Talk:Fox News/Archive 12

message: Here's a list of outstanding issues:
*206.15.101.1-2's edits. Here's the diff: 
*Right-wing vs. Conservative
*Ratings drop
*AQH vs. CUME rating
*Kerry's Pen
*"Major Stories Fox Has Broken" in general
*Oil-for-food
*Cavuto - Social Security - Michael Jackson
*Whistleblower lawsuit
*Ailes "rebuttal"
*FAIR bulletpoint rewrite
*Bias section reorg
The last two aren't currently live, but are issues that I would like to see addressed. Does anybody else have anything to add? crazyeddie 17:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go add them into the to-do list. Feel free to add stuff into there directly. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I propose getting a lot of editors on this page and going through these methodically, perhaps votes, etc. Also, does anyone have a suggestion as to what template to put on to the main page to get anons to come to this page before editing? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It says to only put the template on the talk page, but I'm looking for one that can be put in the article :( — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I edited the NPOV dispute header to be more specific to our situation, perhaps that would do? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft to-do list 

message: Murdoch / Newscorp - In this section said "Murdoch's ownership of several conservative outlets including the New York Post and The times". Omitted is that Murdoch and Newscorp own dozens (hundreds?) of companies, most NOT considered conservative. All I did is add a list of many of Murdoch's companies. Fox detractors would want you to think that he only owns conservative companies. Whaat is wrong with factually listing the companies? 
:Granted, not all of Murdoch's companies are considered conservative. But there just may be a more graceful way to make note of this distinction than listing all gazillion of the companies he does own. 
:I would welcome compromise language that makes it clear that not all of Murdoch's companies are conservative mouthpieces, but doesn't list all of his holdings. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
Here's the current version to get you all started. Keep in mind that this is part of the Bias section, only evidence that either tends to prove bias or disprove it is ontopic. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
*Rupert Murdoch's ownership of several conservative outlets, including the New York Post and The Times.
While digging through Silverback's recent edits to this article (preparing for the Silverback/Shem edit war item on the checklist), I ran across a bit that got lost in the shuffle. The link is good, but does require some soul-destroying registration. If what this source says is true, it does raise some questions about Newscorp. Are we really sure that it isn't the case that all of Murdoch-owned news sources really are conservative? Out of all of Murdoch's companies, how many are news sources? Out of those, how many are considered liberal or are at least not considered conservative? Out of those, how many were started by Murdoch/Newscorp and how many were acquired by Newscorp? (If a news source is considered liberal, and was relatively recently acquired by Murdoch/Newscorp, it could be that the new owners haven't had time to affect the corporate culture yet.) crazyeddie 7 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)
*Rupert Murdoch's ownership of several conservative outlets, including the New York Post and The Times. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war. 
This section also seems to no longer be under discussion. Let's archive it after a week. crazyeddie 07:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Murdoch/Newscorp

message: The WTVT Lawsuit - This is my only deletion. I deleted it because the page is about Fox News. Nothing else anywhere on the site talks about local affiliates. fox nwes was not sued. WTVT was. On the NBC Nwes page are there mentions of NBC local Affiliates that have been sued (they have been). On the ABC News page are there mentions of local ABC Afillates that have been sued? No. Again, the lawsuit was not against Fox News. 
:During the Trodel Rewrite, it was decided to retain this bulletpoint because it is a frequently used allegation. We retained it, but did our best to debunk it - by making clear that the lawsuit was against an affiliate, not FNC itself. However, Big Dave Diode has brought up evidence that FNC was involved in this lawsuit, despite the protection that the affilate system provides. So this topic is also earmarked for discussion elsewhere, and I suggest we table it. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your consideration.  A review of my previous posts regarding WTVT's listed "in-house counsel" shows that Fox News' defense that this was "just an affiliate" and had nothing to do with them, is clearly and unquestionably false.  Ailes' claim that he never read the Monsanto memo is difficult to believe when counsel in Atlanta is being assigned to a case in Florida.  Please restore the deleted paragraphs.--Bigdavediode 1 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
::: BigDaveDiode again -- There is a good story at Salon which somewhat addresses Fox's relationship with its affiliates.  It is regarding the Bush DUI story that Fox attempted to take credit for "breaking" (despite it being broken locally by the affiliate).  The story is located at   Fox does takes full credit for their affiliates actions when it is convenient, but in the Monsanto case, they portray themselves as a disinterested third party.  As you can read in the article, once broken locally Fox had little choice but to cover the DUI story.  With this Monsanto case, however, Fox claims that this was just an affiliate and that it has no relationship to the affiliates.
::: Should there be any confusion left as to their control of affiliates, and their false denial of culpability in the Monsanto case, News Corp. has begun transferring 35 of their affiliates' TV licences to News Corp.  You can see this here:  .  Hardly the action of a non-controlling third party as they claim.  I believe that their denials were false with an intent to deceive.  It would assist readers in better determining what credibility they have if their behavior was accurately documented in the article. --24.83.2.136 06:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WTVT Lawsuit

message: John Ellis - I added the line "a few minutes before the other networks" to the part about John Ellis (George Prescott Bush's cousin who was working for Network News Service and Fox Election Night 2000). Although conspiracy theorists like to say that Bush's father's cousin, working for Fox, decided that Bush should be president and made the call for Fox early. In reality, all the networks, looking at the same numbers, made the call at roughly the same time, and although Fox was first by a minute or two, every network made the same call within four minutes. 
:Again, a frequently used allegation (by conspiracy theorists). The Trodel Rewrite retained it in order to debunk it. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
Original version:
*That John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m . Though all major networks called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m., Ellis has since admitted to informing both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone of how projections were going on election night. 
Eric's version:
*That John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m a few minutes before the other networks.. Though all major networks called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m., Ellis has since admitted to informing both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone of how projections were going on election night. 
Hmm, it appears that Eric's addition "a few minutes before the other networks." is redundant, because it is immediately followed by "Though all major networks...". However, it might also improve clarity. It does need an initial coma though, not to be grammar Nazi or anything :-). crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
So, other than the typo, opinions on Eric's proposed change? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
It looks as if the current version is still the original version. Does anybody prefer Eric's version? If not, let's archive this after one week. crazyeddie 07:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: John Ellis

