germane. Clearly its presence is grounded in policy and in the largest and longest running consensus I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Time to accept it and move on. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that many people feel that way, I don't deny that. I'm just saying that it appears to be based largely on opinion. The few sources that do talk about it are mostly inconclusive where the perception of bias and thus the controversy around it, are not much different than the perception of bias and the controversy surrounding most of the other major news networks. The reflection here is that FNC is so far over the line that there is no comparison. This, I believe, is a reflection of what WP is. Dominated by younger, college educated individuals who tend to shift Democratic. So much that I (whom most people consider me to be quite liberal in real life) appear to be ardently conservative. Maybe the real question we should ask is why it is such an issue in this article. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You still miss the point, Arzel. You keep addressing it as an "opinion". The opinion is irrelevant, we're talking about the controversy. To put it another way, the content of the controversy is inconsequential, it's the controversy itself that we're obligated to discuss. That some don't feel it's correct, or that you feel that the content similar to other news organizations, has no relevance here. I feel like I have a better understanding of your viewpoint, and I hope I'm being more clear about the difference between controversy and content ("opinion"). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, is your beef with this article itself or with WP as a whole, because I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement This, I believe, is a reflection of what WP is. Dominated by younger, college educated individuals who tend to shift Democratic.. Try to decide what you're problem is before you just start causing arguments please. I feel like I'm playing a game of ring-around-the-rosy. And I apologize fpr that rude edit summary, I was tired and not feeling very patient. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've tried to stay out of this particular discussion, but Arzel you're out of line and just plain wrong on your assertions. Maybe you should try reading the archives, and the FAQ. Since the initial RfC, the consensus has always had the lead stating "conservative political position" (perhaps during one of the dustups someone changed it to bias, but it was changed right back). Also your position that anyone has changed their position is likewise without merit. It has never been about stating FNC has any actual bias. If it had, AP, myself and others would never have consented to its inclusion. You lose credibility when you make up stuff that just doesn't exist. There is a difference between "allegations of bias" (the term Noble Sith used) and "actual bias". No one is taking the position of "actual bias" (in the article at least). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, You are correct, it only mentioned bias as FNC response to the intitial statement. However, taking conservative political positions is implicitly stating that FNC is biased. You even commented on it in the Archives. Let me just add this. To all of you who feel that the bias opinion should not be in the introduction: I agree. But, what I or you feel is unimportant. It is what the consensus determined. As stated numerous times. The concensus is a) to not mention it in the introduction, since it is one of the factors of Foxnews's notability, Note, that you were making a distinction between a statement of fact that FNC was biased and simply the allegation that FNC is biased. Pretty much all of the discussion talked about the way to make the bias statement.

My statement that I struck is out of line, I reviewed the history and I confused this with something else, sorry Blaxthos.

That said, the first poster questioned the lead statement. The Noble Sith stated that FNC's bias was so extreme that you could not compare it with any other network. However, according to the Rasmussen Poll, CBS is (was at least then) percieved as the most biased network. Gamaliel and Blaxthos then stated that FNC's controversies were such that you could not compare FNC with any other network (though I think the CBS false military report on Bush was a pretty big story). All I am saying is that if this logic is going to be used to back up the reason for inclusion here but not in the other major network articles, then it is a weak arguement. Arzel (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you. I did not say their bias was more extreme, I said the controversy about their supposed bias is. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to remember what you wrote. You said the allegation that they are biased is so extreme.... Just what allegations of bias do you feel are extreme controversies? Arzel (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that it's not about actual bias but the perception of bias. The lead does not imply anything (at least it's not meant to imply anything). It takes no position on whether FNC is biased. As to your other point, at FNC the perception of bias is so extreme that a major U.S. political party boycotted debates there. The perception is real and extreme, whether or not the actual bias is. When CBS, ABC, or CNN are boycotted for a similar reason, we could then discuss how to handle it here and or at the other articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that if you believe the CNN page or MSNBC page needs to have information in them about their notable controversies in their leads, then the thing to do is to go to those pages and edit them. That really is not a valid argument for changing this page, because it could just as easily be said that those pages need to be more like this one. Therefore, I would have to say that that is a nonstarter. At the same time, contrary to what some editors would have you believe, it IS appropriate to raise the issue again if you believe that a NEW CONSENSUS is possible. The page-ownership "we" language and "It's not changing" language used on this discussion page over and over needs to stop. Bottom line, it's good that you raised the issue again, but I do not believe you've demonstrated that this article needs to change. Urzatron (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Give us a break. Who are you to tell AuburnPilot how to frame his response? Walk a mile in his shoes first. Taking his quote out of context to make a point about an argument no one is making is really bad form. Very disappointing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't name any names and have no plans to do so. Urzatron (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I commend the lOP for bringing this topic up. It needed to be said. I'm personally ashamed at the responders for their obviously liberal biased claims. "Widespread and most well known bias"? How can you even begin to prove that? There is enough EVIDENCE to the contrary claiming that Fox News is anything but biased. The fact is, they SHOW both sides to an issue, something the major networks rarely if ever do.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy here isn't one at all. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats will always decry Fox News for being biased. End of story. The fact is, they don't want "risky" uestions asked of them by conservatives. That's why they don't debate on FNC. They should though, considering FNC beats the three main news broadcasts in ratings every year...PokeHomsar (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read section 4 of the FAQ. There is no attempt to "prove" anything. It only states that there is a widespread perception (not just Democrats) that FNC promotes conservative talking points. You have not raised any reason for the lede to change, so I suggest you move on. There are over 2 million other articles here and many of them need work. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Should This Stay?

Someone added this to the article:

The liberal group MoveOn.org distributed a DVD highlighting examples of bias entitled Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.

I don't really have a problem with the way it is worded or anything, but is it notable enough for inclusion? TheNobleSith (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It really should be cited, at the very least. Urzatron (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed is certainly significant enough to mention. Gamaliel (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have watched Outfoxed, it has some hard evidences. It should stay.Speaker1978 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong in this article. It belongs in the Fox News Channel controversies article. Bytebear (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable controversies are to be briefly noted in the main article; the exposure is clearly demonstrable via its #1 selling status at Amazon.com. We're not going to go scrubbing it from the parent article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that OutFoxed in and of itself is notable. I do not think it is. Perhaps the idea that Fox News is "conservative" but not this specific video. You are pointing to a tree, when the guideline is meant to summarize the forest. Bytebear (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Number one at Amazon means it's notable. Nice try; notability does not apply to content anyway... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Forest for the trees. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted a policy to you that invalidates your argument, and I've also given you evidence as to why it would be notable if your assertion were correct. I fail to see your point, save the insistence that negative content be scrubbed regardless of policy. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you quoted a guideline, not a policy. and my argument isn't that OutFoxed isn't notable. But it is one of many sources that claim bias by Fox News. To single them out would give them undue weight (which is a policy) given the forest of sources out there. Bytebear (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

An documentary that can sustain its own article on Wikipedia certainly has due weight for inclusion here. WP:N gone, WP:UNDUE gone, what's next? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in a summary article, which this is. There is an article appropriate for discussing Outfoxed, and that is the Outfoxed article, and the Fox News Channel controversies but on those issues, this article is a summary of the forest, not a description of the trees. Bytebear (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but this individual tree is notable enough to at least be mentioned here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? There are many critics of Fox News. What makes this particular critic more notable than others? Adding it is undue weight, which contrary to Blaxthos's statement that I am "policy shopping" has been my point all along. I remind him to assume good faith before making further unsubstantiated accusations. Bytebear (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight would apply if we only mentioned this critic, or if we devoted a large section to only this critic. Gamaliel (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed (MoveOn.org) is the only critic mentioned in the section (possible the article). Bytebear (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that section should certainly be beefed up. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a sub-article, I would go with summarized rather than beefed up. Bytebear (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomato, tomato, whatever we call it, I think we essentially agree. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to go relegating all criticism or negative information to a POV fork (effectively hiding it from the relevant article). As I pointed out previously, an article on something that can sustain its own existence certainly must be mentioned here. With regards to the "only critic mentioned", I think we should expand treatment of the subject rather than try to excise it entirely. Failing to mention these elements of the subject removes any chance of credibility for the project. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that was a sub-article is for, so you don't bloat the main article? Right now, there is only one critic listed. You can either add a bunch of other criticisms (bloating the article, and duplicating information already provided in another article), or you can summarize. I really doubt that Wikipedia as a project will suffer credibility issues by summarizing (such dramatics). I vote for summarizing. But I am glad you finally agree that one tree is not a forest. Thank you. You still seem to think the subject is "Outfoxed: but it isn't. The subject is criticisms, and more specifically accusations of bias No one is suggesting excising the subject, but you are so focused on saving this one tree, you are now accusing me of burning down the entire forest. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right... we will summarize each notable controversy here. As I explained above, this content is clearly of greater proportions and consequence than most of the others listed (as it has its own article). Just like in the lead, we should summarize notable concepts with related articles here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 selling status on Amazon.com for a day does not make the movie mainstream in the least. It is only popular in liberal circles, and that is it. If you wanna make the argument it is mainstream, prepare for a losing battle.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New further reading section

I created a further reading section so that things that do not belong in the external link section have a place in the article. Basically, the further reading section may include articles that are relevant to the Wikipedia article. These further reading articles basically are articles having information that can be added to the Wikikpedia article on Fox but have yet to be cited in a footnote. From the further reading section, I removed

• "Fox Factor". USA Today.
• "Q2 '06: FNC #9 On All Of Cable TV". Media Bistro.

since they only contained a blurb on Fox. Feel free to add these to the article in a citation. Bebestbe (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some observers?

