Jump to content

Talk:Fox News/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Fox ratings for the third week in January 2010

I'm not big on either following TV ratings or recording them in any great detail in Wikipedia articles on shows or networks. I would suggest that if there is something particularly special about the Fox News Channel's ratings for that week it should be made clear to the reader. Merely saying that Fox news led all basic cable stations that week doesn't really tell the reader what the big deal is. Obviously some channel has to lead in any given week. If this is significant because (I'm guessing here) this is the first time that a news channel has led the weekly ratings (or for some other reason) then that fact should be added to the entry. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Is there some other specific aspect about this event which makes it notable? By itself, while interesting, is probably not all that notable. Arzel (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

New poll on "trusted" news sources

[1] <--- Should probably be mentioned in this article, seeing as their main competitor (CNN) used to claim this in their tagline for 10+ years... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is included, it should also be noted that they are the most untrusted also. (In other words, don't do how Fox will report on this poll.)

The poll is basically worthless because it falls between party lines. I personally find it hard to trust a network with the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is clear that they have a conservative/Republican viewpoint. --76.235.200.246 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This poll was done by a Public Policy Polling, a source often cited by the left as being highly reliable. It states that not only is FOXNews the highest ranking network when it comes to "trust, it is the lowest ranking when it comes to "distrust". In fact, it was the only network that scored positively in this regard. The margin of error on this poll is 2.8%, and is from a reliable source. You may not agree, but unless your opinion is backed up by fact, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on. Rapier1 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The first three sections ot the politico article reporting on this read Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday. A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network. Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html#ixzz0eQdYin7D) This states clearly that the numbers for Fox show that they were highest among "trusted" and lowest among "not trusted", in fact they were the only network with a positive overall rating. Please do not post false information. Any further reversts will violate 3RR. Rapier1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

With any polling it can be deceptive. Here are some things that skew this poll: A large portion of the 49% favorable came from Republicans who voted 74% in their trust of Fox News. It should also be noted that only 14% considered themselves liberal compared to 39% conservative. Also, to be noted is that 63% were 46 or older. If your sample is not a true sample of the general population, then you cannot make true conclusions from it.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Any polling can indeed be deceptive, but I shall inform you that the %'s you list are fairly close to the American standard - far more Americans call themselves conservative rather than liberal (even 25% of democrats are conservative). Also, as for the age, not only is news watched more by older Americans, but the 46+ age group is actually bigger than the adults under it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No the percents are not fairly close. I never made a claim about the comparision numbers between conservatives and liberals, only that the survey was not a representative of the whole, which it isn't. Lets just say that 21% of voters call themselves liberals. That is a 7% difference compared to the results in the survey, or 50% of the survey results for liberals. You are trying to tell me that a 50% is not going to skew the results. No where in the survey is an opt out question where the survey ends if they say they do not watch news.--99.52.157.254 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistically speaking, if you look at the crosstabs, you can see the skewing.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By continually reverting good-faith edits regarding this poll, you are edit-warring and in violation of WP:3RR. Please restore the last version. Rapier1 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The poll is clearing biased (not done on purpose, but the participants are not representative of the whole), therefore the conclusions are worthless. And therefore, they should not be included in the article.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.200.246 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


[2] For reference--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is considered WP:OR to add your own analysis of the information into the article. That said, the crosstabs are not that far out of line. The Con/Lib breakout is pretty close to the Gallop reporting of this (40% con, 21% lib, 35% moderate). The Dem/Rep breakout is higher than I would expect for Rep. The breakout has Obama voters at 48% and McCain voters at 47%, which isn't too far out of line. PPP is often considered a democratic pooling outfit as well, so I would find it difficult to believe that the poll is intentially biased. Even if your assertation about the breakouts did show a bias it is dificult to believe that when adjusted for small differences that the results would be much different. Arzel (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

7% may not seem like that much, but it is a significant amount when "the other side" is at 40%. The percent of who people voted for is again skewed towards Republicans/Conservatives. It is like that throughout. On the surface it may not seem like a lot, but when combined it does. The fact that there is already polarization (74% of Reps trust Fox), means that little differences can have a big impact.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the page suppose to be NPOV, so why allow something that isn't, even if it is questionable.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this so important that it needs to be in the article?--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The section should go back in and the ip blocked for edit warring--Jojhutton (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like you to remove the warning from my talk page, Jojhutton. ThinkEnemies (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain how the poll is non-biased?--76.235.200.246 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


