Talk:Fox News/Archive 7

message: Because the length of this Talk Page I have moved all of the discussions related to Allegations of Bias to a topic specific archive as agreement seems to be reached. The following are included there: moving to a seperate article, discussion of length of the bias section; and Archive of the proposed changes as they got settled. If you archive this talk page - please be sure to include this section to retain quick access to the history of this carefully crafted section of the FOX News article.
Alai - I edited this section at the same time as you, but I wanted to let you know why I didn't keep your language. I think that the link to the section plus a brief description to be more positive about views that are not popular in the mainstream press is a better NPOV description of the way I read the memos - I notice also that we ahve been linking to media matters - but I would prefer to link to the originals if you (or anyone) knows where they might be. Thanks - Jim Trödel|talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, me too:  saved the edits accidentally, then went to complete them, and got two edit clashes in a row: pesky software.  So I've ended up losing your text, not so much in an 're-reversion', as to get a suggested draft at least in the page history.  I can't really agree with "positive language" (though I prefer it to "spin", certainly) as several of the memos seem to be doing much more than that;  they're suggesting topics be played up, or played down, beyond simply how to characterise them given the fact of their coverage.  I take your point about not wanting to over-editorialise here, however.  (Don't have a better link, sorry.)  Now, for my money we'd be fine going back to 'right-wing', but I suppose that's begging the question of what's "centre" (a target that's being moved even as we speak). Alai 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Alai - I reviewed your change - tried to incorporate what I could but I don't see how an observation (paraphrasing) that John Kerry is feeling the heat is properly summarized as "instruction reporters to include viewpoints ...unfavorable to John Kerry", can we discuss here? I agree - it was simpler as right-wing - though a good point was made that not all the memos are right wing Trödel|talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought that characterised that rather well.  And note the several other Kerry-isms too.  I wasn't trying to be strictly comprehensive, though I confess I was rather irked by the selectivity in SB's list.  There's certainly more than "language" going on in many of the instances -- most, I'd suggest.  Rather than the list of topics, perhaps "White House agenda", "right of centre", "centre-Right", or some such phrase is less problematic than "right-wing".  (The objection to "pro-Republican" seemed especially slight:  if we take 'most Rightist Democrat' as the watershed, what 'Repulican issues' would that actually leave?)  Perhaps we can eliminate the need for 'covering' the whole list with a judicious "broadly" or "predominantly", as necessary.  Alai 05:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: If one believes that the media is generally left, then I can see a reasonable interpretation that the memos were generally exhorting the left-leaning reporters to report right-wing viewpoints with comparable levels of attention and from a sympathetic POV - similar to how we try to do here - so I tried to get that in with as few words as possible. As to the list of items - I feel reluctant to quote from only media matters the contents of the memos since they have a known agenda as well. What additional items are you looking to include in the list. Trödel|talk 15:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another link to the memos:  at first glance these look (more) complete.  Perhaps this would be a better place to link to.    I'm still unhappy about the current wording:  it's "toned down" beyond any reasonable representation of the contents.  If they were merely suggesting 'language' on three particular issues that can't be described as having a political agenda, why would anyone even suspect a story, much less a controversy?  Alai 01:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting - I didn't get that from National Review - but found a story about it on some local news site and on a blog or two - thought I had it right. Is there a reliable source for what he actually reported in 2003? My memory is that I grew to dislike Gilligan while watching some things on BBC during the Iraq War because he seemed clearly to be anti-American to me. Trödel|talk 15:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not opposed to the PIPA report being included elsewhere in the article, since it was an important news event, however, the report and the survey were not designed to measure bias in Fox News itself.  The survey was even poorly designed to measure what it purports to measure, and I doubt it could have survived peer review in a reputable journal.  The most glaring example was having a question which used the word "significant", that required a value judgement that can hardly be rigorously labeled a misperception.--Silverback 12:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Bias 

message: (moved this from above section) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with this alternative - if concensus can not be reached on whether the rewrite works.
Or we could do it both ways. We could use your bullet point version as the summary. Moving a detailed discussion of this topic to a different article would certainly quiet my inclusionist objections. And if later POV balancing does lead to the section becoming bloated again, it would serve as a prepared fallback position. We could simply remove the bullet point version and replace it with a shorter summary.
But before we do this:
First: Is this a good idea? Since I have a tendency to use too much shorthand when explaining a new idea, I'll try to spell it out. I think the presence of moderates is needed for the successful completion of edit wars, and preventing them in the first place. Moderates may have POVs which they would like an article to reflect, but they are willing to compromise and will defend the consensus version against extremists of any stripe. 
It was previously suggested that the Allegations of Bias section be moved to a seperate sub-article, leaving behind only a short summary. However, it was decided that this would create a "debate" article. Moderates tend to avoid these, which means that only full-fledged POV warriors participate. Which means non-stop edit wars. 
What I'm proposing is that we move the Allegations of Bias section to a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Intergerity" article, alongside copies of similar sections or passages from the articles regarding other major news sources. 
While an article of this nature may attract POV warriors, I hope it will at least attract POV veterans from several different edit wars. A pro-CBS warrior might be a moderate when it comes to Fox, for example. Plus, the general nature of the article would hopefully attract some people who are curious about AVoJIs in general, but don't have any particular axe to grind.
Would some experienced Wikipedians care to comment?
Secondly: Could somebody please come up with a better name for the proposed article? crazyeddie 09:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I was aware that it was decided not to spin this off into a seperate article. I wasn't aware that it had been done and been deleted. Do you have a link the VfD page? It's possible that a general Allegations page might not run into the same problems as a Fox-only one. Also, the deletion of the spin-off page doesn't really say anything about the problem of the section being too long, just that it shouldn't be in an article by itself. crazyeddie 19:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" sub-article 

message: An NPOV notice was added on 7 January by an anonymous user but no NPOV discussions seem to be taking place at present.  I have removed it for now.  Please restore if you disagree. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: WP style guidelines suggest that a link per line is probably excessive.  The article currently has large sections with more than one dead link per line.  If someone's actively engaged in filling out these articles, fair enough, but if not, I propose to de-link the text until they show signs of going somewhere.  Alai 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Silverback, I think your edit is okay.  I could make a good case that all broadcast news organisations in the USA are strongly biased to the right, but I am not sure such a view would gain consensus.  There does seem to be a strong perception in the USA that the media organisations are usually left wing in some way, although I don't personally understand why this perception exists.   You edit bypasses that and so I think it is better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: <<How can you say I'm not willing to compromise, when the PIPA entry was in the article for months with my knowledge until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>
That is like saying that the Palestinians are willing to compromise with the Israelis because their representatives didn't wap the Israeli representatives upside the head during the peace conferences. You can't take credit for such restraint because it is demanded by the most basic requirements of decency. And you didn't even do that! Two times now you have unilaterally removed the bulletpoint from the article, despite it being clear that there was overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping it - at least in some form. Do we really have to wait for a third incident before taking action?
<<until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>
As one of the three people involved in the creation of the original compromise, I can testify that we weren't entirely happy with the final form of this particular bulletpoint. We basically accepted this version as "good enough" because we were getting tired and loosing perspective. We agreed to review it after some time had passed and create a more acceptable version. Now is a good of a time as any - but only if all parties involved are willing to compromise and negotiate.
Your unilateral removal of the bulletpoint is only the most extreme example of your failure to compromise. The secret to compromising is to pick your battles. You have to be willing to give up certain points and fight only the battles you stand a chance of winning. Yet you insist on fighting battles already lost. You continue to fight against these consensus decisions:
::No my removal was not an example of my failure to compromise.  The version I removed was one none of us favors, why are you reverting back to it when you don't favor it?  That is disenginuous.  Furthermore, by your own definition, I am compromising, because I have picked my battles, and this is it.  Do you really think there are not other entries in this allegations of bias section which would wither under scrutiny?  I haven't even looked at them.  I picked this PIPA entry because I was already familiar with it and knew that the original study was poor, and even that was being misused in this article.  You haven't been able to defend your version, you just engage in ad hominem attacks on me, and try to rally support for your version.  I have stuck to the merits of how well the language represents the study.  I am surprised that you were involved in the original compromise, because you apparently didn't even read the report until a few days ago when you installed a reader.  I don't support the original compromise anymore BTW, because I was the one that demonstrated that it was incorrect.  Perhaps if you would engage your intellect a bit instead of your transparent, ad hominem political rallying, we could reach a compromise.--Silverback 07:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromising