Talk:Fox News/Archive 11

message: Could somebody please do something about this wierd doubling of sections on this page? crazyeddie 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
:Fixed. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
A belated thanks. crazyeddie 6 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
I've also shifted the FOX News logo down to beneath the "controversial" text, because it was creating a thick band of shite space at the top of the article, at least in my browser. - Mark 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any difference. Perhaps it's an IE thing. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Problem 

message: I removed that word because its extreme POV to say anything of the sort. How could that be said with shows such as Hannity and Colmes (Colmes is a liberal) that debunk any evidence of being exclusively conservative. THey may tilt right-wing, but to call them exclusive is POV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One liberal example such as Alan Colmes is probably not sufficient to convince the critics. Besides, what is wrong in promoting conservative ideas? Do you think it is not right? Docku (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So the network that dumped Phil Donahue and employed Michael Savage is now a liberal hotbed? I guess these are the new right-wing talking points. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Carlson Tucker? The guy who called Canadians as retarded cousins... Docku (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Chris Matthews is a huge liberal? Seriously? Assuming that laughable notion was the case, the presence of one or two "huge liberals" does not make an entire network tilt left, especially one that has employed the likes of Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Alan Keyes, and Michael Savage.  There simply is no equivalence to Fox, and imagining it to be the case doesn't make it so. Gamaliel (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I say keep it in.  Any reader that sees that will realize that the criticism is directed from the extreme left and realize how rediculous the statement is, especially since the most recent surveys show that FNC has been the most balanced with regards to the 2008 presidential election.  Arzel (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "exclusively" conservative? 

message: "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
(NBC) -  3 million viewers
The Factor - (FNC) - N/A  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.219.159 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it doesnt belong here. Second, do you have any reliable reference? Docku (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: For God's sake; Olberman (for example) and others are on vacation too. So why not taking a break till they're all back? --Floridianed (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's not be ridiculous. --Floridianed (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we arguing about Olbermann statistics on the Fox News talk page? Let's keep this page for discussion on the content of the Fox News Channel article. Our position shouldn't be to continue the debate between both television personalities. NcSchu(Talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! So let's close this discussion here if nobody minds. --Floridianed (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olbermann wins large audience 

message: How can something like that be said in the lead when there is no agreement to that opinion. Fox is certainly more conservative than the other networks, but they are not conservative relative to the American population, only to the other networks. Verwoerd (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the FAQ will help explain things.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the lead does not say FNC is conservative. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox news conservative? 

message: I have changed to lead. That sentence never had a "consensus". It is simply inaccurate to mention "critics and most observers". Some critics have said that Fox is moderate. To simply write critics without a modifier is wrong. 
Original:Critics and most observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting.
New: Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting. Verwoerd (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, as your changes modify the meaning of the statement.  Beyond that, this has been repeatedly decided by a wide consensus over a number of years.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who put "most observers" in the lead, that certainly does not have a consensus.  I believe the consensus was "some observers". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in lead 

message: I was browsing this article for information about FNC's ratings and came across a line under Ratings - "For the year 2007, Fox News was the number one rated cable news network. It was down 1 percent in total daily viewers and down three percent in the 25-54 year old demographic. In comparison, CNN was up one percent and three percent, respectively. Fox News finished 2007 as #6 rated overall cable network.[34]"  Well, needless to say, I was wondering why a comparison was made between FNC and another Broadcasting News Network and then the information on FNC's ratings out of ALL cable network stations.  So, I went to the 34th source on the article and found that FNC was indeed still ahead of all Cable News Stations in 2007.  So, I was just wondering why the comparison was made between the two news corps., and then the information given on FNC's ratings out of all networks listed right afterwards.  I felt as if it was giving a false sense of CNN being ahead of FNC - even though the article clearly states differently - just thought I'd throw this info. on the Talk page so it can be deliberated upon. 74.244.29.221 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I really understand your reading of the statement. It shows FNC's change in ratings and compares it to what is arguably the other large news network and then it broadens the criteria to include all cable channels. I don't see how it makes it sound like CNN is ahead in ratings of FNC; it merely states they had a raise in viewers whereas FNC had a decline. NcSchu(Talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe the comparison was made due to this sentence in the lead: In the United States, Fox News Channel is rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers, although CNN retains a larger number of unique viewers.  In the section on ratings it appears that there was an attempt to delve into the relationship between the two organizations mentioned in the lead.  I've never understood why the distinction was made in the lead, but with all the other battles on this article, it never really got discussed.  Also I wonder if the information is still correct or does it need to be updated as we are almost now in the second half of 2008, and the information is from 2007. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2007 ratings were reported on January 2008 as per the reference. I dont know if it needs an update unless there is an interim ratings report somewhere. Furthermore, the comparison with CNN makes no sense and it can be removed. It may have been an attempt to diminish the significance of high FOX news ratings.DockHi 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should make it clear however, as I didn't address this in my response, that I do agree that the mention of CNN does seem a bit random and awkward. NcSchu(Talk) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I removed it. Now, the article still sounds still a little bit obscure because it doesnt say 1 percent down from when (though I assume year 2006). Also, I am not sure how statistically significant is 1 and 3% to be mentioned here. DockHi 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume 2006 as well, but it's interesting the link doesn't actually say, as that can make a difference in statistics. 1% and 3% changes all depend on the size of the viewing audience I would think, but I don't think we're really in a position to judge that significance. NcSchu(Talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Nice perspective, a little confusion. boy, dont you know so much (including ratings used for ad rate). Do you work there or what? (just kidding :)) DockHi 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Closest to working there was that I was a Neilson Viewer once.  Discovery Channel got a huge boost those couple of weeks.  :)  Arzel (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There has been some spirited discussion regarding the ratings over the years; most of the established editors of the page are all too familiar with the situation.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings