Talk:Fox News/Archive 6

message: There was a discussion above about a change in the header name. I'll move it down here when I get finished. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that there are three separate issues here. One is the bias inevitable in news and not unique to FNC (because fallible reporters must decide what is newsworthy and tend to err in the interests of their bosses). Another is FNC's tendency to report more opinion than some other news organisations (making its bias more conspicuous, but not necessarily making FNC unfair). The last is FNC's susceptibility to error (making it unreliable). None of these really make FOX News more biased than the BBC, CNN, Pacifica, etc., IMHO. I think that the section should be renamed, because what is most notable about FOX News is that it is opinionated and error prone, compared to the BBC for example, not that it is biased. Tim Ivorson 14:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the article should include bits about more FOX News shows being opinion based (comparably), and the difficulty in building up the infrastructure of a news organization as its public and rapid growth have put on display. Trodel 19:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Tim Ivorson 13:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: So you would be worried about bias to the right, but not to the centre (wherever that is)? It is my view that political journalists are bound to have opinions (biases perhaps) and news organisations have to pander to governments, advertisers, audiences, etc. and that therefore bias is inevitable. It seems to me that, compared to FOX News, what makes the BBC, for example, different is not that it is less biased, but that it is more cautious about reporting its opinions (and perhaps that those opinions are, more than FOX News, centrist, mainstream, politically correct or something like that). FOX News does precisely what it should; it is open about its opinion, so it can easily be seen that it is (what seems to me to be) very authoritarian and very reactionary. The BBC leaves us to deduce from what it chooses to report that it is (what seems to me to be) slightly authoritarian and slightly reactionary. Of course, it's possible (though I consider it unlikely) that FNC's stated opinion is sarcastic or that it is a dummy to conceal from observers the real bias conveyed in the facts that it chooses to report (or not to report). Assuming that FOX News really means its opinions, its just being honest about them and making it easy for us to dismiss them. Tim Ivorson 13:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Header

message: ====Current Version====
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 such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party.  This has led to it being dubbed "FAUX news"  (a pun on faux, the French for "false" or "fake").
FOX News claims to provide an alternative to "mainstream" news sources like CNN and CBS, sometimes arguing those other networks are dominated by a liberal bias.  Thus they appear to concede that FOX is to the right of other American network news. Supporters variously argue that FOX is neutral and its competition is strictly liberal, or that FOX is an anti-liberal corrective that makes American television as a whole more balanced.
====Trodel's Proposal====
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 such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic. 
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
====Crazyeddie's Proposal====
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 such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party. 
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
====Comments====
Removed a sentence that I think should be placed in the last paragraph. If we decide to use Trodel's version of the last paragraph, we should also use his introduction. crazyeddie 07:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Removed a sentence that I think should be placed in the last paragraph. If we decide to use Trodel's version of the last paragraph, we should also use his introduction. crazyeddie 07:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original version====
The claim that FOX is rightist begins with Murdoch's and Ailes' own Republican connections.  Critics point to Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times.  In the case of Ailes, critics consider not only his Republican campaign work in general, but also his involvement in the controversial Willie Horton ad in particular.  He also produced the Rush Limbaugh television show.  (Note that these are ad hominem statements that do not per se prove partiality.)
====Trodel's version====
*Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times.
*Ailes past activities including: Republican campaign work, involvement in the Willie Horton ad and his production of the Rush Limbaugh television show.
====Crazyeddie's version====
*Rupert Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times.
*Roger Ailes's, the CEO of Fox News, past activities including: Republican campaign work, involvement in the Willie Horton ad and his production of the Rush Limbaugh television show.
====Comments====
I think we need to explain who Murdoch and Ailes are. Probably explained earlier in the article, but by the time they get down here, the reader has probably forgotten. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Murdoch and Ailes

