Talk:Fox News/Archive 14

message: I noticed this talk page had gotten more than twice as large as Wikipedia's suggested 32K limit, so I've created Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_13 and moved most of the material to that page. I believe I left on this page everything that's had any activity in the last few days. If anyone has an objection to a section I moved, just say so and I'll put it back over here for further discussion. --Aaron 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_13|Archive 13]] created 

message: The following paragraph was removed:
From the beginning, Fox News has had a heavy emphasis on the visual presentation of news. Graphics were designed to be colorful and attention grabbing, and to allow people to get the main points of what was being said even if they couldn't hear the host, through the use of on-screen text summarizing the position of the interviewer or speaker, and "bullet points" when a host was giving commentary. The network differentiated commentary from interviews with a constant graphic reading "COMMENTARY" during features such as Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo. Fox News also created the Fox News Alert, which interrupted regular programming when a breaking news story occured. Each News Alert was designed to be attention catching with a swooshing graphic filling the screen and a piercing chime instead of the regular news music. At the beginning of FNC, the Fox News Alert was used fairly rarely, giving the chime more cachet, but currently it is used regularly to announce scheduled events or repeat existing news instead of only breaking news stories, with Fox News Alerts sometimes several times each hour instead of just a few times a day. Fox News was also the first network to put up the American flag after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a feature in the upper left hand corner that has persisted to this day.
It was put back in the article. The snide comment about what other networks do actually rings hollow because CNN and Headline News have for years been simulcast over radio. Compare the visual elements of, for instance, The O'Reilly Factor (talking points displayed on screen, video clips interspersed) with Larry King Live, which is basically a radio show transposed to television. Calwatch 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was deleted, and it gets thrown back in again. The visual element to Fox is important in understanding how Fox got so popular.  If you disagree, please discuss, or edit, but don't delete. Calwatch 08:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News Alert 

message: I take it Wikipedia isn't meant to only hold an American point of view. The biggest criticism of all regarding American news media lately has to do with the 'dumbing down' of news presentation and analysis...The entry should reflect some of that criticism. Also, the 'Fox Effect' and the "outfox fox news" ideas have yet to be presented here. I'm considering adding all that information. What do you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs) 20:22, January 9, 2006.
::It's not meant to have your POV either--Capitalister 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please not more content for the criticism sections - the edit discussions on that are just unbearable. Trödel•talk 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-war Intelligence Coverage 

message: If you posit the anonymous posts all came from the same source then obviously all but one of the anonymous IPs were proxies. Obviously that person is at ...137 (aren't you?).  Hence, the "on his talk page" reference is a total non-starter.  Also, the article with debated material was 38K, 27K without it.  Nine divided by 38 is 23 and some change.  Meaning 23% of the older article was devoted to allegations of bias. That's a lot (though whoever called it 45% risked WikiCredibility in my book). Finally, if any of you seriously wanted to bring the article back down to an acceptable size without losing anything especially valuable, you could have removed all that extraneous New Zealand, U.K. and Brazil stuff at the bottom of the article.  I think it's apparent everyone here is being motivated by personal politics.
HOWEVER...
Although I initially reverted, I've given it thought and have concluded the fork is the best solution.  I tend to agree with the overall idea of splitting off into a new article.
It works for both political bents. Yes, I'm acknowledging everyone's bias here. If you're a Fox News "friend," you can rest easy the main article on Fox isn't 24% polluted with accusations of bias.  And if you're a Fox news "fiend" you can now enrich an article strictly built to house accusations of bias (so long as the material is cited, obviously).
Count it now as seven.  I've reverted back to the "consensus" version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keglined (talk • contribs) .
:Thank you. That was basically my reasoning in the beginning. Glad to see you agree now. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First, some notes: 

message: I notice that there appears to be some personal attacks between users on here.  Let me make this clear; personally attacking/insulting another user can get you blocked from Wikipedia. I am aware that this talk page is controversial, but that is not and never will be an excuse to insult people.  Please be careful.  And please remember, when you use a talk page, Sign Your Comments using 4 tildes (~).  We need to keep track of who says what, and when! Thor Malmjursson 03:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Attacks 

