Talk:Fox News/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Latest edits - Deletion

The latest edits by User:Thejackhmr raises alarm bells. First is a wholesale unilateral deletion of lots of the article [1], immediately followed by a very minor edit with no edit comment (and actually introduces a grammatical error) [2] that gives the appearance of covering tracks. I'm not accusing Thejackhmr of malice or impropriety, but I find it all very disappointing given how hotly debated an article this is. Fuzheado | Talk 05:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ha! No grammatical error was introduced -- you are mistaken. Maybe you should attend to your own grammar though; your first sentence above should actually be: The latest edits by User:Thejackhmr raise alarm bells. Anyway, see the "Neutralization" section above for an explanation of my changes. ~thejackhmr

My bad on the grammar. I was reading the raw diffs which read "an [[United States|American]] " and thought the "an" was paired with United States, rather than American. Apologies for the grammar error. I still think your wholesale deletion is in bad faith. Fuzheado | Talk 06:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your half-page deletion was not supported by anyone in the above section Thejackhmr.--GD 05:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The latest edits by Thejackhmr are completely justified. Wikipedia is not a commie propaganda outlet like Zmag, "Indymedia" or "FAIR". 209.142.200.92 19:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One-edit sock puppet.--GD 05:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That I chose not to register a user name does not mean I am a "sock puppet". 209.142.198.33 22:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will now be known as Fogger. 209.142.198.33 22:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at it like this. Wikipedia is not here to hide the existence of "commie propaganda." That FAIR has said certain things is a fact and might be the kind of thing that can be included in Wikipedia. If it should not be included, then tell us why. You could be more persuasive than simply asserting so. That is not to say that FAIR is even remotely trustworthy, but FOX News certainly isn't (see [3] and "WTVT Ruling Coverage" on [4]).

Tim Ivorson 10:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WTVT is an affiliate of the Fox television network. It is not the Fox News cable channel.

WTVT's news department wanted to add comments from Monsanto representatives. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson refused, and were fired.

Jane Akre and Steve Wilson need to be forced to pay the legal costs of WTVT's defense against their frivolous so-called "wrongful termination" lawsuit, plus punitive damages.

Trying to discredit an entire cable news network using a single incident where the news department of a Fox network affiliate decided to edit some left-wing propaganda piece is dishonest. In any case, the Fox News Channel is several orders of magnitude more reputable than "FAIR".

- Fogger 11:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thejackhmr

I would appreciate it if you would not use such inflamatory titles for your edits, not repeat edits which have already proved controversial and explain changes likely to be controversial. I agree that there is room for improvement here. Maybe you could try constructive edits. Tim Ivorson 07:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How would people feel about spinning off a separate Criticisms of FOX News article? That would enable this one to not be so criticism-heavy and thus stay more focused, while also allowing extensive coverage of the considerable body of criticisms of the station. We can have a Main article: Criticisms of FOX News atop the Allegations of bias section. VV 09:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's okay with me, but won't acknowledging the criticisms still be problematic? Do we need to find some kind of synthesis with Thejackhmr's edits as well?

Tim Ivorson 10:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In general, folks have tried to avoid splitting off into "Criticism of..." articles, since 1) they would be simply a dumping ground for POV and 2) they siphon off any critical analysis in the main article. Therefore, it would be nice if it could be reconciled on this article and accomplish what Jimbo mentioned in the press recently about John Kerry - an article which is acceptable to both sides. Fuzheado | Talk 12:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well as I understand it - and I'm not unsympathetic - Thejackhmr's objection was that this article looked rather unlike the, say, CNN one, but is instead largely made up of a litany attacks on the channel. This lack of balance is problematic in its own right, and it would be reasonable to have a much-pared-down article with the basics, and then a separate one for the sizable and growing field of attacks on FOX News. It would be analogous to having a History of Poland article separate from Poland, an Iran-Contra scandal separate from Ronald Reagan, and, indeed, a John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 separate from John Kerry. Whether it would be a POV magnet or not compared to the present article is hard to say, but FAIR and PIPA are hardly, well, fair organizations, and they are featured prominently here nonetheless. VV 13:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another but critical opinion belongs somewhere. PS: Your baseless assertions about FAIR are just that.--GD 05:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of removing allegations of bias to a different page, so long as a similar section was added to CNN and other such media accused of being "liberal." Also, the FAIR report should certainly be documented, as the PIPA study and Ann Coulter's response, and any other significant controversy surrounding FNC. Incidentally, I think that now, rather than an anti-Fox spin on the bias paragraph, there is a decided spin in favor of the channel (my, this is tedious). I propose replacing this:

Some of the differing opinions of FOX News might result from the perceived lack of a clear-cut line between straight-news programming and news analysis programming. One of the founding concepts of the channel has always been to provide strong and opinionated news analysis, particularly during prime time.

with this:

FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ([5]), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage and ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.

Fair and balanced, I hope - so long as FAIR and PIPA's criticisms are mentioned. — Dan | Talk 17:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mention them, but we don't need half an essay on them. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. — Dan | Talk 03:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As there was no protest I have now switched the paragraphs. — Dan | Talk 05:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

On an entirely different subject - I have just reverted an anonymous edit which quoted one of the internal FNC memos discussed in the bias section, as I did not think it was necessary; I linked the MediaMatters page containing the memos in question, so a curious reader can see for himself.

Also, I removed the detailed reasons behind FOX's ratings success from the opening paragraph and moved it to the relevant paragraph below. The purpose of the article is to go into detail; the purpose of the opener is to state the very basic undisputed facts. I don't think either of these changes should be especially controversial; just wanted to tell everyone so as not to be accused of unilateralism. — Dan | Talk 03:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greta Van Susteren

It strikes me as quite inappropriate to cite the political activity of Greta Van Susteren's husband as evidence about her beliefs. Wives are now allowed to hold views and vote independently of their husbands. I notice that there is no corresponding discussion of the political activities of any male's spouse.

Views of FOX News outside the US

There seems to be no discussion of how FOX News is viewed outside the US - i.e. that many consider it very patriotic - that is to say, a mad raving looney right-wing neo-con propaganda tool. Mostly people who tune in consider it hilarious - just as a Canadian journalist suggested (when it was announced Canada was to get FOX News). For me, it's quite humorous until one realises that there are many who take it all entirely seriously!

The "not biased" allegation is the worst attribute - I could stomach it otherwise to some extent. In fact, this applies to US foreign policy too - people could accept it more if they weren't so adamant about "We're right, we're doing this for the greater good, we've a God-given duty".

So, to conclude - I think it's important to mention the strong feelings that this channel stirs up! Certainly the whole incident with that Canadian guy and the ensuing hate-mail from FOX News viewers should be mentioned.

I'm not putting in anything myself into the article though - because I realise this is probably extremely contentious. In fact, there's probably many who find my above comments appalling. Still, you've got to face reality!

zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If such views, justified or otherwise, have been documented by a reliable news source, they should be added under "Allegations of bias" with a link to the relevant article(s). — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that many outside the US still haven't gotten over the habit of getting their news from various fronts for the Novosti Press Agency and the KGB's Service A, any news organization that allows those to the right of Pol Pot to express their viewpoints in debate will be seen by these people to be "a mad raving looney right-wing neo-con propaganda tool". - Fogger 00:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who don't just get their news from one source. People who watch FOX News and laugh are likely to be among them.

FOX News gives a lot of time to minor issues and tabloid stories. This makes FOX News seem sillier than foreign news organisations that mosly report real news. Some of FOX News seems calculated to make people laugh. O'Reilly is little more than a shock jock.

I am not sure where Pol Pot belongs on the political spectrum, but many British news sources present a range of views, though, like FOX News, they underrepresent libertarian (with a small l) views. FOX News looks especially silly to foreigners because of its "patriotism" and claims like "we killed some bad guys today!" Obviously, FOX News describing soldiers who share its nationality as "us" or "our troops" (yes yes in its opinion sections) makes more sense to americans, but the BBC would not usually do the same regarding British soldiers.