message: I think we need to explain who Murdoch and Ailes are. Probably explained earlier in the article, but by the time they get down here, the reader has probably forgotten. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original version====
Some criticize FOX News for calling Palestinian and other Arab militants "terrorists", while many other channels tend to use the generic word "militant", or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "suicide bomber". It is argued that, although "terrorist" is accurate, the word carries a negative connotation and does not give enough detail. (It is counter-argued that the term "terrorist" gives more detail than militant.)  FOX has also drawn criticism for its use of the term "homicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the term replace the standard "suicide bomber".  Critics maintain that this substitution is an instance of letting the White House dictate news content and is detrimental to the accuracy of the articles. 
====Trodel's Proposal====
*Along with News Corporation subsidiary New York Post, was only major news source to use of the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested news organizations make the change.
====Crazyeddie's Proposal====
*Using the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested news organizations make the change. Along with the New York Post and Pravda, it was one of the few major news sources to do so.
====Tim's Proposal====
*Its use of the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" at White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's request. Apart from fellow News Corporation subsidiary the New York Post, it was the only major news sources to.
====Comments====
I'd like to make the statements a bit stronger in order to make it obvious why the critics find this objectionable. crazyeddie 21:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the possible Britishism: It took me ages to see it. It's difficult for me to tell whether it makes sense to non-British people. I've heard other British people talk like this, so it's not just me who uses it. Tim Ivorson 20:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not questioning Trodel's research, and neither am I ready to say that the terrorist label point simply must be included. Let's leave it out for now, on the understanding that if somebody takes issue with its omission or it turns out to be central to somebody's criticism of FNC, then we'll discuss it again. I think that FNC is no worse than other elite media outlets in the bias stakes. There absolutely should be criticism in articles about other media organisations. FNC is strange, rather than remarkably bad. Tim Ivorson 22:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Labels

message: I'd like to make the statements a bit stronger in order to make it obvious why the critics find this objectionable. crazyeddie 21:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the possible Britishism: It took me ages to see it. It's difficult for me to tell whether it makes sense to non-British people. I've heard other British people talk like this, so it's not just me who uses it. Tim Ivorson 20:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not questioning Trodel's research, and neither am I ready to say that the terrorist label point simply must be included. Let's leave it out for now, on the understanding that if somebody takes issue with its omission or it turns out to be central to somebody's criticism of FNC, then we'll discuss it again. I think that FNC is no worse than other elite media outlets in the bias stakes. There absolutely should be criticism in articles about other media organisations. FNC is strange, rather than remarkably bad. Tim Ivorson 22:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original Version====
Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC.  The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law.  A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts.  FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law (, ).
====Trodel's Version====
*Accusations by two fired reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson that superiors demanded they revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways they saw as being in conflict with the facts. In a subsequent whistleblower lawsuit a jury ruled that FOX had ordered the reporters to distort the facts, but was overturned on First Amendment grounds.  need source of result that is not so biased 
====Crazyeddie's Version====
*Accusations by two fired reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson that superiors demanded they revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways they saw as being in conflict with the facts. In a subsequent whistleblower lawsuit a jury ruled that WTVT, a Tampa Bay Fox affiliate, had ordered the reporters to distort the facts, but was overturned on First Amendment grounds. However, it should be noted that the case was against a local affilate station, not Fox News Channel itself. 
====Tim's Version====
Additions to Crazyeddie's Version in bold, removals struckout:
*Accusations by two fired reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson that superiors demanded they revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways they saw as being in conflict with the facts. In a subsequent A ruling in a whistleblower lawsuit a jury ruled that WTVT , a Tampa Bay Fox affiliate, had ordered the fired reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to distort the facts in a story about Bovine Growth Hormone. , but was overturned WTVT successfully appealed on First Amendment grounds. However, it should be noted that the case was against a local affilate station, not Fox FOX News Channel itself.  (PDF)
----
As it might look:
*A ruling in a whistleblower lawsuit that WTVT had ordered fired reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to distort the facts in a story about Bovine Growth Hormone. WTVT successfully appealed on First Amendment grounds. However, the case was against a local affilate station, not FOX News.  (PDF)
====Comments====
Copied from notability check discussion:
I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My source is my memory of The Corporation. It may be a far from reliable source. I'm not good at discerning the difference between FOX News, Fox Network, Fox affiliate, etc. and I may have been confused when I saw it. Perhaps someone here has a good command of Akre and Wilson's claims, but unfortunately that is not yet me. I'm fairly sure that Wilson claims to have been offered a bribe to sign some kind of agreement not to tell his story. On hearing that it wasn't enough to keep him quiet, he asked to be sent a copy of the agreement. He then told his story. Tim Ivorson 15:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea, but it could be some time before I get round to it. Tim Ivorson 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whistleblowing case

message: Copied from notability check discussion:
I agree that we should reveiw each one for notability check. Additionally, I am unsure about this whistleblower lawsuit - it is being reported as against FOX News but from what I can tell it is actually against a FOX affiliate in Tampa Bay (WTVT) - if that can be verified it should be removed completely - this article is about the FOX News channel Trodel 16:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My source is my memory of The Corporation. It may be a far from reliable source. I'm not good at discerning the difference between FOX News, Fox Network, Fox affiliate, etc. and I may have been confused when I saw it. Perhaps someone here has a good command of Akre and Wilson's claims, but unfortunately that is not yet me. I'm fairly sure that Wilson claims to have been offered a bribe to sign some kind of agreement not to tell his story. On hearing that it wasn't enough to keep him quiet, he asked to be sent a copy of the agreement. He then told his story. Tim Ivorson 15:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea, but it could be some time before I get round to it. Tim Ivorson 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original Version====
During the 2000 Presidential Election John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone.  FOX had initially called the state of Florida for Al Gore, and when it retracted its call around 10:00 PM. It was the last major network to do so.  At 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election (), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
====Trodel's Version====
*During the 2000 Presidential Election FOX News was the last major network to retract its call of Florida for Gore, and at 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX News became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election (), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
====Crazyeddie's Version====
*During the 2000 Presidential Election FOX News was the last major network to retract its call of Florida for Gore, and at 2:16 AM on Wednesday morning, FOX News became the first major network to project as Bush the winner of Florida and thus the election (), as did all other networks by 2:20 AM.
*John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. However, this possible conflict of interest affects all clients of VNS, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the Associated Press, as well as Fox.
====Crazyeddie's Additional Bullet Point====
*John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service. During the night Ellis had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone. However, this possible conflict of interest affects all clients of VNS, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the Associated Press, as well as Fox.
====Trödel's Proposal====
*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 call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m.  However, all major networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m. Additionally, Ellis admitted to informing Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone how projections were going on election night.
====Comments====
I think we should keep the bit about Ellis, including the bit about it being about VNS, not FNC. I personally believe that Fox's actions during the election reporting don't show bias, but they are at the center of many conspiracy theories. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000 Election

message: I think we should keep the bit about Ellis, including the bit about it being about VNS, not FNC. I personally believe that Fox's actions during the election reporting don't show bias, but they are at the center of many conspiracy theories. crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original Version====
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network (, link in PDF).  The study lists three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions", that are more common among FOX News viewers:
:* That evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been found;
:* That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq; and 
:* That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war. 
Eighty percent of FOX News viewers polled held at least one of these three beliefs, more than any other radio or television news source. PIPA claims that this trend persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched FOX News more often tended to have more of these beliefs. However, many conservative critics, such as opinion columnist Ann Coulter (), argue that these are not misperceptions but are based on evidence that other news organizations have tended to downplay. For example, they claim that there has been some contact between some in the Iraqi government and operatives in al-Qaeda, that Iraq had the capability to build WMD's, or that the "Coalition of the Willing" is proof of at least some international support for the actions of the US government.
====Trodel's version====
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), sponsored by the Ford, Carnegie, and Tides foundations, reports that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions":
** That evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been found;
** That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq; and 
** That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war.
====Crazyeddie's version====
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold three beliefs than the viewers of any other network. These beliefs, which the report labels "misperceptions", were:
** That evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been found;
** That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq; and 
** That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war.
====Tim's synthesis====
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to hold three beliefs, which it labels "misperceptions"  (PDF):
** That evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been found;
** That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq; and 
** That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war.
====Comments====
Probably ought to keep the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference". crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the above? Tim Ivorson 17:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've done the same to Trodel's version and I've removed one of your versions. The trick is that second level bullets, made with ∗∗, have to have a first level bullet before them in the list. The page is converted to HTML for viewing and second level bullets are only possible in HTML as a list within a list. Note also that if you put a blank line in the wiki markup for a list, then everything after that line is a new list and must have its own first level bullet. That's why there was a stray bullet in your version of the FAIR report bit until you fixed it. Tim Ivorson 11:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If the list of sponsors is removed from here, I think that it should be put in the PIPA article. It needn't be removed though. It's not as awkward as the progressive thing. Tim Ivorson 21:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PIPA report