What are these "some observers" the article speaks of on the lead-in to the article? This needs references or it must be removed to meet quality standards.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

POV?

This article just screams liberal POV, whether some editors deny it or not. The fact that "critics and some observers" is not sourced proves this. The article needs balance. What "some observers" do the editors of this page mean? What "critics" are they referring to? I know it's the lead-in, but the least that can be done is remove "some observers" as it shows a liberal tilt.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To say "some observers" shows a liberal tilt doesn't make sense. As I said above, this has all been discussed and is explained with the FAQ and archives. The current wording, and absence of sources, is a product of consensus. See WP:LEAD for more information on the fact that the lead should mention notable controversies and that the lead does not require sources. I am happy to discuss new points of contention, but please familiarize yourself with how we arrived at the current wording. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I applaud your effort to continue to assume good faith with this guy, his contributions, iuser page, and significant discussion at WP:ANI is plenty enough evidence that WP:AGF may be abandoned. I'd caution against feeding the troll beyond this point. Just my opinion... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, this article has a pronounced conservative POV by omitting the numerous examples of Fox misdeeds that would show its right-wing bias. In the latest one, Fox photoshopped the images of two New York Times staffers who had dared to report Fox's ratings slump; their reward was to have Fox broadcast distorted images of them, without, of course, any disclosure to the viewer. See [3] and [4] for details. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of trying to label the political viewpoints of the editors, either right or left, can someone please look at the policies before coming here? Couldn't it just be that the editors here are trying to present a neutral article, in compliance with relevant policies? The reason that the info James wants isn't in is because it just hit the blogosphere yesterday and also because there is a controversies article which could cover it in more depth, provided there is a consensus that it is significant for inclusion. On a personal note, (and at this point, I don't care if it is taken as a personal attack) the extremism presented by both Pokeshamsar and James Lane disgusts me. It is people like you two, who wish everything and every issue become a battlefield, without room for compromise, that presents the biggest threat to the country, as with it, no problem will ever get solved. Grow up and put down the political swords, and try to work with people who may view things differently from you because everyone has different experiences. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't jump to conclusions about JamesMLane, who is an excellent editor of long standing, based on this single comment, nor should you lump him in with the likes of an insulting edit warrior. I think the point he was trying to make is not that OMG this single thing is missing, but that this article, for whatever reasons, omits many prominent issues and criticisms of Fox and his hardly a liberal hatchet job. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump to any damned conclusion I want to jump to, and state any opinion I feel like stating--Thank you. It seems to be the way the place goes and I really don't appreciate the admonition! It's good that you know that Lane has been an excellent editor, but when you post crap like he just did, and I'm in the place I'm in, you'll get the response I give. I'm tired of muzzling myself and to what effect. Yesterday I ended my third "wiki-break" in as many weeks, and I still come back to the same garbage I left. If I'm wrong about JamesLane, I'll apologize, but I don't see any difference from his post and Pokeshomsar. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC

You are confusing "I disagree with you" and "You can't do that". Obviously you can do whatever you want, but when you lump in an excellent editor of long standing with a brand new troll, it's not exactly the kind of thoughtful behavior I've come to expect from you. The problem here is perhaps JML's mistake of engaging the trolling instead of ignoring the offending editor, which makes it easy for onlookers to lump the two in together. Also, I'm familiar with the edit histories of both users, where you evidently are not, so that makes it easy for me to distinguish between the two. We all fall into that trap sometimes. I know both of us have snapped at trolls like RPJ, and perhaps an uninitiated onlooker might fall for RPJ's "I don't know why you are offended" routine. But I digress. I know this article is frustrating for everyone involved because it attracts partisans and trolls by the bucketful, but let's not make the mistake of taking a notch out of good editors because we're frustrated at the bad ones. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When an editor posts at a talk page, we don't get to see their edit history or their rating by the community. They are judged by their post and that goes for admin or troll, me, you or anybody else. And I am certainly not now going to start checking user contributions before I respond to what I see. JML's "mistake" was not in responding to Pokehomsar's garbage but with providing his own or maybe more accurately, providing language that appears to be the same.-- "To the contrary, this article has a pronounced conservative POV by omitting the numerous examples of Fox misdeeds that would show its right-wing bias." That is the same sentiment Pokehomsar, Cbuhl, Jsn933, amd several other trolls have stated here, but now its coming from the other direction. Now because you apparently are familiar with his edit history, you are attempting to provide some additional context to his quote, but the plain reading of his edit is not ambiguous, and I believe any reasonable person would take it the way I did, i.e. he believes the article has a pronounced conservative bias, not “one could argue that the article has a pronounced conservative bias.” Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede your last point, and I think he should have framed it with that qualifier or the statement could be interpreted as rather unfair to the editors here. I do agree with James in that I think the article is overly favorable to Fox and doesn't sufficiently reflect reality, but given that a pack of howler monkeys descends upon an editor every time he/she points out something negative about Fox I think it is the best compromise that could be hammered out given the current state of things and reflects the hard work of a lot of good editors, and James' statement doesn't recognize that. In the end though, I think the lesson here is not to engage trolls at all. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon my own review of the contributions of JML, it appears that you were right about him, so I left an apology on his talk page for incorrectly addressing him with my diatribe (let it be clear, I meant everything I said about the rise of these extremist POV warriors that seem to be cropping up on article after article-- they do disgust me. I am not and will not back down from that). Anyway, I'll be taking another Wiki-break in a few hours. My next step may be to take some articles out of my watchlist, or to just quit the project altogether. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are far too many extremists, and it is too difficult to get rid of all but the most obnoxious of them. I hope you don't quit. You might consider avoiding the political articles for a while. When I need to unwind, I work on articles about music or comics or obscure people nobody cares about. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That came out wrong, if this upcoming break doesn't work, then I may refactor my watchlist to take out some of the more contentious articles, that are in there because I added a comma, but which I have no real interest in. I'm not thinking of quitting in any imminent time period. However, at some point down the line it is an option, of course, but I'm not a quitter so that wouldn't be my next step as my comment implies. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would use a phrase like "one could argue that the article has a pronounced conservative bias" if I thought there were a colorable argument to that effect but I weren't prepared to endorse the argument myself. When an editor thinks there actually is a bias, he or she should say so and provide an explanation. It's not POV-warring to say, of a biased article, that it is biased. Other editors join in, agreeing or disagreeing, and that's how we work to root out bias. I agree with Ramsquire's point that there's a daughter article about controversies. Moving material to a daughter article is acceptable only if an adequate summary is left behind in the main article. In my opinion, the main article in its current form doesn't now give the reader enough information about the numerous specific instances that support the conclusion of right-wing bias on the part of Fox. That doesn't mean that the doctored photos must be included here, only that the reader should get an idea of the supporting information, beyond the mere fact that some people have made the accusation. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the story about the doctored pictures came out ths morning and has yet to be corroborated by a third party, and there is no response yet by Fox News, it really is a non-issue at this time. It falls under "ongoing news story" which can reveal new facts. And even if the altered images are true, it is POV to make claim as to why they were doctored. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet the facts stand strong unless NBC "doctored" the original FOX-broadcast. Watch it here [5] Funny? Disgusting? Maybe both. --Floridianed (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctored photos

As editors have now pointed out, there is strong (I would say undeniable) evidence that FNC is doctoring photos in their broadcasts in a retaliatory manner. Despite the usual suspects' attempts to whitewash negative information, an ethical breach this serious must be mentioned in this article. References:

• "Unhappy with story, Fox News alters photos of writers". (MSNBC)
• "FOX News Doctors NY Times Photos". (AOL News)
• "Fox News Airs Revised Photos of 'NYT' Staffers -- Sifton Calls It 'Disgusting'". (Editor & Publisher)
• "Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters". (MMFA)
• "Fox News Airs Doctored Photos". (Drudge Retort)
• "Media Outlets Slam Fox For Doctored NY Times Photos". (Huffington Post, reprinted from MMFA)

Anyone feel up to dealing with the howler monkeys?  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulletpoint 5 is actually the "Drudge Retort". Drudge isn't covering this, at least not yet. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, thanks Ramsquire.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This has not only been a very active topic of discussion on the blogosphere, but had received a fair share of notice from other media outlets. I think it's becoming enough of a scandal to warrant mention in the article.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"exclusively" conservative?

I removed that word because its extreme POV to say anything of the sort. How could that be said with shows such as Hannity and Colmes (Colmes is a liberal) that debunk any evidence of being exclusively conservative. THey may tilt right-wing, but to call them exclusive is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

One liberal example such as Alan Colmes is probably not sufficient to convince the critics. Besides, what is wrong in promoting conservative ideas? Do you think it is not right? Docku (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with saying "exclusively" is because it deceives people into believing that the network is close minded and/or bias. MSNBC is very liberal, but we can't call them exclusively liberal just because they prefer to promote a left-wing viewpoint. Cannot the same be said of FOX News? And furthermore, at network that calls itself "Fair and Balanced" is clearly not trying to be exclusive. They hire what is profitable, and conservatives are profitable. Thus, they dominate the primetime slots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So the network that dumped Phil Donahue and employed Michael Savage is now a liberal hotbed? I guess these are the new right-wing talking points. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Network employed Savage for a few weeks, and since then the network has made ZERO attempts to be fair and balanced. Name me ONE host on the network that is at least from a centrist viewpoint. The closest they can come up with is Chris Matthews, and he's a huge liberal. I guess these are the left-wing talking points. FOX News is every bit, if not less, bias than the other networks who time and time again are bailed out by the media liberals including the leftist blogosphere who controls the majority of the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Carlson Tucker? The guy who called Canadians as retarded cousins... Docku (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Matthews is a huge liberal? Seriously? Assuming that laughable notion was the case, the presence of one or two "huge liberals" does not make an entire network tilt left, especially one that has employed the likes of Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Alan Keyes, and Michael Savage. There simply is no equivalence to Fox, and imagining it to be the case doesn't make it so. Gamaliel (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly stating that a network has a 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias is entirely in the opinion of who's watching. All we can do is present equal viewpoints from highly-regarded people or organizations on both sides in their analyses of the network's supposed biases and make a judgment based on the majority of those opinions. Liberal people think FOX is conservatively biased and conservatives think CNN and MSNBC are liberally biased, and that will probably never change. Unless there's a source that proves every presenter and commentator on FOX News has stated that he or she is conservative, and the same goes for CNN and MSNBC in regards to their respective bias accusations, then I don't think we can accurately state that a network is 'exclusively' anything. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it in. Any reader that sees that will realize that the criticism is directed from the extreme left and realize how rediculous the statement is, especially since the most recent surveys show that FNC has been the most balanced with regards to the 2008 presidential election. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann wins large audience

"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (NBC) - 3 million viewers The Factor - (FNC) - N/A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.219.159 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it doesnt belong here. Second, do you have any reliable reference? Docku (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What he is saying happened for 1 week, in which half of the week O'Reilly was on vacation (his ratings drop when he is not there) and the liberals made a huge deal of it because they have been getting spanked by FNC for so long. One week doesn't justify a wikipedia notice for anything, and it was by a few thousand viewers even then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake; Olberman (for example) and others are on vacation too. So why not taking a break till they're all back? --Floridianed (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be ridiculous. --Floridianed (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about Olbermann statistics on the Fox News talk page? Let's keep this page for discussion on the content of the Fox News Channel article. Our position shouldn't be to continue the debate between both television personalities. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point! So let's close this discussion here if nobody minds. --Floridianed (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fox news conservative?

How can something like that be said in the lead when there is no agreement to that opinion. Fox is certainly more conservative than the other networks, but they are not conservative relative to the American population, only to the other networks. Verwoerd (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the FAQ will help explain things. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the lead does not say FNC is conservative. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in lead

I have changed to lead. That sentence never had a "consensus". It is simply inaccurate to mention "critics and most observers". Some critics have said that Fox is moderate. To simply write critics without a modifier is wrong.

Original:Critics and most observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting. New: Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting. Verwoerd (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, as your changes modify the meaning of the statement. Beyond that, this has been repeatedly decided by a wide consensus over a number of years. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who put "most observers" in the lead, that certainly does not have a consensus. I believe the consensus was "some observers". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

I was browsing this article for information about FNC's ratings and came across a line under Ratings - "For the year 2007, Fox News was the number one rated cable news network. It was down 1 percent in total daily viewers and down three percent in the 25-54 year old demographic. In comparison, CNN was up one percent and three percent, respectively. Fox News finished 2007 as #6 rated overall cable network.[34]" Well, needless to say, I was wondering why a comparison was made between FNC and another Broadcasting News Network and then the information on FNC's ratings out of ALL cable network stations. So, I went to the 34th source on the article and found that FNC was indeed still ahead of all Cable News Stations in 2007. So, I was just wondering why the comparison was made between the two news corps., and then the information given on FNC's ratings out of all networks listed right afterwards. I felt as if it was giving a false sense of CNN being ahead of FNC - even though the article clearly states differently - just thought I'd throw this info. on the Talk page so it can be deliberated upon. 74.244.29.221 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand your reading of the statement. It shows FNC's change in ratings and compares it to what is arguably the other large news network and then it broadens the criteria to include all cable channels. I don't see how it makes it sound like CNN is ahead in ratings of FNC; it merely states they had a raise in viewers whereas FNC had a decline. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the comparison was made due to this sentence in the lead: In the United States, Fox News Channel is rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers, although CNN retains a larger number of unique viewers. In the section on ratings it appears that there was an attempt to delve into the relationship between the two organizations mentioned in the lead. I've never understood why the distinction was made in the lead, but with all the other battles on this article, it never really got discussed. Also I wonder if the information is still correct or does it need to be updated as we are almost now in the second half of 2008, and the information is from 2007. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2007 ratings were reported on January 2008 as per the reference. I dont know if it needs an update unless there is an interim ratings report somewhere. Furthermore, the comparison with CNN makes no sense and it can be removed. It may have been an attempt to diminish the significance of high FOX news ratings.Dock^Hi 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I should make it clear however, as I didn't address this in my response, that I do agree that the mention of CNN does seem a bit random and awkward. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed it. Now, the article still sounds still a little bit obscure because it doesnt say 1 percent down from when (though I assume year 2006). Also, I am not sure how statistically significant is 1 and 3% to be mentioned here. Dock^Hi 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would assume 2006 as well, but it's interesting the link doesn't actually say, as that can make a difference in statistics. 1% and 3% changes all depend on the size of the viewing audience I would think, but I don't think we're really in a position to judge that significance. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the whole history, but this is at least part of it. There used to be no distinction between FNC and CNN, however some time ago someone put CNN as the No. 1 station into it's lead. An editor saw this and put a "conflicting" tag because both stations stated they were the No. 1 station. Not to debate the merits between the regular Neilson Ratings and the Cume ratings, the ratings which are used most commonly are those that show FNC as 1 (Neilson Ratings), and when you hear Neilson ratings these are those ratings. The Neilson Cume ratings (which show CNN as 1) are used as well, but they seem to be used more often internaly by the stations for setting of ad rates. Regardless of which is a more accurate reflection, it is not clear to most people what the difference is (FWIW, Cume ratings indicate unique viewers, Neilson ratings indicate overall viewers. FNC has fewer viewers but they watch for a longer period of time than CNN). So in the interest of removing the conflict between the lead sentences of FNC and CNN, those sentences were put into place. To remain consistant with how the average person views Neilson ratings, this article should say FNC is 1 and CNN's should say they are 2....however, there is nothing that I could find that explicitly states this...so here we are. Arzel (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice perspective, a little confusion. boy, dont you know so much (including ratings used for ad rate). Do you work there or what? (just kidding :)) Dock^Hi 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Closest to working there was that I was a Neilson Viewer once. Discovery Channel got a huge boost those couple of weeks.  :) Arzel (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been some spirited discussion regarding the ratings over the years; most of the established editors of the page are all too familiar with the situation.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