message: One of the minor problems on this article is that information pretaining to some shows is very shallow to nearly nothing at all, if existant at all. One such example would include "On The Record", which does absolutely nothing but link right back to the FNC page, giving no real information about the show itself other than a short description here. In addition, no weekend programming is included in the programming block, leaving out some of FOX's signature weekends shows, such as Weekend Live w/ Tony Snow (SAT) & Brian Wilson (SUN), The Big Story Weekend, The Beltway Boys, FOX News Watch, Heartland, War Stories w/ Oliver North, The LineUp, & Big Story Primetime (all of the Big Stories could probabily be added to the original big story article). Overall, a gap which should be filled 
Chris 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content : Shows 

message: Translation from FOXese to English, how exactly is conservative POV? Does FOX even make efforts to make their politcal stance ambiguous? NO, so why is being removed?--64.12.116.133 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Too late, you're little POV fest is over, the article has been nominated for semi-protection, do it again and your edits will be considered vandalism!--Capitalister 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain, please 

message: I feel that this is clearly small and fairly innocuous, due to the existence of the seperate article. However, I also think that it really ought to mention that the channel has had so much more allegations than others. This is not an attempt to discuss the accuracy of the allegations, but to emphasise their frequency. Thoughts as to how this cold be done? Robdurbar 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think we should confuse quantity with quality. There are think tanks out there where people are literally paid to attack FNC 24 hours a day, so it's hard to take most of it seriously. But if you want to propose a rewrite of that paragraph, give it a shot. --Aaron 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and it got reverted quite quickly, hence me wanting to discuss the change here. My point is relate to exactly what you said above. The regularity and amount of allegations is notable and worth a mention, whether these are valid or not. I would like to introudce this to the article, but accept that it would be difficult to do this in a politcally neutral way. My current thinking would be along the lines of: Since its conception, the channel has been among one of the most heavily criticised media associations for its supposed political bias. However, their motto is 'Fair and Balanced' and Fox News reject all alegations of bias. This is a bit more meaty than the current weasely statement in the article. Robdurbar 16:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might want to tinker with the wording a bit, but in general I personally wouldn't have a problem with such a statement. --Aaron 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: one would think.  it's weird, i think a couple of them maybe work for cnn?  i have no clue the need for amib and others to constantly vandalize/edit here.  RonMexico 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't expect much from you Mexico, but at least be original. I've voiced my suspicion that you're an employee of Fox News ages ago. Come up with something original. Maybe accuse us of being terrorists or something. I'm just a fair and balanced concerned citizen who fears the skewed presentations of the major news networks have caused the mediocre American people to develop a false image of the world and their place in it. I fear the people have digested poisonous political propaganda, thinking that the sweet crap they ingested was actually news. For all the allegations of treason that come out of right wing mouthpieces, the true treason, in my opinion, is when journalists cunningly twist their reporting of events to support a particular political philosophy or political party. It's true when it's done to support conservative causes, it's true when it's done for liberal ones. Fox News is more guilty of that than most other networks, and you'd have to either be outstandingly dumb or somewhat financially compensated to not see that. That's not to say I'm a fan of liberal talking heads either, I'm not. Amibidhrohi 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations Section 

