controversies a daughter article    Maybe I am not making myself clear  I did not come here to start a firestorm  I do not think the criticism section should be expanded but I do see an issue puttting a criticism in the intro as it will cause some editors to elaborate in an effort to add their own POV for balance  There should be no criticisms in the intro  You say there was a consensus but I have read your archives and I saw no consensus  I did see an attempt for arbitration but it failed so for you to say a consensus was met is just laughable  There is no consesus on Wikipedia and there never will be  And your arguements are futile as new editors like myself are welcome at anytime to stir up the waters  If this were a feature article I would be more hesitant but it isnt even listed as a good article which means I have every right as you to come in and muck things up for you  That is not my intent but clearly you have no desire to assume good faith so I am just as happy to dig in my heels  The choice is yours  You can cooperate and we can discuss how this article can be improved or you can stick to your guns with your silly argument of consensus     You know what Im done Three months of work and discussion simply disregarded as silly and laughable This just proves that every person who ever left wikipedia was right I cannot continue to make the same points in regards to the same asinine arguments Im removing this page from my watchlist and this article can descend into chaos for all I care Im simply over it Everything the editors of this page have done to improve the article is obviously meaningless The rest of you can do whatever you wish I dont care anymore   Consensus building effort TalkFoxNewsChannelArchiveShouldFNCsallegedconservativebiasbementionedinthearticleintroductionF TalkFoxNewsChannelArchiveRequestforCommentFNCallegationsofbias  Consensus building effort by no fewer than  editors not even counting anonymous comments TalkFoxNewsChannelArchiveRequestforCommentWordingoftheintro  Malformed RfC in Bad Faith in which consensus was upheld Editors who participated Aaron Gamaliel Blaxthos Isarig AuburnPilot Edders FeloniousMonk  Ramsquire  Rama Cordless Larry Cbuhl later brought up on RfArb charges due to conduct Mrmiscellanious GTBacchus Doldrums  Tbeatty Blueboar Doldrums Kevin Baas Not everyone agreed on every point but every name you see gave input and issued opinion on what became the final compromise version of the introduction  Every point you have raised was rased and addressed in the discussions referenced above  So now youre saying the work of eighteen named editors and several anonymous contributors is laughable  That is the most serious violation of WPAGF Ive ever seen and speaks volumes about your credibility on this issue     If the statement been in the introduction of any article of any group organization committee etc etc the same argument would be put forth and I would point out the same bias error Fortunately this type of opinion does not seem to be wide spread amongst other similar orgaizations I am not here to put my own POV in the article I am here to make sure that any critical misplaced opinions are either put in their proper place or fully explained which is what my last edit did do This is what your source says just prior to what you are citing  There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush with many more selfdescribed liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical In terms of their overall ideological outlook majorities of national  and local journalists  continue to describe themselves as moderates The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from   of national journalists describe themselves as liberals compared with  nine years ago The trend among local journalists has been similar   say they are liberals up from  in  More striking is the re