message: The FAIR Report - Here I added the label "liberal media watchdog group" to FAIR. I think it's important to point out who they are. Let me ask this question: The New York Post and The Times can be labeled "conservative outlets" and used as examples of Murdoch's conservative empire, but FAIR can't be labled "liberal"? The general thought on the Fox Wikipedia page seems to be that calling somethign Conservative is neutral, calling something liberal is not. 
:It was decided a while back, that if it's necessary to label FAIR at all, to use the label "progressive", since they have used that word to describe themselves. (Although, that was in the context that they support non-profit news services.) It was also decided, at the time, that no label was necessary. I have also suggested that we rewrite this bulletpoint, since it doesn't accurately describe FAIR's report. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
To put this another way, "liberal media watchdog group" has been inserted, word for word, into this bulletpoint any number of times, and, to date, everytime, the consensus was to remove it. Has that consensus now changed? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
Unless somebody wants to again suggest adding this label, let's archive this section in one week. crazyeddie 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAIR Report

message: "Bush Apologist" - This is probably the least neutral thing on the page. It read:
           "Neil Cavuto "has been described as a 'Bush apologist' by critics 
           after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President 
           George W. Bush wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support 
           for the Social Security debate  was due to Americans being "distracted" 
           by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial." 
First of all, the link you get when you click "critics" goes to Commondreams.org, a (proudly) liberal website. This is not a label I am assigning to them, here is what their website says: "Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future." So sourcing a website that's stated goal is to "to promote progesssive (liberal) visions for America" is neutral? Again, I didn't  delete it, I simply pointed out that the source is a liberal activist group.  
Additionally, the wikipedia listing is incorrect when it says Neil Cavuto "told" Bush that lack of support for Social Security was due to the Michael Jackson trial. Cavuto ASKED Bush if he thought American's were distracted. There is a HUGE difference between an interviewer asking and telling. 
:I do have some misgivings about this Cavuto-Social Security-Michael Jackson passage, which was added rather recently. I can't personally can't make up my mind whether to keep it or not. This issue is already listed on the To-Do list. So, once again, could we table it for later discussion? Right now, I'd rather focus on issues unique to Eric's edits. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
This issue may or may not have already been settled. Either way, it's being covered further down. If nobody objects, let's archive this section in one week. crazyeddie 07:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil Cavuto

message: OutFoxed and Newshounds - Forget about the fact that having listed as "external links" two websites who'se only job/goal is to be anti-Fox seems a bit unfair... but to simply label "outfoxed" a "documentary" is very misleading.  I labeled it what it is, an anti-Fox documentary. 
I also pointed out that although it may appear from lookign at Wikipedia that Newshounds is an additional group that is anti-Fox, it is actually run by the same people who made "Outfoxed". The "News Hounds Manifesto" on their website says 
                "Like many projects, this one started out as something else. 
                In early 2004, eight middle-aged citizens from different 
                 backgrounds and locations around the USA teamed up via MoveOn.org 
                 and the internet (thank you, Al Gore!) to volunteer our services 
                 for OUTFOXED, a documentary film by Robert Greenwald regarding 
                 Fox News  Channel."
Again, I didn't delete it, I simply pointed out that it was the same people.
Original version:
*Outfoxed: Rubert Murdoch's War on Journalism documentary website.
*News Hounds - Daily reviews of FOX News programs by FOX News critics.
Eric's version:
*Outfoxed: Rubert Murdoch's War on Journalism Anti-Fox documentary website.
*News Hounds - Daily reviews of FOX News programs by FOX News critics (The same people who made "OutFoxed").
Since the name of the documentary is "Outfoxed: Rubert Murdoch's War on Journalism', do we really need to spell out "anti-Fox"? I think it is rather obvious. I have no objection, in principle, to noting that News Hounds is made by the same people as OutFoxed, but I do think that it can be written more gracefully from an aesthetic standpoint. I have no objections against it on the basis of POV. Perhaps we should list News Hounds first, and then mention that OutFoxed was made by the News Hounds people? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
:The name is "Rupert" not "Rubert." ---asx- 21:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OutFoxed and Newshounds

message: In summary, I'm not trying to start any pro-Fox / Anti-Fox fights. I'm simply trying to put some FACTS on the site-- even if they don't support people's vision of trying to make Fox sound as conservative as possible. If this site is truly supposed to be neutral, what's wrong with having the anchors and president's bios on there-- INCLUDING the parts that don't sond republican?  And why is it NPOV to label something conservative, but not NPOV to label something liberal? (even something like commondreams.org that is proudly liberal)? 
I called 2 things liberal - commondreams.org and FAIR. Both were sourced without any explanation of who they were. However, in the "On Air Personalities" section, the following things are labeled conservative: 
"...the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard"... "The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Manhattan Institute, a conservative thinktank"... "Tony Snow is a conservative columnist"...
Plus, when referring to John Gibson's show, it says it "is frequently cited as an example of FOX News deliberately blurring the lines between objective reporting and opinion/editorial programming." OK... by who? Frequently cited where?
These types of opinion/ POV are allowed to creep in... but my edits are not. 
Sorry for any typos. had a lot to write and not a lot of time. 
EricEric125 29 June 2005 17:21 (UTC)
:Personally, I think many of these edits are justified, although others may not. I look forward to working with you and the other editors in sorting this entire article out. Thanks for coming back and explaining yourself :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)
::Yes, most of the changes were in good faith, not vandalism.  I think if the Britt Hume bio is going to be that much longer than the other personalities, for appearances it should be put in a separate entry.  That make sense given his role in putting the organization together and giving it credibility.--Silverback June 29, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
:::Perhaps, and then give a short mention in the article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 29 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)
The Brit Hume bio is actually part of the Bias section. The "real" bios section is here: FOX_News#Personalities. Before Eric's edits, the Brit Hume paragraph consisted of a single sentence. Since this bio is part of the Bias section, the additional information is offtopic. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
Any objections to archiving this section? If not, let's archive, after one week. crazyeddie 07:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Already marked for later discussion. Suggest tabling. crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
:What do you mean by tabling? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings success

message: Already marked for later discussion. Suggest tabling. crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
This section should be removed in its entirety. These are NOT major news stories, they have NOT been taken up as major stories by the mainstream (i.e. non conservative) media as major stories. Nor has there been any further development of the stories since they were first 'broken'. None of the individuals identified by Fox have been indicted or removed from office - although there have been other individuals who have been removed from office or convicted.
The claims made by Fox in the oil for food scandal would certainly never be allowed to remain in Wikipedia as 'facts'. At this point they remain unproven assertions and fairly unreliable ones at that. the description of them as 'Major Stories Broken by Fox News' is in effect an endorsement of the truth of those articles. At the very least the section would have to say 'the truth of these allegations is disputed and unproven'. Once you add in the disclaimer the section is utterly pointless. If people want to keep the section it should point to stories that have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and not as was the case with this section a current controversy where the motives of Fox in publishing the story are very much in dispute. If we were writing an article on the Washington post before Nixon resigned it would be relevant to have a section headed 'Watergate allegations' or such, but it would not be appropriate to have a headline describing it as a scoop, broken news or any other plaudit. --Gorgonzilla 01:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major news stories first broken by Fox News

message: Silverback's version, as of 06:20, 26 June 2005, and of 12:10, 23 June 2005
:FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim that the network has a conservative bias and tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most allege that bias at FOX News is systemic, and implemented to target an largely Republican audience.
:Many media commentators and competitors have alleged that FOX News' reporting is characterized by editorials disguised as news and have jokingly referred to FOX News as the "Faux News Network", the "Republican News Network", or "Unfair and Unbalanced." Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005
:FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks.  Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide".  However, numerous critics claim that the network has a conservative bias and tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most allege that bias at FOX News is systemic, and implemented to target a largely right-wing audience.
:Many media commentators and competitors have alleged that FOX News' reporting is characterized by right-wing editorials disguised as news, and have jokingly referred to FOX News as the "Faux News Network", the "Republican News Network", "Fear and Bias" or "Unfair and Unbalanced."  Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
====Comments====
As a Fox critic myself, I do not allege that Fox targets a largely Republican audience, but I do allege that it targets a largely conservative audience. Many conservatives are not members of the Republican party. Also, if we are including the nicknames that critics have for Fox News, I see no reason not to include "Fear and Bias".
So, I support retaining the current version. I might be in favor of replacing "a largely right-wing audience" with "a largely conservative audience", but only if there is a consensus for doing so. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
:I agree...and perhaps Republican party should also be changed in your version to something about right-wing. Whenever I hear allegations of bias it's conservatives not republicans. Republicans can be liberal as well. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that critics of Fox news are joking when they refer to it as 'Faux News' does not honestly represent their views. It suggests that they consider the bias in Fox News to be trivial and humorous rather than intentionally dishonest propaganda. Regarldess of whether this view is fair or unfair it is a sincerely held belief and the introduction of modifiers to reduce the impact of the criticism is actually one of the main things that Fox is accused of employing in their reports.
So you are suggesting removing the "jokingly"? Does anybody else want to comment on this issue? crazyeddie 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies and allegations of bias (Intro)

message: As a Fox critic myself, I do not allege that Fox targets a largely Republican audience, but I do allege that it targets a largely conservative audience. Many conservatives are not members of the Republican party. Also, if we are including the nicknames that critics have for Fox News, I see no reason not to include "Fear and Bias".
So, I support retaining the current version. I might be in favor of replacing "a largely right-wing audience" with "a largely conservative audience", but only if there is a consensus for doing so. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
:I agree...and perhaps Republican party should also be changed in your version to something about right-wing. Whenever I hear allegations of bias it's conservatives not republicans. Republicans can be liberal as well. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that critics of Fox news are joking when they refer to it as 'Faux News' does not honestly represent their views. It suggests that they consider the bias in Fox News to be trivial and humorous rather than intentionally dishonest propaganda. Regarldess of whether this view is fair or unfair it is a sincerely held belief and the introduction of modifiers to reduce the impact of the criticism is actually one of the main things that Fox is accused of employing in their reports.
So you are suggesting removing the "jokingly"? Does anybody else want to comment on this issue? crazyeddie 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Shem's version, as of 11:39, 19 June 2005
:A number of Fox News' anchors are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.
Silverback's version as of 07:24, 19 June 2005
:Many of Fox News's anchors are considered to be right-wing conservative by the channel's critics.
24.186.137.160's version, as of 04:24, 26 June 2005, and JamesMLane's version, as of 11:49, 23 June 2005
:A number of Fox News Channel' anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.
Silverback's version, as of 06:20, 26 June 2005, and as of 12:10, 23 June 2005
:A number of Fox News Channel' anchors, hosts and personalities self-identify as conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005
:A number of Fox News Channel' anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.
=====Comments=====
I suggest replacing "anchors, hosts and personailites" with "on-air talent". "Right-wing conservative" is not redundant, since it might describe someone who is right-wing even for a conservative. However, in lack of other evidence, I highly doubt anybody would self-describe themselves as such. So: crazyeddie 8 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
=====Crazyeddie's proposed version=====
Many members of Fox News Channel's on-air talent are self-professed conservatives. Several others are considered to be right-wing or conservative by the channel's critics.
:I'd use crazyeddie's version, as I thought to myself as well that right-wing conservatives is redundant. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Many members of Fox News Channel's on-air talent are self-professed conservatives. Several others are considered to be right-wing or conservative by the channel's critics.
:I'd use crazyeddie's version, as I thought to myself as well that right-wing conservatives is redundant. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Crazyeddie's proposed version

