Jump to content

Talk:Fox News: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{American English}}
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=C}}
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=C}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}

Revision as of 18:00, 24 September 2020

Template:Vital article

Identification as a "Conservative" News network in 1st line

I question the necessity of calling Fox News a "conservative" network in the first line, when its conservative political slant is already extensively covered in the second half of the lead.

The other problem with this wording is, as a news network, Fox covers things other than politics. For example, the deaths of famous people, crimes, international tragedies, natural disasters, etc. This is just general news that has nothing to do with partisanship or a conservative spin. Therein lies the problem with calling Fox a conservative network in the first sentence. Fox is a news network that has a significant conservative slant in its political coverage but not all of its coverage is political. Hence, calling it conservative in the first line is gratuitous when we've already covered the conservative aspect of their political programing throughout the rest of the article in great detail. Amorals (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative" is not used to characterize obituaries or football scores. It is a category of news and editorial commentary. So it is not gratuitous. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point User:Specifico, or at least you may be unintentionally making the point for me, that Fox news does in fact cover obituaries and football scores, so just calling it a conservative network implies all it does is 100% political news and editorial commentary. Therefore, it seems gratuitous when you already extensively cover that aspect of its programing in the 2nd half of the lead.

I didn't write this article, so I didn't already do anything here. Most daily media cover deaths and sports. Fox's brand and its revenue relate to its conservative editorial slant and its conservative evenening cable TV programming. That's a fact and that's why it's widely tagged "conservative" -- regardless of whether that label really does it justice. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conservative network, or, if you prefer, a conservative channel, according to books, newspapers, commentators. That's what Roger Ailes, a former press aide to Nixon, set out to create. Guy (help!) 20:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC is a Progressive Network and so is CNN according to books and cable executive that is a fact!Guitarguy2323 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

web site starting in December 1995

The source used doesn´t say anywhere that it was created then, a new source needs to be put there2600:1702:1A10:24F0:2DF1:6E08:ECAA:B689 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Undue Weight Tag

As this tag was placed in March and still no arguments have made to support leaving the tag, I would like to get a consensus to remove it. RemoveSlipandslide (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think no arguments have been made since April 2018. Two years by now. Anyone with specific proposals on the exact problematic content? Or we can remove the tags. starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a problem.... extremely imbalanced. I assume all would agree with that. It needs major consolidation instead of a tit-for-tat format. Reads like daily news releases added day by day reported by its competitors.--Moxy 🍁 03:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FDU study?

I was surprised not to see mention in the article of either of the Fairleigh Dickinson studies (like this one) about news consumption. They've been covered pretty extensively by e.g. Business Insider (among many others), drew a response by Fox, as well as a response-response. I see a couple mentions of it in the talk page archives, but presumably before it got as much coverage as it did. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: - go ahead and try to add it? starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Lead paragraph.

This paragraph is combative and bised using biased sources. Have a seperate section in the main article. Or at least describe CNN and MSNBC as extremely biased for Democrats which is a fact. Wikipedia should be unbiased and this lead looks like a 'progressive' hit job.

I have no issue with it being called conservative because thats what they brand themselves as at least a majority of the newscasters employed at the channel. but at least be fair and have the same type of lead for CNN and MSNBCGuitarguy2323 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We follow what reliable sources have written about the subject, even if some editors find that inconvenient. The last paragraph is fine. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL It really isn't and your reliable sources are media matters and vox not "unbiased" or respectable. There are many reliable sources that say MSNBC and CNN are anti trump progressive networks even the heads of the stations have said that.

Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Media Matters has been demonized as a "Soros-funded radical left-wing propaganda hate site" on Fox News and elsewhere, conditioning many to reflexively dismiss it on sight without ever bothering to actually examine it. But Media Matters provides videos and transcripts from conservative sources that are objectively indisputable, and thus should be viewed as reliable regardless of whatever commentary or characterizations the Media Matters editors may provide about it. Many conservatives despise Media Matters because the site watches what they say and publicizes their lies. And liars generally don't like being exposed as liars. soibangla (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters was literally founded by a Democratic Operative(David Brock). I am not a conservative but to say media matters does good work is bull. CNN and MSNBC have had reliable sources call them out as well and they were considered State TV and the Operative Arm of the Democratic Party as well should I edit that into their article leads? Cause you literally have CNN as non partisan which it is not Guitarguy2323 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guitarguy2323: You're being a wee-bit disingenuous. Media Matters was "literally founded" by former conservative journalist, David Brock. Prior to starting Media Matters, David Brock had been a conservative journalist for the conservative magazine The American Spectator, editor of a conservative magazine Insight on the News (sister publication to conservative newspaper The Washington Times), and had been a fellow at the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, In 2002 David Brock wrote a book titled, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative explaining why he is no longer a conservative. At WP we follow what RS report in order to avoid making mistakes like you did. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources calling CNN/MSNBC "State TV and the Operative Arm of the Democratic Party," I strongly encourage you to add them to the leads of those articles. Hannity doesn't count. soibangla (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are now contradicting yourself you said that Hannity doesnt count but you will allow media matters which is the Democratic version of Hannity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguy2323 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last few sentences should be moved to the body and the "critics" sentence with its academic sources restore. Lead full of media sources as of now.--Moxy 🍁 01:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Politicians and Liberal Pundits and Academics have accused Fox of being unfair to Democrats while portraying Republicans in Positive light should work fine. The entire paragraph is a biased hit job.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We use WP:RS here. Please stop trying to push your personal views and personal "facts". O3000 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the final lead paragraph again then come back to me. Again all your "reliable sources" and "facts" are from OPINION columnists at left leaning sites On MSNBC, Joy Reid, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow are all Democratic Party members like all the conservatives at fox its really not that hard. Jim Acosta Chris Coumo and Don Lemon are also registered democrats and progressives. The pargraph needs to be cleaned up or at least neutral like "Critcs of Fox news" Or at least have a separate section cause you are really showing your bias and un neutralityGuitarguy2323 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with GuitarGuy2323. The Final lead paragraph is absolutely ridiculous. MrWendalyeah (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using biased sources and competitors as sources

