Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 1

message: The "other controversies" section includes the claim that:
"Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News was allowed to cover the Bush Campaign in 2000 despite the fact his wife was campaigning for Bush."
The claim is marked as citation needed. As near as I can tell the source of the claim is this video which shows Carl Cameron and candidate George Bush chatting prior to a televised interview. I'm unsure of a good way to site this though. Anyone have any thoughts?
* added link to film footage Ucanlookitup 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauline Cameron 

message: The Simpsons has made a number of critcisms and spoofs of Fox News (and the Fox network in general). In the episode Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington, Republican and Democrat congress candidates appear on Fox News. The show's announcer opens with 'Welcome to Fox News, your voice for evil'. The Republican is shown with a halo above his head, whilst the democrat is depitcted with devil's horns and is shown upside down, with a USSR flag in the background. There is also a 'news-ticker' at the bottom of the screen including, amongst others, stories such as 'Do Democrats cause cancer? Find out at foxnews.com' and 'Rupert Murdoch: Terrific Dancer'
It seems kind of odd to have that in there. The Simpsons spoofs everything. That doesn't prove that Fox is biased.--Hbutterfly 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page isnt about proving anything. Its about indicating the 'allegations of bias', which  this clearly is Robdurbar 11:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I would also add that it should be kept in mind that this is a young article, and although, at the moment, that reference may seem out of place amongst more factual or serious allegations, the article could be expanded to include a section consisting entirely of popular culture references to a bias in the Fox News Channel. 81.178.99.223 13:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that one too. It's a commentary on Fox News' appearance of bias. The entire "other controversies" section needs to be split up into some good sections...On its own, the entire section is intimidatingly large and condensed. Maybe a section can be added regarding "Fox News in popular culture" which would include criticisms and other such commentary on Fox News by known personalities and programs... Amibidhrohi 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of "other controversies", what's with all the people listed? I don't think having pundits talk is any indication of bias. Dick Morris, Zell Miller, etc. are not reporters and are not supposed to be unbiased. Every news network has pundits, etc. --Hbutterfly 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well at the risk of sounding pedantic it's actually "Other criticisms" not "Other controversies", I think this distinction is relevant however.  Also, I don't understand your point; the only times Dick Morris and Zell Miller are mentioned is in the allegation that Fox News deliberately sets up debates or discussions that pit staunch, outspoken conservatives against unthreatening, moderate liberals (see Fox News liberal).  The article is not trying to suggest that there's a bias simple because Fox News commentators themselves are not unbiased. 81.178.99.223 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this really belong? 

message: In the "Other Criticisms" section, the paragraph on Special Report with Brit Hume states that Charles Krauthammer is a regular member of the panel, but actually Mara Liasson is the regular panelist, Krauthammer the stand-in.  Liasson is a correspondent for NPR, a decidedly non-conservative news organization. Sdpurdy 04:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mara Liasson 

message: Please also see this page, for reciprocity 66.98.130.224 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CNN controversies and allegations of bias]] 

message: Hey guys...be careful. What I'm seeing around here is useless bickering. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPA]] , [[WP:CIVIL]] 

message: Reverted these as citations already existed where he claimed they were needed, and his claim that Turner and Murdoch "hate each other" as grounds for the deletion of a paragraph is ridiculous.  He previously claimed that the paragraph in question should be removed until this fact is recognised; if this is the case why didn't he simply edit to reflect this "fact" rather than delete the entire paragraph outright?  These sorts of edits should be discussed on the talk page beforehand.  It seems to me from ER MD's edits, comments and user page that he is not capable of upholding NPOV with regard to this particular article. 81.178.77.120 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally. Amibidhrohi 01:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, Don't get your panties in a bind...I was just doing an experiment to 1) demonstrate the retardedness of the POV argument (with the meaning of NPOV being only the liberal POV) and 2) to see how many people are so inclined to write about the FOX TV station--which is so inconsequential.  Why people here have wasted their time with straw man arguments is beyond me. Anyway, I initially was interested in investigating bias on Wikipedia and decided to come to the webpage which would probably be despised the most.  I look at George Bush, which wasn't that bad, looked at the Iraq War, and finally came across this page "Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias".  By far this is one of the most retarded pages on Wikipedia!  I changed the second sentence in the lead section to reflect that conservatives know that FOX was a conservative news outlet but argued that it was necessary to combat liberal bias in the media.  Amazingly, nobody changed it back to its original statement... so I was actually shocked. The funny aspect about the change is that it makes the rest of the article completely unnecessary. There is no controversy about FOX being conservative.  What is amazing is that people like Amibidhrohi waste their time on this page. Who are you trying to convince? Either way, I had fun with the edits... ER MD 09:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As an aside, I found the inclusion of Turner's comments about Murdoch to be the most telling.  Anybody with respect for journalism would avoid Godwin's Law.  Obviously this is not the case here. ER MD 09:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure looks to me like some (no, many!) people are using this page as their own personal blogs. Whacked! I have to ask, who would come to this page? Who the hell doesn't know that Fox is biased? There's no "controversy", the "allegations" mentioned in the title have all been thoroughly demonstrated as true. I would favor canning this entirely--it's not an encyclopedia article, it's an editorial. Besides, it hurts my head to read it. BillFlis 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting edits by [[User:ER MD|ER MD]] 