Some critics of FOX News seem to mistakenly believe that other US news channels are much better. They are not, but this does not make FOX News "fair and balanced" and it claiming to be makes it a target for criticism.

Even if FOX News is not guily of bipartisan or partisan opinion and ideologically cherrypicked news stories, it does appear to many foreigners to be a joke news source.

Tim Ivorson 09:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Swedish right leaning paper (Expressen actually) recently called FOX News "the most biased news source in the west". // Liftarn

Recent POV additions

I have just reverted a few edits which I feel introduced unnecessary POV into the article. The first (diff) connected two paragraphs to make an extremely long paragraph - bad form, even without the POV - but the transition line was "Meanwhile, critics contend that FOX has a conservative bias. Critics whose claims, on November 1, 2003, were undeniably supported by a report in the Los Angeles Times that quoted Charlie Reina..." That FOX "undeniably" carries a bias is not for an encyclopedia article to judge.

The second edit (diff) cast doubt, without a source, on the legitimacy of the liberal FOX anchors. These claims should certainly go under "allegations of bias" and not in the section about personalities, if, indeed, they merit inclusion at all. I don't think they do unless they generate sufficient controversy to be reported by a mainstream news source. — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"relatively right-wing"

Egad, now there's another one which an anon has restored after I removed it once (diff). I don't want to get into an edit war, but to say, without qualification, that FOX News presents a right-wing viewpoint, and call it neutral, is absurd. The fact is that they have been accused of bias. It is not for us to make a value judgement on a channel. Despite my beliefs, I would never write "It is noted for putting liberal spin on the news" in the CNN article; I would instead document accusations of bias. Consequently I'm going to revert it again. — Dan | Talk 12:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite anon; see my user page. Btw, 81.168.80.170 and 195.167.169.36 are both me: I put that statement in originally and I restored it in modified form after it was removed. The statement I made is not quite what you state above: I wrote "It is noted for presenting a much more right-wing viewpoint than most news channels.", which is a comparison with other news channels rather than an absolute statement. Critics say that Fox News has right-wing bias, whereas supporters say that other channels have left-wing bias; the sentence I added makes neither of those contested statements, but states only that Fox News is further to the right than other news outlets, which is true regardless of which news outlets one considers to be neutral overall.

I haven't seen anyone dispute the accuracy of this comparison. Your example of a statement that "CNN is noted for putting liberal spin on the news" is a correct analogy for the statement that you attributed to me, but is not a correct analogy for the statement that I actually wrote. 195.167.169.36 15:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point: it is FOX's relative right-wing-ness (surely there's a better term for it!) with which your statement is concerned. While FOX may present a viewpoint closer to that of an average Republican than to that of an average Democrat, and while its slogan "Fair and Balanced" actually markets to those who believe CNN is liberal, I think that the statement as you have worded it is unverifiable and prone to misinterpretation (to which I fell victim). I do not believe that it is possible to determine, beyond doubt, that FOX News is to the right of CNN; indeed, I beleive that any judgement of where FOX lies on the political spectrum does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I maintain than NPOV only permits such statements when another notable source has said so.

If a professional study is done which compares stories run by FOX and its competitors and attempts to methodically determine a bias or lack thereof, I will welcome the mention of the study in the article - cited as a study and not as unqualified fact. — Dan | Talk 01:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been pondering introducing terms such as "relatively right-wing"; perhaps a clearer wording of my statement could be based on that. I'm surprised that you consider in "unverifiable", however. It seems to me that it's not in dispute, which is why I haven't looked for an authoritative source for it. I certainly disagree about it being POV: whereas absolute descriptions such as "right-wing" depend on where one's POV deems the centre of the political spectrum to be, comparative descriptions such as "relatively right-wing" or "further to the right than" depend only on which way round one perceives the spectrum to be and on perceiving a difference between the news sources.

Is there anyone claiming that Fox is to the *left* of (for example) CNN, or that it is at the same place on the political spectrum? I think the (relative, at least) political position of a news source is relevant basic information about it that should appear in an encyclopaedia article. Furthermore, in this case, the political position is particularly important: it is widely remarked upon, hence the "it is noted for ..." comment. All of this is entirely independent of absolute political position and bias in reporting. 195.167.169.36 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about a compromise, which I suggest should be written into the first paragraph of the "Allegations of bias" section:

FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks, and its promotional statements include "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide." The network thus intends to provide an alternative to such news sources as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS, for those who believe that the other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Observers agree that FOX lies to the political right of other prominent news sources; there is much dispute, however, as to whether the channel is actually a neutral source, or carries a bias in favor of right-wing, conservative, or Republican interests.

What about it? It makes your point clearly - that FOX is more right-wing than CNN & Co., relatively speaking - but avoids language that would lead a reader to misinterpret the meaning, i.e. it clearly attributes outright accusations of right-wing bias to other sources. — Dan | Talk 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like "Observers agree that FOX lies to the political right of other prominent news sources.". It seems a very clear way of stating it. I agree that that should be stated in the "Allegations of bias" section, but I think that because of its importance it should also appear in the lead section. 195.167.169.36 09:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph under "Allegations of bias" accordingly, but I still do not believe that the information belongs in the intro. I tried to put it in as best I could in a number of ways, and couldn't help but think each time of a reader seeing "It is generally agreed that FOX presents a viewpoint further to the right than most other prominent news sources" and disgustedly writing off Wikipedia as a liberally-dominated load of bilgewater.

The fact, I think, is that the difference between that statement and saying "it is generally agreed that FOX carried a right-wing bias" is so subtle, and blurred to such an extent in other media, that it requires immediate clarification which does not belong in the intro paragraph. I also don't think that FOX's relative political position is its most significant political attribute, and is certainly less "noted" than the various accusations of bias already mentioned in the intro. — Dan | Talk 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all "Observers agree that FOX lies to the political right of other prominent news sources." Extreme leftist made a fuss, so people have that perception, but evidence that it's conservative is almost always taken out of context. I started watching it to see what all the fuss my liberal friends were making about it; the only stance that seems to be nearly universal of its reporters and commentators is that they're pro-American and proud of it. That, in itself, does not make them conservative; I think it's almost as far to the left as CNN, but if prominent news sources means CNN, NY Times, LA Times, etc., then yeah, I guess it would be, but I think most people (Americans, anyway) get most of their news from local broadcasts and local papers; there is no major prominent news organization in the US the way there is in other countries. If you mean only other cable news channels, there aren't enough for a fair comparison.

Title of recent edit

A recent edit of the article was called "Personalities - So...Chris Wallace has a main job at Fox News which means he is automatically "conservative?" quickly glance his bio no affiliations with a political party...." I don't think that being a conservative necessarily means supporting a conseRvative party. Tim Ivorson 17:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chris Wallace has never made his political preferences public and appears to have had no affiliation with any political organizations at all, parties or otherwise. (See his thoughts on the subject in a Washington Post article).

Personally, I think grouping the commentators by political affiliations is inherently POV. It appears to be because FOX's journalistic neutrality is a hotly contested issue - but the same is true of CNN, the New York Times, etc etc etc. I would prefer a bulleted list of personalities, with political affiliations, when relevant, mentioned briefly. — Dan | Talk 02:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just thought that it was an opportunity to encourage people not to use conservative to mean Republican or openly supportive of any party. It seems to generate some confusion elsewhere. In the UK we speak of "conservative with a small c" to distinguish from the Conservative Party.Tim Ivorson 07:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An arm of the tobacco industry?

BJAODN material, for sure. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Theories have also been expounded that Murdoch has plans to construct a SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT for the purpose of aiding his conquest of the Chinese media market, though this has not been substantiated." Hmmm, I'm sure I heard about that on CBS recently. — Dan | Talk 03:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving the Criticisms Section

I am removing this from the summary. There is no equivalent in any other media outlet section. The fact that this has been allowed to stand is fairly alarming.

For example, take this report: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

Fox scores a 39.7 whereas CBS Evening News scores a more extreme 73.7. (Note that a centrist voter was rated at 54)

The study isn't perfect but it at least gives us a more deterministic way of defining bias.

Finally, by the Wikipedia community's own admission, the Washington Times is similar in ideology to Fox News yet its summary section doesn't have this veiled attack. Fox has been singled out and has been held to a different standard than other news outlets on Wikipedia.

What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant. If you wish to bring up the fact that other pages do not have this type of statement then bring it up on those pages. The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias, and because the criticism is notable it should be stated in the lead. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

TO:NcShu

"What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant."

Why is it not relevant? Facts and statements on other Wikipedia pages would seem to be relevant, after all, most pages have links connecting to other pages. What is someone to think if he reads something on one article and follows a link to find the exact opposite stated in another article.

It is almost certainly desirable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be as consistent as possible across its articles.

The above quote does not seem right to me.

"The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias"

When you say "almost all broad criticism" ... from what population are you sampling? I cited a scientific paper which defined a measure for bias. This is a more superior source than the others cited according to Wikipedia's rules.

I'm removing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you might find some help there. Dock^Hi 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To DockU:

Appreciate the reference .. but nothing in the link you provided seems to apply.

"you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" I'm not talking about articles that do and don't exist. I'm talking about an inconsistency between two or more articles which needs to be fixed. My contention is NOT that the WS Times or CBS news articles need to be fixed, it is that THIS ONE DOES.

"'there are lots of other bad articles' is also common" All of the articles mentioned are fairly updated. My contention is NOT due to the lack of updates of certain articles. It IS due to an apparent slant in the writing of the articles and we are trying to correct it.

I encourage anyone to come up with or reference some kind of reasonable systematic analysis of news sites that shows fox news is slanted more to the right than the major networks are slanted to the left. I have provided one above which refutes this.

If I added an equivalent statement to CBS News it would be deleted because the liberals think CBS is not biased. However, I also agree that it does not belong there but for a different reason: that such criticisms don't belong in the summary section of ANY of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of a lead is to essentially introduce the article...when examining the Criticism section all I see are arguments pertaining to Fox News's conservative bias, but when I look at CBS, for example, I see more of a variety of criticisms, ones that can't be grouped and summed up in one statement and don't all focus on the network being 'too liberal'. But again, though WP:OTHERSTUFF is pertaining more to article deletion/creation arguments it does still have relevance in this argument. This isn't a case of consistency as the article's content is obviously going to be different depending on the different article subjects. Consistency only comes in to play with article formatting and such graphic presentations. Claiming liberal conspiracy won't get you far, I've been fairly well unbiased with my editing of this article. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four ~ after your responses, thanks! NcSchu_(Talk) 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy implies some type of cooperation among the actors. I don't claim this. The liberal bias found on Wikipedia is merely by accident, though it is clearly apparent. The people who tend to read/post to Wikipedia are probably more from academic circles (I would bet) and therefore are more liberal.

The criticisms section of this article is much larger than others (due to the aforementioned bias). However, I agree that the large amount of this article that is devoted to criticism is consistent with having a few sentences in the summary.

You guys would do well to update the criticisms section (since I am apparently not allowed to). McClellan has since admitted that he lied about his statements regarding the talking points. 68.198.48.12 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no bias here. Everything in the article is referenced. Please let us know if there is anything unreferenced and we will remove it. You might also want to think about creating an account which might help establish some rapport with the community if you are planning to stay here for a while. It also makes it easier and comfortable for others here to know whom we are talking with. It is just a suggestion, you dont necessarily have to take it. Dock^Hi 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By the by, in that video McClellan only says the White House did not send talking points to O'Reilly specifically; his assertion that the White House was doing it to Fox News in general still stands and that's what's reflected in the article. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, at first he made a general claim Fox News commentators. But when Matthews forced him to be specific, he said not journalists or daytime guys like Brit Hume. He restricted it to the "nighttime" guys. Now it doesn't take any speculation or any advanced forms of reasoning to deduce the two main nighttime guys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. The only other nighttime people are either liberals (Alan Colmes) or not very political either way (Greta). So, when he apologized to O'Reilly the only person left is Sean Hannity. This article makes it seem like an indictment of the whole network and does not make it immediately clear that he retracted arguably his most important allegation, which was about Bill O'Reilly. But not only that, it made his only remaining accusation about Hannity much less believable. This section totally biased by any reasonable interpretations and all the other edits have been attempts to make the apology part as insignificant as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Its not fair to start the Criticisms so close to the beginning of the article, especially when CNN is towards the bottom of their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 Apr 2008

God man, sign your posts and read the above discussion. What do you think we're debating about? TheNobleSith (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is a bit long for a section that has it's own sub-article. We don't need to duplicate information, but rather, sumamrize. Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

'Just a note - conservative and right-wing/Republicanism are NOT the same. There are conservative Democrats (blue dogs) and conservative Republicans, just as there are moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans. Thus, Conservative and Right-Wing are not exactly synonomous. '

Proposed Addition to the FAQ

Based on recent discussion, I'd like to add the following to the FAQ. Please advise.

The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal, shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well. No. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories. Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies. Please review the lead again. The introduction takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. It's only point is to highlight that a notable controversy concerning the network is that it has a perception of promoting conservative positions. The lead takes no position on whether such a perception is in fact accurate; to do so would violate WP:NPOV.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the first part. Is including the idea that Fox News might be liberal really a "frequently asked question"? It almost seems like the question itself is fringe.

The second part seems solid. Urzatron (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of these two points. I agree with Urzatron, as I'm sure Ramsquire would, that the insinuation that FNC has a liberal bias is in fact fringe, but we have had that question raised before. I'd be nice to have a solid answer hammered out, and the two summaries don't appear to take a stand on either side of the issue (reads neutral). - auburnpilot talk 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion of these points as helpful and valid. There might be a few grammatical improvements (punctuation and form), but the language seems fine and the points seem spot-on to me. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the second point. The first point sounds a bit harsh in it's wording, and it should point out that the lead does give an alternative view. It currently sounds a bit "biting." Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Kevin Baas^talk 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'm all for it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To Bytebear-- I don't see the "biting", perhaps you can point out specifically what the problem is. These are proposals, so I didn't do a spell or grammar check before posting. I just wanted to know what people thought of the idea. All grammatical and style suggestions are greatly appreciated. To Urzation-- The point of the first sentence is to respond to users who want the "some say x, others say y, and some even say z" formulation that editors often want in the lead. As AuburnPilot has noted, it has come up from time to time. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The biting issue is just a matter or rearanging things so the reader isn't repremanded for asking the question (starting with a "No" is not particularly polite).

The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories.

How's that? Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed the "No." and swapped the remaining first two sentences. You're right, it is less biting, and I think I know why: it's generally good communication to restate what the other person is saying first, so they know you understand them and are taking their thoughts into account. Additionally, it helps to clarify how what you're saying relates to what they're saying. I like. Kevin Baas^talk 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the improvements made by Bytebear. Of course, I didn't mean to be biting or impolite with the no. I was just trying to give a short answer first with explanation to follow. But BB's version is better. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the FAQ, as there did not seem to be any objection. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong in the first paragraph at all and must be relocated much further down in the article; or you can start a new article about Fox News controversies and criticisms. 64.126.34.118 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what "this" refers to. The proposals in this section are not for the article but for the FAQ. The disputed language which is the subject of the FAQ is not located in the first paragraph of the article, and there already exist a FoxNews controversies and criticisms. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't going in the article. It's just going here, on this talk page. Urzatron (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)