Talk:Fox News

RfC - Should the lead paragraph about disputed bias refer to the accusers as "many observers" or "some observers"?

Introduction : Over the course of several years, there has been a significant amount of discussion about how exactly to describe alleged bias on Fox News Channel. Recent debate has centered around whether the phrase "many observers" or "some observers" should be used in the lead. Please comment on which exact wording you'd support.

Previous discussions on the subject

• Long RfC acknowledging then-current "some" wording and proposing various new "some" wordings, April 2008.
• Discussion which led to current language, August 2009
• Bold edit to "some" in February 2011, two sections acknowledge continued existence in June and November.
• Concern over edit warrior removing "some", December 2012
• Concerns in edit requests, December 2013

When responding, please use the following format -

• Support Many/Some/Alternative - Rationale. ISupportStuff (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2252 (UTC)

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil. Thank you in advance for your feedback!

Comments

• Support Many - This discussion has been rehashed many times, and consistently larger discussions have trended towards supporting "many" as the correct adjective. This is obviously a controversial subject, but support among RS is pretty strong for the "many" wording. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Some or removal of qualifier While many critics make this claim on regular basis, it is not possible to extrapolate this to general observers. Many supporters also say that FNC is not biased, but that same extrapolation to observers would not be supported either. The biggest hurdle is that their are no sources to back up the claim that "many observers" make this claim. Ultimately the inclusion of original research cannot be RfC'ed into the article. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Purely for the record, I'd be neutral on the "removal of qualifier" proposal. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Many per NickCT. The sources are plentiful and clear. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you or NickCT could provide some sources that actually say "Many observers" make this claim, becuase in over 6 years of debate I have yet to see such "plentiful" sourcing. Arzel (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Arzel: - You know darn well that the exact wording on a lot of WP articles isn't directly pulled from sources. If you'd like many individual sources which point to observers and/or criitcs that make the claim, I'd be happy to provide. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Could we have a separate section for the back-and-forth? I do it myself sometimes, so I know it can make the Comments part really long and off-topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - I'd be OK with you moving my comments to another section for clarity as you saw fit (and also deleting this comment once you'd done so). NickCT (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Some (and also fine with no qualifier) Estimating a percentage of these people relative to all the observers is virtually impossible, and without that, we can't even begin to agree on whether that slice counts as many. With "some", everybody wins. It can mean any amount between "none" and "all", without leaning toward the low or the high end. "Many" doesn't allow that freedom. It suggests a "big chunk" of the audience. Have even 10,000 observers said FOX is biased? That seems like a big number, but it's proportionately very few. Still some, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
• Many per NickCTCasprings (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Many or No Qualifier. Some makes it sound like an almost insignificant number. Many sounds not an insignificant number with no reference to proportion. I believe the wide array of sources suggests many would be accurate, some would be entirely inaccurate and no qualifier would be less informative but accurate. My real issue is what does "Observer" mean in this context? SPACKlick (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I could not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @QuackGuru: - Please don't edit content subject to an ongoing RfC. Please offer your opinion on this page so that we can get some measure of consensus on this topic! Thanks. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Relist? I see this is listed at Politics, Government and Law. Might be better at (or also at) somewhere about Journalism and Entertainment. This regards the channel as much as the observers. I don't know how to do it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Neither. Describe bias non-quantitatively as "Fox reporting has been criticized as..." Folow up in body with exemplary sources. No sane reader of this page expects a quantitation, and certainly not in the lede. It's context like financing and campaigning that counts (pun intended) To set up a semi-quantitative choice with some or many is self-defeating and to argue about it, with all due respect unproductive, gentlemen. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Question How will we know when discussion has ended? Has it even officially begun, or will it still be listed "within 24 hours"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

It seems as though someone jumped the gun and put "Many observers" in the current article, with citations that in two cases don't meet WP standards for encyclopedic sources, and even if they did, only document the views of TWO observers, not MANY, that Fox News "promotes biased reporting." I'd call that non-consensual action. loupgarous (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some or No Qualifier "Many" is WP:WEASEL AND WP:OR. "Some" indicates that the viewpoint that Fox News is biased is out there without lending Wikipedia's support to the perception. And even "Some" is WP:OR unless citations are produced in support of the statement AND the sources cited aren't Fox's journalistic competition or political speakers who have a non-encyclopedic motive for labelling Fox News as exceptionally biased compared to other television networks.

After all, "many" people believe that CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Al Jazeera America (formerly CurrentTV), and CNN also promote biased reporting. For Wikipedia to single Fox News out for this sort of observation is not NPOV.

Also, reference #7 cites Rachel Maddow as referring to Fox News as biased. Rachel Maddow is a commentator on MSNBC, which

(a) is a competitor of Fox News, so that she and MSNBC have a very strong economic motive to marginalize Fox News, and

(b) Ms. Maddow is ALSO viewed as being a politically biased news commentator herself by "many observers," on a news network viewed as promoting biased reporting by "many observers."

Reference #8 cites a footnote from The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton.

Reading not only Compton's assessment of Fox News, but other news outlets, it's pretty clear that Mr. Compton has a political viewpoint which is not NPOV. The Compton book isn't any more objective or encyclopedic than The National Review or The Nation.

Finally, NPOV issues with References 7 and 8 notwithstanding, they only support the viewpoints of TWO observers, not MANY observers.

The "Many observers" remark is, thus, unsupported by acceptable, objective sources. loupgarous (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Notable criticism, as seen in new Alternate Proposals section. Alsee (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus on the original "some" vs "many" question, but recent editors appear to have a small but unanimous agreement on the current alternative sentence with supporting citations. Alsee (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's no need for qualifier. Remove some and remove many and the issue disappears.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The wording was changed. See Talk:Fox News Channel#Current wording without original research. QuackGuru (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

The word "propaganda" doesn't appear once on this article. There are plenty of studies, some done by the UN itself, that could be used as a source for the claim that Fox News is a propaganda outlet and not a news outlet. The criticism of Fox News should play a more important role in its Wiki, as it is entrenched in the global culture as a purveyor of propaganda. It's citizen-knowledge at this point, and I don't think it's just a few young hippies complaining about it. Fox News will go down in history as a major player in one of the most abhorrent chapters of post-war American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Please provide sources to back up the claim of "Many Observers" in this area. The inclusion of this weasel word wording is currently based on the observation (Original Research) that there have been many critical of FNC alleged bias. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, there are issues with the references currently cited in support of the claim of "Many Observers."

Reference #7 cites Rachel Maddow as referring to Fox News as biased. Rachel Maddow is a commentator on MSNBC, which

(a) is a competitor of Fox News, so that she and MSNBC have a very strong economic motive to marginalize Fox News, and

(b) Ms. Maddow is ALSO viewed as being a politically biased news commentator herself by "many observers," on a news network viewed as promoting biased reporting by "many observers."

Reference #8 cites a footnote from The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton.

Reading not only Compton's assessment of Fox News, but other news outlets, it's pretty clear that Mr. Compton has a political viewpoint which is not NPOV. The Compton book isn't any more objective or encyclopedic than The National Review or The Nation.

Neither of the references currently cited in support of the "promotes biased reporting" statement are NPOV.

If "Many observers" is to be kept in the article, then the phrase "promotes biased reporting" ought to be removed unless and until an NPOV source can be cited in support of that claim.

In addition, "Many Observers" ought to be removed entirely unless and until an NPOV source can be cited in support of that claim. The NPOV issue notwithstanding, the citations only support the viewpoints of TWO OBSERVERS. NOT MANY. loupgarous (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If the source does not say specifically state "two" then it is original research. I can't verify the claim "some", "many", or "notable". QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference 7 is a report on MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow's opinion that Fox News is biased, no more encyclopedic than (say) Bill O'Reilly's opinion on the lack of objectivity of MSNBC. Reference 8 points directly to the author of a book saying Fox News is biased. Two opinions. Not many. And thanks for stating the obvious - that quantifying the opinions regarding ANY news network's objectivity is beyond wikipedia's scope. loupgarous (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Wording proposals

I removed the "Many" that was currently there and boldly tried this wording:

Notable criticism has accused Fox News Channel of promoting conservative political positions and biased reporting.