McClellan Admitted He Lied

WH Press Sec Scott McClellan admitted he lied to Chris Matthews about feeding WH talking points to Fox News commentators. This was like a week ago. Why is it still being reported as fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.116 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reference? Dock^Hi 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Youtube video of him on Bill O'Reilly's show, I'll quote my own post in another section above: "By the by, in that video McClellan only says the White House did not send talking points to O'Reilly specifically; his assertion that the White House was doing it to Fox News in general still stands and that's what's reflected in the article." If you have a source where he specifically states that he lied about everything, then by all means post that here. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is hardly a reliable source. Dock^Hi 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one could quote the transcript of the discussion. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is in a reliable source, of course. Dock^Hi 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is simply a record of the actual primary source. And, all references( and I mean ALL) should be third party commentary. In other words, this information does not belong in the article at all, unless a third party reliable source commented on it. But that would make this article really short and we wouldn't want that now would we? Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This has no merit because Scott was replaced. He's telling left biased news agency everything they want to hear to sell his book. Talking points are sent all to ALL PRESS, not just Fox. And Scott said, Mathews misconstrued & misunderstood the discussion. Mathews baited him. You're posting of this one disgruntled failure of a political servant is an obvious bias and is not even a footnote in Fox News history. Do you post comments by noted Ann Coulter about CNN or MSNBC? Or Tony Snow's accusations during White House briefings of reportiing bias on those specific news sites? Or how about this, reporting that Hillary Clinton's campaign manager said Fox News was the ONLY news channel to give her a fair shake, the ONLY ONE. Shouldn't that be noted? And the guy who said it to this day holds that true. (fixed/updaged my log in) Taqiyyacrusader (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are not bound to respond to people who fake their signature. Docku^Hi 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? Anyway, I kind of assumed the anon user faked the signature on account that it was identically formatted like mine despite that user never formatting his signature and that he never contributed to pages similar to this, and the fact that it wasn't added with four ~ but instead was added by an IP address. In regards to the response, it's so filled with POV opinion and biases I don't see a need to address it. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no sarcasm intended. I really thought and still think that it was fake signature. Docku^Hi 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was hard for me to tell—damn Internet! NcSchu_(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, seems this has turned into a bottomless pit of mischaracterization. McClelland did not "admit he lied," he simply clarified that the White House did not contact O'Reilly specifically. There is little doubt that they routinely fed talking points to FNC (and others) -- this is hardly a new accusation, and only serves to give substantial credibility to what others have already said. If memory serves correctly, Olbermann posted an email he received from the White House in 2003 that specifically contained talking points (presumably before the White House realized the nature of Olbermann's broadcast). Let's be very careful when presenting fiction as fact and mischaracterizing the actions of others (be they former White House Press Secretaries or other Wikipedia editors).  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I got this logging thing figured out... but McCllelland was misunderstood by Chris Mathews, baited. Check Oreilly's interview of Scott the next day. So for you to put in as a 'gotcha'..oh...I mean as informative, about Fox News is ridiculous. BTW, the White House has a press secetrary & staff who send out talking points, agendas, info, what have you. Obermann can ridicule it. You can act like its a conspiracy. And this report on Fox News is littered with liberal attacks. How about if you take it all out and place in one section. And make sure the same is done for CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC. Except they are liberal bias of course. Taqiyyacrusader (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't for us to judge whether he was 'baited' or not. He said what he said in the first interview, and only took back O'Reilly's involvement in the second. I still don't see a justifiable reason to say he reneged on his entire statement when no notable source says so. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is for you to judge. To put it in as NOTEWORTHY for an ENTIRE NEWS CHANNEL? Taqiyyacrusader (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - who are you editors? What are your qualifications? How is this article in any way consistent with Fox News primary counterparts such as MSNBC and CNN? I tried to delete this McClennan paragraph because he admitted that they did not supply talking points to Fox News. Your rebuttal is that unless McClennan specifically says that they did not send talking points to individually listed members of Fox, then his general statement will stand and be posted. This is akin to the DNA has cleared the wrongly convicted man, he is scheduled to be released, but he is still GUILTY because the judge hasnt technically signed the order yet. Common sense should tell you the McClennan statement to MSNBC is iffy at best and not reliable, yet you include it! Is this consistent editors with how other subject matter, i.e. CNN and MSNBC are portrayed?Smorrow66 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Give us a source in which McClellan admitted this! That's what we're asking for, but it has not been supplied. This is really just quite a simple thing. We have a reliable source for the original incrimination, hence it's included as it is a very serious accusation from somebody in a position to know. We don't have a reliable source for what you are saying, and citing that Youtube video or O'Reilly Factor transcript will not result in the paragraph being removed as it doesn't contradict the entire accusation. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am the 'wikipedia editor' that initially added the section (I am using a different IP right now). when I added this information, I made sure to state that press releases are very comman and that McClelland stated that the talking points issued were different from a press release. Moreover, the article clearly states that he did not give these to journalists, just commentators. We can speculate as to why McClellan sais this on a 'liberal' network; yes he does have a book out. But without proof, that is, again, just speculation. I thnik we need to look at ourselves and decide what we are really upset about; and the answer is that politics is the heart of this debate. Those of us that are conservative (or whatever) don’t like damming info coming out that counters the fair and balanced nature of Fox. But ask yourself this. If the same info came out about MSNBC or CNN--don’t you think it should be included in the article on those news sources. The answer is yes. And it should not be based on politics, it should be about fairness and accuracy in reporting. We all want that regardless of ideology. Just because the whitehouse gave out some talking points does not therefore mean that the entire republican party is wrong or should be disbanded--it just means there was some unethical behavior among a small group of people. If I said, for instance, "I hate puppies" and later came out and said that I was lying (which McClellan never actually admited to) well I still said that I hated them regardless of what I said afterwards, and my original statement should be notted. McClellan said there were talkings points given to some (not all) fox news commentators, this article is fair in that it specifies that it was not to journalists. McClellan never admitted who he gave it to, may not O'Reilly but maybe everyone else. Heck, maybe it was only one guy--but he still said it. If Clinton was talking directly into the ear of Olbermann, that should be reported too. We work with what we have. Lets try and keep our news organizations living up to the Fair and Balanced standard that they state they are. Therefore, I believe this section needs to remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.49 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things - 1) if you say that McClennan never said who he gave it too - it is unsubstantiated. Need facts to say this is a controversy other than McClennan's winks and nods. Second - you said it yourself - He has a book to sell. How about listing that too! When you state that he said that - it becomes fact in the eyes of the reader. Listing that he is currently selling a book and he is stating these things on a traditionally anti-Bush (anti-white and anti-American) channel will give the viewer the opportunity to judge for themselves the validity of the McClennan claims. The source of the McClennan retraction was his appearance on O'Rielly's radio show - and how about a line where McClennan says that Matthews took his comments out of context? This is only FAIR AND BALANCED - sorry for the yelling but its just so obvious that Fox News is always going to be stressed to be the controversial news channel because liberals hate it since its a popular channel that reflects the views of a large number of viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorrow66 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A Few things-Please act with some civility. How is it unsubstantiated if he didnt say who he gave it to. He said he gave it to fox news commentators. He did say it and he DID NOT say he was lying--he said he never gave them to O'Reilly. Moreover, he still made the initial statements. If Obama says he loves islam and hates america, and then says he was lying or forced into those states by reverend wright..you sure as hell would want those statements listed on his page right? Exactly, because it is all about politics for you. Furthermore, we cannot state that McClellan said this because he has a book out, he may have said it because it was the TRUTH. if it was false, why hasnt fox news filed a lawsuit against him for defamation? WHy havent they, because they would have to admit that he was right. And i dont think we should the take advice on making this article NPOV from someone that says taht a TV network is Anti-American because a few commentators dont agree with President Bush. You are right buddy, everyone who doesnt agree with you hates america and wants it to die? Really man? Reagardless if Fox "reflects the views of a large number of people" (which, again, is unsubstantiated because you dont have a citation for that) doesnt mean that this event did not happen. The fact is that there is proof that McClellan said he gave talking points to fox, we can cite that. YOu dont have proof that he did not, and you have to base your argument around the same tired fallacies (liberals hate fox and they hate america so we need to keep those fags off the internet because they are just adding liews. Here is an idea, try basing your argument for the removal of this section on FACTS, no opinions, or do you even know how to do that?

This section is an extention of the accusation of bias against FNC. It should be removed from here and put into the controversies page since it is undue weight for the main page, and allegations of bias already summarize this type of controversy as a summary for the subpage. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with doing that. Not to be uncivil, but , Smorrow66, who's McClennan? NcSchu_(Talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu - you are correct. My fault - it is Scott McClellan - my misspelling. As for the person who posted without listing their user name - funny how this person calls for "civility" and goes down the road of name calling. In my opinion - some networks are Anti-American based on my views of what a good American is. Also - funny how this person procedes to put words in my mouth and chararacterizes my comments as Homophobic because of line that "we need to keep those fags off the internet." Really - how very rude of that person. Please provide a citation of where I ever said "keep those fags...." You cant do it. You are just as guilty of what you accuse me of.

My whole point in this thing is that McClellan, while selling a book on a competitor's news channel, made some vague comments that the White House provided commentators on Fox News some "talking points". I heard him retract on the O'Reilly show and say that O'Reilly was never given anything like this. All I have asked for is some context to be provided on this section. As a school teacher I have always been amazed by how many students blindly go to Wikipedia and just accept what is there on face value. Of course - due to the open nature of this program - (which is getting better every day, by the way) too many hands can be in the pot. I always explain to my students that they can have any point of view they want so long as they can back it up with facts. To that end - my complaint here is that the McClellan posting is posted as fact, without context. To the person who claims it is my job to prove McClellan did not give talking points so therefore he did - strikes me as ludicrious. Just a note in the body that this a contested issue is enough. Also - does Wikipedia only edit if defamation lawsuits are filed?

"To the person who claims it is my job to prove McClellan did not give talking points so therefore he did - strikes me as ludicrious." Indeed that would be ludicrious if McClellan had never said it, but he did. The section in question is making a claim developed out of thin air, and then tasking others to prove that the statement is false--because if they cannot, then it must be true. McClellan said the white house gave talking points to some, not all, fox news people. I dont think it is necessary to state that O'Reilly was not one of those, because the initial statement by McClellan did not indicate that everyone got these memos. I think we would have to list all of the news commentators and state whether or not they got these talking points--a task that would be impossible without the defamation suit to which you alluded. To compromise, why dont we add something like "while promoting his book on the hardball show...." at the begining so that it clearly states that he may have had an agenda, though we dont know that--in the same way we dont know who got the talking points. I will add that part in if the article is not locked and tell me if it is a good comrpomise. I think we both are letting ideology get in the way of a good article. But i would never call anyone un-american because they beleive something different than me. I am sure you will agree that questioning our government is patriotic, that is what the Revolution was all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.102.187 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