Reverted the following changes [1] added first by Sooganssnoogans and later back by JzG, finding that these changes are using FoxNews competitors as sources as well as other hyperpartisan sourcing with an axe to grind. Since when do we trust a competing entities opinions?--MONGO (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As seen above contentious additions for sure. In general this article needs academic source upgrade.--Moxy 🍁 14:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content you're referring to has been in the article since at least September 2019. The content in question includes citations to two peer-reviewed publications. I'm also pretty sure I did not originally add the parts of the content which are not sourced to peer-reviewed research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in question[1][2][3][4][5]
MONGO, I am absolutely for more robust sourcing. I am puzzled, though, that you removed academic sources. I think the best way to analyse Fox's move from rioght-leaning mainstream to the conservative hyper-partisan bubble is by reference to academic sources like Benkler's Network Propaganda. More facts, less commentary, all good. But that works both ways, right? The WP:MANDY statements go at the same time. But Snoogs did not add this content. He reverted its removal by Hsinghsarao. So did I. Routine reversion of drive-by whitewashing. You might want to consider the "Who Wrote That" extension, which helps with that kind of thing - here is the original insertion. Guy (help!) 15:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mayer, Jane (March 4, 2019). "The Making of the Fox News White House". The New Yorker. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
  2. ^ Illing, Sean (March 22, 2019). "How Fox News evolved into a propaganda operation". Vox. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
  3. ^ Boot, Max (August 8, 2017). "Fox News Has Completed Its Transformation Into Trump TV". Foreign Policy. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
  4. ^ Brangham, William (March 5, 2019). "Inside the unprecedented partnership between Fox News and the Trump White House". PBS NewsHour. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
  5. ^ Gertz, Matt (July 9, 2019). ""Destructive propaganda machine": How current and former staffers have ripped into Fox News". Media Matters for America. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
NewYorker leans left, Vox leans far left, not sure on Foreign Policy, PBS centrist slight left, Media Matter far left...these are all mostly financial competitors for a piece of the News viewership. I never trust competing interests when voicing opinions about their competition.--MONGO (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, Jane Mayer is an expert investigative journalist and this is in-depth factual reporting not opinion, so the source matters only in that it needs to be reliable for editorial oversight (which it is). Max Boot is a conservative. PBS is as centrist as they come. MMA I would not use. But overall, I would keep Mayer, PBS and the academic sources you removed, and remove the opinion content (Vox, Boot and MMA). Guy (help!) 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now Fox News is in competition with Oxford University Press and the Newyorker? Seriously? That's the argument for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals? 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And absurd claims along the lines of "Vox leans far left" have gotten editors topic banned in the past because they display a pretty clear WP:TEND approach to editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck with that. Vox, yes, rated as left [2].--MONGO (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you didn't say "left" you said "far left", which is nonsense. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, meh. Vox is leftist. I never cite it. I'm inclined to interpret the removal of academic sources as being bundled with a reflexive revert based on the fact that CNN and Vox were cited as sources, which would be a red flag in a watchlist for this article. Now we know it's been there for most of a year and what MONGO was seeing was reversion of drive-by edits by a user with under a thousand edits (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Hsinghsarao) I think we can skip the recriminations and focus on content. Guy (help!) 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea and now another such account is jumping in to edit war on their side [3]. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you lost me at Fox being part of the "conservative hyper-partisan bubble". I reverted the edits based on a challenge to them. I suppose we can draw up an Rfc and hope more neutral voices arrive to render a verdict on this.--MONGO (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, which of the listed references are actually "academic"?--MONGO (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO - There seems to be a lot sources you're rejecting: all academic sources, the New Yorker, conservative Max Boot, and PBS. So who does that leave as a reliable source for you? Do you mind listing the sources you suggest we use? BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, ah, still in denial about that are you? OK. Guy (help!) 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but New Yorker is NOT an academic source. Neither is PBS. I suggest we don't use any of the details I removed. I challenged the edit...that was why I reverted JzG, and before anyone calls me a partisan they need to look at who brought this to FA and supported this at FAC.--MONGO (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No but this is and both Newyorker and PBS are reliable. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO - Since you reject all sourcing from: all academic sources, the New Yorker, conservative Max Boot, and PBS - Do you mind listing the sources you suggest we use? Just saying "no" to all sources, and not offering suggestions is not helpful. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that entire change. I don't support any of it, so I removed it. Since that is the case, why would I wish to add references?--MONGO (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the description should be based on scholarly rather than mainstream sources is a matter subject to local consensus. The WP:BURDEN is not on MONGO, however, to supplement or supplant sources he believes do not meet these standards. El_C 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C - I agree with you. That's why I asked MONGO to please list sources he/she will approve. And you are also correct, whether to use scholarly or mainstream sources is subject to consensus and if MONGO chooses not to list any sources he/she'd approve of, then so be it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, eh? No, of course it's not. It's a piece of investigative journalism. The academic sources were: Jamieson, Kathleen Hall; Cappella, Joseph N. (February 4, 2010). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19539-860-1. {{cite book}}: Text "pages" ignored (help) and Grossman, Matt; Hopkins, David A. (October 13, 2016). Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-19062-660-0.. I dientified the sources I agree are problematic - Vox, Max Boot and MMA - and the ones I think are reliable - New Yorker (because it's investigative not opinion) and PBS. Guy (help!) 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have academic sources + other high quality reliable sources like the Newyorker. There's no policy based reasons for these attempts at removal. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am having a hard time finding a reason why Vox or MMfA would be reasonable sources for this article in general? I am sure more quality sources could be found for any claim they make and if not that claim is most likely undue. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per MONGO - UNDUE, fails WEIGHT and NPOV - it is biased criticism, in part by network competitors who are hardly expected to praise their competition when livelihoods are at stake. The other part is criticism based on biased political views by academics. Inclusion of this material is the antithesis of whitewashing. There are certainly enough opinions to encompass all news media as explained in the book, Critical Perspectives On Media Bias; it's what the experts say. We should try to maintain some consistency in the way we treat all news media, and it starts with editors choosing sources from a NPOV, not necessarily neutral sources. Wikipedia:Writing for the opposition also helps, and is a much better option than singling out Fox News simply because of disagreements over a political POV - which is dependent on the time of viewing because the network offers news & opinions from both a left and a right perspective throughout the day. Editors should not push the POV that my news is better than your news. News is news, opinions are opinions and the Systemic bias of Wikipedia should not be glaringly obvious to our readers. We all should practice closer adherence to WP:NPOV for the sake of the project. Atsme Talk 📧 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, this is WP:NOTAFORUM and this too you have been previously warned about. Volunteer Marek 06:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you've recently asserted a systemic bias of Wikipedia. Are you suggesting it's a liberal bias? soibangla (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing edit is fully supported by multiple reliable sources and should be restored in its entirety. soibangla (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMatters source should be removed. But that doesn't change the fact that there are multiple OTHER sources, academic and highly reliable, which support the text. Keep the text and other sources, remove MM. Simple and by the book. Volunteer Marek 18:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to edit the MMfA article to show one instance in which it has been called out by reliable sources for making stuff up, as opposed to, say...this. If history is any guide of the response whenever I make this challenge, I anticipate strictly crickets. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement with MONGO that theses are all biased sources. And even if we decide to use the biased sources anyway (which is permitted), there absolutely needs to be attribution which is completely missing here. It should be stated as according to (biased source 1).... See WP:BIASED. Also, I will state I oppose the way these sources are being used and would not use them here at all--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2018, you were "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources."[4] You are now claiming that two peer-reviewed Oxford University Press books by recognized experts are biased sources that we should not use in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snooganssnoogans:Please retract your WP:PERSONALATTACK. I absolutely did not make any such claim about peer-reviewed books. First of all, I don't even know what you are talking about. The rest of us are talking about the five sources in the box above which are not peer-reviewed. I refuse to discuss an AE request from two years ago here and derail this discussion. Cease your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior immediately. Instead of personalizing the dispute, please explain to me why we are using biased sources without attribution in direct violation of WP:BIASED.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to keep up with what's happening then. MONGO removed both academic sources[5] and non-academic sources, and explicitly said "I reverted that entire change. I don't support any of it, so I removed it." when asked about the removal of the academic sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10, PBS is fine, Jane Mayer is fine, Foreign Policy is fine. You can't write a neutral article if you reject every source that is critical of a subject, especially when that subject is Fox News. Guy (help!) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of PBS's political leanings (and it is left), the report is a collection of interview clips that would need to be attributed to the person who said them (WP:BIASED) and the same for the rest of the sources. One of the people being quoted in the PBS report is from Media Matters and I'm glad that we can both agree Media Matters has no place in this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10, your objections to every source critical of Fox are noted, but you are putting words in my mouth. We routinely do include quotes of unreliable sources when they appear in reliable sources, because the reliable sources have either checked them or provide context. Guy (help!) 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters for America

