Talk:Fox News/Archive 3

message: I have just reverted a few edits which I feel introduced unnecessary POV into the article. The first (diff) connected two paragraphs to make an extremely long paragraph - bad form, even without the POV - but the transition line was "Meanwhile, critics contend that FOX has a conservative bias. Critics whose claims, on November 1, 2003, were undeniably supported by a report in the Los Angeles Times that quoted Charlie Reina..." That FOX "undeniably" carries a bias is not for an encyclopedia article to judge.
The second edit (diff) cast doubt, without a source, on the legitimacy of the liberal FOX anchors. These claims should certainly go under "allegations of bias" and not in the section about personalities, if, indeed, they merit inclusion at all. I don't think they do unless they generate sufficient controversy to be reported by a mainstream news source. — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV additions 

message: BJAODN material, for sure.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Theories have also been expounded that Murdoch has plans to construct a SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT for the purpose of aiding his conquest of the Chinese media market, though this has not been substantiated." Hmmm, I'm sure I heard about that on CBS recently. — Dan | Talk 03:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An arm of the tobacco industry? 

message: I am removing this from the summary.  There is no equivalent in any other media outlet section.  The fact that this has been allowed to stand is fairly alarming.
For example, take this report: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
Fox scores a 39.7 whereas CBS Evening News scores a more extreme 73.7.  (Note that a centrist voter was rated at 54)
The study isn't perfect but it at least gives us a more deterministic way of defining bias.
Finally, by the Wikipedia community's own admission, the Washington Times is similar in ideology to Fox News yet its summary section doesn't have this veiled attack.  Fox has been singled out and has been held to a different standard than other news outlets on Wikipedia.
:What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant. If you wish to bring up the fact that other pages do not have this type of statement then bring it up on those pages. The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias, and because the criticism is notable it should be stated in the lead. NcSchu(Talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you might find some help there. DockHi 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The point of a lead is to essentially introduce the article...when examining the Criticism section all I see are arguments pertaining to Fox News's conservative bias, but when I look at CBS, for example, I see more of a variety of criticisms, ones that can't be grouped and summed up in one statement and don't all focus on the network being 'too liberal'. But again, though WP:OTHERSTUFF is pertaining more to article deletion/creation arguments it does still have relevance in this argument. This isn't a case of consistency as the article's content is obviously going to be different depending on the different article subjects. Consistency only comes in to play with article formatting and such graphic presentations. Claiming liberal conspiracy won't get you far, I've been fairly well unbiased with my editing of this article. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four ~ after your responses, thanks! NcSchu(Talk) 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no bias here. Everything in the article is referenced. Please let us know if there is anything unreferenced and we will remove it. You might also want to think about creating an account which might help establish some rapport with the community if you are planning to stay here for a while. It also makes it easier and comfortable for others here to know whom we are talking with. It is just a suggestion, you dont necessarily have to take it. DockHi 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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. NcSchu(Talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, at first he made a general claim Fox News commentators. But when Matthews forced him to be specific, he said not journalists or daytime guys like Brit Hume.  He restricted it to the "nighttime" guys.  Now it doesn't take any speculation or any advanced forms of reasoning to deduce the two main nighttime guys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.  The only other nighttime people are either liberals (Alan Colmes) or not very political either way (Greta).  So, when he apologized to O'Reilly the only person left is Sean Hannity.  This article makes it seem like an indictment of the whole network and does not make it immediately clear that he retracted arguably his most important allegation, which was about Bill O'Reilly.  But not only that, it made his only remaining accusation about Hannity much less believable.  This section totally biased by any reasonable interpretations and all the other edits have been attempts to make the apology part as insignificant as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The criticism section is a bit long for a section that has it's own sub-article.  We don't need to duplicate information, but rather, sumamrize.  Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the Criticisms Section