message: The criticism of Fox news is that it is a propaganda arm of the GOP. That is a very widely circulated and held criticism that virtually everyone on the left considers to be fact. The failure to mention this criticism in the article and the refusal to even provide a summary of the criticism that has been eliminated from this article makes it POV. It also appears to be EBMF - Edited by marketing flacks. This highlights a problem with Wikipedia, Fox News are certainly going to have a greater determination to keep criticism out of this article than neutral editors are to ensure it remains in. --Gorgonzilla 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that people editing here work for Fox News? If so, when do I get my check? I'm just a little confused. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To even say "Widely circulated and held criticsm," in and of itself is POV, lest you can demonstrate otherwise... Mhking 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: agree with MhKing.  gorgonzilla's paragraph is POV. where is your evidence that this criticism is held by "virtually everyone" on the left?  some people on the left-wing sites mediamatters.org, outfoxed and a couple others make the complaint of a conservative bias and these complaints have an article(controversies and bias).  this column should be devoted to facts.  there was a big debate about this, and people agreed at the time to create a separate article.  ETA: not to mention, the article DOES mention the criticism, so i'm not even sure what gorgonzilla is talking about.  RonMexico 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV doesn't apply to talk page entries. Nobody who bothered editing these topics do so without some pre-concieved biases. The obligation is to put those biases and opinions aside when editing the article. Quit complaining. As long as the edits to the actual article are as NPOV as possible, it's all gravy. Amibidhrohi 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will repeat what I wrote in my edit summary when I reverted Gorgonzilla's graf: I didn't pull it because it was POV, I pulled it because it was written in a way that directly violates WP:WEASEL. However, Mhking and RonMexico are correct in that it was a WP:NPOV violation as well. I don't think anyone here is against the very concept of that graf being edited, but you can't do it in a way that makes opinion sound like unquestionable fact. Also, on issues of ideology it's irrelevant how many people believe something to be true; it will always be a mere opinion regardless. Anyway, since nobody is stopping Gorgonzilla from adding to this page so long as it's factual and NPOV, and because it's only one section that's in question instead of the entire page, I'm pulling the  tag. BTW, Gorgonzilla, you're never going to be able to call FNC a "propaganda outlet" in this article. The term "propaganda" has a very specific meaning, and it's an accusation that is both unprovable and libelous. --Aaron 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just rolled in from the request for outside opinions posted at the Pump. That is a very widely circulated and held criticism that virtually everyone on the left considers to be fact. Lots of folks consider creationism to be a fact, but that doesn't make it one, and of course, the "virtually everyone" bit is absurd. The statement "Fox News is the propaganda wing of the GOP" is unverifiable and POV, and it violates the Wikipedia is not a soapbox restriction. After a scan of the logs, it appears that the reversions were appropriate. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To add my twopence - I would remove that extra criticism from the sub section, but introduce a sentence to the introduction, relfecting the criticism. There is a sub article so further expansion of the paragraph under the controversies title is not necessary; but the allegations are so well known and wide spread as to be deserving of a mention in the intro. Robdurbar 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Propaganda arm of the GOP" is POV. Way to push the self destruct button on your own argument in the first sentence. Haizum 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, discussion pages do not have to be NPOV.  If it was entered into the article, however, then a cite would almost certainly be required.  However, from my own experience from people I have talked to, Fox is perceived as little more than a mouthpiece of the Republican party.  I think a cite to that effect that people believe this would not be difficult to provide.  However, it is clear that the article has had almost all criticism removed and put hidden in a marginalized article.  The article fails to report any of the controversies about bias that Fox has had.  --24.87.32.64 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitting the propaganda allegation is POV 

message: Cite sources!  Avoid blogs!
For example, I remember a news story about Rupert Murdoch sending a memo dictating what reporters at Fox should report.  Find a news story in a major newspaper about that memo.  Quote the story and list the source.
I remember a report that people who watch Fox news are less informed than people who get their news from other sources.  Find a news story in a major newspaper about that report.  Quote the story and list the source.
:Anyone who cannot find that citation isn't looking very hard - one such source is PIPA http://www.pipa.org/ here is a direct link to the study http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf - it found that 80% of Fox News held misperceptions while only 23% of NPR/PBS viewers did - the other seven networks were spread between   perhaps i should log in an add this to the main article  65.125.133.211 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should additionally add that it was found that support for the war, and the administrations policies, were directly correlated with the number of misperceptions held, and that republicans were far more likely to hold these misperceptions that democrats.
In short, do your homework.  It is lazy and sloppy writing to say, "Somebody says..." or "Many people say..." or "People believe..."  
The truth is out there!
Rick Norwood 23:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So fix it. If there are rebuttals to the allegations, add them. I'm removing the POV tag until you demonstrate some willingness to correct anything wrong with the articles. Otherwise, it will appear as if you simply resent that these facts are being presented at all. If the points added to the entry are factual, they should remain. That isn't POV, that's accuracy.  Amibidhrohi 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please define "ridiculously POV," in terms of your suggestion...Mhking 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to avoid POV and weasel words 

message: Why are there so many to begin with? (and why add more?) Mhking 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Link is progressively deleted since it doesn't work! I will fix the link to work properly since I just found it via. Google. Please, if you are going to add something, make sure it is tryped properly! Also, please place this in the bias/controversies page, the link is not even an informative point towards the channel, just an utterly pointless website compared to the Faux logo and Faux News links. Chris 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Fox links 

message: I propose we put this article up for AfD. It's never going to amount to anything, and it's just a playground for political POV. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The article is on a valid topic for Wikipedia. I believe the article can amount to something. Being a "playground for political POV" is not a good reason to delete the article as their are many article on highly controversial entities like FNC is, the present large amounts of back and forth support and criticism. Obviously, the highly controversial nature of FNC means that the article will unlikely never satisfy everyone with regard to NPOV but that is no reason to delete. --Cab88 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 April 2006 (UTC) ... anyways, obviously I think this article should be kept. I think it could use a Peer Review or something. Anyone else? — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, dude, you totally got me. I thought "this is the sort of hing some anon troll would say", and then I was like, "wait a second, why on earth is freaking Illyanep saying this?" and I thought it was weird, maybe the Wiki-frustration. Now it makes so much more sense. Dude. Totally got fooled. At least I didn't respond to it... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. Well now that our fun is over I guess it's time to get back to work :D — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: In the section on the Fox News Website, someone claimed that Fox News occasionally provide a linked to the GOP's main website, though no references for such a claim where provided. Someone else added the claim they also have linked to the Democratic Party's main website, again no references provided. As such I have moved the following to the talk page until proof of either or both party having had links to them on the FN website. 
:Occasionally, the FOX News website will feature an Internet link to both the GOP.com, the official website of the Republican Party, and the Democrat Party's democrats.org.
Also, I think that unless one party's website link is favored over another by the FN website then it really isn't that noteworthy. --Cab88 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to links to Repub. and Dem. websites on the FN website 

message: Some examples of leaders Fox News have criticized recently
*Hugo Chavez
*Vicente Fox Quesada
*Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
*Fidel Castro
I was just wondering seeing that if Iran is creating controversy about their nuclear program, and Fox News labeled, Prsident Ahmadinejad as a threat to America, is that country prohibited from using Fox News? LILVOKA 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Fox News banned in some countries since they criticize foreign leaders 

message: "Ailes, often agitated and verbally abusive..."
Have we got any sources for this, or are we just adding bits like this as cheap shots?
Perrymason 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  little NPOV attacks [on Ailes] 

message: Would anyone object to removing the term 'subscriber' at the start of the article as it gives the impression that 85 million people in the US specifically request to subscribe to fox news when this is not the case. Maybe that it is accessible to 85 million people would be a fair compromise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by   Liam1234 (talk • contribs)  20:25, May 6, 2006
:I think this is ok, as this is comparable to the language used in CNN.  However, I think the edit as it stands may be incorrect.  I think the 85 million figure refers to households, not to individual people.  By way of comparison, the CNN article claims that CNN is available to 88 million households, and my guess is that Fox and CNN would be available in roughly the same numbers.  I'll check on this to be sure. --Deville (Talk) 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscribers 

message: Murcdoch owns the London Times and the Sun. The circulation of the Sun is many times that of the London Times but nobody would ever describe the Sun as the Leading UK newspaper except a Sun journalist. The Telegraph has a larger circulation than the Guardian, Times and Independent, yet anyone following the UK political scene knows that those three (plus the Economist) are the leading UK newspapers. The term leading means that there are followers. The only follower of Fox is Air America. So the use of the definite article in the introduction is subjective not objective. --Gorgonzilla 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading 

message: The following text, which I just removed from the entry, was in the section on ratings:
In the Introduction written in 2004 to the new edition of her 2002 book, New Nuclear Danger (publisher: New Press), the Nobel Prize nominee and author Dr. Helen Caldicot claims on page xvi of that 2004 Introduction that Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News, has in the past helped with "[p]reprations for the second U.S. Iraq invasion (the first invasion had taken place in 1991) [which] were started in 1992 by a small group of 'defense intellectuals'...  [who] began to publish a series of letters in The Weekly Standard [also owned by Murdoch] calling for another U.S. invation of Iraq, as well as advocating support of Israel's campaign against the Palestinians and warning about the rising power of China."
I'm not sure this should even be in the article at all, but it certainly shouldn't be in the section on ratings as it has nothing to do with them.  Suggestions?  Lawyer2b 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with this? 