"Some" is gone. "Many" is gone. Perhaps we can form a consensus that there is "notable" criticism? I didn't dig through the list of source options - I simply kept the movie and the book sourcings that were there. Books and movies seem a lot more notable than a typical critical comment. I dropped the Maddow sourcing. It seemed ...unhelpful... and criticism from a contra-aligned competitor didn't seem unexceptionably notable.

I won't object if my edit is reverted, I'm just hoping a new angle will sidestep the conflict. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, how are the authors of those three references notable? I've not heard of any of them, and I'm pretty up to date on political criticism in the United States of America. We're back to WP:WEASEL with "notable" replacing "many" or "eminent". loupgarous (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't verify the claim. I requested verification. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from available sources that some people criticize Fox News for their lack of objectivity. I think it's important to provide a context for those statements. MSNBC, the three major broadcast network news organizations and CNN have also been accused of bias, and if you're going to put accusations of Fox News' bias in this article, you also have to report those accusations in context, or have this article be irretretrievably biased itself.

I'd support "some observers," with the Maddow and other quotes cited. That's fair. But I'd also include other quotes of the same sort which support the context in which those statements are made - a situation in which multiple political agendas are promoted by multiple broadcast and satellite news organizations. Even Reuters' US editor has been guilty of some really naked political comments, which raises real questions about how objective that once very respected organization is. I tend to rely on Agence France-Presse for political analysis of the US scene specifically because they DON'T have "skin in the game." loupgarous (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed "notable" to "some critics" because "some critics" is what the sources we have in the article will support. No evidence that any of the people whose opinions are presented in those sources are especially "notable" exists.

Further, "notable" is another WP:WEASEL weasel word. It lends undue weight to the sources cited. loupgarous (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The word "some" is still original research. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "Some" is a neutral assessment of number - more than one, less than all. It falls under the "common arithmetic" exception in WP:OR. loupgarous (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the source to verify the claim. No original research interpretation is allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance by James Robert Compton:

"Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."

We have Dr.Compton's statement that the founder of Fox News Channel admitted he launched Fox News Channel as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal stance of CNN. He cites two other researchers in support of the statement. loupgarous (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Fox News, which says it is the "fair and balanced" network, has long been accused by Democrats and liberals of having a conservative bias. Outfoxed adds to that debate through interviews with former Fox correspondents and producers, as well as memos written by Fox executives."[1] The other source says "Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."[2] The original research was restored. The edit summary was "Unless you can demonstrate that all the cited critics and scholars are democrats, this is original research." That is a WP:SYN violation to put together all the cited critics and scholars are democrats to come to the conclusion "many". I also asked for verification for "some". So far no verification was presented. The source must verify the claim or it is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The USA Today article is not the only source for that section, so unless you can demonstrate all the critics and scholars cited in all the sources are "Democrats and liberals", then it is original research. The scholarly source I added states that "with a bevy of scholars showing its "fair and balanced" coverage is actually conservatively slanted". "Bevy" certainly qualifies as "many". Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence is sourced. Fox News Channel has long been accused of promoting conservative political positions[6]

You would have to delete the USA today source and replace it with the other source to say something like. Many scholars demonstrated that Fox News Channel "fair and balanced" coverage is promoting conservative political positions.

Putting together different sources to come to a different conclusion is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The word long is sourced. The word allegedly is unsourced while widely criticized is sourced. See WP:ALLEGED. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Per sources is an obvious SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely criticized as merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party. Is that that a preferable Alternate Wording proposal? Inside Rupert's Brain, page 5, ISBN 1101016590. Alsee (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the source for the text. See: James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2.. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Inside Rupert's Brain, page 5, ISBN 1101016590 was my source. Fox News is widely criticized for biased reporting, and it's hardly surprising that there's multiple sources saying "Widely criticized". Alsee (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Widely criticized as merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party." Does not verify the current sentence. The source failed verification. The other source passed V. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you seem to be misapplying Wikipedia policies. We are forbidden to WP:COPYVIO, this means we are expected and REQUIRED to paraphrase things and generate our own wording. wp:verifiability and wp:no synthesis means that we must summarize and report the ideas that exist in sources. The sources on that sentence explicitly confirm the use of "Widely criticized", and there can be no reasonable dispute that the idea conveyed is wide accusations of bias. There is no synthesis between sources here - we have multiple sources independently expressing the idea that Fox is widely criticized for bias. (Some sources can be dropped once we can stabilize the sentence.) "Widely criticized for conservative slant" is an accusation of bias. Widely criticized as "mouthpiece for the Republican party" is an accusation of bias. We are accurately describing the contents of Reliable Sources, not cutting-and-pasting fragments of CopyVio. And the mass of sources we have clearly supports this as particularly notable point when we summarize and report what Reliable Sources say. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"binging a mouthpiece for the Republican party" definitely does not verify the current text. There is no need to have a pile of sources that fail V when there is one or two that pass V. QuackGuru (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You would have to delete all the other sources and write something like "Fox News Channel has been widely criticized as an extension for the Republican party.[6]" QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be trimmed to probably one or two sources once we get stable text. I'm hoping some of the other editors will weigh in here. We seem to have split into parallel discussions on different parts of the page. Alsee (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You did not disagree with this previous comment. Most sources failed V. I don't think there could be any reason for keeping sources that failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

*OPPOSE. The current wording has OR and WP:WEASEL in it that aren't supported by the sources cited, namely the modifiers "widely" and "many." Compton's book James Robert Compton (2004). The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. Peter Lang. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8204-7070-2. cites THREE sources. Three sources aren't "many." I can't see where "widely" is supported by the cited sources, either. "Widely" is WP:WEASEL. loupgarous (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This was previously explained the wording "widely criticized" is supported by the source. The word "many" was removed a little while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

*SUPPORT. I SUPPORT the current lede. It IMHO is accurate and verifiable via the ref's provided. talk→ WPPilot  14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Current wording without original research

The current sourced text without SYN violations or sources that failed V: "Fox News Channel has long been accused of promoting conservative political positions[6] and it has been widely criticized for biased reporting.[7]" I noticed the sources were not in the body. That was a lede violation. I added the text and sources to the body so that the lede suimmarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - Good lede sentence and fulfills my intent when I suggested elsewhere to have one sentence for Criticism-of-Fox and another for Fox's position. Making those into a pair of "and" clauses works really well. Side note - WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations definitely permits lede sources that aren't in the body. This is merely a side note, not an objection to the current version. Alsee (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

On that side not apologies for the speedy undo for the removal I saw it in isolation not as part of a whole I support the now current format. SPACKlick (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. The current wording has OR and WP:WEASEL in it that isn't supported by the sources cited, namely the modifier "widely." I can't see where "widely" is supported by the cited sources. "Widely" is also WP:WEASEL. loupgarous (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See: "Rupert Murdoch boasts that he launched the Fox News Channer as a counterbalance to the perceived liberal bias of CNN. The 24-hour news channel has been widely criticized for the hypocrisy of its conservative sland (Hickey 1998; Rutenberg 2000c)."[3]

We are not using three sources. The current wording is supported by the sources. The modifier "widely" is supported the source. The modifier "many" was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

loupgarous, you do not seem to have looked closely at the source. The citation link goes directly to page 204 of the book where it says "widely criticized". In fact we have multiple sources using the exact phrase "widely criticized", but we have guidelines against piling on multiple source-links. We went with "widely criticized" exactly to avoid OR or WEASEL. "Widely criticized" is a well documented and representative example of how Reliable Sources summarize the criticism that exists of Fox News. Fox News is famous for the level of controversy surrounding it. We don't decide if the critics are right or wrong, we don't decide whether Fox is widely criticized, we merely reflect the common reliable source description that Fox is widely criticized. Alsee (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tangent discussion WP:LEADCITE

User:Alsee, where does WP:LEADCITE say you can use sources in the lede that are not in the body? It will be a lede violation to use sources that are not in the body because it would more than likely if the sources are not used in the body it would not summary the body. WP:LEADCITE gives general information about using sources (or not using sources) in the lede. The best way to repeat or generally summarise information from the body is to summarise the sources used in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, From WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". That indicates two valid desires to apply in balance. In principal a proper Lede should never need cites at all. The Lede is supposed to be a summary of the article body content, which itself should be supported by all of the necessary cites. On the other hand including Lede cites are often a Very Good Idea to avoid good faith challenges. Using a new cite in the Lede could bring useful diversity of sourcing, or it could be useful for bringing in summary-type information from Reliable Sources. "Widely criticized" is a good example here - the body itself may never have directly hit upon that point, so we can cite it in the Lede without having it in the body. Alsee (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I was correct. WP:LEADCITE does not explicitly state an editor can usually add text to the lede or use sources in the lede that are not in the body first. Redundant citations in the lede is a separate issue. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body - Usually means not-always. Information that isn't in the body requires sourcing. There's no reason it has to be a previously used source. In general a lede should not duplicate exact text that's in the body, it's supposed to be a summary. As a reader, whenever I see duplicated text it's very jarring... like someone didn't realize they accidentally duplicated existing text. But we're wandering badly offtopic here. I'm refactoring this into a separate section. We have a good lede, we just need others to (hopefully) confirm support so we take down the RfC notice. Alsee (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The usual way to summarise the body is to summarise the sourced text in the body. There are many problems with this article like most articles on Wikipedia. See Fox_News_Channel#cite_ref-8. One ref has three refs. Are these refs used in the body? I fixed one little thing in this article. That was enough for me for this article. I'm going back to my regular topics. Too much mess to fix. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Facts

I added some statements and sources to "Misreprentation of Facts" putting Media Matters' statements about Fox in the context of their declaring a "War on Fox" in 2011, trying hard to get Fox's advertisers to abandon them (their "Drop Fox" campaign) and their substantially complete support by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If this article is going to allude to Fox's support of the Republican Party and the inaccuracies they've committed (and that all needs to be mentioned), then let's be even-handed about it and say where their most strident critics are coming from, too.

From CBS News's Walter Cronkite's counter-factual comments regarding the 1968 Tet Offensive to the libel lawsuits CBS News has lost over "The Selling of the Pentagon" and other documentaries, to CBS News's Dan Rather's uttering of an evident forged document to attempt to damage George W. Bush's reputation just before the 2004 Presidential elections, and NBC News's editing the sound clip of George Zimmerman's cell phone calls on the night of Trayvon Martin's death to make him sound a racist, it's pretty clear that Fox News has distinguished company in occasionally misrepresenting the facts to its viewers in support of a political agenda. And before anyone says all that is WP:OR, check Wikipedia's rules. OR is allowed (within reasonable limits) in talk pages.

Perhaps the fact that several network news organizations have misrepresented facts (sometimes as determined in a court of law) to advance political agendas ought to be treated in a separate article, with "see also" links to it in articles on Fox News and its various competitors in the network news business. But implying that Fox News is alone in pushing a political agenda among news networks is a disservice to the readers of this article. loupgarous (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit heavy for simple context, like someone's trying to sway an opinion. I'd figure the Wikilink to the organization and its mission statement should suffice to let viewers understand it's ideologically opposed to FOX. All sourced claims, of course, but the presentation begs the question of why it was written like that. Not a huge deal, but I'd cut it. More relevant to Media Matters than FOX. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, the issue is why Media Matters mostly criticizes Fox to the exclusion of the other news organizations I've mentioned above. You can search in vain through mediamatters.org for ANY criticism of Democratic Party-positive news reports. So, here in Wikipedia, if we quote them, we also must cite important facts about WHY they're so strident against Fox News. Otherwise, we're being a megaphone for Media Matters and the Democratic Party. I see your point, but the presentation of Media Matters' agenda was soft-pedaled before my additions. Now the reader understands the context in which Media Matters' criticisms of Fox News were made. loupgarous (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And yes, it's a bit heavy. What do you find most objectionable, the references to Media Matters's funding by wealthy progressives, or their "War on Fox"? I really think their "War on Fox" is relevant. If wikipedia repeats their comments about Fox News, we need to let the reader know what's going on - that Media Matters is very biased against Fox News and once sought to destroy it in their own operations - scarcely the stuff of objective commentary.

If we have to not mention Media Matters' explicit campaigns against Fox when repeating what they say about Fox, then it'd be better not to mention what Media Matters has to say about Fox at all. If we can't identify partisan comment as such in wikipedia or give the reader information on why it's partisan, is wikipedia in the business of shilling for Media Matters for America and the Democratic Party? I'd like an administrator to chime in on that. loupgarous (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find any one part objectionable, just the bulky sum. It should be clear enough already that they're enemies. The War on Fox stuff is mentioned in the Wikilink, and the Progressivism in the United States link explains that it's opposite Conservatism in the United States and corporatocracy. In any reaction/criticism/controversy section, those who say things say them for reasons, often political ones. We don't normally tack on three qualifiers to paint the picture of say, why Russia doesn't like America or how police are anti-criminal. If they were cohorts, they wouldn't be saying the things we say they do. The situation paints its own picture, doesn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. "Progressive" has several meanings in US English - some of them laudatory (from 'http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive':

a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress

b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities...

...2 of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3 moving forward or onward : advancing)

Simply repeating Media Matters for America's self-description as "progressive" (which, used in a wikisearch, brings you to a large disambiguation page here in wikipedia) doesn't necessarily mean readers will think "Political Progressive," then read our article on Progressivism in the United States to understand that he or she is about to read items which were developed by political operatives working against their perceived enemies. The link to the Progressivism in the United States page is halfway down a list in that disambiguation page of links to various pages describing political meanings for the word "progressive," so that it's actually not very likely it'll be selected and the reader will comprehend that Media Matters is an informal arm of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that actually "declared war" on Fox News in 2011, thus necessarily bearing great animus toward Fox News. You're positing an unrealistically sophisticated reader.

Wikipedia has an obligation to be reliably encyclopedic. Letting itself be a megaphone for one side of a political fight isn't encyclopedic; it's partisan.

I've deleted the information about Media Matters for America's funding sources. The main issue is that these people actually declared a "War on Fox" - so ought our readers to rely on them for information about Fox News? They deserve to be heard, I agree, but let's give our readers an idea of what's going on, here - that they're singling Fox News out for attention, instead of combing through every word its competition broadcasts, as well. Media Matters for America was punishing Fox for criticizing the party whose wealthy supporters support Media Matters for America very lavishly. If we repeat what they say outside of the context in which they said it, we're culpable in misleading our readers. loupgarous (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The beautiful thing about Wikilinks is the reader needn't check the dictionary or Wikipedia for the linked word. Just click it, and go directly to the sort of progressivism (in the United States) we mean.

As for citing enemies, we cite Russian sources for American topics and police sources for criminal topics. Not much different. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Since "research" is now being added to the lead to declare that "scholars" accuse FNC of being biased it should be noted as well that compared to it's peers FNC was the least biased. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, thanks for the article - it certainly belongs in the article somewhere. Perhaps a section upwards from "MIsstatement of Fact," in "Objectivity and bias," where it would add balance to our article's presentation of Fox News Channel's actual "objectivity and bias," as opposed to the chatter on the subject. loupgarous (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of this section of the article. It is way too bloated for what ends up being allegations from a partisan organization. It should really be distilled down to 2-3 sentences. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No one's less a fan of Media Matters for America or its right-wing counterparts than me. However, the Fox News Channel has been accused of bias and misrepresentation of facts. An encyclopedic article ought to air the allegations in the context they were made (viz, by an organization which had "declared war" on Fox News Channel - that's extreme enough evidence of bias to warrant inclusion in this section of the article as needed context).

It's possible, I suppose, to condense the narrative of the allegations without actually hiding what the partisans had to say. It's just as much a part of the Fox News Channel story as the rest of the story. I'll take a whack at it, I guess. For what it's worth, I agree with you about the bloat, some of which seems to me voluptuary delight in Fox's missteps. Probably worth a peek at our articles on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc. to see what the wikipedia standard for reporting on alleged misstatement of facts is. Until I've done that, I'll leave the "scholarly criticism" of FNC alone in that section. I just want Fox News Channel to be treated just as wikipedia treats other news networks accused of misrepresentation of facts.

Which reminds me - does anyone else think NPOV requires we retitle that part of the article "Alleged Misstatement of Facts"? The reader's intelligent enough to gauge for his or her self whether misstatements were actually made if he or she read the article. I'll await some consensus before I make that change. loupgarous (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's not about being a fan of MMfA or not. There is an undue weight issue here. We can say that MMfA has had issues with the accuracy of some of FNC's broadcasts such as....then list a single example. We can then provide the path to the rest via source citations. To enumerate examples to the extent we have is undue weight, especially when there is a separate article about FNC controversies. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with Nitshift36? I have to admit, it's a good argument. And, as Niteshift says, there's that separate article on Fox News Channel controversies. Other networks commit factual errors without wikipedia listing that many of them out in our articles on the networks themselves. loupgarous (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not, its been edited down over the years as is and it more then brief enough for the issues they have had. Its already a small blurb and seems people trying to edit it more are using their POV in the process. This section could be much bigger but is very brief and hits on the big topics that are more visible. I say leave it alone, esp if ones bias is showing while trying to edit it. Resaltador (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just took a look at CNN and MSNBC. Fox has three screenfulls of controversy and a link to a controversy article. CNN has two screenfulls of controversy and a link to a controversy article. MSNBC has four and a half screenfulls of controversy, and a link to a controversy article. If anything, I'd say Fox's controversy section is undersized. They are famous for being controversial. (I'm taking CNN's in-between position as reasonable explanation for drawing less controversy.) Alsee (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Fox News Channel has been accused by critics and scholars..." - Request for Comments

The first line in the third paragraph of the article's lead begins "Fox News Channel has been accused by critics and scholars... "

Another editor tagged this phrase for "improper synthesis," one of the editorial sins related in WP:NOR.

I agree with that assessment. Adding the appellation "scholars" to the list of the people who think Fox News Channel is biased in its reporting comes far too close to WP:WEASEL in addition to possibly being an improper synthesis (the editor who added that might have thought "well, some of this criticism was made by sociologists, and that's got to count for something."

There's a whole section in this article called "Objectivity and bias." THAT'S where we ought to get into the scholarly qualifications of the critics or supporters of Fox News Channel. In the lead paragraphs, I think we ought to stick to referring to critics of Fox News simply as "critics." Not "many critics," "some critics," "eminent critics," or "scholars."

Comments? loupgarous (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No changes should have been made before the RfC above concluded. But since it was apparently never listed where it was supposed to go, maybe it can't conclude.

Without the word "some", this reads like all critics and scholars say this. That's not true. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Critics of Fox News Channel, regardless of their political orientation, uniformly accuse it of biased reporting. They just don't agree on the WAY in which FNC is biased (one set of poll results cited in our article on Fox News Channel showed approximate equal numbers of respondents saying FNC was biased liberal as biased conservative). Now, we can't say THAT in the article without committing WP:OR - it'd be improper synthesis, I think.

But the people who want to say "Most (critics, observers, scholars, commentators, what have you) accuse Fox News Channel of promoting Republican Party politics and biased reporting" won't let us say "Some critics accuse Fox News Channel of... " without edit-warring with the folks who prefer "Some critics... " or the variant I wound up choosing, "critics".

Is there another way of saying "some, not all critics say that Fox News Channel... "? I'd like your thoughts on the matter, because I hope you have a more original and less contentious way of saying it, one that won't start another edit war.

Now, I was under the impression the previous RfC HAD concluded. How, exactly do you tell whether you have consensus on a really contentious issue? I'm not the only editor who commented who wondered whether or not consensus had been reached. And in saying that the RfC wasn't a "vote," it seemed to me that the last RfC may have been a formality, anyway. loupgarous (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As you say, even among the critics who raise the point at all, there's disagreement on which way FOX leans. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to imply there's a critical and scholarly consensus that FOX is "promoting conservative political positions".

I'm pretty familiar with English, and some words are simply the only words for some jobs. Not all, or even many. But more than none. It's not about being original, it's about using what works. The war is unfortunate.

An RfC usually ends when an uninvolved admin weighs the cases and decides. Or decides not to decide. But yeah, when one side wins, the other feels like losers. Compromises are ideal. But again, no idea on a suitable synonym. "An unspecified number" sure doesn't work, can we agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

Talk page RfC's are typically informal. If editors find an acceptable way to move forward then the RfC tag can simply be removed. In this case the RfC was phrased as some vs many, and I think the outcome will be consensus on a different direction.