i added the fact he was promoting a tell-all book. and i stated that the commentators were unammed. i didnt add in the part about o'reilly because McClellan was not on the show when he made the claim, nor was he mentioned at all in the section a being pertinent to the subject. it seems like if we state O'reilly, we would have to list everyone else and we just dont have that info. i think the inclusion of the book part puts everything in context. are we coll nnow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.102.187 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deal and it reads well. I hate the my use of the words Un-American were taken literally. I was thinking sarcastically when I wrote that but of course sarcasm has difficulty coming through. All of us are good Americans if we speak up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.160.59 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I changed "a 'tell all' book" to "his memoir, What Happened" in order to correspond to the official genre. The original wording also sounded a bit sensationalist—keep it basic, people. Now, shall we move this to the controversies article? NcSchu_(Talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Though the implications of McClellan's admission are broad and serious, many of the other controversies are just as grave... I don't see that this has gotten enough traction to remain in the main FNC article; at this time it is probably more appropriate here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blaxthos, if you think the move is in the best interests of Wikipedia and its mission, then go for it. There seem to only be a few people that care about this section--and you've put more time into this page as any of us. So it's fine by me if everyone else agrees.--130.108.197.97 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Docku^Hi 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole section concerning Scott McClellan's allegations should be deleted on the ground that it is not WP:NOTABLE unless the White House was distributing talking points EXCLUSIVELY to FOX. If the White House was distributing its talking points to the media widely, for use by whomever or whenever anyone in the media sees fit, this is a non-story. If McClellen is backing off the fingering of anyone specific (and it certainly looks that way when he says "he messed up") such that you're left with something general then there's no story here because for a NOTABLE feeding of talking points to occur, it would have to be to someone or something SPECIFIC, not just "the media".Bdell555 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N (and the concept it defines) does not apply to article content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Call it WP:UNDUE, then, although "undue weight" is, policy-wise, a sub-set of WP:NPOV and I don't really see this as a bias against FOX problem so much as something that doesn't say anything much against FOX if the allegation has been progressively qualified and/or contested such that it can't be properly discussed without an excessive amount of text relative to the article.Bdell555 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of 'ifs' and McClellan states it was strictly to Fox News, making it noteworthy and relevant to the mention somewhere. It has been more than a week since these allegations were made apparent, and so far only the specific allegation towards O'Reilly has been retracted. Also, I'm not sure when this happened but somebody changed 'commentators' to 'hosts', when it is clearly the former that McClellan is trying to stress in the interview. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of even a partial retraction if there is a partial retraction? I removed "unnamed" because nothing in the MSNBC transcript cited as a source for "unnamed" suggests that McClellan did NOT have specific names in mind. In fact, Matthews asks him point blank, "Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever?" and McClellan, far from denying that Bill or Sean were "called", replies "Certainly. Certainly." If, at another time and place, McClellan clarified his allegations such that he wants them understood as being with respect to "unnamed" persons, fine, add a sentence saying he later clarified (or whatever word you want to use) accordingly, cited to a source where he clarifies. But don't conflate two separate instances of McClellan commentary, one to Matthews and one to, say, O'Reilly, into one.Bdell555 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I might add that other sources say White House talking points are routinely distributed widely, which would mean that any claim by McClellan that "it was strictly to Fox News" is contested, and Wikipedia should acknowlege that the claim is contested.Bdell555 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link, please? The wording of the question Matthews asked is very tricky, as McClellan could have been answering either "Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever?" or "Did you do that as a regular thing?". It's not for us to judge, which is why specific names were not mentioned. The 'unnamed' text was added on the side of caution, as McClellan never explicitly stated names. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

??? The link to the Matthews transcript is cited in the article! You are clearly "judging" when you conclude that McClellan did NOT mean to name Sean or Bill or anyone else. The transcript is far too ambiguous to justify that conclusion of yours. The absence of data doesn't prove anything. See argument from ignorance. Even if it did, to engage in such reasoning in order to justify the addition of material ("unnamed") that the source does directly state is original research.Bdell555 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between judging how a certain conversation reads and just ignoring a particularly difficult passage altogether, which is what I'm doing in my reading of this. We take what we have, and what we don't have are specific names. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

would it help to know that McClellan varified his Hardball statements on Olbermann's Countdown that same night. You can go to Countdown's page and get the transcript. I dont think he would have still been confused if he left Matthew's show, had time to think about it, and then made the same statement to Olbermann. It was the same night's broadcast as the interview in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.49 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor has tried to add information about O'Reilly's reply twice. Now, I removed it both times simply because of a poor reference, but it's also a bit factually incorrect as McClellan did not retract the entire statement, only that O'Reilly was one of the outlets. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu, i agree with you. The new text reads as if he retracted the entire statements (because that is exactly what the editor added). But this is misleading and incorrect as he did not retract his statement, he just said that Bill O'Reilly didnt receive the memos. I am not sure why the O'Reilly part is necessary at all because it does not negate what he said. Why is this such a problem!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.197.97 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ok. So we have a little edit war or something going here. Look at the size of this discussion section. One side does not think the statements given on the Oreilly show are pertinent, while the other side thinks it makes the entire accusation false. Here is my compromise, McClellan said on Oreilly that Bill didnt receive the memos, Mclellan never said the whole thing was false (he even verified his statements to Keith Olbermann on COuntdown), but he did say that Oreilly was exonerated from the charges. I added the following sentence that i think can make everyone happy.

Note: McClellan later noted on the Oreilly Factor that Fox News commentator, Bill O'Reilly, was not one of the individuals receiving said talking points from the White House.

There we go, it mentions Oreilly--which is what everyone wanted. I think that is fair. Now can we please move one to more important matters. Or do we need to make an entire article devouted to this talking points scandal. God Bless.

--130.108.197.97 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I was looking for a way to add that in as a simple sentence but failed multiple times at making it sound right. I just removed 'Note' as it that sounded really informal and unencyclopedic. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Are things usually this bad when it comes to wikipedia? I mean goodness, it was like the lincoln-douglas debates in here?!?--130.108.197.97 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be, especially when something's controversial. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be scared off though! Get a username and be happy! NcSchu_(Talk) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill O Reilly admission??

Well an IP added this. I listened to it. I am not sure if he is admitting that FOX news is right wing or he says that NBC thinks FOX news is right wing. I have a feeling that the latter is more correct. In either case, I feel that it may be taken off the site soon, if anyone wants to listen, there you go. Docku^Hi 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking from the perspective of NBC. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Available?

it is available to 85 million households in the U.S.

Does that mean 85 million households are currently subscribed to a cable TV or satellite package that includes Fox News, or 85 million households could subscribe to a package that includes Fox News, if they wanted to? If the latter interpretation is correct, it would be interesting to know how many households actually have it; this could maybe mentioned in the Rating section. AxelBoldt (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In my personal experiences, FNC (and CNN, CNN Headline, and MSNBC) come with the standard cable or satellite package (if you have cable, you usually have FNC and the rest). Of course, this is all based on my personal experience. If there are any reliable sources that deal with the issue specifically then it could be used to craft the text more accurately, however I would venture that my experience is the norm in the United States in that there is no delta between do and could. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the delta would be the households that don't subscribe to any cable or satellite package, even though they could. AxelBoldt (talk)

Identification of bias

It was my mistake to remove this statement to begin with, as I apparently had a very large brain fart and completely mis-read what the statement said (it was early in the morning, and I apologize). However, there are still a few issues with this statement which is why I have added two templates to it. First of all, 'generally' is a weasel word in this statement. How often is 'generally'? 60% of the time? 90%? If it's only sometimes then I don't see the benefit or relevance of even including it! I also added a standard fact template since it's...well...unsourced. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is really true and unique of Fox news and can be referenced to a reliable source, it can stay in the article. But I am not sure if political bias section is the right place for it though. Docku^Hi 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the weasel word and will find a suitable referance for posting. Thanks for the attention, NcSchu, and I understand brain farts perfectly. No harm done. FSF-Rapier (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Article messed up

for me; the International transmission section is showing up in the references section for some reason? is this the article or just me? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it too. I believe I fixed it. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. it's fixed now. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NEWS ROOMS....

There should be a section in this article that lists there news rooms & Bureaus. Like they have in the CNN & MSNBC Articles.

I Know of only a few of them.

I Will list them and who ever starts the section can add them to the list.

These are the current News Rooms they use the most on FOX NEWS CHANNEL.

• KDVR [DENVER]
• KTTV [LOS ANGELES]
• WFLD [CHICAGO]
• WSVN [MIAMI]
• WTTG [WASHINGTON D.C.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.64.180 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote entry nominated for deletion

The Wikiquote entry for Fox News Channel has been nominated for deletion as an attack page. For those who are interested, the relevant VFD can be reached here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Memos criticism section

The one sentence explaining the topic, doesn't explain the topic. If a reader is not versed in this issue, they won't know what the issue is about. There should be at least one more sentence explaining what the critics say about the memos. Additionally, the sentence which states "The other point of view..." needs to be sourced, otherwise it is POV, as the sentence clearly states. 216.158.161.32 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MMfA, MoveOn.org

Ok, I was chastised for adding descriptions of political leaning after references to these two organizations. Reverted, in fact. I have reversed that, but am willing to accept "left-leaning" in place of "left-wing" if it will unbunch the panties. Certainly the groups in question self-identify themselves as left-of-center, and it appears rather standard everywhere else in Wikipedia to have such positional declaratives. Anyone object?--Textmatters (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted again? Ok, "progressive" it is. Please don't remove, Blaxthos. The groups self-describe themselves as progressive. Another revert is inappropriately POV on your part.--Textmatters (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A cornerstone of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. If we go slapping labels on critics and explanations on criticism we introduce editorial opinion. There is no policy or guideline that advocates inserting analysis or characterizations into articles, and it's always best to leave descriptive words out. /Blaxthos ( t / c )

Ok, I'll let it go. I will, however, remove the attribution listed after MRC on the MSNBC article page and certainly expect your support. --Textmatters (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability

so at this point its not considered a reliable source ,is it, for wikipedia a for example....