message: So it occurs to me that as of now, given the recent deletions, the section entitled "Controversies and allegations of bias" now has exactly zero sources in it.  And, frankly, most of what is in this section is more polemic than statement, and it seems unlikely that much of this content would stay once we had the section NPOV.  What should we do here?  I'm sort of tempted to remove this section entirely and start over, but I wanted to hear other thoughts on this. --Deville (Talk) 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about trying to summarize the Controversies and allegations subarticle? Be sure to include Fox's response to the allegations of conservative bias and academic studies both pro and con on bias (the Groseclose study, also [Fox News and voting http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/pdf/sdellavigna.pdf]). If you don't want to write it, I will take a stab at it this weekend. Calwatch 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What the heck happened? I come back two days later...and everything's gone. 71.131.3.45 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've figured it was Amibidhrohi, who has a history, who deleted the "Rebuttal of Bias" portion (along with the "Claims of Conservative Bias" header). I'm going to un-delete them. This is actually getting really, really ridiculous. After I un-delete them, feel free to modify the section any way you think works best objectively. 71.131.3.45 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: Earlier this month, the "This article may need to be cleaned up" tag appeared to be added but the reason exactly is not completely known or at least I am not sure what exactly the problem with the article is at this point. For whoever added this tag, what sections do you believe need to be cleaned up other than the controversies section? Was it put up due to the inflating size? | Chris 21:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Clean-Up Tag 

message: Right now, in the new paragraph, three of the four "critics" listed as claiming Fox News is biased are comedians. I'll give Franken a pass, since he's now become a semi-serious commentator, but I don't think Stewart and Colbert belong here. They may play newscasters on their respective shows, but they're comedians; their training is in comedy.
(And interestingly, the fourth person cited, Chris Matthews, though a serious commentator, himself used to work for Democrats Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neil - somewhat undercutting the point of the paragraph).
Also, all claims made in a section as contentious as this one should be cited. Korny O'Near 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their shows aren't just comedy, they're political satire.  Jon Stewart is also well known for being a critic of traditional news sources in addition to being a comedian.  Your argument that comedians are somehow except from issuing criticism doesn't really hold up anyway. - 81.179.104.66 21:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, they criticize, and they have every right to do so, but they don't have the credibility to be cited as sources on Wikipedia. Korny O'Near 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jon Stewart's Daily Show shows provides a political review and criticism by pointing out alternative view points, providing it either in a satirical news story format or by pointing out comical points overlooked or provided by other media outlets. Yes, the show is comical in nature and most of the corospondents are comedians by trade but that doesn't mean that their opinions and the points they make are not valid or make them any less of a valid critic. The Daily Show and several of its corospondents were even awarded a Peabody award, not once, but twice for their coverage over various topics and for the political debates they brought up between 2004 and 2005. A few of the corespondents have backgrounds in political fields, as well as many of its writers. We are not talking stand up comedians or skits on Saturday night live here. My university even has a class that focuses directly on this type of journalism. --ZacBowling 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is obviously a greater point of contention than I thought it would be. It's all a bit academic at this point, though, because there are no citations for any of the critics. There really need to be examples cited for all of the supposed criticisms; I think that will clarify both how serious the criticism is, and whether it's worthy of inclusion in the overview section. Korny O'Near 14:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing comedians 

