Talk:Fox News/Archive 13

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: the columbia journalism review points out (quotes and link below) that fox's format - largely 'non-news' is different from cnn,msnbc, and (i suggest) this makes the anchor/moderator/guest's personal stance more important as opposed to those   on the other networks. the article itself is dated ('98). is there anything new on this? have other networks, for instance also changed format's more in line with fnc? -- Doldrums 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The UCLA/ADA study is a rather bizarre one to cite.  It has serious problems with credibility as it strangely "scores" groups opinions based on how often they are cited.  For example, "the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely."  and the "American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger."  Citing this rather marginal study in an effort to show that Fox is somehow not biased, loses credibility.  --Bigdavediode 01:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FNC's format significant? 

message: NOTE: __this is an inline comment__
Fox faces criticism that its reporting is systematically biased and that its editorial line and commentary is conservative or right-wing. Fox and __it's supporters__ deny this and assert that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. 
__Note about organisation of section: allegations first, rebuttals later__
Criticism of Fox is based on __some blurb required__
=== Ownership, Management and Talent/Personnel ===
Fox's owner, Robert Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. The CEO Roger Ailes' past activities include working for Republican Party, Presidents__(Campaigns?)__ and right-wing media projects. A number of Fox News Channel's anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several 
others are considered such by __who? the channel's critics?__.
=== Reporting and Editorial Line ===
Fox's format has a __far?__ larger share of commentary over 'hard news'; than cnn or msnbc. Critics allege the commentary is largely biased, that this format brings out the personal biases of the on-air talent to a greater degree. Fox is also accused of blurring the lines between news and commentary. All this brings into question Fox's  claim and self-promotion 
that it offers "Fair and Balanced" coverage and "We Report, You Decide". 
In the documentary film Outfoxed, former employees of Fox claim that management exercise editorial control over the channels content and that the channel practises systematic slanting of its news and commentary to present views that toe the mangement's line. They present Copies of Memos from Fox executive John Moody to substantiate their claim. 
Apart from broad policies and practises, individual stories covered by fox have been pointed out as example of bias and misreporting.
* Fox has supported the War on Iraq in its editorial line, along wth all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide. 
* Fox and the New York Post, both Murdoch-owned, were the only major news organisation to heed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's request to use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber". __Similarly Operation Iraqi Freedom? bbc called it iraq war, al jazeera called it an invasion, i think ...__
* In October 2004, Fox published a news article by Carl Cameron, its chief political correspondent, containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Fox later withdrew the article, apologised and stated that it "reprimanded" Carlson.  
* Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that a Fox News opinion piece by  John Gibson had breached the Programme Code (which sets out editorial standards for commercial television services in the UK) in three areas: "respect for truth," "opportunity to take part," and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence." 
* John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a Fox news consultant who 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, in the 2000 Presidential election. 
=== Media Studies and Watchdog Groups ===
A study published in Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to  hold misperceptions such as "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda", "Since the war with Iraq ended, the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" and "the majority of people [in the world] favour the U.S. having gone to war". Strikingly, Fox viewers were unique in that thier likelyhood of holding these misperceptions increased slightly with the attention they paid to watching news.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.
now for some xplanation
# somebody has to do the thankles job of defending fox. i feel that separating the allegations and rebuttals makes for a better case, rather than listing individual charges and following it with a rebuttal. (for one thing, it makes the allegers case more believable ;))
#i do think that the entire section shld be drastically shortened, and a separate article created for this section, which can mention the often tedious details (eg. Clyde Dormouse is conservative bcoz he appeared on Teletubbies, said "Hot diggity doo" at the Hickster's Convention in '68, and is also closely involved with Ed Pussycat's Needlepoint Project". "No, he's not, 'coz he ..." ). the version i've written is not much shorter, but if some kind of agreement on wording is reached, then most of the details which are currently present only substantiate one view or other can be eliminated in the short version.
#all the takes on fox's slogans can be put together in one place, it's all  more or less name-calling
#i've left out the sources right now. most of the info and characterisation is sourced from sources already cites in the article, plus the columbia journal review article i'd cited earlier. if anyone has an urgent need to look at any particular source, she needs to ask. i'm planning to put up a cleaned up version with citations sometime soon. 
some xplanations abt my edits
#re. WXYZ affiliate case, The appeal decision that is linked to in the article states that the court found against akre and wilson on all counts, except the whistleblower claim. so i think this needs further scrutiny bfor being accepted as an alleged instance of bias/wrongdoing on fox. 
#i have left out the part abt john prescott ellis being in touch with bush ... etc, since it does not appear to be relevant to whether fox is biased or not. 
#the Program on International Policy Attitudes study on misperceptions ... states "a modest in increase in likelihood ..." and  think 'slight' is a better than 'moderate' to describe 'modest'.
#FAIR appears to have conducted a number of studies (same study over the years?)of guests on fox shows, and i think they need to be put together to be added to the media studies and watchdog subsection.
#apologies for the __bad__ comment notation. dunno what i was thinking.
-- Doldrums 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a (proto-)rewritten Bias section 

message: A study published in Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to  hold misperceptions such as "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda", "Since the war with Iraq ended, the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" and "the majority of people [in the world] favour the U.S. having gone to war". Strikingly, Fox viewers were unique in that thier likelyhood of holding these misperceptions increased slightly with the attention they paid to watching news.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.
</blockquote>
now for some xplanation
# somebody has to do the thankles job of defending fox. i feel that separating the allegations and rebuttals makes for a better case, rather than listing individual charges and following it with a rebuttal. (for one thing, it makes the allegers case more believable ;))
#i do think that the entire section shld be drastically shortened, and a separate article created for this section, which can mention the often tedious details (eg. Clyde Dormouse is conservative bcoz he appeared on Teletubbies, said "Hot diggity doo" at the Hickster's Convention in '68, and is also closely involved with Ed Pussycat's Needlepoint Project". "No, he's not, 'coz he ..." ). the version i've written is not much shorter, but if some kind of agreement on wording is reached, then most of the details which are currently present only substantiate one view or other can be eliminated in the short version.
#all the takes on fox's slogans can be put together in one place, it's all  more or less name-calling
#i've left out the sources right now. most of the info and characterisation is sourced from sources already cites in the article, plus the columbia journal review article i'd cited earlier. if anyone has an urgent need to look at any particular source, she needs to ask. i'm planning to put up a cleaned up version with citations sometime soon. 
some xplanations abt my edits
#re. WXYZ affiliate case, The appeal decision that is linked to in the article states that the court found against akre and wilson on all counts, except the whistleblower claim. so i think this needs further scrutiny bfor being accepted as an alleged instance of bias/wrongdoing on fox. 
#i have left out the part abt john prescott ellis being in touch with bush ... etc, since it does not appear to be relevant to whether fox is biased or not. 
#the Program on International Policy Attitudes study on misperceptions ... states "a modest in increase in likelihood ..." and  think 'slight' is a better than 'moderate' to describe 'modest'.
#FAIR appears to have conducted a number of studies (same study over the years?)of guests on fox shows, and i think they need to be put together to be added to the media studies and watchdog subsection.
#apologies for the __bad__ comment notation. dunno what i was thinking.
-- Doldrums 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Studies and Watchdog Groups 

message: For some reason, the article critizes Ailes for confusing a Fox affiliate with the Fox News Channel, yet two sections allege that Fox News is biased, and that evidence is backed up with events dealing with Fox affiliates. Why the obvious bias and hypocrisy in the article?  --Avonsf 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypocrisy is on Ailes' part, not this article's.  Past editors included Ailes' "response to criticism" in interest of NPOV, a statement in which he claims the actions of Fox affiliates as Fox News'.  Ailes cannot claim the actions of Fox affiliates as his own only when it reflects "balance" upon the network.  Fox News cannot denounce Outfoxed due to its coverage of affiliate actions while also claiming other affiliate actions as their own. Shem(talk) 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the article critices Ailes for trying to link Fox affiliates and FNC, yet the same criticism isn't not present in the sections where Fox affiliates are used to attack FNC (the section on Outfoxed until recently added, and WTVT). Also, FNC's criticism toward didn't just have to do with the use of affiliates, it's the fact that Greenwald lied and tried to pass off those affiliate workers as "Fox News Channel" employees. --Avonsf 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in article 

message: Could the person who keeps posting the NPOV tag at least tell us whether he thinks that the POV is left or right wing? Do they think it is inaccurate to describe Fox as a 'news station' rather than a 'facist propaganda outlet' or would they like the phrase 'anti-american communist sympathizers' to be added in front of the word critics? --Gorgonzilla 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV revert war 

message: It looks as if the most likely explanation for the ratings collapse is that the ratings were fake all along. Under the diary scheme there were plenty of angry poor white males who would say they watch Fox when they don't. NPR and Air America see a similar effect. In the early days of Air America they were outperforming O'Reily in places where they didn't have a station. So now Neilsen has moved to electronic monitoring and use of Tivo etc. The bubble ratings are collapsing. So the recent declines of up to 60% in Fox ratings is probably not going to be a trend. I found a citation in BusinessWeek but I have not seen an editorial on the ratings now they are out. So can't put that in the article yet under no original research. But I would expect Fox themselves to be making the same argument sometime, well unless they succeed in getting a bill passed to prohibit the new methods of measuring ratings. Incidentally the rate card for Fox has always suggested that the advertisers suspect something of the sort is going on. --Gorgonzilla 00:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: The correct title of this should be FOX News, not Fox News. FOX is a network. The news channel connected to it is FOX News. We don't write Cbs News, or Abc News. If this page were moved, there would be many double redirects that would need fixed. Any thoughts? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The network's name is "FOX", not "Fox". I'm not sure if it matters if it an acronym or not. Any respectable publication writes it as FOX, not Fox. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move 

message: I do like Fox News. Their  bias is off the chain! But I still like watching it! It's entertaining! I mean what channel can brag more than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News combined for their  primetime line-up! Right after CNN beated the Fox News in the coverage of the  two  major hurricanes, Fox decided to prove that they still are the #1 in primetime. Oh what happen to the first half of the day? Did Fox News replace David Asman with Bill Hemmer? Did Linda Vester get replaced with Juliet Huddy? Did Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity get more louder since President Bush's rating plummet down once again? Does Fox need to be a little more fair and balanced?  LILVOKA
:What? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blah, Blah, Blah... Fox News Is Still The Here 

message: I'm sure it's been addressed before, however there really should be a split in articles - one pertaining to the FOX News Channel (cable channel) and the other being FOX News (local affiliates), as they are separate divisions, headed by different personnel, and are very unique in terms of content.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this article is mostly about the FOX News Channel. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'FOX News Channel' and 'FOX News' separated 

message: So...how far are we here on the to-do list? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkup 

message: Right now www.foxnews.com is carrying GREENPEACE advertisements that protest against Kimberley-Clark treeloggings. Is the hell freezing over or the treehuggers obtained mind control devices to brainwash oil-neocon cabal?
:Few things: 1) Fox is run by capitalists... they run ads for who is willing to pay. 2) TINONC. 8^) --LV (Dark Mark) 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hell freezes over: Fox worried about trees 

message: I can't imagine how long you liberals have slaved over this article. 
The amount of schemeing and weaseling to make it pejorative is unbelieveable. 
Every possible angle has been added to make Fox news look horrible.  
Way to go.
Another wikipedia triumph!--Capsela 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a little bit strange, especially because of the fact that the Dutch article, which i've created, has never dealt with any vandalism or POV pushers and is now even a featured article. Geograaf 15:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be due more to this being an American Institution that many Americans have strong feelings toward. Either that, or you might just not recognise POV pushes within the Dutch article. ;-) Congrats on the Featured Article, BTW. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sickening 

message: wow, just wow.  I made a few changes, but this article still has major POV problems.  compare this article to the CNN article and it is night and day.  someone needs to do some serious work here.  could the controversies and bias section possibly be any bigger?  it's worth noting in an encyclopedia that one reporter gave a "soft interview" to Rush Limbaugh?  wow, and Larry King has never given a soft interview in his career?  not sure how that is a controversy.  this article is laughable in just about every way.  RonMexico 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: --LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that if I remove 3/4 of the bias section I'd get attacked — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: point taken.  i already made some changes.  if people think what i did was okay then maybe in a few days i will do a little more.  i am still relatively new here and wikipedia has gotten in trouble lately, so i want to be careful not to overstep my bounds or put in things that people think are wrong.  for now i'll see if my current changes withstand scrutiny.  RonMexico 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have been trying to say this for 2 years! The bias section can not be 1/3 of the article!!! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Would it be possible to create a separate article detailing the various controversies surrounding Fox? Or would the mere existence of such an article be POV? I'm just asking, but one has to admit that there has been a rather large amount of criticism leveled against the network, and it should probably be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Similar articles could be made regarding the other major news networks as well if necessary. Just a thought. Thebogusman 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well doing that is probably against the forking policy and the NPOV policy. I would say simply cut down the criticism to the big important stuff. It does need a mention here though. I don't know if a separate article would be good. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: will do.  I'm working on it today(slow day at work).  RonMexico 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Similar articles would have to be made for the other networks in order for it to not be a POV violation. That's been the biggest problem with the FNC entry all along: Accusations of conservative bias are considered so important that its discussion is allowed to be the biggest part of this article, yet the entries for other networks do not even contain a single mention of accusations of liberal bias (except the CNN page, which has one tightly-written, concise section). That makes no logical sense in a country where the public overwhelmingly sees a liberal bias in the news media. Anyway: Ron, you're really doing yeoman's work here. Every edit you've made so far has been exactly what this article needs to get closer to a true NPOV. Thank you for taking it on, and I hope your changes last. Aaron 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might seem illogical, but you must realise that Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, is also a medium that could be biased. :-) Editors here may have their own bias they have included within WP. But to really study POV here on WP, you would need an overarching, independent study over a wide variety of articles. Well, I am off to NOT do a grand study on Wikipedia. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps some of the info could be incorporated into the article media bias in the United States and removed from here. Thebogusman 17:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  was this article written by Ted Turner? 

message: I think the time has come to end the redirect of "Fox News" to "Fox News Channel". Fox News is expanding; they have a rapidly-growing talk radio network, now offer a full radio news service, and are expanding their reach into broadcast television ("Geraldo at Large" airs only on broadcast TV stations). All of these subjects deserve inclusion on Wikipedia, but none of them truly belong on a page about the cable news channel. Thoughts? Aaron 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. Thebogusman 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Fox News from Fox News Channel 

message: I understand there is alot of controversy on this topic, though I'm not sure why.  The answer is simple.  If you were writing a research paper, you would want your statements to be factual and supported by sources.  If you were to demonstrate a persons viewpoint, you would have to provide direct quotes from that person to establish an argument for that persons POV or why that person did something.  And IF you decided to put forth some editorial content (which is fine) you would place it in the appropriate categories.  History is not an appropriate category to editorialize.
The following line in History should be removed or moved to a more appropriate topic:
"Rupert Murdoch established Fox News to counter a news media that he claimed was predominantly liberal.[2]"'''
First of all, the source cited does not in any way support the statement.  Just on the face of that one could say the statement is fabricated.  That doesn't mean that it isn't true, but merely an opinion as presented.  There are other appropiate categories that the statement could be placed under but it should also have correct citations to actual quotes from Murdoch.  Or it could be rephrased to to show a POV of a segment of the public and placed in an appropriate topic like Controversy.
:Who is having this conversation? Please sign your posts; otherwise it's almost impossible to tell who's talking and where one comment stops and the next comment begins. --Aaron 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straightforward removals 

message: Someone please remove the comments for the ratings section and can we please discuss this on this page? —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't use HTML comments to talk 

message: I don't believe Ann Coulter ever worked for FNC. She was added to the personality list and removed, and now she's under "Former Personalities." 
Did she just recently join and leave the network or did someone add her to make them seem more conservative?
71.100.36.139 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I can't find any evidence she's ever been employed by Fox. I'll pull it. --Aaron 04:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter? 

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the Ratings section:
News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, has campaigned against plans by Nielsen to change the method used to compile ratings from the traditional 'diary' method to the electronic 'people meter'. A longstanding criticism of the diary method of compiling ratings is that consumers may misrepresent their viewing behavior in order to 'vote' for prefered programming such as PBS or Fox News. A grassroots campaign financed and organized by Fox, Don't Count Us Out has alleged that the new method of compiling ratings is biased against minority viewers pointing to dramatic falls in the viewing figures of network TV programs aimed at minority audiences. Supporters of Nielsen, including Jesse Jackson, have noted that the Nielsen sample actually over-represents minority viewers and that the dramatic falls in viewing of broadcast programming are matched by a rise in the ratings for cable programming, in particular Black Entertainment Television 
This may belong on the Nielsen page, but it has no direct relevance to FNC. --Aaron 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Don't Count Us Out" removed 

message: Well an IP added this. I listened to it. I am not sure if he is admitting that FOX news is right wing or he says that NBC thinks FOX news is right wing. I have a feeling that the latter is more correct. In either case, I feel that it may be taken off the site soon, if anyone wants to listen, there you go. DockuHi 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was speaking from the perspective of NBC. NcSchu(Talk) 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O Reilly admission??