Talk:Fox News/Archive 5

message: 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.  --TheGrza 03:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
-- Then maybe it's time I start allegations of bias pages for CNN and the others.
Feel free. I personally think CNN has a slight bias toward the right, so maybe you actually have something there. crazyeddie 19:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much criticism 

message: 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).   
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).  Ade Myers 
:That sounds like business as usual to me. The BBC is a competitor to News Corp, which owns FOX News. Tim Ivorson 22:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox isn't the only one. There is a widespread perception among American conservatives that the BBC is anti-American - somewhat akin to the perception among American liberals that FOX is overly pro-American. — Dan 02:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware that CNN was calling British anti-war protesters anti-American  (when, of course, it meant anti-the-American-government). Regardless of the truth, if the big US news broadcasters were enthusiastically pro-government, but didn't accuse the BBC of anti-Americanism, then the BBC's American audience might get the impression that they are just cheerleaders for the government. Tim Ivorson 12:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments, I don't mind Fox News being biased. Its the hypocrisy of describing themselves as “fair and balanced” that annoys me and that they have the audacity to attack an internationally respected organisation like the BBC.   --Ade myers 19:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  War with BBC? 

message: The content of the "Allegations of bias" section have been moved to a separate article Criticisms of Fox News (originally called Fox News Bias), but the link there from this article was reverted after about thirty minutes.  This leaves an orphan article, which is now in Votes for Deletion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticisms of Fox News.  I place this notice here so that people who have edited that section can voice their opinion on whether the subject is best dealt with in a separate article; if not then the new article should be deleted and the subject of bias should continue to be dealt with in the main article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticisms of Fox News]] (separate entry) 

message: I added more information about the Fox News situation in Canada. I don't think people have all the facts needed to form an opinion on any perceived political nature of the situation.--Ben 00:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News in Canada 

message: The revert of the "Conservative Bias" change was necessary, but the Outfoxed link should stay.  --TheGrza 03:55, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
:Why exactly? I understand a see-also link to Outfoxed, which should include an external link to the documentary's website, but external links on this article should be limited to those directly relevant to FOX News. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outfoxed Link 

message: A recent edit seems to have resulted in the deletion of most of the Personalities section and 'all of the Allegations of Bias section.  I've performed one revert and one restore, but I'm sorry I think I may have lost some intermediate edits.  If you have added material today and I have inadvertently deleted it, my apologies.  I have tried to restore what I could but tehe deletions were pretty radical so it's too difficult for me to deal with by myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to fix some accidental section deletions 

message: Well this is my fourth attempt to try to get this note.  Footnote #2 does not support the statement for which it is cited.  This website does, and should replace #2 http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=2&media=7.  Thank you Biccat (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. For those who haven't looked, the current Footnote No. 2 is from 2004, and is being cited as a source for which network has the most audience currently. Urzatron (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it outdated, but the link (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214) doesn't even reference viewership, but is a survey of journalist perceptions.  Could be a formatting issue that got mixed in.Biccat (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Biccat's point is well taken and the citation should be changed.  Also, I think the most recent debate has died down and maybe unprotection is in order.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a request for unprotection would be more helpful?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That, or Stifle's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected; edit as needed.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewership 

message: Someone keeps on removing "right-wing" from the section about the slant that critics have accused FOX News of having at first claiming that it was redundant or unnecessary.   I don't think it is, since neither "conservative" or "republican" are exactly the same as "right-wing" something that FOX has been called (and I even added a reference to it, but the main entry that goes with that section describes these criticisms in more detail).  Now I've been reverted again with a dictionary.com link in the edit summary.  Please explain what the problem seems to be.  These words are not redundant or synonymous and "right-wing" is something that Fox News has been called.  I see no reason for removing it.  Please also see the main entry Fox News Channel controversies and the relevant Wikipedia entry on right-wing politics.PelleSmith (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline about "other crap exists" also applies to "other crap doesn't exist."  Please do go to those entries and have a field day, but that has nothing to do with this one.  Did you look at the main entry for that section or the "right-wing" entry?  We all know that "right-wing" is a term used to describe certain types of "conservatives" but it is also not something used to describe all conservatives or all members of the republican party.  I'm afraid dictionary.com does not end a dispute simply because it states what we know ... that "right-wing" is a phrase used to describe certain conservatives.  The phrase is cited.  You should merge the entries for "right-wing" and for "conservative" if you truly think they are simply synonymous and then maybe you have some ground to stand on.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Although each word has different connotations globally, I think there is an important distinction here.  "Conservative" is often understood to mean an association with conservative economic principles.  "Right wing", at least in the U.S., is more often associated with the socio-conservative Republican party.  In my opinion, the "social conservative" and the "economic conservative" movements came together in what we now refer to as the "right wing" in the U.S..  I don't know if this is helpful in discourse, though I will say that I personally think that "right-wing" more embodies the allegations made.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "right-wing" is much closer to the criticisms being made than simply "conservative" and if one of the two words needs to go its the latter and not the former.  The two do not simply "mean the same thing."  There are plenty fiscal conservatives that would never be considered "right-wing."  I think we should change it to say "right-wing conservative or republican."  Mitch can you please answer two rather simple questions here.  1) Do you think the distinctions made on Wikipedia between political conservatism and right-wing politics through their separate entries are wrong?  2) Do you think the main entry I linked above Fox News Channel controversies, and its references to the specific language of "right-wing" is somehow wrong or unrepresentative of these criticisms?  It is not quite right to say "why add another word" when this word is pretty apropos to the subject matter at hand (criticisms of Fox in terms of political slant) and when the word was already here, and the matter is one of you removing it, not someone else adding it.PelleSmith (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I would agree to that, but I want to point a out a couple of important things here.  As you explain yourself in point one "conservative" and "right-wing" are not the same, and given your explanation it should be clear that the accusation of a "right-wing" bias is more extreme than simply a "conservative bias."  Removing "right-wing," again given your own explanation, therefore seems like toning down the criticism in a way that is out of sync with the reality of this criticism.  Also, the idea that "Fox News simply does not advocate," something or other is moot in this particular section which is not about what they advocate at all, but about what critics claim.  To your first point, above your answers, I would say that whatever your intentions were, this explanation is a bit of a straw-man argument.  No one was advocating using hundreds of descriptors--only three were present in the text and only one was being haggled over.  That said I think your compromise is fine with both wikilinks: "Fox News has been accused of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality."  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is more than one strawman and at least one logically false argument made by LuckyMitch.  That being said, I do think  that the proposed version is fine... let's just avoid the false absolutes and strawmen arguments.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: what term do the sources say. Do they say "Conservative," "Right Wing," or both?  Bytebear (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh.  The "sources," a good number of which can be seen on Fox News Channel controversies use all three of these descriptors. "Right-wing" is commonly used within these, however, in case that's what you were wondering.  The reason why I preferred what was there originally before Mitch altered it was because all three are used in the sources--"conservative," "right-wing" and "Republican."  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right-wing"