message: "A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during October, 2004 found that the public perceived Fox news as the second most politically biased news network, with 34% respondents saying they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush", leaving Fox second only to CBS, which was perceived by 37% as being biased in the wake of the memogate scandal.[1]"
so basically this is saying FNC is not the most biased, CBS is. Im pretty sure this section may as well be removed.
The whole Controversies and allegations of bias section is a mess really.
Put it all on its own page, this bit only needs to be a brief summary of complaints
:One poll in which 34% of respondents think Faux is a pile of steaming GOP propaganda is hardly a sufficient basis to eliminate all mention of Faux propaganda from the article. Nice try but any attempt to execute on it will be reverted as POV peddling --Gorgonzilla 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone calling Fox "Faux" and complaining of other editors pushing a POV. How nice. I agree that the Controversies  section has gotten out of hand, with every barely-notable critic's minor accusation getting a paragraph. It needt to be a summary of the main criticisms, and the bulk of the material moved to Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias. I'll hopefully get around to it later today. Isarig 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds like you a little ill Gorgonzilla, Isarig is right and has edited the Controversies and allegations of bias perfectly. And i will help it remain like it currently is. put all your non issues about "faux" on its own "Controversies and allegations of bias" and stop being so childish. Perrymason 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasmussen Reports in Controversies and allegations of bias 

message: Ted Turner is the CEO of a Fox competitor, who has recently been losing market share to Fox. It is expected and totaly non-notable that he would have nothing good to say about his rival. The forum in which such comments are made is irrelevant. Unlike the other criticisms in this section, which are based either on the results of public opinion polls or are from notable media critics, Turner's comments are not based on any sourced facts - they are the opinions of a compatitor. As such, they are not notable. Isarig 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted Turner addressing the National Association of Television Program Executives is not notable? Sorry, but that reasoning is flawed. It's perforce notable. A better argument would have been it's not inline with the NPOV policy. But since WP:NPOV clearly states that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly... All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one... Debates are described, represented, and characterized... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." Since Ted is a significant player in the field, including mention of it in the article is perfectly inline with the NPOV policy. So either way you cut it your objection doesn't wash with policy. I'm restoring it. FeloniousMonk 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not notable as a criticism of Fox. It is badmouthing by a competitor based on no facts. If Turner had said, at the same forum, that it is his sincere belief that the moon landing is a hoax, it would similarly not warrant mention in the Apollo 11 article. It might, marginally, warrant mention in the  [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations] article alongside the other cranks who belive in this conspiracy. Isarig 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, you need to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks - this is not about me or my opinions. Second, your edit summary says "criticism by a news magnate is news" - and I agree with this, but "News" does not equal encyclopedic worthiness. Third, you are making false claims. Turner is currently a director of AOL/TimeWarner, and was one when he made that speech. And finally, badmouthing by a competitor is never notable in and of itself - that is expected, common and trivial. Isarig 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." So what part of "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly... All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one... Debates are described, represented, and characterized... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular..." don't you understand? FeloniousMonk 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet another vioaltion of [WP:CIVIL]]. Who ever made you an admin... To the arguments: The subsection is clearly POV. I'll make it NPOV now. Isarig 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, we are talking about the "controversies" section, right? Of course it's going to present the opposing viewpoints. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to trump all of you and remind you that that except for a summary paragraph, the rest of this section (and debate) needs to be moved to the  "controversies and allegations of bias" article.  This was mentioned early on this talk page when someone correctly cited the content forking guidlines.  The controversies and bias section in the main Fox News article should be kept to about a paragraph in length summarizing the overall spin-out article, Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias.  Interestingly, this is exactly the same kind of thing that was going between  Bill O'Reilly  and  his controversies article.   Lawyer2b 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support this 100%. Go ahead and move all everything but the intro paragraph in this subsection to  the controversies and allegations of bias article - if it's not already there. Isarig 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Ironically appropriate, everyone should check out the  quite short summary paragraph at the CNN article linking to the main "controversies and allegations of bias" article.  I think it's a paragon of following the spinout guideline worthy of emulation.  Lawyer2b 04:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been some debate here as to what constitutes a reasonable summary here, so not everyone may agree with your idea of what that is. WP:POVFORK will be the guiding prinicple here. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Felonious, I think you and I are saying the same thing.  Your link WP:POVFORK and the link I cited above for how a summary paragraph should be done (content forking guidlines) are the same.  Do you agree? Lawyer2b 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a POVFORK - the subsection article already exists, and includes all the information in currently in this section. The CNN article is a good example of how these controversies are handled on WP.Isarig 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: you're welcome to that POV, but from the NPOV of an encyclopedia, they are not different. Isarig 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary very few academic media histories written accuse CNN of systematic bias. There are plenty that make the same accusation against Fox and several that dispute the allegation of systematic bias. An NPOV coverage of CNN should point out Turners own commitment to the UN and the way that this has frequently intruded on the editorial line. Another item that should probably be mentioned would be the frequency with which CNN used to do stories on fat Americans in the Jane Fonda years. But making such points without doing original research would be pretty hard, I don't know any primary sources that make those observations. There are plenty of primary sources on Fox News being propaganda. --Gorgonzilla 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. There are criticisms of Fox news, and there are (possibly different) criticisms of CNN. Both networks have a WP page, and another WP page dedicated to those criticisms. The main page for CNN has a 2-line summary of the criticism, and points you to the criticism page - which is as lenghty, if not lenghtier, than the Fox controversy page. That is as it should be here - a short summary, and a pointer to a detailed page. The criticisms of Fox on this page are not, as you claim, "academic" - they are for the most part partisan opinions from competitors, or left wing media criticism sites. The CNN controversies page has similar criticism, from some of the same sites -e.g FAIR. Isarig 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't lie or distort the truth to support your preferred course of action.  "criticism page - which is as lenghty, if not lenghtier, than the Fox controversy page."  We can clearly see that the CNN_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias is around half the size of the Fox News one. - 81.179.104.66 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turner criticism 