message: Probably ought to keep the phrase "even after adjusting for viewership and political preference". crazyeddie 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the above? Tim Ivorson 17:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've done the same to Trodel's version and I've removed one of your versions. The trick is that second level bullets, made with ∗∗, have to have a first level bullet before them in the list. The page is converted to HTML for viewing and second level bullets are only possible in HTML as a list within a list. Note also that if you put a blank line in the wiki markup for a list, then everything after that line is a new list and must have its own first level bullet. That's why there was a stray bullet in your version of the FAIR report bit until you fixed it. Tim Ivorson 11:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If the list of sponsors is removed from here, I think that it should be put in the PIPA article. It needn't be removed though. It's not as awkward as the progressive thing. Tim Ivorson 21:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This is Tim's version except I removed "even" from "...reports that, even after adjusting..." Trodel 13:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Concensus

message: ====Original Version====
A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2003 quoted Charlie Reina, a former FOX News producer, saying FOX News executives require the network's on-air anchors and reporters to cover news stories from a right-wing viewpoint and distributed a daily memo explaining what stories to highlight and how to report them. Media Matters, which tracks perceived conservative disinformation on FOX, subsequently compiled the photocopied memos online (). They included such suggestions like "[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day" and "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine". Sharri Berg, vice president of News Operations at Fox News Channel said in response, "Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an ax to grind."
====Trodel's Version====
*Photocopied memos from FOX News executive John Moody instructing the network's on-air anchors and reporters to include right-wing viewpoints in their reporting.
====Comments====
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charlie Reina

message: Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original Version====
A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes specific allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. In the film, employees say they were praised for supporting conservatives and attacking liberals and reproached and sometimes punished when they did the reverse. The film does not denote the difference between the personality driven shows, talk shows, and general news programs. During a press conference following the film's release, a correspondent from the Fox News Channel, Eric Shawn posed questions to filmmaker Robert Greenwald attempting to dispute several of the more intense charges made. The filmmaker declined to comment and hastily left the conference.
====Trodel's Version====
*A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. 
====Comments====
Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outfoxed

message: Note - no comments objections were discussed about proposed revision Trodel 13:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original Version====
In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." The quotes, which appeared to make Kerry look foolish, turned out to be fabricated (). FOX News later retracted the story and apologized (), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice". -- New York Times, October 3, 2004 p.A28.
====Trodel's Version====
*In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three purported quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; for example, "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." FOX News later retracted the story and apologized (), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice".  ?link to article and/or retraction?
====Crazyeddie's Version====
*In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three fabricated quotes purportedly from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures." FOX News later retracted the story and apologized (), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice".  ?link to article and/or retraction?
====Comments====
Making clear that the quotes, were, in fact, fabricated. crazyeddie 23:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry Quotes

message: Making clear that the quotes, were, in fact, fabricated. crazyeddie 23:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Original Version====
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal (), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Media Matters responded with a detailed list of instances in which FOX news hosts had spread conservative disinformation. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. But critics, of course, have never claimed that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the overall result of watching FOX is to be biased.
====Trodel's Version====
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal (), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. 
====Crazyeddie's Version====
FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal (), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party. However, the vast majority of critics do not claim that all FOX reporting is slanted, only that the channel as a whole has a systemic bias.
====Comments====
I would leave out the response of critics to the response of ailes. I put a reworded version of this sentence in the intro - and took it out of here. thougts? Trodel 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FOX News Response to Allegations

message: I would leave out the response of critics to the response of ailes. I put a reworded version of this sentence in the intro - and took it out of here. thougts? Trodel 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: See proposed text - we can discuss notablity if the above is not sufficient. 
...
In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media "watchdog" group, released a report titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News" ().  The report claims that of the guests on the network's signature political show, Special Report with Brit Hume, 89 percent were Republicans, 65 percent were conservatives, 91 percent were male, and 93 percent were white, while, by comparison, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports 57% of the guests were Republican and 32 percent were conservatives.  FAIR also claimed that since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of the political commentary show The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson, with themes such as "How personal are African-Americans taking the moral failures of Reverend Jesse Jackson?".
:Trodel says this is notable. I'll believe him. crazyeddie 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how I said this - I think it should be clear that in the US there are both conservative and progressive (or liberal) watchdog groups --Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, Trodel vouches for this paragraph's notability. crazyeddie 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the accusation is an allegation of bias - I am against pro/con justifications/apologists - let the reader research and decide --Trodel 06:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability check on Allegations of Bias section 

message: Below is a consensus proposal. Edit the talk page to discuss.
 
Added the notice to the article; hopefully, that will generate comments from more than me, crazyeddie, Tim Ivorson, Tony Sidaway, and TDC. I think a change of this nature should be widely reviewed and discussed. Trodel 23:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added notice of discussion to article

message: See above and archive for prior discussion - new discussion here to make it easier to navigate. Trödel 17:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of posted language

message: This criticism does not belong in the opening paragraph. There is no consensus to have the information remain24.27.151.226 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Civility be damned, we are not having this discussion. If you blank the section again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing, and removing a product of a larger consensus than any I've seen. For more information, read Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 21, beginning at section 19, titled "19 Opening Paragraph POV?". However, I cannot be more clear: blank it again, and you will be blocked. - auburnpilot talk 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to say "We've actually had this discussion before" than to say "We're not having this discussion again." You are going to see unaware people wandering in again. Count on it. Urzatron (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a new, unaware person, I'll eat my foot. - auburnpilot talk 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this is someone we all know.  Kid gloves are no longer appropriate.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. My bad, then. Urzatron (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This ip (and (, , , , ) has been used by a troll(s)  engaged in mostly racist/anti-semitic disruption and harassment on the talk pages of various articles and users. I have to say it seems so formulaic, so stereotypical that the sincerity of the ip is  debatable. But, regardless of sincerity, this is a troll that should probably be blocked on sight whenever the ips revert to type. SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "There is no need for consensus"?  Allow me to point out that the version in place is grounded in a very strong consensus, and removal of such (especially if you "contiue[sic] to do so") will assuredly get you blocked as a vandal.  Please move on.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really more "inappropriate edit warring" than "vandalism." I think if you were to report it as "vandalism," you'd really be reporting it to the wrong place. Urzatron (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The intro is there to summarize the content of the major points of the article, so repetition is not a valid reason for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 13 May 
2008 (UTC)
so puting the rebuttle statement after that one would make it neutral if its okay to repeat one it okay to repeat the other--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is a form of personal attack and I suggest you avoid making them in the future. Consensus was reached not based on the individual political stances of involved editors, but based on a compromise following lengthy discussion/debate. I suggest you take a step back and slow your approach. - auburnpilot talk 03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Your assumptions are unfounded swirls of conspiracy theory. It's quite clear from your userpage and recent contributions that you are here to push a conservative agenda, and a recent discussion on AN/I confirms this. Please restrict yourself to maintaining a neutral point of view and do not attack fellow editors. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this issue has been dissected time and time again; both on the MSNBCtalk, and here. I'm still not convinced why the Fox News wikipage rates opening criticism, as MSNBC and CNN pages remain clear, and any criticism is found in the appropriate section. The Fox News entry here has at least seven instances in sporadic sections accusing the network of having a "Conservative agenda." Hardly objective. I believe the opening criticism should be removed, not only because of the issue of objectivity, but because it plainly doesn't belong there. Just as many people, including the Clinton left has accused MSNBC of being biased. Wikiport (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of acccusations of bias in the lead is clearly a departure from wiki neutrality. NBC, MSNBC and CNN have much more blatant bias and dont get hit in their intros. I plan to remove the biased statement from the intro. There is ample agreement with my sentiment in the above and it is clearly the balanced thing to do. Manitobamountie (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information from opening paragraph