Talk:Fox News/Archive 8

message: "Faux News" (the name, not the website) appear to be quite notable indeed.  See:  Ethereal 04:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've incorporated the link you found into a new section about Fox's involvement in various trademark disputes.  I wasn't able to find anything about what happened after Fox's threatening letter to Agitproperties.  My guess is that Agitproperties couldn't recruit the pro bono lawyer it was quoted in that story as looking for, and that, unable to fight Fox in court, it simply had to give up and pull the merchandise.  It makes me wonder about the Faux News parody site, though (http://www.fauxnewschannel.com/).  It's set up very much like the real Fox site (in terms of its appearance, i.e., "trade dress").  From my limited knowledge of trademark, I'd think it would be more vulnerable than the Agitproperties site was.  Perhaps Fox decided that another such attack would, as with Agitproperties, give publicity to the Fox critic, or perhaps this site was able to find a lawyer to defend its rights. JamesMLane 10:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.  Thanks for the addition of the new section. Ethereal 02:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faux News 

message: silverback had an interesting question earlier, about how caring about world opinion affected misperceptions and/or support for the war.
the survey apparently included misperceptions about world opinion.  it is pretentious to say that one :"cares" about world opnion if they don't even care enough about it to find out what it is.  by this logic, it seems that misperceptions about world opninion would be a good indicator of how important it is to people.
and support for the war is in the survey, too. Kevin Baastalk 21:00, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
:Unless I mispoke one of the times, I have made the case several times, that Fox viewers were probably less likely to care about world opinion and so less likely to bother to get it right, than someone who does care, despite how accurate the coverage would be. Republicans often mock democrats for their flip-flopping, their holding their fingers to the political wind, and their ruling by the polls.--Silverback 07:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well my logic is somewhat different, i wouldn't say that it's neccessarily correlated with fox viewers, (and the survey doesn't support that hypothesis).  i'd say that caring/not caring is correlated with getting it right or not.  I'd also say that this is correlated with support for the war, and that it's correlated with political attitude. (and to take it a step furter: not through intermediate variables) but i hypothesis that it has negligble, at best, correlation to fox, when those factors are compensated for.
I think you're making some generalizations there.  Firstly, I am only familiar with Kerry being mocked for flip-flopping, which in actually he hasn't done.  His voting record is very consistent.  For example, he got an a+ from the league of conservation voters.  if you look at other public interest groups who objectively rate voting patterns, you'll see that he rarely gets anything near a C, but more often an A or an F, depending on the nature of the interest group.  Perhaps people who call or called kerry a flip-flopper are either just being a reapeter (i think this is most likely) or don't understand what to them would be "subtleties" in his elocution.  And in any case, another part of Bush's negative campaign against kerry was calling him a crazy liberal, the most extreme-left in the senate (in actuality, kuccinich is generally considered the most left, and fiengold and boxer are considered the most progressive) - and one must ask, how can that be, if he's a flip-flopper?  Wouldn't that imply that his views are very predictable (whatever "left" is), and thus very consistent?  But that's enough with that absurdity.
the principles of democrats are very consistent, and their conviction and passion for them very strong.  They're very basic, too:
*Pro-environment.  science, not religion, governs environmental policy (duh).  environment comes before economy, as economy depends on environment.
*Pro-education.  "Out progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education; the human mind is our fundamental resource." - John F. Kennedy
*Pro-choice/Women's rights.  This does not mean pro-abortion.  This means that a women has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.  I've helped 15 yrs olds who were raped and got pregnant and couldn't afford this, with their trauma.  i know too many people who i care about deeply that been raped and i've seen the psychological damage and i get really frickin' angry when someone disrespects another person's body.   so that's pretty personal to me.  they should have that first choice, and if they get that taken away from them by some horny a$$hole who doesn't give a sh&t about them or what they may be doing to their life and their pursuit of happiness, they d*mn well should have the second.  they did not choose to get raped, and they very well did not choose the consequences.  this is all that can be done to give that choice back.  it still falls well short.  well short - they should also have a good nights sleep back - without insomnia, nightmares, trust, normal relationships, etc.   none of us believe that people should just go around aborting.  in most cases it's wrong.  but in some cases, it really is imperative.  the world is just that cruel, believe it or not.  and we'd like that option to be available in those few cases.  which brings me to
*habeus corpus - old latin law: "you have the body".  90% of the law is property.  the most fundamental property a person has is their own body.  By the fact that they, and not any institution, own their body, they have the right to due process, protection from wrongfull imprisonment or unnecessary detainment, fair and speedy trial, to not be tortured (human rights) etc.  This rights are intrinsic and fundamental.   The scum of the earth still have these rights.
*equal rights - and the rights apply equally to all persons, regardless of color or creed, or what-have-you, including, first and foremost, the right to vote for representatives.  this should be equitable.  This does not mean that there simply shouldn't be any effort to make it not so - this means that there should be effort to make it so.
*progressive taxation - welcome to the post-medieval world.
*science - welcome to the post-medieval world.
*religious freedom, separation of church and state - welcome to the post-medieval world.
*accountability in government - responsibility is proportional to power.
*cooperation, anti-xenophobia, lack of arrogance or hubris - this aligns with equal rights, and applies both domestically and internationally ("no stream is large and copiuos of itself")
*zero-population growth - this aligns w/science, environment, economy, and abortion is aligned with it.  let's keep the human race alive, eh?
*military & international policy - "peace cannot be mantained by force, it can only be achieved through understanding" -albert einstein, from sun tzu's art of war, first rule of war: the best way to win is without fighting.  second rule: deal with large problems when they are small.  prevent conflict instead of elevating it.  pick options with more benefits than risks.  deal with education, health, and socio-cultural issues, and wars will not begin.  understanding before aggression.  this also aligns with cooperation and equal rights.
*seriousness and professionalism: respect for critical thinking, and disgust for personal attacks (i.e. anti-Tom Delay) also aligns with cooperation.  the importance of this does not come from the desire for an air of pompeity or any kind of pretention - the importance comes from not wanting people to get raped, wanting people to have nutrition, opportunities, and decent lives.  we don't take that lightly.  we don't whine and fuss and mock and insult, and we don't have personal competitions, because it is not a game. granted, we need a laugh here and there, to relieve the stress.
*personal liberty: "life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't just a motto.  each person has the right to their own existence, sought and defined according to their own being., and that's another thing
*not enforcing one's will or beliefs upon another: this aligns with cooperation, religious freedom, equal rights, habeaus corpus.  who needs a copy of one's self, anyways?  that's a little redundant.  what's more valuable is something that you don't have, new knowledge or a new way of thinking and seeing, to add to one's own.  as well, one can educate people, but the key word here is "force" - do not force, respect.  this aligns with respect for knowledge; science (science aligns with cooperation)
Everything pretty much lines up.  i'm sure i can expand, but i think i get the idea across. Kevin Baastalk 15:38, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
holding fingers to the political wind?  is that a weather analogy?  if so, i don't see how that's a bad thing.  if there's a storm, i'm staying inside, if it's going to rain, i'm not going to work on the roof.  - this kind of things are good to know, to help determine the best course of action. do in interpret this correctly?
ruling by the polls - what? Do you mean that they are more likely to consider differing opinions?  this would align with lots of things in those bulletpoints above. Kevin Baastalk 15:38, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
:I think Clinton was the one who was famous for always checking the polls, even when an election wasn't approaching.  I don't recall Kerry being called the most liberal in the Senate, he may well have been called that, I remember him being called the most liberal Senator from Massachusetts.  I recall his apologia for the alleged flip-flops, but they seemed after the fact.  At the time of each of the flip-flops, such as on Iraq, he was facing different political pressures.  First he was looking ahead to running for office, then he was facing pressure from competition for the Democratic base from Dean and Kucinich, and then when he had the nominate he had to run to the center again.  His more centrist rhetoric when running towards the center of course, contrasted with his Senate voting record, so while his "principles" remained the same, he was either running from them or spinning them.  Of course, there is always the fear in the back of peoples minds that a candidate will revert from what he is saying to get elected, to his true beliefs.  9/11 and the security situation had Kerry backpedaling quite a bit from his anti-war and anti-intelligence record, however, sincere he current positions were, there would still be doubt.  Bush was a known quantity.   Of course they are all hypocrites in both parties, they are for "freedom" or "choice", except where they are not, for instance, drugs.--Silverback 18:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
And none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. If you wish to continue this conversation, please do it at your own personal talk pages. Some of us would like to get some work done... crazyeddie 20:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  side-note: other things in report 

message: Kevin, Silverback, rather than having a revert war, perhaps you should work things out in the talk page? crazyeddie 16:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kevin on this.  We are here specifically to present information within the report specifically related to FOX news only, not the report in its entirety.  Those who doubt the information presented can download and read the report themselves. Ethereal 04:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIPA editing 

message: Someone added this to the article:
The liberal group MoveOn.org distributed a DVD highlighting examples of bias entitled Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.
I don't really have a problem with the way it is worded or anything, but is it notable enough for inclusion? TheNobleSith (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It really should be cited, at the very least. Urzatron (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Outfoxed is certainly significant enough to mention. Gamaliel (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does not belong in this article.  It belongs in the Fox News Channel controversies article. Bytebear (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable controversies are to be briefly noted in the main article; the exposure is clearly demonstrable via its #1 selling status at Amazon.com.  We're not going to go scrubbing it from the parent article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are assuming that OutFoxed in and of itself is notable.  I do not think it is.  Perhaps the idea that Fox News is "conservative" but not this specific video.  You are pointing to a tree, when the guideline is meant to summarize the forest. Bytebear (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Number one at Amazon means it's notable.  Nice try; notability does not apply to content anyway...  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Forest for the trees.  Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've quoted a policy to you that invalidates your argument, and I've also given you evidence as to why it would be notable if your assertion were correct.  I fail to see your point, save the insistence that negative content be scrubbed regardless of policy.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you quoted a guideline, not a policy. and my argument isn't that OutFoxed isn't notable.  But it is one of many sources that claim bias by Fox News.  To single them out would give them undue weight (which is a policy) given the forest of sources out there.  Bytebear (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An documentary that can sustain its own article on Wikipedia certainly has due weight for inclusion here.  WP:N gone, WP:UNDUE gone, what's next?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not in a summary article, which this is.  There is an article appropriate for discussing Outfoxed, and that is the Outfoxed article, and the Fox News Channel controversies but on those issues, this article is a summary of the forest, not a description of the trees. Bytebear (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but this individual tree is notable enough to at least be mentioned here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How so?  There are many critics of Fox News.  What makes this particular critic more notable than others?  Adding it is undue weight, which contrary to Blaxthos's statement that I am "policy shopping" has been my point all along.  I remind him to  assume good faith before making further unsubstantiated accusations. Bytebear (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight would apply if we only mentioned this critic, or if we devoted a large section to only this critic. Gamaliel (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Outfoxed (MoveOn.org) is the only critic mentioned in the section (possible the article). Bytebear (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that section should certainly be beefed up. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there is a sub-article, I would go with summarized rather than beefed up. Bytebear (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomato, tomato, whatever we call it, I think we essentially agree. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Isn't that was a sub-article is for, so you don't bloat the main article?  Right now, there is only one critic listed.  You can either add a bunch of other criticisms (bloating the article, and duplicating information already provided in another article), or you can summarize.  I really doubt that Wikipedia as a project will suffer credibility issues by summarizing (such dramatics).  I vote for summarizing. But I am glad you finally agree that one tree is not a forest.  Thank you. You still seem to think the subject is "Outfoxed: but it isn't.  The subject is criticisms, and more specifically accusations of bias  No one is suggesting excising the subject, but you are so focused on saving this one tree, you are now accusing me of burning down the entire forest. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right... we will summarize each notable controversy here.  As I explained above, this content is clearly of greater proportions and consequence than most of the others listed (as it has its own article).  Just like in the lead, we should summarize notable concepts with related articles here.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should This Stay?