message: Silverback's version as of 07:24, 19 June 2005
*Primetime co-host Sean Hannity (paired with Alan Colmes on-air) is also a conservative; Hannity is also prominent in conservative talk radio, second only to Rush Limbaugh in terms of listeners, and went on tour for George W. Bush before the 2004 election.
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005, and Shem's version, as of 11:39, 19 June 2005[]
*Primetime co-host Sean Hannity (paired with Alan Colmes on-air) is one of FOX News' openly partisan anchors, the voice of the political right on Hannity and Colmes; Hannity is also prominent in conservative talk radio, second only to Rush Limbaugh in terms of listeners, and went on tour for George W. Bush before the 2004 election.
=====Comments=====
Silverback, what is your rationale for your proposed changes? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
I propose something along the lines of : — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That, or we remove the Rush Limbaugh statement and make it "second in the country" or something. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sean Hannity

message: Silverback, what is your rationale for your proposed changes? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
I propose something along the lines of : — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *Primetime co-host Sean Hannity (paired with Alan Colmes on-air) is also a self-professed conservative; Hannity is also prominent in conservative talk radio, second only to Rush Limbaugh in terms of listeners, and went on tour for George W. Bush before the 2004 election.
:That, or we remove the Rush Limbaugh statement and make it "second in the country" or something. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ilyanep's Proposed Version

message: Silverback's version, as of 12:10, 23 June 2005, as of 06:20, 26 June 20052005
*One of the most well-known personalities is the popular Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the O'Reilly Factor; O'Reilly often faces criticism from the left over perceived pro-war slant in his news coverage. O'Reilly himself maintains that he is politically independent (chiefly due to libertarian positions on social issues like homosexuality and marijuana legislation). O'Reilly frequently uses incendiary, nationalist rhetoric toward those who hold disagreeing positions, such as accusing Senator Dick Durbin of "slamming America" and "condemning his own country" over Durbin's criticism of the conditions at the United States' Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. 
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005, also JamesMLane's version, as of 11:49, 23 June 2005, 24.186.137.160's version, as of 04:24, 26 June 2005
*One of the most well-known personalities is the popular Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the O'Reilly Factor; O'Reilly often faces criticism from the left over perceived pro-war, right-wing slant in his news coverage.  O'Reilly himself maintains that he is politically independent (chiefly due to libertarian positions on social issues like homosexuality and marijuana legislation).  O'Reilly frequently uses incendiary, nationalist rhetoric toward those who hold disagreeing positions, such as accusing Senator Dick Durbin of "slamming America" and "condemning his own country" over Durbin's criticism of the conditions at the United States' Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. 
=====Comments=====
Silverback seems here to be arguing that the left doesn't perceive Bill O'Reilly as slanting his news coverage towards the right-wing. For evidence otherwise, I submit Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness. Although this document doesn't actually contain the phrase "right-wing", it does argue that he slants his coverage in a pro-Republican, pro-conservative manner. It also has the follow sentence: "His often proclaimed opposition to the death penalty quickly wanders off to the far right." I think this could be understood that the left does perceive that Bill O'Reilly does slant his news coverage in a right-wing manner.
If that is not enough evidence, a quick google search using "Bill O'Reilly right-wing" (with no quotes) brings up http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ , which contains the sentence "Hosts like Bill O'Reilly give FOX news a clear right-wing bias." in the first paragraph. 
Is this enough sources, or do you require more, Silverback? Do you wish for us to link to these sources in article? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
:Is this a joke? "Sources" are www.oreilly-sucks.com and "Bill O'Reilly's sheer O'Reillyness"?  I thought the entire point of this page was to print NEUTRAL facts. Is the source on the Pepsi page Pepsi-sucks.com? Are the sources on the Coke Page coke-sucks.com? In this day and age, obviously there are people who hate everything, and most of them have websites. To use as "sources" of FACTS websites whose only purpose is to be anti-something is not exactly fair. (Not to menttion that I agree with all of the criticisms of the group FAIR... Fox is criticized for claiming to be non biased but FAIR isn't? Find me any something that FAIR has criticized that isn't conservative).
::Wikipedia is not FoxNews – you can attack the "bias" at these sources all day, but you've said nothing to dispute their factual accuracy.  Critics are absolutely valid sources; Wikipedia accurately frames facts (events, commentary, biography, et al) within a neutral point of view, but is not some ideologically sterile advertisement wherein persons and entities are presented free from their controversies and criticisms.  As for FAIR, if you have a problem with them, you're welcome to go try editing their article.  Also, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~ . Shem(talk) 21:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill O'Reilly

message: Silverback seems here to be arguing that the left doesn't perceive Bill O'Reilly as slanting his news coverage towards the right-wing. For evidence otherwise, I submit Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness. Although this document doesn't actually contain the phrase "right-wing", it does argue that he slants his coverage in a pro-Republican, pro-conservative manner. It also has the follow sentence: "His often proclaimed opposition to the death penalty quickly wanders off to the far right." I think this could be understood that the left does perceive that Bill O'Reilly does slant his news coverage in a right-wing manner.
If that is not enough evidence, a quick google search using "Bill O'Reilly right-wing" (with no quotes) brings up http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ , which contains the sentence "Hosts like Bill O'Reilly give FOX news a clear right-wing bias." in the first paragraph. 
Is this enough sources, or do you require more, Silverback? Do you wish for us to link to these sources in article? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
:Is this a joke? "Sources" are www.oreilly-sucks.com and "Bill O'Reilly's sheer O'Reillyness"?  I thought the entire point of this page was to print NEUTRAL facts. Is the source on the Pepsi page Pepsi-sucks.com? Are the sources on the Coke Page coke-sucks.com? In this day and age, obviously there are people who hate everything, and most of them have websites. To use as "sources" of FACTS websites whose only purpose is to be anti-something is not exactly fair. (Not to menttion that I agree with all of the criticisms of the group FAIR... Fox is criticized for claiming to be non biased but FAIR isn't? Find me any something that FAIR has criticized that isn't conservative).
::Wikipedia is not FoxNews – you can attack the "bias" at these sources all day, but you've said nothing to dispute their factual accuracy.  Critics are absolutely valid sources; Wikipedia accurately frames facts (events, commentary, biography, et al) within a neutral point of view, but is not some ideologically sterile advertisement wherein persons and entities are presented free from their controversies and criticisms.  As for FAIR, if you have a problem with them, you're welcome to go try editing their article.  Also, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~ . Shem(talk) 21:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Topic already on to-do list for later discussion, suggest tabling. crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
Corax's version, as of 06:44, 19 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by critics , after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President George W. Bush wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Silverback's version, as of 07:19, 19 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by an editorial in a Boulder, Colorado newspaper. Cavuto suggested that lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Rhobite's version, as of 18:21, 19 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by critics , after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President George W. Bush wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Silverback's version, as of 21:08, 19 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by a Boulder Colorado editorial , after suggesting that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Rama's version, as of 14:15, 20 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by critics , after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President George W. Bush wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Silverback's version, as of 18:59, 20 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by a Boulder newspaper editorial , after Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Rhobite's version, as of 04:58, 21 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by critics , after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President George W. Bush wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Silverback's version, as of 05:14, 21 June 2005
*Neil Cavuto has been described as a "Bush apologist" by a Boulder newspaper editorial , after Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005
*Business anchor Neil Cavuto, who is also FOX News' vice president of business news and a current member of the network's executive committee, has been described as a "Bush apologist" by critics  after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President George W. Bush  wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support for the partial privatization of Social Security was due to Americans being "distracted" by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial.  Cavuto has been a popular syndicated columnist on both Townhall.com  and NewsMax.com .
In most of these versions there is a vewry important factual error. Cavuto didn't TELL Bush anything. He asked a question. There is a very big difference. It would help if people actually watched the interview or at least read the transcript 
=====Comments=====
This topic is already earmarked for discussion elsewhere. I suggest tabling it, and archiving for future reference when we take the topic back off the table. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
:In most of these versions there is a vewry important factual error. Cavuto didn't TELL Bush anything. He asked a question. There is a very big difference. It would help if people actually watched the interview or at least read the transcript 
If this is the only problem people have with this paragraph, then it is easily fixed. However, I expect objections to this paragraph run deeper than that. Assuming that the langauge is changed to reflect the fact that Cavuto asked a leading question instead of making a direct statement, does anybody have any further objections to this paragraph as it now stands? crazyeddie 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil Cavuto

message: This topic is already earmarked for discussion elsewhere. I suggest tabling it, and archiving for future reference when we take the topic back off the table. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
:In most of these versions there is a vewry important factual error. Cavuto didn't TELL Bush anything. He asked a question. There is a very big difference. It would help if people actually watched the interview or at least read the transcript 
If this is the only problem people have with this paragraph, then it is easily fixed. However, I expect objections to this paragraph run deeper than that. Assuming that the langauge is changed to reflect the fact that Cavuto asked a leading question instead of making a direct statement, does anybody have any further objections to this paragraph as it now stands? crazyeddie 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Rhobite's version, as of  18:21, 19 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left as being a political moderate and for percieved submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program. Still, FOX News frequently cites Colmes' affiliation with the network when accused of right-wing bias. This has led to the development of the term Fox News liberal.
Silverback's version, as of 21:08, 19 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the anti-globalism anarcho-progressives as being a political moderate and for percieved submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program.
Rama's version, as of 14:15, 20 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left as being a political moderate and for perceived submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program. 
Silverback's version, as of 18:59, 20 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left for occasionally conceding points. 
Rhobite's version, as of 04:58, 21 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left as being a political moderate and for perceived submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program. 
Silverback's version, as of 05:14, 21 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left for occasionally conceding points. 
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005
*Alan Colmes is touted by Fox as "a hard-hitting liberal" (), but he has been criticized by some on the left as being a political moderate and for perceived submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program ().
=====Comments=====
In the current version, the labels, and who are applying these labels, seem to be correctly sourced. I see no reason to change the current version. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
Colmes is not criticised for moderate views, he is criticized for not really presenting any contrary views at all. It is also significant that he actually reports to Hannity. This is Colmes' first job as a political pundit and he owes it entirely to Hannity. It is very unlikely he would get another job as a pundit on CNN or any other network if he left. Colmes is not hard hitting, he is hit hard and repeatedly and never says boo back--Gorgonzilla 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree; Colmes is very often criticised for being nowhere near as far to the Left as Hannity is to the Right, thus not being an adequate representative of the Left on the show.  Shem(talk) 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Colmes gets to say so little that it is not really possible to determine what his politics might be, he is shouted down the minute he tries. I think the wording as is does not represent the criticism you make here. The current wording suggests that the left are complaining about Colmes being moderate. The real problem is that he simply does not ask hard questions that might puncture Hanity's balloon. His real role on the show is to provide Hanity with a punchbag. Joe Biden is widely regarded as a moderate but he would easily puncture Hanity's prevaracations, miss-statements and plain ignorance.--Gorgonzilla 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree, here.  Is there anyone of pro-Fox POV here (who has also watched H & C on a semi-regular basis) who would honestly assert that Hannity is not dominant on the show? Shem(talk) 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Colmes

