Talk:Fox News/Archive 8

POV taken out on NOV. 1

I took out the chicken shack comment because it was an amatuer mistake, but I thought I should detail why I took out the DUI section under the alleged bias. The story itself was broken by a Fox affiliate, and not Fox news itself. Hope this clears that up.

Suggestions:

Put it in an article about that station or FOX affiliates.
Expand Wikipedias coverage of broadcast affiliates. We don't have them round here and I don't understand how they work. Doesn't FOX News still have to monitor affiliate output to protect its brand? Can affiliates be expelled from FOX's affiliate programme for misbehaving?

Tim Ivorson 08:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--> Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron broke the DUI story nationally. (10 November 2004 JansSport)

Breaking a national news story (however leaked by the Democrats) is never misbehaving. It doesn't matter if they disagree with the final outcome, they're still more concerned with money and viewers than their propoganda.--TheGrza 17:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Bush brought that on himself. (I had the BGH story in mind as misbehaving). However, I am still in the dark regarding the relation of FNC to "its affiliates." Tim Ivorson 21:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The relation is strenuous at best. There are 179 affiliates and NEWSCORP (which is as close to Fox News as you can get) only owns 34. It also doesn't own the one in Maine which broke the drunk story. As for the BGH (I didn't know about that one until you told me) I think it's a valuable peice of information that if anyone knows enough about (I clearly don't) they should put it in there. I might do some research tonight on the topic myself. As for the influence after that, I don't know how much influence is usually exerted or whether or not it comes in as much now after all the trials and publicity. Maybe the BGH trials allowed the Maine station to take down Bush for the drinking.
TheGrza 01:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Comment

In the view of opinion columnist Ann Coulter the three misperceptions were "deceptive," based on "liberal talking points," and "designed to falsely portrary FOX News viewers as ignorant" was in the section discussing the misperceptions of FOX viewers. I took it out because the comment was supposedly to contrast a major study done with research principles with the opinion of a woman who has no facts to back up her assertions on the study. If anyone can find some actual facts to back up her assertions please put them in. If not, these two statements are clearly not equal in weight.
--TheGrza 03:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of the report are certainly on point. A major study done with bogus assumptions still has bogus assumptions. Coulter is a major commentator and defender of FOX News, and this report should not simply be quoted with no rebuttal. Very Verily 03:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TheGrza is right. That's all there is to it. But VV will revert and revert, preferring bullying to civilized discourse. It was bullying from VV that led me to more or less give up on editing. The right has been so successful at bullying people into silence by claiming to be a victimized minority. I'm tired of the lies about right-wing victimhood. The right controls a good portion of the so-called mainstream media, as well as the congress, the senate, and the White House. How long before liberals start fighting back against hypocritical bullies like VV? If this election taught anything to those of us on the left -- it's that it's really time to start bullying back. 68.1.174.46 03:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is really on topic. Very Verily 03:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter defends her position that the "misconceptions" are not 100% false in the eighth through the tenth paragraphs of the linked article. Also, I think rebuttals are fair game if they are directly relevant to FOX News, which the Coulter article is. To rebut the PIPA study by saying "some think the director of PIPA is a sanctimonious left-wing twit" would not work because information about the organization's politics belong on its article, but to cite Coulter's opinion on the study is certainly permissible. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 04:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, stupid NPOV rule, it's prevented me from using the term "sanctimonious left-wing twit" on some very worthy subjects (PIPA and FAIR come to mind). Very Verily 05:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aguing about whether or not there should be a rebuttal, I think there should be. There should not be a rebuttal from someone who would disagree with (almost [added]) anything that goes against FOX news (regardless of fact[removed]). Perhaps there is a statement to be made about the disagreement with the three points without involving someone like Coulter, and even using another study to point out how this one is wrong. The website you pointed to also is just another biased treatment on the issue. Please try to find an unbiased source to rebut the article or challenge it's validity. --TheGrza 06:01, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