message: This article is unencyclopedic, original research.  IP Address 00:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out any specific instances of where you believe this to be the case, so they can be addressed? - 81.178.116.202 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lot of unsourced rumours 

message: The first item would be much more meaningful if it had some sort of reference to how other news networks covered the rumor. Did they cover it at all? Did they give it the same credibility (i.e. report it as fact) or did they qualify it with something along the lines of "initial reports say...?" The banners listed could really benefit from a source. A link to an article on this topic (such as journalism scancals) may be helpful as well. The wording that leads up to the list of banners is also a little awkward, and the use of the phrase "headline banners were rolling" is vague--what exactly are "headline banners" (are they the banners at the bottom of the screen used while showing footage, the banners at the side of the screen used while an anchor/pundit is visible, or the "crawl line" at the bottom? The word "rolling may indicate a crawl line)? The use of the word "rolling" is unnecessary if they were indeed crawl lines, and it would be inaccurate if they were not. 71.211.41.52 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Reports section 

message: This section is becoming rather long and unwieldy.  Any ideas on how the list could be grouped into further sections?  Perhaps creating a "Sensationalism" section, which might be a more specific heading for some of the points raised. - 81.178.95.242 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing up the Other Criticisms section 

message: I think we should start adding  tags to all the external inline links in this article.  I don't have the patience right now, but it should be fairly straightforward.  Just use the Fox News Channel article for a quick and dirty example of how to use them.  PaulC/T+ 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: From the article: "by contrast, these memos instruct personalities to give negative press to Democratic or liberal politicians or candidates, anti-war activists, or any public figure or celebrity who disagrees with the policies of President Bush. Anchors and reporters are also expected to give unprecedented attention to wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, or the separation of church and state. "
I can't evidence for any of these statements in any of the cited articles. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Korny O'Near 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The John Moody memos 

message: Bernard Goldberg and Dick Morris are both included in this list. Does either one claim to be a Democrat or a leftist? Korny O'Near 16:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fox News liberals" section 

message: This Article Doesn't maintain a NPOV in any way shape or form. I believe that it should be deleted or significantly redone.
:Any specific issues you'd like to discuss? The process here is to discuss the issues first, then apply the tag if real, legitimate issues are not resolved by discussion. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Felonious, I'm moving some sentences from the intimidatingly dense "other criticisms" to relevant sections above. There's a section that deals with O'Reilly, so I'm moving things dealing with Bill from "other criticisms" to "critisisms of pundits"...Amibidhrohi 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV CHALLENGE 

message: From the entry: "Fox, at first, defended itself, dismissing criticism from MSNBC hosts such as Keith Olbermann and the New York Times editorialists as "secular progressives". However, even amongst the pundits at Fox News there was a discomfort with the perceived campaign of their network..." Where is the evidence for any of this? Korny O'Near 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "War on Christmas" 

message: I tightened up some of the exposition in the Ownership section.  I removed the sentence connecting Ailes to Willie Horton, because, as it stood, the reference directly contradicted the sense of the sentence.  I guess it could be added back in if there were a source which backed it up.
I was also thinking that the piece of John Ellis is not really relevant here.  At first thought, it seems like it might be relevant and might explain some bias, because Fox was the state which first called Florida for Bush.  However, as is stated in the article, it's pretty obvious bias doesn't explain this call, as it cannot explain Fox's earlier call in favor of Gore with equal or less information.  This paragraph is currently semantically equivalent to "Some people have this theory that X, but a little thought should make it clear that X doesn't hold water".  I think we're better off taking it out. Thoughts?  -- Deville (Talk) 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll go ahead and remove it then.  -- Deville (Talk) 02:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, oddly I didn't see this note, or the corresponding removal, until now. Maybe surprisingly, I would argue to put the paragraph back in. The idea that Bush's cousin was orchestrating the 2000 election via Fox News is a widespread one; I think many people would point to that as Exhibit A for how nefarious Fox News is, despite the story's logical flaws. I think it belongs in the article (with the caveats, of course). Korny O'Near 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes and "calling the state for Bush" 

message: I know this thing came up on the Fox News Talk page, etc., etc.  What do people think about dropping the "rebuttal" of Groseclose's study?  As discussed on the other page, Groseclose's study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the rebuttal we put here is a post on a blog.  Surely we can find something even vaguely scholarly here? -- Deville (Talk) 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole Groseclose thing again 

message: I removed a sentence about Roger Ailes and affliates, etc. and I'm not sure what it was supposed to be saying.  Perhaps something rewritten can be re-added? -- Deville (Talk) 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Ailes