message: In the current version, the labels, and who are applying these labels, seem to be correctly sourced. I see no reason to change the current version. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
Colmes is not criticised for moderate views, he is criticized for not really presenting any contrary views at all. It is also significant that he actually reports to Hannity. This is Colmes' first job as a political pundit and he owes it entirely to Hannity. It is very unlikely he would get another job as a pundit on CNN or any other network if he left. Colmes is not hard hitting, he is hit hard and repeatedly and never says boo back--Gorgonzilla 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree; Colmes is very often criticised for being nowhere near as far to the Left as Hannity is to the Right, thus not being an adequate representative of the Left on the show.  Shem(talk) 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Colmes gets to say so little that it is not really possible to determine what his politics might be, he is shouted down the minute he tries. I think the wording as is does not represent the criticism you make here. The current wording suggests that the left are complaining about Colmes being moderate. The real problem is that he simply does not ask hard questions that might puncture Hanity's balloon. His real role on the show is to provide Hanity with a punchbag. Joe Biden is widely regarded as a moderate but he would easily puncture Hanity's prevaracations, miss-statements and plain ignorance.--Gorgonzilla 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree, here.  Is there anyone of pro-Fox POV here (who has also watched H & C on a semi-regular basis) who would honestly assert that Hannity is not dominant on the show? Shem(talk) 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Silverback's version, as of 06:20, 26 June 20052005, and as of 12:10, 23 June 2005
:In 2003, Penguin Books published Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, by the comedian and writer Al Franken. The book criticized FOX News among the media outlets as biased. Before the book was released, FOX brought a lawsuit, alleging that the book's subtitle violated FOX's trademark in the promotional phrase "Fair and Balanced". On that basis, FOX moved for a preliminary injunction to block the publication of the book. The United States District Court Judge hearing the case denied the motion, characterizing FOX's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally". FOX then withdrew the suit. Franken then suggested that the judge's phrase "Wholly Without Merit" would make a more appropriate slogan for FOX.
Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005, also JamesMLane's version, as of 11:49, 23 June 2005, 24.186.137.160's version, as of 04:24, 26 June 2005
:In 2003, Penguin Books published Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, by the comedian and writer Al Franken.  The book criticized many right-wing individuals and institutions on grounds of inaccuracy; it included FOX News among the media outlets described as biased.  Before the book was released, FOX brought a lawsuit, alleging that the book's subtitle violated FOX's trademark in the promotional phrase "Fair and Balanced".  On that basis, FOX moved for a preliminary injunction to block the publication of the book.  The United States District Court Judge hearing the case denied the motion, characterizing FOX's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally".  FOX then withdrew the suit.  Franken then suggested that the judge's phrase "Wholly Without Merit" would make a more appropriate slogan for FOX.
====Comments====
Here is the main difference:
Current version:
:"The book criticized many right-wing individuals and institutions on grounds of inaccuracy; it included FOX News among the media outlets described as biased."
Silverback's version:
:"The book criticized FOX News among the media outlets as biased."
Silverback, what is your rationale for your proposed changes? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Issue and section seem to be dead - suggest archiving. crazyeddie 08:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademark Disputes

message: Here is the main difference:
Current version:
:"The book criticized many right-wing individuals and institutions on grounds of inaccuracy; it included FOX News among the media outlets described as biased."
Silverback's version:
:"The book criticized FOX News among the media outlets as biased."
Silverback, what is your rationale for your proposed changes? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Issue and section seem to be dead - suggest archiving. crazyeddie 08:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Couldn't this whole issue be resolved very simply? Rather than getting into a very obvious POV discussion regarding CNN vs. Fox News, wouldn't it be objective to simply state that "Fox News is generally considered to be more conservative than CNN, while CNN is generally considered to be more liberal than Fox News."
Remove all references to right-wing or left-wing. Don’t try to imply that either one is more accurate than the other. Stop trying to add un-quoted or mostly editorial (from both sides) references, and state what seems to be pretty clear: Fox generally reports from a more conservative viewpoint and CNN generally reports from a more liberal viewpoint. Leave the marketing out of it.
I don’t think this perspective is presented as POV. It seems to me that both sides of the spectrum consider themselves to be the “correct” or “accurate” view, and that their opposition is either to the right or to the left of themselves. Acknowledge the relationship but don’t imply that one is more correct than the other.
If you think that CNN is unbiased and accurate, you probably think that Fox has a conservative bias. If you think that Fox is unbiased and accurate, you probably think that CNN has a liberal bias. 
Can’t we reasonably add an article that states these perceptions without making a judgment call as to the relative accuracy of either perception?
State the two perspectives, add no more than two citations for both, and leave the individual biographies off of the main pages of both topics. Within six months, the lineup of both stations will change dramatically, while the editorial perspectives will (likely) remain the same. Keep the important stuff on the main page and don’t unnecessarily add triviality just to try to prove a point of bias. Intelligent people will be able to scan the article, follow up with the citations, and then make their own decisions.
I welcome anyone pointing out unexpected bias in this edit.
On the other hand, it's my first edit. Be nice :)
(edited to add signature) --Wikiweasel 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)
AFAICT, in the current version of the article, CNN is not mentioned in connection with bias. CNN is mentioned in regards to ratings. So, whether or not Fox is biased is being considered independent of whether or not CNN is biased. Personally, that's the way I like it. 
Furthermore, in many people's minds, the problem isn't that Fox is biased, it's that Fox refuses to admit that it is biased. FAIR, in its report "The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt", had this to say in summary:
:Some have suggested that Fox's conservative point of view and its Republican leanings render the network inherently unworthy as a news outlet. FAIR believes that view is misguided. The United States is unusual, perhaps even unique, in having a journalistic culture so fiercely wedded to the elusive notion of "objective" news (an idea of relatively recent historical vintage even in the U.S.). In Great Britain, papers like the conservative Times of London and the left-leaning Guardian deliver consistently excellent coverage while making no secret of their respective points of view. There's nothing keeping American journalists from doing the same.
:If anything, it is partly the disingenuous claim to objectivity that is corroding the integrity of the news business. American journalists claim to represent all political views with an open mind, yet in practice a narrow bipartisan centrism excludes dissenting points of view: No major newspaper editorial page opposed NAFTA; virtually all endorse U.S. airstrikes on Iraq; and single-payer health care proposals find almost no backers among them.
:With the ascendance of Fox News Channel, we now have a national conservative TV network in addition to the established centrist outlets. But like the mainstream networks, Fox refuses to admit its political point of view. The result is a skewed center-to-right media spectrum made worse by the refusal to acknowledge any tilt at all.
:Fox could potentially represent a valuable contribution to the journalistic mix if it admitted it had a conservative point of view, if it beefed up its hard news and investigative coverage (and cut back on the tabloid sensationalism), and if there were an openly left-leaning TV news channel capable of balancing both Fox's conservatism and CNN's centrism.
Additionally, some of these allegations go beyond accusing Fox of mere bias, but are actually alleging violations of journalistic intergrity. Which is why I'm proposing a reorganization of the Bias section, in order to make it more clear what exactly the critics are alleging, and to give the defense a greater opportunity of rebutting these allegations. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
Suggest archiving this section. Objections? crazyeddie 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't we just skip to the point?

message: I've unprotected the page. Let's reach a consensus here and make edits according to it. If there's another revert war I may consider re-protecting. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the MoS, I'm moving it and changing all occurrences of "FOX" in the article to the proper case. If there is strenuous objection to such, discuss it on the new Talk page. —chris.lawson (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Unprotected. 