I belatedly realized that loupgarous and InedibleHulk have been having one discussion down here, while QuackGuru and I have been having another discussion further up the page. Chuckle. I cited a source for "Widely criticized", and QuackGuru noted another source of "Widely criticized", and both sources are are clearly accusing Fox of bias. The article currently reads Fox News Channel has been widely criticized of biased reporting. Quack isn't happy yet, but any chance you guys can get on board with the current wording? Or if not, indicate your idea of a way forward? (I just realize the lede no longer indicates the direction of bias, but perhaps a separate sentence can indicate Fox is associated with conservative/republican views.) Alsee (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We now have three SUPPORTS for the current lede. Please weigh in at the bottom of Alternate Wording proposals. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The cited source for "widely", is just a book that links to 2 other opinion pieces from 1998 and 2000. I would say, that is most definately not "widely". Just "criticized" should be used especially as a lead in. NeoCloud (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Saying "critics and scholars..." does make it sound like they all do. "Most" isn't helpful either if you can't prove it. Frankly, I'm ok with "some" and I think the weasel word guideline gets misused a lot. The word isn't forbidden and, in a case like this, it is the best choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo

Hello. I uploaded the file (File:Fox News Channel logo.png) because it is the network's logo. Obviously, someone disagrees. FoxNews.com uses this logo, but with ".com" at the bottom instead of "channel". Their Facebook page uses this logo (yes I know it is red), and they use this logo on their Twitter page with ".com" at the bottom. The logo the other user uploaded (File:Fox News.svg) which is outdated. When you right click on the logo on the website and either save it to your computer or open the image in a new tab, it says "logo-foxnews-update". Which clearly means that is the newest logo. The website also has "Fair and Balanced" under it, but I don't think the logo needs it. My question is what are you thoughts? Should Wikipedia use the newer logo that is used by the Network whether it be in red or have ".com" instead of "channel", or the other logo that the other user uploaded? I would be fine and even putting the ".com" at the bottom if that is what it comes down to, but I think the logo I uploaded is the correct one. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again we need to use what is coming from the "Television channel", not the website, twitter, etc. This article is about the FNC channel. You can put that logo on their tweeter article. We've had this discussion with other editors in the past, and have concluded to use the current one. - Curioushavedape (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Curioushavedape: Please look at this video. It is dated Dec. 19, 2014 -- in the Fox News Channel YouTube channel. Here is another one dated Dec. 20, 2014 -- except it used ".com". (Which I said I would be glad to change it if that would make y'all happy.) So if they use it on their own set, why shouldn't the logo I've placed be used and yours should? As for the Twitter logo, how can other twitter users change Fox News Channel's picture? It isn't like just anyone can change the picture. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Both logos are reasonable. Fox has used both a simpler flat 2-D style logo (File:Fox_News_Channel_logo.png), and a more complicated logo with more of a 3-D effect (File:Fox_News.svg). I'm inclined to support the simpler 2-D version, because it's more difficult to accurately recreate the look-and-feel of the more complicated 3-D version. Alsee (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Leave the current version up for a few days to see if anyone else weighs in. We don't want to instantly flip it on one tie-breaker comment, and then flip it back if (theoretically) two people are about to disagree with me :) Alsee (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the point in using the logo that says "Channel," not "Fox News.Com." The YouTube product of Fox News is Internet-based, so it has the "FoxNews.com" logo, but this article's primarily about the broadcast product of Fox News, which is Fox News Channel. I have no strong preference between the "2-D" and "3-D" logos for Fox News Channel. loupgarous (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So what is the decision, here? The 2D logo or the 3D logo? Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the 2D. The 3D logo gets that effect from being portrayed as bigger than Earth. It's subtle and implicit, but still a lie, and one with deeper implications for public perception of Wikipedia's own twist on the globe (see top left). If FOX is bigger than the puzzle, how can it also be a piece? Not the sort of question people came here to ponder. Many won't, of course, but why risk it for the few? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Followup, I just tried a Google Image Search for fox news channel logo. It rather heavily favors the 2D version. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The only source that can be used is the only for from fox news, essentially a screen shot. again this is about the fox news channel, not fox news dot com. Curioushavedape (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)