Talk:Fox News/Archive 15

message: In the last few edits, the addition of this tag happened to the article. I am wondering, was the addition of this article encompassing the entire article or a section of the article that needs work? Chris 04:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag has been there for some time, weasle words for nearly a week, and neither LILVOKA nor the other editor have made any specific objections here or attempts to resolve, so I've taken them down. Just slapping  on articles then disappearing is a misuse of the templates. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Fox News does use Weasel Words regularly and I was wondering why  I don't see this article is not covering this aspect --Howmee 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the network uses weasel-style words, then the tag has no use in the article, but if the article does, then it does deserve to be in the article. Also, there may be some coverage of the network's wording on the controversy pages, but I don't know that for sure. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel word tag 

message: An issue in the past of this article, and possibly to come around again, but how exactly should the article go about possibly introducing the idea of the network's bias in the introduction? One of the latest edits have returned it into the introduction. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of abolishing both FNC and CNN's controversies sections and articles (they are essentially POV Forks at best).  I do not see any substantial criticisms on either side that would meet the criteria for being "notable".  I believe a simple wikilink to the article is best at this stage.  "Summarizing" it will more than likely result in numerous edit wars.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FNC maintains they are NOT a conservative news channel. If somebody wants to add it to a criticism section, so be it. But it should not be in the introduction. Adding this continually is somebody's POV. I have reverted it again.  AuburnPilot 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the article again, I realized there already is a criticism section. That's the perfect place for allegations of a bias news representation. AuburnPilot 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies consensus 

message: I recently created a FREE Fox Radio tool bar that links to Fox Radio,a nd most of the links on FoxNews.com  My link has been removed by some, stating that it was not relevant. If a tool bar about Fox news (that contains NO spyware, No spam and No ads) is not relavant to the External links -- then what is? I am curious to know what I could be doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piphy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 September 2006
:It is not Fox's, and has no sort of encyclopedic relevance to Fox News Channel. --Mhking 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News Radio Tool Bar 

message: MediaBistro is a valid source re: WP:RS and should be included as a source.
Some viewing figures are only available to the general public through third parties such as MediaBistro as they are not widely published. 
The removal of MediaBistro as a source leaves many gaps in the Ratings section of the article - so many as to seriously degrade the quality of that section. 
MediaBistro is widely read throughout the industry and is inluded in PC Mag's top 101 website and Forbes' favorite  etc. For more see here: http://www.mediabistro.com/aboutus/ 0-8 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaBistro and WP:RS 

message: I don't disagree with the notion that FoxNews tells its news from a conservative viewpoint.  However, FoxNews is not a conservative enterprise as CNN news is not a liberal enterprise.  To label it like that is POV.  The introduction of CNN makes no mention of its ideology, neither does the introduction of MSNBC call it a liberal cable news station.  
Be fair and consistent.  Placing that ideological descriptor in the intro is not NPOV. Ramsquire 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no it isn't.  Since there are many statements from many individuals, including only one's conclusion would be a prime example of cherry picking, a form of POV.  Not to mention, the statements themselves would be heavily biased, and wouldn't fall under WP:RS.  This article, CNN's article, MSNBC's article, BBC's article, etc. do not need a controversies section - the creation/updating of one usually increases the amount of controversies within the whole article itself.  Unless they are absolutely notable cases, each of the articles' controversies should be deleted for being non-encyclopedic.  --Mrmiscellanious 05:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News is Conservative 

message: It would be nice to see some examples of fox's bias...like how they defended Mel Gibson based on the fact "There are more important thing to worry about."  This apparentley doesn't apply to Jon Benet Ramsey.   Also, their amount of conserative versus liberal hosts should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert1991 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 October 2006  (UTC)
:This article might be of interest to you: Fox News Channel controversies. AuburnPilotTalk 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: I've done some research (currently ongoing) to verify some of the cite-needed and currently disputed issues.  I have not incorporated any references into the article (yet), but I think they're good talking points.
*"Fox News is significantly to the right of all the other mainstream television networks." -- 
*"Our main result is that Fox News had a significant impact on the 2000 elections. The entry of Fox News [into a cable viewing market] increased the Republican vote share in presidential elections by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points [in those markets]. -- 
Plenty more research is forthcoming, but I figured this is a good starting point.  /Blaxthos 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That first reference is indeed a good one, and you're welcome to add it as a ref for claims that FN is seen as conservative or right leaniing. The 2nd refernce actaully says nothign about Fox's alleged agenda or bais - it just notes a correlation. It is OR to conclude from such correlation that FN is conservative. Isarig 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read more carefully. The 2nd ref says "the presence of Fox News increases conservative voting ". That is not OR, and I did not claim it is OR. Contrary to what you claim, the research does not "give[s] tangeable proof to claims made by others", if byu that you means the claims that FN is baised. The reaserch does no such thing, and to conclude from that claim that FN itself is baised, which is the point of contention here, is OR. Isarig 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Used in this manner, it's fine, but then surely such a point does not belong in the intro. Isarig 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food for Thought (Some References) 

message: *I believe that the public perception of Fox News' bias is also interesting, and worth including (probably more interesting than the survey of journalists). Does anyone know of any good, recent poll that includes this? The only one I could find that specifically polled public perception on each broadcaster was taken shortly after the Dan Rather memo scandal, and so is probably not as useful (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast%20Bias.htm). Cbuhl79 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone find better polls regarding public perception of Fox News? 

message: According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles should not maintain schedules. The broadcast schedule listed here should obviously be removed. Currently, the only purpose I see that it servers is that it provides convenient links to Fox News shows and personalities, I'm thinking of deleting the schedule, and replacing it with a list of Fox News shows. Comments? Cbuhl79 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, instead of a list, maybe it should be formatted more along the CNN setup (though that's probably what you mean), in which the programs are listed with added descriptions Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 18:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CNN page setup isn't particularly different from the FNC page setup, except it doesn't list actual times. --Aaron 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was basically my thought; the only real difference I see is that the CNN article doesn't list the times up front; they are still in the description. I can't see how having the times hurts the article, or how removing them helps. AuburnPilotTalk 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, [WP:NOT] specificaly states that Wikipedia should not maintain schedules - "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." Cbuhl79 14:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is one of those cases where you need to look at the context of the statement on the WP:NOT page. It doesn't say in a bold font that "Wikipedia is not a schedule list"; it just says "Wikipedia is not a directory" and mentions an example in passing that happens to contain the word "schedule". I interpret that section to mean that a given article should not exist merely as advertising for the given subject. Obviously, if an article for a local radio station was formatted as in the WP:NOT example, with a full schedule, list of phone numbers, upcoming promotions, etc., then it would basically be nothing but an super-sized Yellow Pages listing ... in other words, an ad. But on this page, the schedule is simply part of a much longer encyclopedia article about a nationwide cable channel with extremely high public interest, and practically each program listed itself has its own article, due to the interest of hundreds of individual editors; it's not just the result of some Fox employee coming in and deciding to jam the page full of puffery. As for schedules in general, there's just huge amounts of evidence all over Wikipedia that WP:NOT doesn't mean "no schedules ever". See American Broadcasting Company#Current schedule, for example, or any of the other cable news channel pages; also note that most of the BBC radio station pages include schedules in one form or another (e.g. BBC Radio 4#Programmes and schedules. --Aaron 17:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A schedule is simply a form of a directory. The WP:NOT policy explicitly says that schedules should not be listed. The problem with a schedule on Wikipedia is that it's just not reliable. For example, the schedule that I replaced had a note on the top that said something like: "As of September 25th, Fox's schedule is..." Well, how do I know Fox hasn't tweaked the schedule since then? Should we expect someone to come along and edit the schedule every time Fox edits the schedule? Again, Wikipedia is not a directory. There are plently of very good directories out there for finding out when a particular show is on, people should be looking there, not on Wikipedia. Cbuhl79 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you guys even sit here and defend an obvious violation of policy?  Listing other articles that include schedules is not a justification for your position, any more than trying to say it's okay to vandalize my house because my neighbors' houses also got vandalized.  Opinion is one thing, however blatantly ignoring policy detracts from the credibility and good faith assumptions.  /Blaxthos 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your obvious is another's confused and muddled. Good faith assumptions indeed. How can somebody sit here and defend obvious violations? Because this is a talk page. How do you think policy is made? Changed? Through discussion. Yes, WP:NOT lists schedules as something not to include, but the difference in the way the article was, and how it is now, isn't that great. Let's not turn something minor into a major uproar. The change has already been made and a little civility goes a long way. AuburnPilotTalk 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Point taken.  I just see a lot of weasley (is that a word?) behavior all over wikipedia (not meaning just this article in particular) and a lot of people who seem like they're trying to make a WP:POINT, and I generally have trouble AGF when it seems like otherwise qualified users acknowledge what the policy is, but then go on to rationalize why it should be okay to ignore the policy... I will endevor to give the benefit of the doubt.  I apologize.  /Blaxthos 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:AGF can only go so far. And my apologies for the above; after rereading it, I think I was being a bit of a dick (I wish this rule was back on Wiki) Until the next issue, AuburnPilotTalk 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Schedule should be removed 

message: It was my mistake to remove this statement to begin with, as I apparently had a very large brain fart and completely mis-read what the statement said (it was early in the morning, and I apologize). However, there are still a few issues with this statement which is why I have added two templates to it. First of all, 'generally' is a weasel word in this statement. How often is 'generally'? 60% of the time? 90%? If it's only sometimes then I don't see the benefit or relevance of even including it! I also added a standard fact template since it's...well...unsourced. NcSchu(Talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it is really true and unique of Fox news and can be referenced to a reliable source, it can stay in the article. But I am not sure if political bias section is the right place for it though. DockuHi 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the weasel word and will find a suitable referance for posting.  Thanks for the attention, NcSchu, and I understand brain farts perfectly.  No harm done. FSF-Rapier (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of bias