Can we at a minimum agree that Media Matters should not be used at all in this article?. It is a far-left organization that has declared a "war on Fox News". It is purely an advocacy organization, not a reliable source.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion result

I recently closed an RSN discussion on whether CNN is usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News. "The consensus is that CNN is a usable source for unflattering information about Fox News. Editors largely do not accept the financial COI argument to disqualify CNN. Several editors feel that attribution is needed. Meanwhile, WEIGHT / DUE has been listed as a factor by several editors as to whether such content should be used." In relation to the above discussions, the argument against the possibility of using competitors as sources (if they are already known as reliable sources) seems to be rejected at RSN. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This two-part reversion is not trivial or UNDUE content

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&diff=966779267&oldid=966777817

The first part is yet another element that is reflective of a pattern described in the last sentence of the lead and needs to be documented in the body. The second part is about an organized effort to get sponsors to drop major FNC hosts, which appears to be yielding significant results, causing Murdoch to create a team to combat it.

Both parts should be restored. soibangla (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first part got almost no coverage so yeah undue. I like the scare quotes around error though, nice touch. The second part is mostly to do with specific shows, on those articles it might be due, here not a lot of impact over all. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+crops+trump+ghislaine yields quite a few, actually. We can add them to the restored edit. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails weight in the long term view of the company. Give it a few weeks and see if it is still a thing I suppose. Until then it is a clear WP:NOTNEWS. PackMecEng (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive text

Why is the text in third paragraph of the introduction also repeated word-for-word under Political alignment? Zeph1 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting question. Using the Find feature on an Internet browser and copying and pasting into the field literally all of the paragraph, I can confirm that it is a verbatim copy of the other text under Political alignment. I feel as if this article is trying to give us the idea that the news channel is conservative. The point is not to dispute that claim; it is that the article more than succeeds in achieving that purpose. Apart from the massive cleanup any reasonable editor knows that this article needs, I feel we can merge some of the content and put some other parts into Fox News controversies. Personally, I would also characterize MSNBC as progressive like the HuffPost. It may not be notably as progressive as Fox News is conservative, but as the "antithesis" of Fox News according to a Washington Post op-ed, it would appear to justify considering at least that network's commentary as progressive. This is saying something, because I would not use progressive to broadly characterize CNN, ABC, or CBS. FreeMediaKid! 03:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking over the article history, it is because someone attempted to move the longstanding paragraph out of the lead; their changes to the lead were reverted, but their creation of a new section was not. I think it's fair to say that it's a section that ought to exist, though (it is an aspect of Fox News that has received extremely heavy coverage in high-quality sources) so probably the best thing to do is to expand and elaborate on it until the two are no longer copies of each other. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News&oldid=980115833"