Talk:Fox News/Archive 2

message: This is a poll to decide which version should be used ()
Note: Neutrality's version would include the Coulter paragraph also, adding that "Noted right-wing commentator Ann Coulter disputes..."
:Then why were you repeatedly erasing it? VV 06:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I didn't see it. Neutrality 06:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on Content

message: #Neutrality 06:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality's Version

message: #See Comments below. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither

message: *I agree with some aspects of NEutrality's version (especially removing the Ann Coulter Paragraph), and some aspects of VV's version (the minor wordings; "FOX" instead of "Fox", "Results in" instead of "Allows fox to have", "claims" instead of "found"). So, personally, I think VV's version should be kept and merged with some minor aspects of Neutrality's version. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Neutrality's Version====
====VV's Version====
#Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro (0/1/0)

message: #Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VV's Version

message: ====Neutrality's Version====
#Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC) (Neither is egregious or inaccurate. But this one is better, IMHO)
====VV's Version====
#Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias Section (0/1/0)

message: #Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VV's Version

message: ====Neutrality's Version====
====VV's Version====
#Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure the entire quote should be used. See comments below.
====Neither====
#Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter Quote (0/0/1)

message: #Ilyanep (Talk) 19:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither

message: Any way we could resolve these issues between your version and mine? Neutrality 04:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  My version is straightforward replacement with neutral language.  Do not revert good edits and information.  It is very obnoxious. VV 05:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to take this to quickpoll and let the community decide? I am willing to compromise — you are a great user and I wish no ill to be between us. Neutrality 05:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do your thing if you want.  I will continue to resist your efforts to suppress dissenting views and portray partisan attacks as neutral sources, as well as your reverting my work.  VV 05:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the compliment (in your changed text ); I am surprised.  But just reverting me repeatedly is not kosher. VV 05:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: More to the point, reverting me in the first place was not kosher, and my unhappy response should have been predicted. VV 05:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: IF you would take notice, that seems to be all anyone's arguing about lately. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not clear at all what folks were arguing about, since there was no talking, they were just reverting. Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VV

message: Somebody should add something about the movie Outfoxed.  It's financed in part by MoveOn.org and the American Center for Progress and directed by Robert Greenwald, and it's main thesis is that Fox News is not imbued with a conservative bias but a Republican bias.  That Fox News is the mouthpeice of the Republican party and not of conervatism in general.  MoveOn has organized nationwide screening parties of the film, where people will screen the film in their home and invite others to join them.  Afterwards there will be an online discussion. StoptheBus18 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we include the moveon.org movie about George Bush and Hitler on the George W. Bush article? Ilyanep (Talk) 23:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Who the hell told you I support bush completely? Unlike you, I don't follow blindly behind the people who I do support. I say that is overkill...which is more than you've done for anything that the democratic party (which is obviously who you support) has done. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: StoptheBus18 was strong in his words, but he told the truth about MoveOn.org. The two Hitler-movies were submitted by two persons to the contest website archive where there was about 1500 other 30-second movies. MoveOn.org I guess just made the blunder to not check and verify submissioned movies to the archive, which in retrospect was a disasterous mistake. So claiming that MoveOn.org compared Bush to Hitler is a lie. Claiming that a person who made a movie comparing Hitler to Bush and submitting it to the MoveOn.org movie archive is the truth.Mastgrr 10:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I would suggest you see the film in order to critique it appropriately. It's hard to take your points with full force otherwise. You are correct that the part of the documentary with the memos is clearly the most questionable, since they can all be taken out of context (ie. cherry picking the most juicy and incriminating parts). However, the most damning parts are the the on-air reporters, who cannot be dismissed as "never actually employed there" - Jon DuPre explains the inner workings and the culture of conservatism and Carl Cameron talkes about his wife doing campaigning for Bush before interviewing candidate Bush. The latter is simply unacceptable in other professional news organizations. As for Alan Colmes (or rather, alan colmes) leaving him out changes nothing. He's such an insignificant inflatable punching doll on the Hannity and Colmes show in the first place. :) Also, most of these comments should indeed be at the Outfoxed page. Fuzheado | Talk 06:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Outfoxed''

message: MediaMatters.org has 33 internal Fox memos from John Moody.  The memos give clear guidelines on how the network is supposed to handle certain stories (like Kerry "throwing away his medals).  This has to be included NPOV of course.  StoptheBus18 16:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these memos published somewhere, I'd like to see those. Just curious. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Im going to add a section about this in the page.  Any suggestions on how it should be written? StoptheBus18 18:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  33 internal Fox Memos 

message: The Fox News Channel is accused of being "right wing" and "conservative" and a "mouthpiece for the Republican party" because they actually allow those to the right of Pol Pot to express their views.
:Wow.  How very eloquent of you.  You must be a writer. StoptheBus18 18:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whining about Fox News 

message: Here's a quick analysis, courtesy of Google News.  All this was found by typing in "socks Berger" for a news search (and surprised me that Google News would pull up some pretty odd news sources). Conclusion: no real source for the socks 
: The AP report says that AP was told by the lawyer he had placed them in his jacket and pants but no socks. 
::* http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEPT_11_BERGER_PROBE?SITE=WOZZ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
: Washington Times also has the AP account but uses sticking them into jacket and pants, an interesting distinction.
::* http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040719-112728-6891r.htm
: Now, traditional news sources mention the "socks" story, but not anything like FOX's account. They say it was an unidentified staffer, and not Berger or his lawyer:
:: CNN, saying an unidentified archive staffer saw the "socks":
::* http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/
:: Guardian in UK essentially quotes CNN's account:
::* http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1265636,00.html
: If you look at right wing news outlets, they have picked up on the socks:
:: Interesting that Limbaugh picks up the "socks" theme, without any sourcing:
::* http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072004/content/truth_detector_6.guest.html
:: WashingtonDispatch basically quotes the FOX News story:
::* http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000411.html
:: GoodNewsAmerica.us has said Berger admitted to the socks, and labelled this "TrouserGate". However, the site appears to be quite right wing and there is also no sourcing:
::* http://goodnewsamerica.us/news.php?extend.146
: So it seems that the "jacket" and "pants" comes from a credible source, the AP, and that might be corroborated by CNN, or CNN may just be using AP's account.  However, there has been no substantial source on the "socks" aspect of it, so far.  Fuzheado | Talk 03:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree (and I'm quite right-wing). From what you say I don't see a substaintial source. But I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it and check it out myself. But what does this have to do with FOX news? Ilyanep (Talk) 15:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course check it out! That's what the Internet is for. It does not have much to do with FOX News other than they might have been the originator of the socks story. In fact I was about to post this to Talk:Sandy Berger instead. Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I think I heard it on the local ABC affiliate AM station (WLS-AM) before FOX news, but that's just me. Ilyanep (Talk) 16:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of the Socks story 

message: I protected the page to end an edit war. The parties are now encouraged to discuss the content here on the talk page. 172 00:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection