Wikipedia

Talk:Fox News/Archive 8

< Talk:Fox News
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rebroad (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 15 February 2005 (→[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] and propaganda model: - this is not about me.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV

A large chunk of the Bias section earns a discussion on weather or not it is NPOV. While the defense of Fox and supporters is argued in the beginning, it loses that in the middle and end. The defense should be there, or people will think it is undeniable fact. I realize it's about the bias FOX gets, but their defense should be at least mentioned.

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Also, I've removed your NPOV notice - while you may have a complaint, the neutrality of the section is not actively disputed (i.e. there is no discussion going on yet). [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV notice back on Nov 2nd (under an anonymous IP address-didn't realize I hadn't logged in) and gave notice that I had done so - see Archive 4 talk page to this. I agree that the allegations of bias are reported in a pretty biased manner - but that doesn't change the NPOV of the entire article IMHO Trodel

Allegations of Bias

Because the length of this Talk Page I have moved all of the discussions related to Allegations of Bias to a topic specific archive as agreement seems to be reached. The following are included there: moving to a seperate article, discussion of length of the bias section; and Archive of the proposed changes as they got settled. If you archive this talk page - please be sure to include this section to retain quick access to the history of this carefully crafted section of the FOX News article.

Alai - I edited this section at the same time as you, but I wanted to let you know why I didn't keep your language. I think that the link to the section plus a brief description to be more positive about views that are not popular in the mainstream press is a better NPOV description of the way I read the memos - I notice also that we ahve been linking to media matters - but I would prefer to link to the originals if you (or anyone) knows where they might be. Thanks - Jim Trödel|talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, me too: saved the edits accidentally, then went to complete them, and got two edit clashes in a row: pesky software. So I've ended up losing your text, not so much in an 're-reversion', as to get a suggested draft at least in the page history. I can't really agree with "positive language" (though I prefer it to "spin", certainly) as several of the memos seem to be doing much more than that; they're suggesting topics be played up, or played down, beyond simply how to characterise them given the fact of their coverage. I take your point about not wanting to over-editorialise here, however. (Don't have a better link, sorry.) Now, for my money we'd be fine going back to 'right-wing', but I suppose that's begging the question of what's "centre" (a target that's being moved even as we speak). Alai 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Alai - I reviewed your change - tried to incorporate what I could but I don't see how an observation (paraphrasing) that John Kerry is feeling the heat is properly summarized as "instruction reporters to include viewpoints ...unfavorable to John Kerry", can we discuss here? I agree - it was simpler as right-wing - though a good point was made that not all the memos are right wing Trödel|talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd have thought that characterised that rather well. And note the several other Kerry-isms too. I wasn't trying to be strictly comprehensive, though I confess I was rather irked by the selectivity in SB's list. There's certainly more than "language" going on in many of the instances -- most, I'd suggest. Rather than the list of topics, perhaps "White House agenda", "right of centre", "centre-Right", or some such phrase is less problematic than "right-wing". (The objection to "pro-Republican" seemed especially slight: if we take 'most Rightist Democrat' as the watershed, what 'Repulican issues' would that actually leave?) Perhaps we can eliminate the need for 'covering' the whole list with a judicious "broadly" or "predominantly", as necessary. Alai 05:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If one believes that the media is generally left, then I can see a reasonable interpretation that the memos were generally exhorting the left-leaning reporters to report right-wing viewpoints with comparable levels of attention and from a sympathetic POV - similar to how we try to do here - so I tried to get that in with as few words as possible. As to the list of items - I feel reluctant to quote from only media matters the contents of the memos since they have a known agenda as well. What additional items are you looking to include in the list. Trödel|talk 15:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here's another link to the memos: at first glance these look (more) complete. Perhaps this would be a better place to link to. [1] I'm still unhappy about the current wording: it's "toned down" beyond any reasonable representation of the contents. If they were merely suggesting 'language' on three particular issues that can't be described as having a political agenda, why would anyone even suspect a story, much less a controversy? Alai 01:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony - I took out the "falsly claimed" wording because by describing the wording (with less charged words than Gibson did - we are guilty of doing the same thing. I see the description of "herorically defending against" as poetic license to describe what he actually did say, "I'm in the center of Baghdad," said a very dubious Gilligan, "and I don't see anything… But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." Gilligan was referring to the American TRUE claim that they had taken control of most of Baghdad’s airport. NOTE also that Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren't. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying. An hour or two later, a different BBC correspondent pointed out that Gilligan wasn't at the airport, actually. He was "nearby". I think we should avoid any description of the claim especially here. Trödel|talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you're quoting directly from unverified claims published in the National Review by Denis Boyles. Those claims are beyond the scope of this piece, so I won't argue about them here except to say that they're no more than claims. OfCom's finding on what Gibson claimed about Gilligan is, however, relevant and so I've rephrased. I hope it's acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - I didn't get that from National Review - but found a story about it on some local news site and on a blog or two - thought I had it right. Is there a reliable source for what he actually reported in 2003? My memory is that I grew to dislike Gilligan while watching some things on BBC during the Iraq War because he seemed clearly to be anti-American to me. Trödel|talk 15:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I have reverted Silverback's removal of the PIPA bullet points, I sort of agree with Silverback's reason for removing it. There are explanations other than FOX News bias. However, I think that it should be included on this page. The report is widely known. Whatever the significance of the report is, it is relevant to FOX News. It's the kind of thing that readers might reasonably hope to find here. Many people believe that the findings are the result of FOX News bias (or error or dishonesty). In case some do not realise that it could be that people who choose to watch FOX News already believe those "misperceptions," or are predisposed to, we might want to say something to that effect. Tim Ivorson 12:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the PIPA report being included elsewhere in the article, since it was an important news event, however, the report and the survey were not designed to measure bias in Fox News itself. The survey was even poorly designed to measure what it purports to measure, and I doubt it could have survived peer review in a reputable journal. The most glaring example was having a question which used the word "significant", that required a value judgement that can hardly be rigorously labeled a misperception.--Silverback 12:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

General "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" sub-article

(moved this from above section) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I'm opposed to removing material appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia, I agree, in principle, that the section is too long. If TDC had proposed moving the bulk of the material to a sub-article on aesthetic reasons, rather than prunning the section on the basis of NPOV, and if the material was a bit less controversial, I would've agreed. But a previous conversation, further up the page, has wisely ruled this out. So, as an alternative, in case we decide not to use your rewrite, how about this: Incorporate this section as part of a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" article (or something similar), along with similar sections from other major news sources' articles. Hopefully, the combination of several different edit wars into a single article will lead to there being some non-committed voices in each individual edit war. This might avoid the problem of a "debate" article, which tends to attract only POV warriors. We would still be left with the task of creating a 1-3 paragraph summary for this article. crazyeddie 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am ok with this alternative - if concensus can not be reached on whether the rewrite works.

Or we could do it both ways. We could use your bullet point version as the summary. Moving a detailed discussion of this topic to a different article would certainly quiet my inclusionist objections. And if later POV balancing does lead to the section becoming bloated again, it would serve as a prepared fallback position. We could simply remove the bullet point version and replace it with a shorter summary.

But before we do this:

First: Is this a good idea? Since I have a tendency to use too much shorthand when explaining a new idea, I'll try to spell it out. I think the presence of moderates is needed for the successful completion of edit wars, and preventing them in the first place. Moderates may have POVs which they would like an article to reflect, but they are willing to compromise and will defend the consensus version against extremists of any stripe.

It was previously suggested that the Allegations of Bias section be moved to a seperate sub-article, leaving behind only a short summary. However, it was decided that this would create a "debate" article. Moderates tend to avoid these, which means that only full-fledged POV warriors participate. Which means non-stop edit wars.

What I'm proposing is that we move the Allegations of Bias section to a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Intergerity" article, alongside copies of similar sections or passages from the articles regarding other major news sources.

While an article of this nature may attract POV warriors, I hope it will at least attract POV veterans from several different edit wars. A pro-CBS warrior might be a moderate when it comes to Fox, for example. Plus, the general nature of the article would hopefully attract some people who are curious about AVoJIs in general, but don't have any particular axe to grind.

Would some experienced Wikipedians care to comment?

Secondly: Could somebody please come up with a better name for the proposed article? crazyeddie 09:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An earlier attempt was made to split off the Allegations of Bias section into another article. This was nominated for deletion and the motion was carried by the "rough consensus" standards of VfD, and the split-off article was deleted. I infer from this that consensus is that the Allegations of Bias section is fine where it is. It has no grown significantly since then; indeed I believe that other parts of the Fox News article have grown greatly since then while it has not. Let's leave it as it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was aware that it was decided not to spin this off into a seperate article. I wasn't aware that it had been done and been deleted. Do you have a link the VfD page? It's possible that a general Allegations page might not run into the same problems as a Fox-only one. Also, the deletion of the spin-off page doesn't really say anything about the problem of the section being too long, just that it shouldn't be in an article by itself. crazyeddie 19:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The VfD discussion is here.

While an appropriate-sized section on Fox News might be included in a more article on bias in news reporting, the kind of coverage provided on Fox News should either be presented in the Fox News article or in an article on Fox News bias; the VfD effectively closed off the latter avenue. You would still have to find a home for the main section on Fox News allegations of bias. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Damn. Well, good thing the rewrite is going well. So far anyway. crazyeddie 07:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


NPOV

An NPOV notice was added on 7 January by an anonymous user but no NPOV discussions seem to be taking place at present. I have removed it for now. Please restore if you disagree. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The anon was probably TDC. He was objecting to the length of the Allegations of Bias section on NPOV grounds. crazyeddie 18:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP style guidelines suggest that a link per line is probably excessive. The article currently has large sections with more than one dead link per line. If someone's actively engaged in filling out these articles, fair enough, but if not, I propose to de-link the text until they show signs of going somewhere. Alai 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


The propaganda model

This section:

FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", a claim which disagrees with the Propaganda model which states that any commercial media organisation must inevitably be biased in order to remain competitive. In addition, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party.

The reason I want to get rid of the addition in italics above is that it's an opinion. In the opinion of X, Y, or a number of people, the slogan disagrees with some theory of news dissemination. This is POV pushing. It is not an agreed fact that the asserted disagreement exists, nor that it is relevant, since Fox News exists in the real world and not the world of the academic theorist (even when that theorist is of the caliber of Noam Chomsky). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for giving your reasons for you earlier deletion. Is the propaganda model an "opinion"? I wouldn't think it correct to say that the propaganda model is any more an opinion than saying the theory of evolution is an opinion. Is it a model, perhaps some might say a theory, although I think it has been fairly well proven, hasn't it? It even seems to me to be fairly common sense. I do agree that if the propaganda model were only an opinion then a relatively unqualified source then there might be cause for it being removed, but as you said youself, Noam Chomsky is a well respected authority on such matters, so I believe it qualifies for a mention in the current context. - Plus it was in the article for quite some time before that paragraph was recently rephrased. --Rebroad 01:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky is an authority, but the field isn't a hard science. What's happening here is that you're introducing Chomsky's ideas about the way the media work into a description of the Fox News slogan. Wikipedia is not a Chomskyist endeavor, it's neutral. We have no opinion on whether the Fox News slogan contradicts the Propaganda Model, but if somebody famous expressed such an opinion widely, then we might report his opinion. If we ourselves did have an opinion and we did report it (as you want us to do here) then that would be original research, which we don't do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this reference should be included at all I think it should be near the end of this section. The notable part of this reference is that provides one explaination of why FOX would be biased not that it is a response to their slogans. Trödel|talk 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have put the mention of the propaganda model back to the proximity of the claim of being "unbiased", as it is more relevant there. It doesn't flow if mentioned out of context, at the end of the section. The field might not be a hard science but I don't see how that is relevant - does wikipedia only report things that are hard science? No. Is Wikipedia a Chomskyist endeavor? No, of course not. Is it a Fox Newist endevour? No also - therefore both sides must be included. I'm not stating any opinions here, I'm merely stating facts that disagree with one another. It is a fact that the Fox New's slogan claims they are "unbiased". It is also a fact that the propaganda theory exists, and claims that they must be biased. I am not suggesting to the reader which to believe, I am merely presenting the known facts. If you prefer, you could swap the order of the facts over so that the propaganda model is mentioned just prior to Fox New's slogan. I would have no objection to this if you feel that the order in which the facts are presented in is biased. But to suggest that only the facts that shine favourably on Fox News are presented would be to suggest that the article should be biased. That's not Wikipedia policy. --Rebroad 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_8&oldid=10287363"