Jump to content

Talk:One America News Network

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 22 June 2020 (→The use of bias sources: trolling by sockpuppets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor

Obvious consensus to include far-right in the lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC is to request comments in order to generate productive discussion to obtain consensus on what appropriate bias descriptor to use (if any).

Should this article describe One America News Network with a political bias descriptor, and secondly, is "far-right" the appropriate descriptor to use if one is appropriate?

Aeonx (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Bias descriptor)

  • Yes, Right but not "far-right". I'm here based on seeing the RSN question here [[1]]. In looking at the sources used to support "far-right" we have ABC news, CBS news, DailyBeast and Vanity Fair. DB's PRS entry says it's generally reliable but has a strong bias. I would think that this classification would count as bias vs reliably reporting facts their reporters collect. Vanity Fair is considered reliable for popular culture but this isn't a pop-culture question. ABC and CBS are generally reliable so I would give some weight there. However, I also think the media bias charting sites shouldn't be discounted. Both put OAN in a mid-right category. In the case of the Media Bias Chart, showing just the OAN stories it shows more in the neutral/balanced range vs the right two most designators. Based on that I would say we should stick with "right" but not "far-right". For what it's worth, Media Bias Fact Check, a rating site that a number of editors don't like, puts OAN between "Right" and "Extreme Right". I think using "Right" is a good compromise. No one can reasonably dispute the label applies and it avoids disputes. It's a good compromise. Springee (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, far-right. Reliable sources such as ABC News and CBS News describe it as "far-right". The shift to "far-right" is more pronounced since Trump's presidency, as the network has purposely sought to outflank Fox News and other conservative news outlets. This includes hiring far-right crackpots, such as Jack Posobiec and Chanel Rion, as "reporters", and unrelentedly pushing unhinged far-right conspiracy theories and brazen pro-Trump falsehoods as "news reports". Describing the website as "conservative" or "right" is not only imprecise (because it covers a broader spectrum) but does a disservice to non-crackpot versions of conservatism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your, BLP violating comments don't actually make a real case here. Also, while some sources describe them as far right, do we have other sources that just describe them as "right"? This is one of the issues with these discussions. It's easy enough to do a keyword search for "OAN" and "far-right" but what about the cases that don't say "far-right" or don't use a bias descriptor at all? Certainly I would take the opinions of either of the bias organizations over most editors around here (myself included in that "most"). Springee (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That keyword search is too simple. It could be OAN or spelled out. It could be far-right, far right, or something synonymous. O3000 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are missing is the part that it's easier to try to find sources that describe it as "far-right" or "far right" since I can do a key word search. It's harder to find sources that don't since then I have to find sites that describe it but don't say "far right". Anyway, here are some examples that I found with a limited search. Dallas Morning News calls it right leaning [[2]], this NPR article calls it "conservative" [[3]], this MSN article says "right-wing" [[4]]. Given that there isn't a single standard barer for this sort of thing I think Wikipedia should err on the side of conservative labeling. "Right" would only be left out of the description if we decide "conservative" was an acceptable substitute. "Far-right" however, has baggage attached to it in a way that "right" does not. When sources aren't universal we should stick with the less contentious. Springee (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this doesn't prove much since we have no way to know how many refer to it one way vs the other. As I said above, it's easy to do a key word search to find examples but harder to do a key word search that would find examples that don't use the keywords. I also think we need to be very careful when using clearly left leaning sources like The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, The Intercept, The HuffPo, The Warp or Politico to assign a subjective label to a source on the other side of the fence. That's like asking the Republicans about the brilliance of the new law from the Democrats. This is where we should be picking the safer path. Springee (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. We have identified multiple sources that we consider to be generally reliable who use the term in their own voice. Unless that descriptor is seriously contested in other reliable sources, then it is appropriate to use it. This is addressed somewhat in WP:YESPOV, but more importantly, this has been the practice here at enwiki for as long as I've been editing in the American politics topic area (8 years). For example, we went through a similar exercise at Breitbart News, and yet people still complain that Breitbart is not far-right against all objective evidence to the contrary. - MrX 🖋 17:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about News Sources. Whilst these news sources may very well be in their own right, trustworthy and reliable sources of general information; I have no reason to believe that would be the case for competitor news outlets such as OAN, especially ones that are opposite-leaning or biased (ie. The Guardian); and it would seem very logical that the media would attempt to discredit such opposition by claiming they are more extreme than they are. I would really like to see some WP:RS where the notion of independence and impartiality is maintained for such a claim. Otherwise it's like asking a political party what they think about the other political party and saying that's a reliable source of information. It's a complete fallacy. How many RS are there that state OAN is "far-right" that are NOT news networks or media outlets themselves?? Let's establish the reliability of the information FOR THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO not just assume it because the sources may be generally reliable; as an encyclopedic reference that is a fundamental principle. Aeonx (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is an excellent source. I can't imagine that they think for one second that OAN is a competitor. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make assumptions as to your rating of what makes an "excellent source", however I will state The Guardian (one example here as a RS), is not giving any independent explained analysis or Fact-based reporting; it's giving OPINION; and I question the reliability of that opinion to then make a statement of fact in a wikipedia artile. Encyclopedias are built on facts and evidence; not option. Given the Guardian is left-leaning and naturally opposes right-leaning or right-wing editorials; and until I see any evidence to contrary for this specific case, which I haven't, I think it is fair to assume that OAN, like any other news/opinion media network, is potential competitors/rival over audience. Aeonx (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ludicrous to assert that OANN is actually a "competitor" to these other long-established sources, each with substantially larger audiences. OANN's U.S. Alexa rank is 5,789; CNN's is 12; The Washington Post's is 38; The Guardian's is 71; ABC News' is 208; CBS News' is 263; The Daily Beast's is 373; Vanity Fair's is 1,212; and even the The Intercept's is 1,807. - MrX 🖋 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RS label opinion as opinion. If it's not labeled opinion, it is something we can use. If you have a problem with RS, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, far-right - It is also right since you can't be far-right and not right wing. But since far-right is well documented, we should use the more descriptive wording. Or, we could use less descriptive text and just say it's a TV channel. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, far-right - per the dozen-plus high-quality and mid-quality sources marshaled by MrX. We follow the sources here. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O3000 and Neutrality, can you show it's actually the majority description? I've already shown that most of MrX's sources should be discounted. Let's suppose we could find all instances of RS's describing OAN a no descriptor, "conservative", "right", and "far right". What percentage would have to say "far right" before we would expect that label vs something else? Take it a step further. Should we only use sources about OAN or sources that add the descriptor in context of another article? Take the ABC and NBC sources in the article lead. In both cases the article was impeachment related, not specifically about OAN. How do sources about OAN describe it? Those are the better sources to use in a case like this. The DailyBeast article is more about OAN but is partisan commentary rather than fact based reporting. That puts it into the opinion category and certainly into the area where WP:RSP said it's likely to be less reliable. This is a problem that has come up in previous "labeling" cases. We have generally reliable sources who throw out a label while introducing something in a story. Often that story isn't about the labeled thing but Wikipedia editors take that bit and run with it. In research literature this is citing the first paper found vs citing the actual source. (The first time one of my works was cited the person cited me for a fact that was background to my paper. They should have just looked at who I cited and cited them directly). Anyway, if we are going to apply a contentious label we should really reserve that for sources about the topic. Justifying a contentious label because some article use it is bad editing on our part because it doesn't answer if experts think it, if a majority or even a plurality describe it as such or if the sources really have strong grounds on which to make the claim. I don't suggest using the media bias websites (the discussion above and that brought me here) as sources with weight. That is, we should not add a sentence saying "Bias Check says this site is rightofleft". However, in cases where bias is in question I think we should give their opinion weight. Those sources are specifically in the business to weigh in on questions like this. Second, absent some way to say how many sources don't label OAN far-right we can't be certain if right is the more common descriptor. If it is, how can we justify using "far-right"? Springee (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But "right-wing" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive adjectives. There us no (policy-compliant, unbiased) reason to choose just one term.Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are on a spectrum. [centrist - center right - right - far right]. Far-right (and far-left) is treated as a label suggesting a fringe end of a spectrum. It certainly can be a contentious label (WP:LABEL can apply). Springee (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there is every reason to use the correct (or more accurate) term which I believe should be Right-wing in this case, not Far-right. I think in a narrow spectrum, you could have Left - Center - Right; in which case OAN would be described as 'Right' not 'Far-Right'. Aeonx (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could either of you offer reliable sources for a mutually exclusive spectrum of terms that would apply in this case? I am aware of none, and in my experience the Venn diagram laid out by such labels offers considerable overlap. Also, the use of "hit counts" to compare the frequencies with which terms are used seems predicated on the same spectral framework and therefore invalid in such instances as this. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is saying they are mutually-exclusive, what we are saying is there is a spectrum; and the general rating by independent sources, and the same sources that call it "far-right" actually call it "right-wing" more often than "far-right" [The Guardian – Describes OAN as “rightwing” (no mention of “far-right”) [16], abcnews – Describes OAN as “conservative” (no mention of “far-right”)[17], CBSNews – Describes OAN as “pro-Trump right-wing” (no mention of “far-right”) [18], CNN – Describes OANN as “a right wing cable news channel” (no mention of “far-right”) [19], The Daily Beast – Describes OAN as “right wing” (several times, no mention of “far-right”) [20]. We can't pick random articles that OCCASIONALLY describe OAN as "far-right" to suit your opinion. There is NO Reliable Source that has independently, reliably, and consistently described OAN "far-right". None. Zero. Zilch. There are a lot of politically-motivated people here driving an agenda. I'm driving WP:NPOV and accuracy; that's my motivation. Aeonx (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last I checked, Aeonx, The Guardian, ABC and CBS were all considered reliable sources. All refer to OANN as "far right". They don't have to do so in every article to make the label "stick", in spite of your (policy-agnostic) personal belief to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't consistently refer to it as "far right". As I showed below CBS didn't use "far-right" in my search. That's not to say no CBS story ever used the term but CBS did use "conservative" and "right-wing". ABC used "conservative" 3 times and "far-right" 4 times but at least two of those articles had common authors and shared paragraphs based on overlapping content. Springee (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I question the quality of your search, then, since this article from CBS does use the term "far right". And as I suggested above, your "consistency" requirement lacks a basis in WP policy, and seems highly subjective. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my method. I said I used a site specific key word search and took the first page results. I didn't claim this was comprehensive but it was better than the method others have proposed which thus far is largely "someone said it thus it must be the best". You are wrong in saying it lacks a basis in policy. It's aligned with NPOV. Springee (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this google/I Ching method of divination endorsed in policy? Perhaps I'll give it a try. Newimpartial (talk)`
We are free to use reasonable methods to attempt to establish weight. Simply showing that something exists in some articles is not sufficient to show it's the most common version. I certainly wouldn't claim my method was at all fool proof but what other methods have been suggested? Perhaps a way to bypass this would be to state that the network has been labeled "conservative", "right-wing", "far-right", "Pro-Trump", "promoter of conspiracies" etc with citations. Attributing the descriptors avoids having to establish which is best/most used etc. NPOV is satisfied and it allows a fuller range of the descriptors. Springee (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? The media bias sources often used around here don’t support the far right label. Springee (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user Mr. X above already provided a healthy-sized list of them, to which you had no valid rebuttal, but harder to do a key word search that would find examples that don't use the keywords being particularly weak. We don't strive to prove a negative to support an argument. Maybe you do, but we will not. ValarianB (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These "RS" which I dispute as being reliable in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, more frequently refer to OAN as "right-wing" not "far-right". So why would we pick a few cases where they refer to it as "far right" and use that even if they were reliable?! It makes no sense. I can find countless examples of ABC, Guardian, Huffpost, Washington post and others refer to OAN simply a right wing or right leaning, a simple Google search proves it. Aeonx (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No ValarianB, my rebuttal is sound. Ignoring concerns that we are using passing descriptors that don't offer supporting evidence as "reliable sources, several of the sources are not RS as they are being used here. For example, DailyBeast, per WP:RSP, Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.. In this context the Daily Beast is certainly offering an opinionated characterization of a conservative source. We should not use their opinion as a basis for a statement in Wiki voice. The same sort of commentary applies to most of the examples MrX cited. My other concern also stands. See my web search below where I found "conservative" to be the most common phrase (beyond "none"). So why should we pick a less common, more extreme label? That is a concern per WP:LABEL. Springee (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your rebuttal was laughable. We follow the sources, many of which describe OANN as "far-right", and that is the end of the discussion. Perhaps you should stop bludgeoning every editor who disagrees with you. ValarianB (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion civil. As I showed before, if we follow the sources then we use "conservative" as it is far and away the most common descriptor. Can you shown the policy that supports "many of which"? What about those sources that are inconsistent? Again, please follow civil. Springee (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on my part is civil, if you feel otherwise than by all means make use of the appropriate noticeboards. If there is anything here at all that is incivil, it is your continued WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion. All that is needed it to show the numerous sources that label them "far-right", there's nothing more to say, as long as said sources pass WP:RS. ValarianB (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the replies of others laughable is not a specific violation of civil but it is disrespectful and moves the tone of the discussion in the wrong direction. You are incorrect that "All that is needed it to show..." is sufficient. I've already shown that, by more than 2:1, sources call them "conservative" and that many sources do not use "far-right". Can you offer any reason why we would pick the less common descriptor? Which policy supports that? Springee (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid that is not all that is needed. We have to consider WP:UNDUE, it's a fundamental to WP:NPOV. It's not sufficient that a few supposed Reliable Sources (again), np SPECIFIC evaluation of competitor news as being reliable has been established for this case, make passing comment that OAN is "far-right" that gives an undue bias to the MAJORITY of such sources NOT referred to it as "far-right", the majority of time. Aeonx (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that it is, and honestly this tag-teaming by the two of you is quite tiring and also pointless. This is a Request for Comment, and as long as some editor's input is grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and is not some asinine concoction like "Yes, call them super-far-far-far-right because monkeys are cool!", then you don't get to gainsay my contribution to this discussion. As a final point, I will note the bleedingly obvious, in that "right" and "far-right" are not in opposition, they are not an either/or choice. Far-right is a subset of right in terms of political ideology, we could think of it like a specialty. Any source that notes the deviancy of OANN away from run-of-the-mill right-wing rhetoric and into the rarefied air of white nationalism, neofascism, and similar hallmarks of the far-right ideology will suffice. So really, all we really need is a single notable one to describe them as far-right, and we're good. More is better of course, and we have them in abundance. Hopefully the satisfies you two gentlemen, as I shant comment further. ValarianB (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OANN is not a "competitor" to the Washington Post, Guardian, CBS News, etc., all of which support the "far-right" descriptor. And even if they were, under your reasoning no media outlet could ever be used as a descriptor for another media outlet. That's not supported by any policy or guideline, nor by common sense. Neutralitytalk 00:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All news sources are competing with each other for eyeball time whether you like it or not. Ideally a scholarly article could be used as a source rather than other news articles. The labels are completely subjective and mostly meaningless anyway, especially when talking about a news source which is constantly in flux and has how many guests on in a single day? Should every OAN host and guest be labeled far right because they've been on OAN? The handful of OAN clips I've personally encountered have been interviews with libertarians. It's amazing how much energy is being put into a phrase here. It seems like some users really want to call OAN fascists but know they can't get away with it directly. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A rare voice of reason in this discussion. Thank you for your comments and opinion, I wholeheartedly agree. I personally believe it is important that we use accurate descriptors in the lead of articles because I am concerned with ongoing systemic bias on Wikipedia and the growing new tenancy to lean towards extremes definitions based on Surveys and editor opinion rather than factually accurate definitions with reliable independent sources. I very rare become so involve in discussion rather than editing on Wikipedia despite being here for over 10-years. Aeonx (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pelirojopajaro, the term libertarians has a wide-range of meanings, the adjective preceding the term "libertarians" is crucial. To say labels are completely subjective is inaccurate, or may be just imprecise. These terms are commonly used and are defined; though descriptors are debatable. At wp we use what RSs say, not our own subjectivity. X1\ (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, far-right: There is more than ample sourcing to classify OANN as a far-right organ. pbp 15:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but a synonym not associated with Nazis should be used - The far right page on Wikipedia indicates that it consists primarily of fascists, Nazis, authoritarians, white nationalists, and various other despicable groups. OAN is absolutely a fringe, extremist network and deserves to be labeled as such due to an abundance of sourcing, but I can't find any indication they support fascism, Nazism, theocracy, ethnic cleansing, etc. The use of the term "far right" in the American sense and "far right" in the sense of that page just isn't accurate and would mislead readers into associating OAN with the wrong group of extremists. The term "radical right" is an American synonym and more accurate placement in the American sense - if we're going to link somewhere, that would be a better spot as it is less likely to mislead readers. Perhaps it could be worded "OAN has been described as being far to the right" or something along that lines. Toa Nidhiki05 16:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree that the term "radical right-wing" or "fringe rightwing" would be more precise, but are there are any RS to back that up? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Most sources call them "right wing" or "far right". Toa Nidhiki05 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe is more accurate given their penchant for conspiracy theries, which is why WP has deprecated them as a source. But, RS don't use that term very often. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comes back to the primary issue. The majority of RS's that offer a descriptor use "conservative" so that is what we should use even if we personally think something more damning is more accurate. Springee (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, right: OAN is very widely regarded as a conservative news and opinion outlet. The description of it as far-right is controversial and should not be stated in Wikipedia voice. I oppose any mention of conspiracy theories or any negative accusations in the lead unless additional information is added to balance it out, because otherwise it would be lending undue weight to criticism of the organization. Wikipedia articles tend to give too much weight to leftist criticism in their articles about conservative people or organizations, while conservative criticism is conspicuously absent from articles on leftist figures or organizations. Display name 99 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so the most common descriptor is "conservative" why wouldn't we use that instead of the less common, "far-right"? This seems to be a question that is never answered. If we are going to pick a single descriptor wouldn't NPOV say we should pick the most common one used by RSs? This is why I think it makes more sense to not use any descriptor in Wikipedia voice and instead include the range of descriptors used by RSs in an attributed sentence (see my suggestion below). Springee (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
X1\, most if not virtually all of the sources that you cited are not reliable sources in terms of describing things in the conservative movement. Display name 99 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of casual Nietzschean relativism is exactly contrary to Wikipedia norms and practices, Display name. There is no special set of "conservative" sources that are more reliable for describing "conservative" things. Consensus reality is described by scientists, scholars and reputable media, and WP:FRINGE views must always be treated as such. Thus we must use for OANN the terms used in reliable sources, and not in unreliable but "conservative" ones. At least, that is what WP policy dictates. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, you do not appear to know how reliable sources is defined in Wikipedia; or possibly unwilling to accept the Community's definition: no wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about conservative sources. What I said was that the sources that were listed could not be depended on to describe events in the conservative movement in a fair or impartial fashion due to their left-wing bias. You wouldn't write an article about liberal people or liberal news sources based on what Breitbart says about them. We shouldn't write about a conservative news source based on what known liberal news sources (especially very liberal ones like the Huffington Post, The Wrap, or Vanity Fair) have to say about them. Display name 99 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this shouldn't be considered a FALSEBALANCE, left vs. right type issue. Reality doesn't come in two flavours. Breitbart is never considered a reliable source, HuffPo and Vanity Fair generally are. Their reporting on the so-called "conservative movement" is as good as any we have available. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what all the left-wingers say. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSPSOURCES. For an outside analysis, see User:Valjean/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here. X1\ (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
X1\, I skimmed that essay and it amounts to nothing more than a hacket piece written by a liberal making no attempt to shield his biases. The text makes it clear that conservatives and Trump supporters are not welcome on Wikipedia, and is among the best indicators that there is that Wikipedia's policy about writing articles with a neutral point of view is wholly disgregarded for articles on contemporary American politics and cultural conflict. But we're not talking about Trump here, so I don't even think that this essay is relevant. Display name 99 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, see the RSs within the essay; not Valjean's comments. X1\ (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
X1\, because the essay is written by someone making no attempt to hide his support for progressivism, the list of sources is, like the comments, completely partisan. The list of reliable sources attempts to create a false balance between acceptable sources on the left and acceptable sources on the right by including as acceptable neutral or right-wing sources outlets that clearly skew left or are very left. At least half of the "neutral sources" are clearly left-leaning, just like The Hill even though it's somehow listed as skewing right. The Economist and Time both probably deserve to be listed as neutral, but like I said are classified as skewing right in order to give a false balance. It's notable how there is no criteria of reliable sources that are "Right." You can have reliable sources that are classified as being on the left, but not on the right, according to the agenda-pushing editor who constructed this list. One of the results of this is that there are double the number of reliable sources that are left or skew left than are on the right. The list of unreliable sources is even worse, with the fact that there are many more sources on the right listed as unreliable than on the left makes it clear that we're dealing with someone who has no interest in being neutral. Unlike with the section on reliable sources, the section on unreliable sources does not make even the slightest attempt to hide the author's biases. Seriously, please give up on citing that essay. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, your use of clearly is wp:OR and not how wp works. X1\ (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hat these rants; but I wouldn't know where to start. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to establish that they are unreliable, you will need to first take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise they are still considered RS. Northern Moonlight 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, right. Far right, just as far left is vague, unclear, and loaded. The lead should avoid such characterisation. The body of the article will provide neutral dispassionate information representing the views of the organization as accuratly as possible. The fact that the organization is on the right is non controversial and not disputed by the organization itself, it therefore belongs there. Francis1867 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Bias descriptor)

Thanks, I've added the specific questions for comment as requested. Aeonx (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks again. — Newslinger talk 13:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary justification for calling the site "far-right" is editors finding articles that introduce AON into a larger article as "far-right". Having found a number of examples edits have decided this is the correct descriptor. This is a flawed method and one that should be discouraged in any Wikipedia article. It fails for several reasons.
1. Are the claims actually supported by evidence in the article or are they subjective descriptors added by the writers? With news sources that tend to be more hard fact based this is less a concern but with sources that mix a lot of commentary and appeals to emotion in their reporting (Daily Beast for example) or sites that are reliable for "pop culture" (Vanity Fair) this is an issue.
2. What do articles about OAN say? The list of articles claiming "far-right" are not articles about OAN, they are articles about something else that involves OAN. It's problematic that Wikipedia would create a primary statement in an article about OAN to sources that added it as an unsupported intro comment. I'm not sure how many here have published peer reviewed research but this is something that good reviewers are not OK with. Instead we should stick to articles about the subject as our primary source for such claims. That leads to point 3.
3. What do the media rating sites say? As was mentioned at RSN, we have two media bias sites. These sites have a systematic method for rating bias. I would hope that we could agree they are more methodical that a bunch of Wiki editors arguing. Both sites say OAN is right but not far right. Perhaps the issue is we only hear about a few of the OAN stories and ignore ones that don't cause a controversy.
4. Wikipedia should err on the side of caution. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia even if too many articles appear to be written by editors who are hostile to the article subject. That means if sources use a range of descriptors from nothing to right to far-right to "wackjob-fascist-right" we should err on the side of the least controversial, most universal label. If editors are going to dispute the label that's a good sign it shouldn't be used.
4. Does a list of say 10 sites claiming "far-right" really reflect the consensus among reliable sources? I did a website search for "NEWSORG.COM" and "One America News" and looked at the first page of results to see what descriptors were used in each story. The object is to get some feel for the most common descriptors.
CBS News: Top 10 links, 9 are actual articles, No descriptor: 4; Conservative 4; Right/Right-wing 1; Far-right 0.
ABC news (abcnews.go.com): None 3; Conservative 3; Right 0; Far-right 4* overlap of authors and text.
NPR (npr.org), 3 hits: None 2, Conservative 1.
NBC 9 actual articles: None 4; Conservative 2; Right 0; Far-right 1; "Pro-Trump" or similar 2.
CNN 8 articles, (10-2 repeats): None 2; Conservative 2; Right/right-wing 2; Far-right 2.
Fox News 5 articles: None 3, Conservative 1, Right 1.
NYTimes 9 non-opinion articles: None 5; Conservative 2; Pro-Trump/Trump friendly 2 * I don't have a NYT login so this was done based on the search returns.
In total : None 23; cons 15; right 4, far-right 7, Pro-Trump/similar 4.
In looking across organizations, All used "conservative"; 3 used right/right-wing; 3 used far-right; 2 said pro-Trump or similar.
Based on the above "Conservative" is clearly the most common descriptor. Right is less common that "far-right" but is mostly due to ABC News where the same writers contributed to related stories. Regardless, it's clear that "Far-Right" is not the dominant descriptor. Excluding "none" the dominant would be "conservative". This survey of sources is why it's a bad idea to just harvest sites that have the keywords of choice and use that as proof. Again, ideally we would use external sources "about the subject" as our guide.
To be honest I don't care about "OAN" specifically. I personally discount them as an unreliable news source. However, the arguments I'm seeing above and the desire to use the most extreme label possible is a reoccurring problem on Wikipedia. I'm hopeful that we can actually address this logically vs what on many articles ends up looking like a group of good faith but like minded editors expressing their own views rather than an encyclopedic summary. Springee (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not close to using the "most extreme" label. We must maintain NPOV. But, as an encyclopedia, we should include more detail when available. Otherwise, we would just say it's a TV network and end the article there. Far-right adds additional detail and understanding. If we have adequate sourcing, and we do, it belongs. There are strong sources adding this detail. This has nothing to do with our personal biases, nor perceived biases of sources, and certainly not "competitors" in the news field. Most people have never heard of this network. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right is a precise term. Far-right lies within "right-wing", "right" and "conservative". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
O3000, you are right, we could use "far-right-MAGA-quack" or such but let's be realistic here. If you think "far-right" adds additional detail and understanding then that should be in the body of the article, not in the lead and not sourced to a specific subset of sources. We have "more adequate" sourcing to call it "conservative" so we should do that instead. We have stronger sources saying that vs "far-right". As the sample above makes clear, "Far-right" is not the most common term and it's a NPOV issue to it vs other terms. Snoog, you are correct, "far-right" is a more precise term but it is not universal so we need to be careful about using it. If you wish to say some sources use the term some of the time that is actually correct. Springee (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not honest. No reliable source says: "far-right-MAGA-quack", so we cannot use it. Yes, we have sourcing calling it "conservative". We also have source calling it a network. So, we could just say that and end the article. But, if we have more useful detail from multiple reliable sources, we should include it. The fact that every source isn't as detailed does not prevent us from using reliably sourced info. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand that was tongue in cheek. Again, no, we should not use the more controversial label (see WP:LABEL) when it isn't the most common descriptor. If we want to say "some sources have labeled it far-right" that's fine. This is clearly a NPOV issue to use the more extreme, less widely used label. "As detailed" is misleading absent those sources providing the evidence why they chose the terms in question. Incidentally, why would you oppose following the Media Bias Chart. You suggested it looked good[[21]]. Springee (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Fontes chart was discussed some time back at RSN and, as interesting as it is, the general consensus was don't use it as a source in an article. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone proposing using it as such here? It's being used as evidence supporting an editorial choice. Springee (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, it is an editorial opinion of Fontes. But, seems to me folk were including it as a source. O3000 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't specifically see anyone citing it in the article but I wasn't involved in earlier discussions. I'm pointing to it as, if you will, an expert witness on the subject. They have a clear, published method and if you click on OAN they even show how the rated the individual sample articles. To be honest, it seems that more of the issue with OAN is reliability vs lean and that is something that comes out in the chart data. Do keep in mind that one doesn't have to be right or left to have a poor reputation for reliability. Springee (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's far, far more than that; and RS would not have used the term far-right for simple incompetence. But, neither of us will change the other's mind. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is true... but most sources that choose to include some sort of descriptor don't pick "far-right". Half of the sources I check didn't use it at all. "Conservative" is used more than twice as often. Springee (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, but what does conservative mean? It used to mean social conservative, then became movement conservative, and now is a catch-all term for everything from hard right (Trump is on the left of the current GOP, remember) up to just short of neo-Nazis. Guy (help!) 22:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise Solution? I thought I would offer a compromise suggestion. What about taking the descriptor out of the first sentence then offering a second sentence which attributes a range of descriptors from RSs. Something like, "The network has been described as "conservative", "right-wing", "far-right", "Pro-Trump", and "promoters of conspiracies"." This does a few things. First, by taking it out of Wikivoice and offering a range of descriptors we avoid NPOV concerns as well as the whole argument as to which term is best. Second, one of the arguments for "far-right" was that we should offer the reader additional insight. Offering a range of descriptors does that by showing that RS's aren't in universal agreement and shows the range they have used. Springee (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This gets my vote. Although I would probably describe it as right-leaning to far-right. I think it's the most accurate description given it's a relative new media outlet with a wide range of content that can at times be consider far-right. Aeonx (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, far-right And no, we should not call it "right-wing" or "conservative". Full disclosure of personal bias: I'm a right-wing conservative myself, so is Angela Merkel, David Cameron, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy and many other respected and serious current and previous politicians. OAN and the Trump administration are far-right, much closer in both ideology and behaviour to fascism than to anything even remotely like normal right-wing politicians. Far-right is well supported by reliable sources and entirely accurate. "Right-wing" or "Conservative" are label for Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph and similar media, and not applicable to OAN.Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may very well be your valid opinion, which you are entitled to. But as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on evidence - not opinion; and there is wide-ranging evidence of questionable reliability of OAN reporting (if you'd call it that) ranging from conservative to conspiracy, from right-leaning to far-right. Describing it uniformally as just far-right isn't really correct. Your personal comments about Trump and other politicians are really not relevant. We need to keep the facts and evidence; we don't have a shortage of opinion we have a shortage of reliable evidence to describe it CONSISTENTLY as far-right, and only far-right. Aeonx (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we all are entitled to our opinions. As for your opinion that all sources always need to use far-right, I can only repeat what others have already said: it is your personal opinion, and not WP policy. We do not have a shortage of sources describing it as far-right. On the contrary, we have an abundance of sources saying exactly that. Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aeonx, see Wikipedia:Opinion. X1\ (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The identified sources that do state OAN is 'far-right' do not consistently state OAN is far right, it's mentioned occasionally by some journalists in competitor news outlets. This we've already established. The issue is that one of reliability and consistency. In fact there are many more sources, including the same ones that describe it a far-right, that describe it as conservative or simply right. The evidence of this is above.
I never said all sources must always describe it as far right, I simply state they do not consistently do so. There needs to be a balanced weighting to give a unbiased and WP:NPOV.
So actually it IS WP Policy, specifically WP:RSUW, that the article weighs sources as demonstrated above is reflected in the article. Currently, it is not the case. Aeonx (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aeonx, you do see that both Conservatism in the United States and American far-right is in the OAN lede (even though, at least some, US conservatives are offended that a conspiracy-peddling website, labeling itself as "news", calls itself conservative)? X1\ (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aeonx, I think you are missing their recent and widely discussed increase in extremism. While it may have been debatable in 2016, that really no longer applies. Guy (help!) 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the RfC in te section above. O3000 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you for flagging your claim as opinion not fact. Your opinion is out of line with the fact that multiple reliable sources call it far right. Guy (help!) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have boldly deleted a bit of the pejorative polemical comments on OANN

The citations are to polemical sources, which are unreliable in this context. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Reverted per WP:BRD. Also, no evidence has been provided that the sources used are "polemical". Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

One America news is not a “far-right” “pro-Trump” news source. It is an unbiased, fairly new, good news channel. These biases shouldn’t be allowed to be put in by the editors of Wikipedia. This hyper-partnership is destroying this country. 2600:8801:C500:9DA:211A:5657:989B:8FE (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We report what WP:reliable sources say about the subjects of our articles, and their descriptions of OANN say "far-right" and "pro-Trump" (why else do you think Trump called on their reporter in his news conferences whenever he got the chance?) If you have citations from reliable sources which say that OANN is "an unbiased ... news channel", please share them here. Also, read the discussion above #RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor, in which the WP:CONSENSUS of editors was to leave the descriptions as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Delete "far-right" and associated references and replace with "independent" using reference https://www.oann.com/about/ Owen Molloy (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use an organization's description of themselves. Instead, use go by what [[WP:reliable sources say. See my response to the edit request immediately above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that none of the cited sources using the "far-right" descriptor have themselves used accurate sources to make that description. The sources cited are opinion only. "Far-Right", as described by Wikipedia itself has connotations of Nazism. Owen Molloy (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things on the far-right of the political spectrum. Nazism and Neo-Nazism are two of them, but there are others. But just because something is on te far-right doesn;t mean that it's related to Nazism, just as being yellow doesn;t mean that something is a banana. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main point Beyond My Ken is that the sources cited are opinion only. No source is used within the cited source to give the description any credibility. If the cited sources defined "far-right" then they would be credible. Owen Molloy (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Owen Molloy ChiCubsfan44 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Pro-Trump" be removed?

I'm not sure if "Pro-Trump" is an accurate descriptor when "Far-Right" is used. I don't know if it is a good idea to link media sources to certain political candidates on wikipedia. The "Pro-Trump" aspect of OANN is mentioned in an entire section in the article already, as well as the second paragraph. What I'm suggesting is a change from "One America News (OAN), is a far-right pro-Trump cable channel founded by Robert Herring, Sr.," to "One America News (OAN), is a far-right cable channel founded by Robert Herring, Sr.,"EnviousDemon (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to my own section, because I think I should explain myself further. I feel that having "Pro-Trump" in the first paragraph, seems like we're trying to emphasis the "Pro-Trumpness" of OANN, which, while it is definitely a Pro-Trump network, OANN existed before his Presidency, and will likely still be around in when Trump leaves office, either in January or 2025.EnviousDemon (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today's New York Times said: "...One America News, a conservative cable network that the president has latched onto for its obvious pro-Trump viewpoint." [22] I don't have a strong opinion about inclusion in the lead. Their pro-Trumpness does appear to be a major part of the organization's attempt to increase its footprint. At least at this point. Of course, that may not be true in the future. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the Pro-Trump aspect is more intrinsic to the channel's identity than the conservatism. It should be in the first sentence of the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic all left wing media should be labelled "pro-Biden" or "pro-Democrat". Owen Molloy (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or all left wing media should be labelled "anti-Trump" Owen Molloy (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the key aspect in my view is the sourcing. Reliable sources refer to OANN as "pro-Trump" and don't refer, say, to the NYT as "anti-Trump". We follow the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated as fact twice that Kristian Rouz is paid by Sputnik but the only source for this does not seem to provide substantial supporting evidence

The Daily Beast article used as source for this claim mentions plenty of overlap between Russian propaganda and Rouz' reporting but there isn't any evidence of employment by Sputnik mentioned. It seems like adding "as claimed by the Daily Beast" or some other mitigating disclaimer would be appropriate for the time being.

Kristian is/was a freelance contributor to Sputnik. You can see articles by him published by Sputnik at: [23]. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post mentions this fact as well. It draws heavily on The Daily Beast article, but one assumes the newspaper independently confirmed this piece of information. The New York Times has followed suit. Philip Cross (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Request removal of the term "far right wing" and replace with "conservative" news outlet. Even the references provided don't support the far right wing label. DknightInFV (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC) dianeInFV[reply]

 Not done. I've reviewed the given references at your request. 1. "documentary series by far-right network One America News Network", 2. "One America News Network, the far-right television outlet", 3. "works as a correspondent for the far-right One America News network", 4. "The decidedly far-right news channel", 5. "One America News Network, a far-right outlet". All of the references seem to explicitly support the label. Regardless, the formal consensus in the two month old RFC above seems settled. Kuru (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic Kuru if I get 5 people to say you're a WHITE supremist then that becomes your label. Pretty low standard. Owen Molloy (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is reliable sources as spelled out at WP:RS -- not 5 guys. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The label,"far right wing" is a subjective description. Wikipedia should be the one source that stays neutral and should never have the appearance of being biased.... but that's just my opinion. DknightInFV (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Change far right to right leaning 75.165.88.174 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above section from yesterday. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Oann.com is described as a "propaganda channel". "Propaganda" is someone's opinion, and should be replaced with "News", "information", or "news and information". 2600:1700:2F00:15E0:803:A744:538E:76C (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

The description of the news organization as “propaganda” is an attempt to delegitimize the station. The article repeatedly states that the station is Pro Trump and uses conspiracy theories. All one must do is look at the entry for CNN and see the bias used against One America News. The article is not a fair and accurate description of One America News and should either be taken down or edited by someone who is not a left leaning hypocrite. Aclarion (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear agenda here to paint OANN in as harshly of a light as possible as part of a political spat. You can hate the network all you wish, but you have no business editing Wikipedia. We know what you are doing.

  • I do not consider myself either left leaning or a hypocrite. When a source is garbage, and is widely described as garbage, Wikipedia describes the source as such. GMGtalk 14:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Change “Far right” to “conservative” 2601:1C0:CD01:8430:1442:6BD3:3B5B:EFEE (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Can't use existing source for new addition. El_C 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

You have ONS listed as a 'far-right' news source. This is completely false as they are just conservative and should be labelled as such. Please amend this detail as it is very misleading. 78.144.204.23 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_America_News_Network&oldid=963861639"