message: It strikes me (as a non-American) as very odd that Fox News is a disambiguation page, when most international users would expect it to be the channel.
Surely a link to Fox News Sunday could be effected at the top of the article, rather than having a separate page.
Almost all the links to Fox News are expecting the page for the channel.  It seems like a sloppy move. — OwenBlacker 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or sloppy linkage. ;-) It was argued that Fox News Channel refers to the cable channel, but Fox News could refer to the cable channel, the show, Fox News Radio, etc. I think there is a slight difference, but would be open to a rename. Thoughts? --LV (Dark Mark) 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I guess.  Fox News isn't much to talk about outside of FNC.  If and when Fox starts up a nightly news program, then Fox News can serve that purpose.  For now, Fox News should redir to FNC. Squiggyfm 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fox News]] / [[Fox News Channel]] 

message: I mean really, sure I respect what this channel has done, but c'mon now, with ALL it's controversies, we HAVE to include it in the opening paragraph. Let me also just say that if you keep this biased opening for your article, u WON'T have it a featured one, since a featured article has to be DOWN THE MIDDLE from beg to end. :) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs) 
*This whole article is too biased, and deserves a good rewrite.  I will start one right now.  --Mrmiscellanious 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright yo, anybody else agree that the opening paragraph is a little biased? 

message: In a 2006 poll conducted by Reuters and the BBC, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News as the most trusted news source, which is more than any other source in the U.S. including ABC (4 percent), NBC (4 percent) and CBS (3 percent).  Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera most trusted-poll, ABC news
How is the above not biased and below is biased?
Close to 3 million people tune in to The NewsHour each weeknight (1.1 HH rating) and more than 8 million unduplicated viewers watch at least one night a week. In addition, the Erdos & Morgan Opinion Leader survey ranks The NewsHour first among all television news programs as the most credible, most objective, most influential and most current news program on television.
:Well, could you link to the direct page that the information comes from? Nevermind, I just found the page on the website . Chris 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To update on my last comment, the one note to make about the survey listed is that it is a "bi-annual study of influential business, government and public policy leaders."  In that sense, the actual public (generic person, mass population) doesn't necessarily agree with their position on PBS. Chris 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, News Hour may well be the Most Trusted News Program while Fox News may still be the Most Trusted Name In News (As a network), whatever that means. 167.24.104.150 06:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can fox be the most trusted news source when PBS is?