This is ad hominem. Either her defense is legitimate, or it is not. Whether she "would" disagree or not with anything is immaterial; all that matters is whether she offered valid criticism in this actual case. I feel her critiques are legitimate, and so does Rdsmith4 above. There doesn't need to be a whole other study to point out the flaws in this study, either; just noting problems with its methodology is adequate, and this is what Coulter does. At any rate, I'd rather have a flawed or incomplete rebuttal than no rebuttal at all, even if it's a stop-gap while you find something better (if you do). Also, you should not mark content changes as "minor edits", and should generally try to avoid reintroducing typos and the like. Very Verily 06:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--> It most definitely is an "ad hominem". Just a quick question, TheGrza: If Ann Coulter states something that is true on its face, does the fact that she is the messenger immediately discredit this truth? If Coulter says, "Today's sky is blue," and today's sky IS blue, does the fact that she's the one saying it make the sky red? 10 Nov 2004 (DJ)

-->No, it doesn't and that's a fine point. My point is that the evidence she cites in the...wait for it...OP/ED piece is the argument, not the fact that she disputes it. I don't care who disputes it, that means nothing. The point I was making is that the arguments should be in the article instead of just putting her name in. Also, the evidence cited should be backed up with more fact then she mustered in her piece, which assumed two points were true (and making an ad hominem attack on the democrats for the third). These facts are not to the par of the study itself. It has flaws, yes, and I pointed them out. But she has nothing to do with those flaws. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 05:35, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The typo that you refer to had nothing to do with the section of the article I changed or was reverting. It existed before and after I arrived at this article. As for the "minor edit" complaint, I do sincerely apologize. I have been making many minor edits lately I think I just did it out of force of habit.

As for the rest of your comment, my argument was not an ad hominem attack and to accuse me of such a thing while I have been completely civil is ridiculous. I was only suggesting that she was clearly not in any way in the spirit of NPOV and that her specific defense was not legitimate. To suggest that, for instance, the meeting in Prague took place contrary to CIA findings simply because liberals criticize the CIA and a single Judge found a link does not establish anything. Also, her own ad hominem attacks on NPR listeners or suggesting that liberals say that Halliburton had a link with Osama bin Laden degade any useful information she adds. Because she had a point has nothing to do with how she arrived at such a place and her defense of such a position is weak. I was simply suggesting that there are more valid and reputable critics than the far right, namely the facts on the issue. Wikipedia also isn't about balancing points of view, it's about eradicating them as best as they can. The points that they bring up are hurt and the tenuous existence of NPOV on this article is threatened by such an appearance. I put the actual argument into the article, instead of adding that one person or another disagreed with the findings. There are many "reputable columnists" (a completely meaningless term) who disagree with a lot of things but their opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. Next time, try to put in fact, not opinion. --TheGrza 07:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) (sorry I was editing and adding to my comment)

I was not accusing you being uncivil, as in making an ad hominem attack on me. Rather, my claim is that saying that because Coulter is a rabid right-winger who would defend FOX at any cost (uh, allegedly) that therefore her arguments should not be considered, is ad hominem (referring to the person Coulter instead of what she is saying). Wanted to clear that up. I'll look at the rest now. Very Verily 07:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're missing that the fact/opinion divide is not the operative one here. We enforce NPOV by saying, "Some assert X, but critics of this view assert Y." Whether these are opinions or not is immaterial, they could be disputed facts. Anyway, better yet than this is to name and cite critics, which is what is done here. You may not have been around for when I first put that rebuttal in in July, but I was more vague then, and it was other editors who insisted on simply referring to Coulter instead of "critics such as Coulter". The fact is, for better or for worse she is a prominent critic, just as Chomsky is and gets his inane opinions splashed all over Wikipedia articles. Very Verily 07:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand the fact opinion divide, and the use of differing voices in developing a NPOV article. I also realize that not all positions are equal and were I to say something and Ann Coulter to say something, she would get more precedence here because of her stature as a national columnist. But she is in no way an impartial observer, nor does she pretend to be. I feel that PIPA is somewhat un-biased and I think whatever you feel about PIPA they are LESS biased than Coulter making their two statements unequal in terms of validity. The facts in this case should speak for themselves rather then having one more impartial observer (and I know the "impartiality" of poll is somewhat suspect, but c'mon, they're more impartial then Ann Coulter!) and one less. As for Chomsky, he should also not be in these articles. It's silly to say that because of one case of unfairness we should have two. Take out Chomsky, Take out Coulter. Take out Zinn and Limbaugh too. Don't include one to spite the other because there is no way that's NPOV and lets agree to put FACTS into the articles instead of opinions. --TheGrza 08:09, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, Ann Coulter's comment does merit inclusion. It is relevant and the more information, the better. Wikipedia shouldn't express an opinion on the weight that her view deserves, but readers can hardly be confused about what she stands for. (I expect Coulter to say this sort of thing regardless of whether it is true, because it appears consistent with her agenda. However, if Noam Chomsky had said it, that would be very interesting, not because he is more important, but because he doesn't usually say this sort of thing. I expect that readers will take a similar view, but it might be a good idea to mention in this article that she is a neo-conservative, or whatever the hell she is, just in case readers confuse her with Noam Chomsky).