Sogan

I added the last paragraph to the end of the slogan section because i feel that it is fitting, makes sense, and had yet to be addressed in the section. Furthermore, it is simple, concise, and not 'leaning' one way or another; merely a direct statement and observation. --Cuauhtemoc07 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, new discussions go at the end of the talk page. and second, you need a reference and not state it as fact. I removed it as Original Research and POV. Bytebear (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of FNC Article

This article has quite frankly become a joke, and nothing more than a vehicle for a select group of editors to tailor it under certain guidelines - that although themselves, don't violate policy; still help to portray the lowest common denominator of contribution. There is a consistent movement to edit this article in order to convey a more objective and accurate presentation. In this venture, we have collectively destroyed the original content beyond repair. There is various claims of bias, scattered in a shotgun-like pattern throughout the article, which any attempt of revision is met with resistance from several levels. Collectively we are spinning our wheels at the best way to illustrate the essence behind FNC, and that argument itself serves as the best source to prove the foundation for this movement. This article meets the criteria for existing as an attack page, and should be deleted. A conglomeration of efforts will be valuable in establishing the new article for FNC; one that portrays a truly objective aspect, such that other channels/mediums posses. Wikiport (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of WP:CSD#G10 (negative unsourced biographies of living persons or pure attacks) does this meet? Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, I agree and withdrawal the claim under the stipulation of G10. It was a typo that quite frankly you won't let go. Thanks, but I think we can move further without any additional complaints of a G10 violation. I let my original statement stand as written above. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty bad typo. So bad you did it twice [6] [7] in fact..... So now you've agreed that this article is not a G10 nomination what are you actually suggesting needs to be discussed to fix it up? Pedro :  Chat  11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read up to my original comment above, you will be able to answer your question. The G10 stip. was used mistakenly as a template; which I am admitting was a typo. If I need to acknowledge this fact twice I will. I think the whole G10 thing is done now, yes? Now, lets concentrate on what is important and the issue here. Thanks for your continued support. Wikiport (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the important thing is th earticle. So what specific areas are badly wrong? Pedro :  Chat  12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article as written and organized, is severely in need of a facelift. This would be possible, however I believe there is such a wide spectrum of opinions on this, that no progress is ever really made. There is no need to argue over the use of a single word, or even a phrase; since none of the changes really change anything to make it a more objective article. I fully realize there is no shortage of accusations of political bias of the channel, but do we really need that written in just about every section of the article, to include the introduction? Again, I believe there is a small quantity of people who mean well; however are keeping any real progress from being made. This isn't to serve my own agenda, it is merely to point out that we have a chance to make a truly wonderful article; that at this point is lacking. Thanks for your interest Pedro, I'm glad to see a "new" face to this conversation! I think this is just what this discussion needs. Wikiport (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to put some input here and help if I can. As a Brit who doesn't have Satellite television I can honestly say I really couldn't care less about any bias or otherwise this network may have for our American cousins :). I think the initial issue Wikiport seems to be identifying is the piece identifying bias in "...about every section" of the article. I'd be interested in some debate on that. Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been raised several times in the past. Check the archives. If there is a specific complaint that hasn't been addressed adequately or hasn't been raised, I'd be glad to help. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but given this new editor's spurious attempts to delete the entire article twice, as well as his flagrant POV-pushing throughout his short editing history, I don't believe that he's done due diligence in reading the past discussions and endless RFC's. If there is a concern than hasn't previously been raised, by all means let's address it. If this is nothing more than disagreement with the content (or an attempt to whitewash the article) his actions and his statements are only an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Everything in this article is firmly grounded in consensus, and a simple perusing of the archives give a clear indication of why things are the way they are, and the processes utilized to reach (and later validate) such. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Blax; I didn't "attempt" to delete the entire article. I made a typo which I admitted above, and only then was I nominating it; AND I opened the discussion here for editors to comment on. It is easy to see your agenda here as your contributions are basically exclusively to add criticism of the Republican party and associated individuals who you may deem as conservative. Not only have you applied to have users blocked who oppose your POV, but you violate the very rules you quote to others to further your cause. Other than that, GREAT JOB! Thanks so much! Wikiport (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to be deleted. Rather than make blanket accusations of bias, please post specific material that you have a problem with and let others comment.

Blaxthos and I agree on everything so why not ask us :)--Tom 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I don't think an objective and fresh look at this article would do any harm. The "consensus" you speak of is by a very few members who agree on the subject. That is hardly grounds to cement something in law if a new party comes along and wishes to tailor to article towards neutrality. There has been no compelling argument speaking to the fact that the introductory section should stay as written. This is what the discussion page is for; just because a discussion is in the archives, doesn't mean it can't be brought to light again in a more accessible and viewable arena. Your word carries as much weight as mine. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked four times in this thread to be specific. Can I suggest that you pick one area you regard as problematic, and start a discussion with your suggestions for improvement. But also be aware that many aspects of the article have already been debated at considerable length over long periods of time. Dean B (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, as I have stated, specifically; I am concerned regarding the wording in the introductory section of the article. I have no problem with controversy or "negative" language towards Fox News at all. I'm not trying to "whitewash" the article what-so-ever. I'm not sure how many articles we need that speaks to the supposed bias of Fox News; but, since we have them, why not try to ensure everything is where it should be. Thanks for your time, I realize it has been addressed many times in the past. Wikiport (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport, you're obviously never even examined the archives of the last three years' worth of discussion regarding the introduction. We've had, at the very least, three RFC's with the participation of over forty editors, which is quite a remarkable number. For all the consensus building and RFC's, the introduction has remained stable and basically unchanged since 2006. Regarding equating your word and mine, I humbly suggest that your short contribution history of biased edits, your violations of WP:POINT and WP:NPA, your disruptive pattern of removing sourced and stable material, and your factually incorrect assertions ("consensus of very few members who agree on the subject") properly distinguishes your word from mine. Good day. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have gone through this song and dance enough Blax, you can use my talk page if you wish to address something with me specifically. Now, my point stands that this should be addressed. Don't feel the need to contribute if you feel it is a waste of time. There are other editors, and people who gain/lose interest on a seemingly daily basis. Quite frankly, I believe the article needs some new blood. The archives is not a viable excuse why everything should stay the same. Change is inevitable, and it is Wikipedia. Wikiport (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a concern that has not previously been addressed and confirmed via consensus, please let us know. If this is regarding things we've already hashed out, you need to demonstrate that consensus has changed, which is going to be unlikely considering the sheer number of RFCs and editors confirming the wording of the introduction, as well as your questionable history of personal attacks, insults, strawmen arguments, and spurious deletion nominations to make a point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And again, user talk pages are used to address issues specifically with other editors. I fully expect your appreciation in moving your campaign to the appropriate section. I have seen much controversy using "sock puppets" in your consensus, so I must attempt at getting others involved with a more objective opinion. I believe you have thrown the dead dog into the fire now, lets concentrate on improving your excellent contributions to this page. Thanks so much! Wikiport (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseless accusation noted; you may find my response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you moving the conversation elsewhere. I marvel at your persistence in this matter! Now, lets turn that energy into improving this article. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please list something specific about the intro that you don't like that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, excellent question. To be as specific as I can, I don't believe we need any language in the introduction of the FNC article that speaks of bias in anyway. That isn't what an introduction is for. I mean think about it, would you intro one of your friends at a party as, "Hi, this is my friend Jim, some people say he is conservative, while other's say he isn't." It makes no sense. There are ample sections and sister sections that speak to the alleged bias of FNC. Furthermore, I believe that the fact that other news mediums (who are equally accused of bias) don't have similar entries in their respective introductory sections. I'm sorry, but just because it is addressed in the archives, doesn't mean this isn't a work in progress. Wikiport (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's already been addressed to death. We've had at least three project-wide RFC's specifically on that issue, and the community consensus over the past three years is that the introduction must cover significant controversies (which is specifically covered in WP:LEAD). Also, we're not really concerned with other articles; even if we were, clearly the scope of the bias controversy with regards of FNC far outweighs those of other mainstream news organizations. This is all covered in the archives and in the FAQ... repeating it ad infinitum isn't going to earn you any respect or change the facts. Anything else? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear you aren't concerned with any other articles. Question: How do you come to the conclusion that the bias controversy of FNC outweighs other news organizations? I appreciate your relative statement, but it doesn't state a fact. The #3 rated MSNBC has been attacked vigorously for having a liberal bias, to the point where 2 prominent commentators were relieved of that duty. I appreciate your "protection" of the article, but it is quite clear change is needed. I'm not looking to gain your "respect" or debate your supposed "facts" either. It does seem however, there is never a shortage of opinion in your comments, that's what I want to throw-out from this article so it actually resembles a encyclopedic article, rather than a liberal spun attack page. Don't worry, we'll get there.. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have again reported your disruptive editing here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This "editor" has now been "blocked" for "disruption". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that other editors are equally concerned with the intro section, as well as other sections of the article. No doubt some of these concerns have been "addressed" in the past, and no doubt there is a current need to "re-address" them. It is apparent to see when an editor tries to protect the article, once it is tailored the way he/she wants it; just at this stagnant time is when it needs to continue to evolve into a useful article. Wikiport (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fresh back from being blocked for making false accusations, and you're back at it again. I've reported your conduct a third time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Intro