message: WH Press Sec Scott McClellan admitted he lied to Chris Matthews about feeding WH talking points to Fox News commentators.  This was like a week ago.  Why is it still being reported as fact?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.116 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reference? DockHi 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're talking about the Youtube video of him on Bill O'Reilly's show, I'll quote my own post in another section above: "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." If you have a source where he specifically states that he lied about everything, then by all means post that here. NcSchu(Talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Youtube is hardly a reliable source. DockHi 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one could quote the transcript of the discussion. NcSchu(Talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is in a reliable source, of course. DockHi 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube is simply a record of the actual primary source. And,  all references( and I mean ALL) should be third party commentary.  In other words, this information does not belong in the article at all, unless a third party reliable source commented on it.  But that would make this article really short and we wouldn't want that now would we? Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess we are not bound to respond to people who fake their signature. DockuHi 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that sarcasm? Anyway, I kind of assumed the anon user faked the signature on account that it was identically formatted like mine despite that user never formatting his signature and that he never contributed to pages similar to this, and the fact that it wasn't added with four ~ but instead was added by an IP address. In regards to the response, it's so filled with POV opinion and biases I don't see a need to address it. NcSchu(Talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, no sarcasm intended. I really thought and still think that it was fake signature. DockuHi 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it was hard for me to tell—damn Internet! NcSchu(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, seems this has turned into a bottomless pit of mischaracterization.  McClelland did not "admit he lied," he simply clarified that the White House did not contact O'Reilly specifically.  There is little doubt that they routinely fed talking points to FNC (and others) -- this is hardly a new accusation, and only serves to give substantial credibility to what others have already said.  If memory serves correctly, Olbermann posted an email he received from the White House in 2003 that specifically contained talking points (presumably before the White House realized the nature of Olbermann's broadcast).  Let's be very careful when presenting fiction as fact and mischaracterizing the actions of others (be they former White House Press Secretaries or other Wikipedia editors).  ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It isn't for us to judge whether he was 'baited' or not. He said what he said in the first interview, and only took back O'Reilly's involvement in the second. I still don't see a justifiable reason to say he reneged on his entire statement when no notable source says so. NcSchu(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Give us a source in which McClellan admitted this! That's what we're asking for, but it has not been supplied. This is really just quite a simple thing. We have a reliable source for the original incrimination, hence it's included as it is a very serious accusation from somebody in a position to know. We don't have a reliable source for what you are saying, and citing that Youtube video or O'Reilly Factor transcript will not result in the paragraph being removed as it doesn't contradict the entire accusation. NcSchu(Talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Two things - 1) if you say that McClennan never said who he gave it too - it is unsubstantiated.  Need facts to say this is a controversy other than McClennan's winks and nods.  Second - you said it yourself - He has a book to sell.  How about listing that too!  When you state that he said that - it becomes fact in the eyes of the reader.  Listing that he is currently selling a book and he is stating these things on a traditionally anti-Bush (anti-white and anti-American) channel will give the viewer the opportunity to judge for themselves the validity of the McClennan claims.  The source of the McClennan retraction was his appearance on O'Rielly's radio show - and how about a line where McClennan says that Matthews took his comments out of context?  This is only FAIR AND BALANCED - sorry for the yelling but its just so obvious that Fox News is always going to be stressed to be the controversial news channel because liberals hate it since its a popular channel that reflects the views of a large number of viewers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorrow66 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Few things-Please act with some civility. How is it unsubstantiated if he didnt say who he gave it to. He said he gave it to fox news commentators. He did say it and he DID NOT say he was lying--he said he never gave them to O'Reilly. Moreover, he still made the initial statements. If Obama says he loves islam and hates america, and then says he was lying or forced into those states by reverend wright..you sure as hell would want those statements listed on his page right? Exactly, because it is all about politics for you. Furthermore, we cannot state that McClellan said this because he has a book out, he may have said it because it was the TRUTH. if it was false, why hasnt fox news filed a lawsuit against him for defamation? WHy havent they, because they would have to admit that he was right. And i dont think we should the take advice on making this article NPOV from someone that says taht a TV network is Anti-American because a few commentators dont agree with President Bush. You are right buddy, everyone who doesnt agree with you hates america and wants it to die? Really man? Reagardless if Fox "reflects the views of a large number of people" (which, again, is unsubstantiated because you dont have a citation for that) doesnt mean that this event did not happen. The fact is that there is proof that McClellan said he gave talking points to fox, we can cite that. YOu dont have proof that he did not, and you have to base your argument around the same tired fallacies (liberals hate fox and they hate america so we need to keep those fags off the internet because they are just adding liews. Here is an idea, try basing your argument for the removal of this section on FACTS, no opinions, or do you even know how to do that?
This section is an extention of the accusation of bias against FNC.  It should be removed from here and put into the controversies page since it is undue weight for the main page, and allegations of bias already summarize this type of controversy as a summary for the subpage.   Arzel (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I would be fine with doing that. Not to be uncivil, but , Smorrow66, who's McClennan? NcSchu(Talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that I changed "a 'tell all' book" to "his memoir, What Happened" in order to correspond to the official genre. The original wording also sounded a bit sensationalist—keep it basic, people. Now, shall we move this to the controversies article? NcSchu(Talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the implications of McClellan's admission are broad and serious, many of the other controversies are just as grave... I don't see that this has gotten enough traction to remain in the main FNC article; at this time it is probably more appropriate here.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. DockuHi 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:N (and the concept it defines) does not apply to article content.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it WP:UNDUE, then, although "undue weight" is, policy-wise, a sub-set of WP:NPOV and I don't really see this as a bias against FOX problem so much as something that doesn't say anything much against FOX if the allegation has been progressively qualified and/or contested such that it can't be properly discussed without an excessive amount of text relative to the article.Bdell555 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a lot of 'ifs' and McClellan states it was strictly to Fox News, making it noteworthy and relevant to the mention somewhere. It has been more than a week since these allegations were made apparent, and so far only the specific allegation towards O'Reilly has been retracted. Also, I'm not sure when this happened but somebody changed 'commentators' to 'hosts', when it is clearly the former that McClellan is trying to stress in the interview. NcSchu(Talk) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there no mention of even a partial retraction if there is a partial retraction?  I removed "unnamed" because nothing in the MSNBC transcript cited as a source for "unnamed" suggests that McClellan did NOT have specific names in mind.  In fact, Matthews asks him point blank, "Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever?" and McClellan, far from denying that Bill or Sean were "called", replies "Certainly. Certainly."  If, at another time and place, McClellan clarified his allegations such that he wants them understood as being with respect to "unnamed" persons, fine, add a sentence saying he later clarified (or whatever word you want to use) accordingly, cited to a source where he clarifies.  But don't conflate two separate instances of McClellan commentary, one to Matthews and one to, say, O'Reilly, into one.Bdell555 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I might add that other sources say White House talking points are routinely distributed widely, which would mean that any claim by McClellan that "it was strictly to Fox News" is contested, and Wikipedia should acknowlege that the claim is contested.Bdell555 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link, please? The wording of the question Matthews asked is very tricky, as McClellan could have been answering either "Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever?" or "Did you do that as a regular thing?". It's not for us to judge, which is why specific names were not mentioned. The 'unnamed' text was added on the side of caution, as McClellan never explicitly stated names. NcSchu(Talk) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? The link to the Matthews transcript is cited in the article!  You are clearly "judging" when you conclude that McClellan did NOT mean to name Sean or Bill or anyone else.  The transcript is far too ambiguous to justify that conclusion of yours. The absence of data doesn't prove anything.  See argument from ignorance.  Even if it did, to engage in such reasoning in order to justify the addition of material ("unnamed") that the source does directly state is original research.Bdell555 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between judging how a certain conversation reads and just ignoring a particularly difficult passage altogether, which is what I'm doing in my reading of this. We take what we have, and what we don't have are specific names. NcSchu(Talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It can be, especially when something's controversial. NcSchu(Talk) 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea... ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be scared off though! Get a username and be happy! NcSchu(Talk) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McClellan Admitted He Lied