On the other hand, I believe that Coulter is crazy and dishonest, but to say that without attributing it to anybody would hardly be NPOV (though if the general public, or someone important, thought that she is crazy and dishonest, that might be worth saying). Also, if her comment is being included because of who she is, then ad hominem attacks seem appropriate. If the opinions themselves are interesting, regardless of whether she held them, then she doesn't need to be mentioned. (I think that, even if the opinions are interesting in their own right, details of public figures who made high-profile voicings of them would be interesting). Tim Ivorson 10:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not cover other peoples' opinions. If an opinion is relevant to the subject of the article, and is attributed to someone else notably, that it is (I repeat) fair game, and is in fact desirable. I don't think we need to worry about her being confused with Noam Chomsky. Coulter's political preference (while obvious from the statements she makes) belongs on her article, as do criticisms of her that are not directly relevant to FOX News. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 13:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that NPOV does not cover other people's opinions. Tim Ivorson 16:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If PIPA's credibility can be taken up on a Fox News page (rather than on PIPA's page), then so can Ann Coulter's. Let's stop capitulating to the right. 68.1.174.46 22:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PIPA's credibility cannot and should not be taken up on the FOX News page, and it only is now in the context of Ann Coulter's comment, which is just as relevant to FOX as the PIPA study. Criticism of Ann Coulter is (I repeat) not relevant to FOX News. I protest your implied accusation that anyone who wants to keep Coulter's comment speaks from "the right" - I, for one, am interested only in creating a neutral but comprehensive article, not debating with people for the sake of debate. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 00:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I was pretty sure that the job I did of taking out the specific person and instead inserting the specific argument was something that was pretty much in the spirit of NPOV. I also see no agreement here as to whether or not the comment should be kept. I'm reverting it back to the way it was where the ideas were paramount instead of the critic.--TheGrza 06:57, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

If there's no agreement, then that's an indication that some compromise is needed. I don't see why we can't include some of each version. They both add interesting information (if true). Tim Ivorson 11:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To include only the criticism and not the critic is not in the spirit of NPOV, where attribution is everything. "Many conservative critics" is terribly vague. Criticism of PIPA is only relevant to FOX News because of Ann Coulter's column, which recieved a lot of attention at the time. Consequently it is necessary to include her name and a link to her column. I've attempted a compromise, leaving the majority of your text and adding "such as Ann Coulter." [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 13:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'm ok with that.--[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 18:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

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 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)

POV removed 0100 Nov. 9, 2004

198.109.220.6 put in a lot of nice things that I had to delete for their complete and utterly blatant POV. However, 198.109.220.6 made a comment about Brit Hume admitting bias on Fox News. I deleted it because I couldn't find anything to back it up, but if anyone knows what 198.109.220.6 is talking about, put it back in. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 01:04, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Too much criticism

All the page on Fox News is a blast-fest. In almost every paragraph, reports of FN being 'conservative-based' and 'distorting the facts', although these are absent in it's competitors pages, namely NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.

This page needs a re-write. Too much criticism. Just because it's the only network without a liberal view doesn't mean liberals have the right to attack it here.