There is a current movement from several editors to remove the language in the intro section of this article that speaks to the bias of the channel. The argument that there are more sources "out there" that speak to the alleged bias of this channel, is purely relative and carries no weight. I have introduced this new section to re-visit this issue, in an attempt to organize the objective effort to either change the intro, or leave it. I realize this has been addressed in the past, however nothing says we can't address it again as new editors come into the mix. Wikiport (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how we've had 3 RFC's over 2 years, in which at least forty editors participated, I fail to see any demonstration that consensus has changed, or that there are any new rationales that haven't already been decided and affirmed multiple times. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blaxthos, although you may be correct; this is the forum to discuss it. I don't imagine anything will change overnight, but at the least it will hopefully open some new dialogue. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct; this is the forum to discuss it. However, the key concept in your response is "new dialogue". All you've offered here is your dissatisfaction with the consensus already reached, and attempts to rehash issues that have been discussed to death -- there is nothing "new" in what you're saying, and the community has come to the same conclusion over and over. Saying "I don't like it" over and over doesn't have any productive value. You've yet to demonstrate that you've even read the archives, or acknowledged the points affirmed and re-affirmed therein. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I do realize that there has been prior conversations regarding this issue, I acknowledge your consensus. However, I continually see editors attempting to make changes to the page which is met with strong resistance from a small group of editors. If there is a standing consensus, than I believe it will stand again yes? I don't see the harm in providing a current forum to discuss this issue, which quite obviously still exists. One thing I have learned about Wikipedia, is that articles are ever changing and evolving. I don't think archives are a sort of constitution. Look at it this way, if nothing else this forum may help to voice your current stance of the consensus. Thanks. Wikiport (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost every editor who has taken issue with the introduction has been a brand new editor who has little or no understanding of (or respect for) our policies/guidelines. Articles aren't written on a whim; we have reasons for doing things and rules to guide us. I've yet to see you quote any policy, or give any rational argument that brings a new idea to the table. We're not going to throw out a well established (I'd contend one of the most solidly established) consensus because every month some new editor shows up without any policy knowledge or background investigation and tries to make changes to the introduction. If you can demonstrate that a policy has changed or been superseded, then we should consider that. If you can even demonstrate that you've read and understand why things are the way you are, you're far more likely to be engaged in a productive discussion. If you show up and twice nominate an article for speedy deletion because you don't like the content, or if you insult administrators and battle established editors, and end up getting blocked for outright lies, then you're going to be seen as a disruptive troll, which is why there is currently a suggestion from a longstanding administrator to have you blocked indefinitely. Quite frankly, we do not welcome the behavior you've exhibited, and (to quote that admin) "this is a troll we would be well rid off[sic]. No useful contributions have been made by this account. None are likely in the future." //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I may not be able to quote every wiki policy at a whim, but I don't think you had this knowledge when you started editing either. I don't wish to engage your comments, but I will say this: consensus can change. Every attempt I have made here has been met with severe opposition from you, to the point of constantly nominating me for block. Your above comments quite frankly would look better on a user's talk page, rather than such a community forum. I don't think this current back an forth does anything for this talk page, or the article in its entirety. Wikiport (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're claiming ignorance of policy as an excuse, you'd be wise to stop trying to make contentious changes that completely defy existing consensus when you (admittedly) do not even know what the policies are! You can't argue that consensus has changed when you don't even understand what the consensus is, or how it was arrived upon. Blocks have nothing to do with "opposing your viewpoint" -- you were blocked for your own behavior after being warned many, many times; don't get mad at me because you got yourself into trouble. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

?? I think it is a given that any new user will have to do research, rather than know exactly where to find it on a whim. I don't see how this is me admitting I don't know policy. Consensus changes my friend, it is clear you don't want it to, your point has been noted. I look forward to your contributions in this matter as it evolves. I would appreciate it if you want to continue this petty argument, to move it to a talk page other than here. I have read the archives pertinent to this issue. Thanks again..Wikiport (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the policy, then you should avoid demanding changes to controversial articles, and especially avoid behavior that results in admin talks of blocking you indefinitely. You should take the time to learn the policies and procedures of Wikipedia by making constructive contributions to uncontroversial topics first, and move towards more contentious articles once you have a firm grasp of how things work. Consensus here has been upheld again and again (don't think you're the first cowboy to ride in and pull this shit, though you're undoubtedly one of the most reckless), and you've neither brought up new points nor given any evidence that consensus has changed. For the record, if you had actually read the archives you'd know that I was not in favor of the wording in the introduction, but later accepted the consensus when it was clear it had formed. In retrospect, I believe that the compromise was an example of Wikipedia at its finest, and given the thrice-affirmed consensus surrounding it I'd say that the process really did get it right. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is not an attack how? I tell you what, I have seen time and time again from you that there are more sources regarding the alleged bias of FNC versus the other prominent news organizations. Are you able to provide any proof to your statement? I think that would be valuable. The reason why I believe that consensus should be tested, is the fact that current events have a tendency to change opinion and encyclopedic articles. If you believe that the consensus is so strong, lets give it some time to discuss it here, and test it again. What is there to lose? Wikiport (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely no longer assuming good faith; you gave up that luxury long ago. You're a brand new editor, you've never made a constructive contribution to any article. You've barely participated in any activity or article that doesn't center around a right-wing POV, and you've taken every opportunity to push your point of view, consensus and policy be damned. You've made countless spurious accusations, insinuations, and outright lies; you twice nominated this article for speedy deletion, and later admitted that it "was a long shot" and only to make a point, and then even later tried to blame BOTH nominations on "a typo". You've been blocked for POV pushing and lying, and you're in serious danger of being removed from Wikipedia entirely (with good reason). You've fought with administrators, you've removed administrators' comments on talk pages multiple times. You've used smart-assed comments and passive-aggressive faux friendliness. If a new editor unfamiliar with policy arrives and needs some discussion to understand policy and history, I'm glad to help; in your case, there is no way I could ever see you as doing anything more than trolling and agenda pushing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect some acrimony here? It's curious how often a fine fellow such as Blaxthos, certainly an exemplary Wikipedian, utterly well versed in its etiquette, seems to get into bitter disputes with novitiates. I wonder why. Oh well, on to substance. In and of itself the statement that says "Some critics and some observers ..." is true enough and relatively innocuous. Obviously, some critics and observers say this. Technically, it violates WP:OR and WP:Weasel as do literally millions of statements in Wikipedia but some latitude is usually extended to introductions. The problem comes with the unwillingness of some editors to even try to be consistent in politically contentious articles. For example, MSNBC's prime time lineup is now vastly more biased than Fox News's prime time lineup has ever been. It is, in fact, an utter "closed shop" between 8:00 and 11:00 P.M., with Olbermann, in particular, becoming a parody of himself. The fact has been observed by relatively neutral commentators such as the L.A. Times's Howard Rosenberg and ABC's Howard Kurtz. No peer reviewed studies are needed to assess "The Bush administration's fifty running scandals" or "McCain in the membrane". Yet the same editors who insist on retaining the statement about Fox's alleged bias in the article's intro regularly block any similar introductory mention of assertions of bias regarding MSNBC. Typically, they point to Wikipedian "principles" which they violate themselves when it suits their purposes. WP: OTHERSTUFF is one them. Here, of course, they tend to ignore their roles in creating that "other stuff". In short, the statement under discussion in the Fox article would be fine if a similar statement in the MSNBC's article's intro were also fine. Otherwise, leave them out of both. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Novitiates who make repeated spurious speedy nominations, accuse me of sockpuppetry, and get banned for blatant lies will certainly receive an acrimonious response from me; new editors in good standing do not. This isn't a conversation about other articles, and every single point you've brought up is clearly explained in the FAQ at the top of this page. Peer reviewed academic sources are required for such claims, opinion pieces from other media outlets are not qualified to make such claims. I also note that you also removed the introductory statement within the last 24 hours, a clear thumb in the eye of consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that if there was a similarly worded line of text in the introduction of the MSNBC article, than it would make this intro here a little easier to stomach. My problem really isn't the fact that it points out a bias, my problem is where it sits in the article. There is no shortage of sources accusing MSNBC of the same bias, albeit other side of the spectrum, so I do think a entry would be in order to create balance. I think in the current climate, it is easier to see the horns come out in these organizations, which will provide some notable additions, but I don't think we should author these articles in such a way that gives favor over the other. Wikiport (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So the issue is that you're mad that MSNBC doesn't have a bias line in the introduction, and so you're either going to force it in there, or remove it here? That's another clear violation of WP:POINT. WP:LEAD absolutely states that it belongs in the introduction here, and the FAQ already explains it to you. There is no policy requiring MSNBC and Fox News Channel articles must be balanced with each other, and I believe there is a discussion on this issue ongoing at Talk:MSNBC that an editor has accused you of disrupting (see WP:ANI). Let's limit the discussion here to improving this article, and let's keep it grounded in policy instead of pointing to other articles and crying foul. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough, you are taking my words out of context. There will be no more back and forth with you here. Move it to a talk page, or keep it to yourself. You are obviously against any discussion regarding the introduction here, and are being outright disruptive. I am able to quote policy as well, but I'm not going to waste time on a peripheral argument with you. You know what the issue is, and you have voiced your opinion. Wikiport (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I gladly discuss anything with legitimate editors (and by that I mean editors who obey the rules and especially NPOV). In my opinion you don't fit into that category and therefore I have to ignore your comments till they're productive and helpful to the project. --Floridianed (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is the alleged bias statement in the Fox News Channel introduction needed.

Template:RFCpol Is the alleged bias statement in the Fox News Channel introduction needed, if it is discussed throughout the article? Wikiport (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This action was suggested by an admin. I believe it will serve to help provide insight to the current discussion. In the wake of current events and political coverage, this is an extremely viable point. My policy violations have not been malicious in nature, only simple ignorance that any new user possesses. Thank you for you input. Wikiport (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• retain bias comments in lead - the concern over bias in FOX news reporting is well-documented, and a prominent facet of the topic. leaving it out of the lead strikes me as incomplete coverage of the material. let's be honest: this is a politically charged issue, and it's a delicate task to write something that avoids the appearance of being politically biased. if we don't comment on it at all in the lead, that will look pro-conservative, just as commenting on it too strongly will look pro-liberal. the current version isn't too bad; I say leave it. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree - The introduction should contain no mention of bias, as it is contrary to the WP:Structure policy, [[8]] There is no shortage of coverage regarding the alleged bias of the organization within the article, to include several sister articles which speak exclusively to the alleged bias of the channel. This language is poorly placed and is covered in depth in the article itself. I vote to exclude the alleged bias comments in the intro. Wikiport (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How many times are you going to "vote", since you're also the nominator? Also, you have linked WP:STRUCTURE as supporting your position. The section, in its entirety, reads:

Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Can you please explain how that supports your position, especially given that the governing policy on introductions, WP:LEAD, states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

We have one policy that clearly dictates what belongs in the introduction, and one that has nothing to do with the subject at all. This is exactly why I nominated for speedy close of this RFC -- it's a bad faith initiation that has no ties to policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• retain bias comments in lead - Make sure the bias allegations are sourced though. I'm sure it won't be hard. Ngchen (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, elevating any one (or more than one) citation to the introduction gives it undue weight. Since the claims are clearly supported by many citations within the article itself, sourcing in the introduction isn't necessary. See the FAQ. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with previous consensus. Nothing new has been presented here to even discuss, much less something worth overturning that broad consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Not including it in the "lead" would be similar to writing a biography on Christopher Columbus and not mentioning his voyages in the "lead" section. Docku:“what up?” 14:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• disagree - Are we serious? Of course it should not be included into the lead! Anyone with a brain knows there are sources that will attest to the bias of the news organization. Read the article! It's all about bias and conservative issues! Keep it where it matters. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Remove from intro. Bias controversy is handled in the interior of article. Including it in the lead creates the impression that credible charges of bias have been made against Fox uniquely among cable news networks. That is certainly (Matthews, Olbermann, Abrams; now Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Olbermann. Are we serious?) no longer the case. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove from intro or add similar wording to MSNBC intro. Credible bias have been leveled at both networks. --rogerd (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Fox News Channel article. If you want to discuss changes to the MSNBC article, try Talk:MSNBC. The content of one article is not to be used as a bargaining chip in a discussion about the content of another. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable controversy in the lead for reasons stated several times and as per WP:LEAD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the following comments on both the Fox News and MSNBC talk pages. I recommend that the following statements, or something quite similar, be put in the respective leads of the two articles:

Critics and some observers of the network say that Fox News Channel has promoted conservative and pro-Republican political positions since its founding.

Critics and some observers say that MSNBC has become increasingly liberal and anti-Republican, particularly in its prime time lineup, during President George W. Bush's second term in office.

Obviously the last few words of the second statement would have to be modified shortly. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep mention of bias in the intro per previous 2 years of discussion, multiple RfCs, WP:LEAD and everything said above by Ludwigs2, Gamaliel, Docku, Blaxthos, and Ramsquire. Maybe one day somebody will actually have an opinion based in policy (rather than a distortion of policy) when they fight for the mention of bias to be removed, but I've yet to see it. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the bias introduction. I have followed this article for several weeks now, i'm amazed at the catfights. My little minion was right, there is a evident bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBasilone (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove or make Consistant Much of the problem here is the fact that there has been a strong shift in MSM, particularly with MSNBC actively pushing for Obama in this election. It is quite insulting to think that FNC is the most biased when existing sources have already stated the FNC has been the most balanced of all news organizations regarding the 2008 election. Much of the objection to any change in concensus is a repeating of facts from several years ago, and FNC has evolved considerably since this time. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, is there some policy you can quote that specifically advocates your position and supersedes WP:LEAD? This article will not be used as a bargaining chip to force changes to an unrelated article, and attempts to do so could (should?) be considered a violation of WP:POINT. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Arzel's argument, I don't see a push to force changes on other articles; just to portray this article using more up-to-date information. I would still have to see these existing sources that Arzel is talking about, of course, but I don't think this concern should be dismissed outright. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, no where in the lead or article does it say or imply that FNC is the most biased network. This has been pointed out to you before. Does anyone here really deny that the PERCEPTION of bias at FNC is not one of the factors regarding its notability? Let's get real here people. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding FNC RFC

In an attempt to keep things orderly for the RFC I initiated for the intro section of the FNC article, I figured it might be a good idea to establish a section for comments. Please feel free to revert or comment as needed. I think this issue needs to be addressed in the wake of current events and the changes made in regards to other prominent news organizations. I respect the consensus in place, but quite frankly I feel it is outdated. I apologize to the editors that have dealt with this for years, but; isn't this what we do here? I think the fact that this issue is constantly revisited is an indication that something must be changed or address in current time. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it changes, it isn't the old dusty encyclopedia that inhabits some corner shelf in your dwelling. I offer a sincere thanks to those editors who have given their time to take this RFC seriously; there is a lot of experience here. Wikiport (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't go stale like bread; in this case, consensus has remained stable for many years because WP:LEAD is very clear on the issue. If you "respect the consensus in place", can you please explain WHY (using Wikipedia policies and guidelines) you feel it's "outdated"? The fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no policy that supports your position. The truly great thing about Wikipedia is that this is not a vote -- no matter how many brand new editors with zero clue about our policies show up, decisions grounded in policies always trump baseless "votes" of inexperienced editors who are completely unfamiliar with policy. As most have noted above, you've brought nothing new to the discussion, offered no policy to support your position, and have simply insisted time and time again that "things should change" without any supporting logic. In a sentence: There is no policy to support your position, because you're just plain old fashioned wrong. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, Blaxthos, Blaxthos!!?? What are you doing here? Trying to stir up trouble after young Wikiport has clearly offered up an olive branch? While I'm sure that there is much valuable information in the Wikipedia policies and guidlines there is even more valuable information in the actual articles. You might start by reading the one on Eddie Haskell. Perhaps you'll want to edit it. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blax, I found some night table reading, WP:CCC. I think it is clear the consensus isn't as solid as you claim, which is good, it means forward progression. I don't believe we need a policy in order to adopt a position, that's like shopping for a law to enforce. To end here, I believe that a great philosophy here is that new editors need not be familiar with rules or policies in order to edit, I swear I read that somewhere in my little welcome package. My logic and position are clear, I really can't be any more specific for you. I respect your opposition to this, you have really made it clear. Thanks. Wikiport (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes CCC. What is needed for consensus to change is a reason for consensus to change. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

young wikiport? like u know him? Docku:“what up?” 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"While I'm sure that there is much valuable information in the Wikipedia policies and guidlines there is even more valuable information in the actual articles." Policies dictate how articles are written, not the other way around. If you don't understand that, Badmintonhist, then I don't think your opinion carries any weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policies do not "dictate" how articles are written. They give guidelines. Two sets of intelligent people could each scrupulously follow those guidelines and wind up with very, very different articles on the same subject. There is nothing in WP:LEAD that would "dictate" to an editor that mention of a bias controversy is called for in the case of Fox News but not in the case of MSNBC. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

got to go with Badmitonhist on this, per wp:IAR. policies are not the be-all-and-end-all. --Ludwigs2 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And in this case, what rule prevents us from improving or maintaining this article? Until such time as this guideline or policy is stated explicitly, I think we should abide by WP:LEAD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Badmintonhist on this. I see WP:LEAD thrown around a lot on this subject, but it is quite open to interpretation. In the end, WP:IAR makes a lot of sense. and directly relates to the discussion at hand here: How to improve the article's lead. I don't believe a blanket statement of bias, is a objective controversy. I would be in favor of inserting language somewhere along the lines of: Fox News Channel's prime-time lineup includes controversial news anchor Bill O'Reilly or something similar, just an idea. We can fulfill the notable controversy lead-in, while maintaining a true NPOV. *Please note, that's just a hipshot suggestion, it obviously needs work. Wikiport (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lawyering

This discussion is about Fox News Channel. This discussion apparently is centered around what occurs on MSNBC, and the clear intent is to try and hold this page, which is compliant with policy and formed by consensusbuilding, hostage to an unrelated article. If the problem is there, then engage in the discussion that has been progressing at Talk:MSNBC. As I said a moment ago, the logic presented is a clear case of wikilawyering to force a point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote wikilawyering: In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations. FNC and MSNBC are separate articles, yes. However, I think it's like discussing the Red Sox [[9]] and Yankees [[10]] rivalry, but only addressing one side. Of course some opinion from the other article is going to bleed over a bit, since most editors here are involved in both talk pages, I don't see how it distracts from the RFC. Wikiport (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

People are arguing here that one article should or should not have something because another article does or does not. That's not a valid argument for what we should be doing here and is a distraction from legitimate discussions about article content. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)