-- If you actually read the entry, you'll see that each and every criticism describes an instance of biased or distorted presentation of facts laid out as facts. Such behaviour surely deserves to be recorded here because it is an egregious breach of journalistic ethics, and is as such noteworthy. Therefore I don't think you need to show a specific "right" to be able to record it, though maybe your invocation of rights-language is rhetorical. Moreover, bias is bad in of itself so the criticism is hardly "just because it's the only network without a liberal view"

If you can dredge up cases of other news channels deploying opinions as facts, that would be good. --- Dan W

-- Even so, you must admit the other networks don't have a blast-fest as much as this one. Why does FOX need over 10 paragraphs stating of "Allegations of Bias"? Do you see CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC with one? I certainly don't, and I see no purpose of there being such a section.

If you haven't noticed that the name FOX News inspires heated commentary around it's supposed bias, and some by major independent sources, then you have been living in some strange hole-type vortex. Those who talk about FOX News in any context will have to talk about the bias issue, and so do we. I agree with Dan W, if you can find a specific example of some "left-leaning media bias" I urge you to add it to their page. However, this section is clearly relevant to FOX news. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 03:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

-- Then maybe it's time I start allegations of bias pages for CNN and the others.

My removal

I removed "It markets itself as a uniquely neutral news source, using the mottos "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide."". If we aren't going to have allegations of bias in the lead, neither should we have their marketing. Compare to New York Times' lead section. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good edit. I should have removed it. --Doctorcherokee 05:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that

It markets itself as a uniquely neutral news source, using the mottos "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide," but has been variously accused of right-wing, conservative and Republican bias.

should be included because it's the kind of thing that might help readers to understand FOX News and distinguish it from other channels. All of the most important points should be mentioned in the lead section. Tim Ivorson 21:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it's not consistent with our articles on other media sources. As a stylistic matter, I think it's best to leave the opening uncluttered; but if you'd rather have mentions of bias in the lead, I suppose we could look at other prominent bias-accused papers (New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Post, etc) and adjust them. I, however, prefer the simpler lead, while letting the body speak for itself. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Conservatives accuse the NYT as being biased, and liberals accuse Fox as being biased. Liberals view the NYT as fair, and conservatives view Fox as fair. The allegations of bias section is sufficient, in my opinion. I actually think it's too long, but if it's based on studies, polls, etc. (and most of it is), then it's not as big of a deal. --Doctorcherokee 00:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would make sense for somebody to say that FOX News is biased in favour of his point of view. If all of the people who say that FOX News is not biased have some controversial belief in common then that is evidence that FOX News is biased in favour of that belief. Tim Ivorson 15:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All news sources are biased. What makes FOX News different is that it appears to be less sophisticated. I think that this makes FOX News less dangerous than its competitors, but also that this makes it easier to criticise. Allegations of bias against FOX News are so widespread that they deserve to be mentioned in the lead section. Allegations of bias against other news organisations should be that widespread and should be mentioned in Wikipedia if they are. (I believe that bias is only a real problem if it is dishonest. There would be no point in accusing FOX News of a bias that it was open about. The perfect news organisation would still be biased). Tim Ivorson 15:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These "so widespread" allegations of bias are found where? Left-leaning news sources? It's very difficult to claim with a reasonable doubt that the allegations of bias vis-a-vis Fox News are any more widespread than, say, NYT or some other left-leaning news organization. I have absolutely no problem with a thorough section detailing all the allegations, but there's no point in flagging it as to imply that it's perceived by everybody as biased and as somehow less valid than supposedly more balanced news sources like CNN and the NYT. I don't believe that's true, by far. --Doctorcherokee 02:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amen!TDC 05:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, left-leaning means left of the mainstream. I believe that it is a mainstream view that FOX News is dishonest. Here in the UK, the only people that I know of who won't ridicule FOX News work for Rupert Murdoch. The news I get from the US is fairly scathing about FNC too. [1] [2] [3] Where are all of the people who think that it's a real news channel? Tim Ivorson 11:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

War with BBC?

Am I being paranoid, or is there a nasty campaign by Fox against the BBC for being biased? Look at the following (factually incorrect) diatribe from the Fox archives about BBC hosting a "Question Time" special prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The report strongly implies that show's panel was filled with nothing more than anti-war liberals (Michael Moore, et al). [4] The actual panel was far more balanced than suggested. It included Bush's speech writer David Frum and Richard Littlejohn (Outspoken right-of-center, pro-war British Journalist who works for the Murdoch empire). [5]