I just did an updated crosstab on my own assuming a breakout of 39% Dem, 25% Rep, and 36% Ind and get 45% favorable and 40% unfavorable with 15% unfavorable. I would be quite suprised if the real difference between D's and R's is that great. DATA - Based on the poll percentages there were ~414 D, ~403 R, and ~403 I. My adjusted numbers are ~449 D, ~288 R, and ~414 I. So, it wouldn't really matter. Arzel (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You lost me.--76.235.200.246 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have the N and all of the percentages for each cell you can go back and see how the overal numbers may change if the base numbers were different. I assumed that if there were more D's and I's and fewer R's that they would respond in the same percentages. Many pollsters adjust there raw numbers to present what they believe are the true breakouts for political polls. I used the breakouts that CBS often uses for their polls. Arzel (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive user has been blocked, I've restored the contect regarding this poll Rapier1 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I suggest that we close this discussion and mark it as keep the section--Jojhutton (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about more than just the political party breakdown, but the other breakdowns also show a skew (compared to in real life) to Conservatives/Republicans. And considering the polarization that we see, it becomes significant.--69.209.98.241 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that you are removing information from an article without consensus and you are evading a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to hear a solid argument from you. Therefore it still is non-NPOV.--69.209.98.241 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is one other way the results are skewed: The election results for popular vote were: Obama: 52.9% and McCain 45.7%. The survey results were Obama 47% and McCain 46%. The only way the survey results are viable is if "all" the don't remember voted for Obama. Statistically speaking, that is not very likely (also considering that McCain was a more popular vote of the elderly who would be more likely not to remember.) I explained the skew in the liberal/conservative above in a response to another user. 50% difference of the surveyed results of liberals compared to what the actual number of liberals. The last one I will go over is the skew in age. I had to search a little but I found from the census bureau the breakdown of age. According to them, 50.3% of the voting age is 46 or older, while the survey results were 63%. And if you at the age comparison for trust, you can see that these individuals have more trust in Fox News compared to the news of the other networks. Therefore, by having more of these individuals than the actual percent of the population, you are going to skew it in favor of Fox News. Now please don't imply that I am saying that previous surveys on trust of news were impartial, I'm not, I'm only saying that this survey was biased and therefore should not be included in the article.--99.52.157.254 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An entire section of this heavy-on-criticism article is based on work done by a highly partisan liberal smear machine. If non-scientific polls taken for the purpose of calling anyone's journalistic integrity - whether we're talking about Fox News or CNN - into question are acceptable, then those polls done by the Public Policy and TIME people must be acceptable. You can't have it both ways, people! MudskipperMarkII (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see above. Polls are only relevant when they represent the true portions of the population equally (or adjust the results because it wasn't a representative of the whole.) This is true no matter who is doing the polling. If you believe a poll is bias state your reason, but you better come up with more than just "liberal smear machine." --76.235.208.230 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, in other words, non-scientific polls are irrelevant. Then in that case, the passage regarding the Rasmussen Reports poll which added up to 120% - since telephone polls are not truly scientific either - should be stricken from the section. However, it is not. Media Matters is a well-known partisan group whose bias and nonexistent credibility has even been called out by MSNBC. If you're willing to allow space on the page for their statements, then again I re-iterate -- you can't have it both ways, designating certain things as relevant and others as not in order to further your own agenda. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do I even come close to suggesting that? You still have said nothing to refute the statements I have made above about the bias of the poll. If you believe a poll is biased show how it is biased. You really shouldn't talk about agenda when yours is so obvious. To me the poll just shows the complete polarization regarding trust of a news organization.--76.235.208.230 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a little digging of comparing the two most recent polls (public policy and pew research center). I found that the Pew Research Center uses the iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2008 Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and also includes oversampling to get a more accurate findings from smaller segments of the population. The Public Policy poll used Interactive Voice Response, but they did not make any adjustments. The Pew used the word favorable, while PP used the word trust. These polls were done only 6 months apart, so their shouldn't be massive differences between them, but there is. In the Pew poll CNN has a 60% favorable (19% unfavorable) while the PP poll has them listed as 39% trustworthy (41% non-trustworthy). I know it is possible, but is highly unlikely, unless their is a specific event in between those time periods to cause the shift. Fox News also saw a significant increase of 12% in the mistrust/unfavorable. I would do more comparisons but in the Pew network news is lumped together. The Pew has numbers for MSNBC, while the PP has numbers for NBC News (which would include MSNBC), but these cannot be compared because they are not the same thing. For some reason the results from the PP have much higher mistrust than the results of the unfavorable from the Pew. There hasn't been a major event in the 6 months that would cause this discrepancy over all the news networks. Do the words trust and favorable somehow not equate to the public? The results would suggest that you can find something favorable, but have mistrust also. Does the fact that the Pew adjusted their results, while the PP didn't have an affect? --69.214.15.243 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a huge event? What about everything happening in Washington? CNN's declining ratings? (Red Eye, FNC's 3 AM show, beat CNN's primetime last week.) Obama's sinking approval ratings? The health care debate which many say has dragged on for at least six months too long? How many more major events do you want? Oh, and then there's one of FNC broadcasters being responsible for two White House officials' resignations. Pew also showed that FNC had the most balanced 2008 election coverage, so it would be best not to bring that up again.PokeHomsar (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Please come up with something not biased; as I showed the mistrust/unfavorable of Fox also rose. Is that the best you can come up with? I feel like I am debating a Fox News commentator (pusher). Nothing is logical, everything is completely nonsensical (just like your "debate" regarding KO's degree). It is true because they say it is true. Do you have any real intelligent discussion regarding the differences in the numbers of the polls or do you want to continue with this right wing blog debate?--67.36.58.10 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The Pew for landline phones asks to speak with "the youngest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home." They do this because it is harder to get the younger generation to participate. This makes it so that the younger generation statistics are more accurate and a true representative of the population as a whole. The PP poll does not do this, so their data is going to be from an older segment of the population. Could this lead to the results not being a representative of the population as a whole?--67.36.58.10 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to try and discredit a published poll. WP is not a place to promote original thought or research. Additionally, your continued attack of the motives of other editors does not improve your position on the validity of this poll.Arzel (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It has more to do whether it should be included in the article. Continued attack? I'm just pointing out the bullshit. Should WP include any poll with considerable polarization in it because in the end the numbers don't really represent the public. --67.36.58.10 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that the margin of error does not fairly represent the public? From what you have presented all you have are your own observations about what you think the sample population should be without a real understanding of statistics. As I stated earlier, even if you back weight the results to represent the population according to basic republican/democrat/independent ratios used in other polls the results do not change. Additionally, you assume that the sample population should represent the census population. However, you forget that this is a view of those that observe cable news. These two populations are not the same, therefore there is no logical reason why they should skew the results to oversample a group of people that probably don't watch cable news. Polls are often adjusted to match basic demographics for which the poll is based. Political ellection polls, for example, are often limited to either registered or likely voters, resulting in lower numbers of those under 30. Is it your contention that these polls are biased and faulty? Arzel (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to MSNBC article

Very similar articles about two news organizations, however in the Fox News article, Criticism comes about mid way through, before programming and international coverage... however in the MSNBC article criticism is at nearly the very end after the exact same sections, programming and international coverage. Some standard should be agreed upon and enacted here, it looks somewhat bias if someone compares the two. BluBerries! (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) And actually upon further inspection, CNN and CBS News also have controversy sections at the bottom of the article, only Fox News somehow warranted it in the middle. Suggest it is moved to the bottom since a convention appears to have already been decided, just not fairly implemented. BluBerries! (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's just the evolution of the articles. Maybe you should propose a Wikiproject:Cable News Channels and some sort of Manual of Style can be developed. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of no policy that requires an "agreed upon and enacted standard". Those are all separate and distinct corporate entities with their own issues, histories, and significance; trying to buttonhole articles into a predefined structure (or, even worse, trying to always present the subjects as contrasts) doesn't do any of the articles (or the subjects) justice. You're welcome to establish a Wikiproject to try and have a group effort towards improving like-themed articles, but beyond that the comparison of FNC to MSNBC in the context of editorial improvement is a false dichotomy and unsound logic. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologize that I don't have a complex policy argument to support the thought that we change this. I suppose I'm just simply asking what we have to lose by moving sections around so casual users won't get the impression that some sort of bias exists. See [[3]]. I think if people feel that a conservative news channel is being treated differently than its liberal counterparts, it will only feed these perceptions we should be striving against.BluBerries! (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Apology not necessary, though I object to some of the underlying logic you use -- the URL you reference gives a fairly clear indication as to why a US-based reader may think there is "liberal bias" (namely, because U.S. citizens by-and-large hail from a more conservative viewpoint than the rest of the world). It is my sincere belief that Wikipedia articles are best served by stating the [[WP:RSrelevant facts based on the individual circumstances surrounding each article and its subject from the available reliable sources, not by trying to make a false equivocation of articles about competing organizations. As far as I know, that belief is supported explicitly by Wikipedia policy, and implicitly by longstanding community norms. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about on BlueBerries initial comment. For the proposal I'd say, standardization in general is good. Against I'd say, the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently? All-in-all I think lean towards BlueBerries call to standardize. I also would second Murph's "Maybe you should propose a Wikiproject:Cable News Channels and some sort of Manual of Style " NickCT (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Article standards and best practices should be driven through the manual of style and implemented through a consensus-driven wikiproject. Standardization isn't going to come about by selectively choosing particular issues on individual articles, and (IMHO) the impetus should be less trying to falsely equivocate "FNC vs. MSNBC". In any case, MoS is only a guideline (and Wikiprojects carry even less authority) -- there are always going to be issues and facts that are more relevant to some articles than to others, and it's disingenuous to try and shoehorn material into or out of one article because it doesn't fit a predetermined mold. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
While I view Fox News and MSNBC as, currently, the practical political antitheses of each, I don't see any compelling reason why the order of the "bias" material in their respective Wikipedia articles should be changed. While I believe we should strive for accuracy and "due weight" I don't believe that every article in a given category needs to be structured identically. In the case of Fox and MSNBC "allegations" of bias are mentioned in the leads of both articles and in the table of contents for each. The fact that one presents the "bias" material in the middle of the article while the other presents it at the end of the article is pretty thin gruel. In fact, one could even argue that presenting it at the end of the article has more of an impact, at least for someone who reads the article all the way through. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Several good points in this discussion thread. I agree with NickCT's assertion: "the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundamentality different.." PrBeacon (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The need to standardize presentation of Wiki content on Fox New and other news channels seems premature. First, has it ever been demonstrated that presenting such subjects as media bias at the first part of an article, the middle or end leads to the information presented making a more distinct impression. I think I recall having read or heard somewhere that information included at the end of an article results in comprehension of that information longer that information presented earlier but my memory is certainly NOT authoritative.
Even if there is a tendency for a generic reader to recall information at a different rate depending on its placement in an article, it is my opinion that even if that were true, a discerning and intelligent reader has the capacity to realize that and act accordingly. If we cannot rely on the intelligence of readers of Wiki to properly read Wiki and give information no matter where it is located in an article equal and intelligent consideration, or how it is presented reasonable and balanced consideration, then Wiki or any other word based attempt to discuss information is in deep trouble.
To force the format of similar Wiki articles into an unnecessarily constrained format just to avoid any possible perceived bias seems to be a response out of proportion to the problem. Anyone who would read in bias to Wiki because the subject of bias is included in the middle of an article about one news source and at the end of another have to be looking really hard to find an issue, IMO.
I'm not saying that this is not a real concern, or that anyone will or will not notice this different placement of bias in a Wiki article and claim bias. I do believe that this is probably a tempest in a teapot, IMO. Finally, I do not intend to diminish the concerns of those who take this issue seriously.

TDurden1937 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937

Can we autoflag fox?

Can we autoflag all references to Fox News as something that needs a reliable source?

After all, just look at who their source for military aviation is...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/01/russia-build-new-strategic-bomber-says-putin/ A photograph from Wikipedia reportedly of a Sukhoi PAK FA fifth generation fighter prototype taxiing on the day of its first flight, 29 January 2010.

Hcobb (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate source of the picture is http://sukhoi.org/news/company/?id=3142 Seems reliable to me.
—WWoods (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the Hcobb's point is that FoxNews cited Wikipedia Sukhoi_PAK_FA as the source, not Sukhoi [4], which is odd on more than one level. And I'm sure other examples of faulty sourcing can be found. Though I'm not sure about the auto-flagging idea, since it seems okay to use primary source for undisputed info. PrBeacon (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
WOT (Web of Trust) which users of the Firefox web browser can use to rate the reliability of a web site give this site, i.e., sukhoi.org a green circle which is an indication that a distinct majority of web users who visit this site trust it. Of course, this is not authoritative. However, if that is the only source for the Fox News story, I wonder . . .
TDurden1937 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937

Beck's theology

This is small change but for what it's worth: a. While a host "own's" his show, the phrase "Fox News host" rather sounds as if he's hosting a newscast which he most certainly isn't. A "commentator" may or may not "own" his own show, but, regardless, Beck's role on the show is to commentate. That's why I said "in this context" it may be the better word. b. Beck probably still does hold the same position and may continue to hold it throughout his lifetime but we don't know that from the source. What we know from the source is that on this occasion he equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Split the difference... How about "broadcaster", as it's listed in the citation? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, and inplies he is more than just the host of the program, if I understand the definition of Broadcaster correctly. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The change made by Arzel ("Fox News Channel host") is fine with me. I still prefer the past tense on "equates/equated". Badmintonhist (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with either tense after BH's explanation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Outfoxed" documentary

Shouldn't Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary Outfoxed be mentioned somewhere in the "Criticism and Controversies" section as well? It is only mentioned once in the article under the "Slogan" section, but is a key player in the criticism of the Fox News Corporation.

Perhaps a subsection titled "Slogan controversy" should be created under "Criticism and Controversies" to incorporate both the well-known slogan controversy and Outfoxed documentary, or perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the "Accusations of conservative bias" subsection.

This may be relevant to the separate Fox News Channel controversies article, as the Slogan controversy is not mentioned at all in that article, and the documentary is only mentioned for a single reference amid the many controversies it covers regarding Fox News.

71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Citation needed

There appears to be no citation for the content of the second paragraph of the "Ratings and Reception" section of the article. The text of the paragraph states:

In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.

I have not been able to find an adequate reference for these statistics. I, therefore, request a "citation needed" note for this paragraph.

71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Source [5] Feel free to add it if you wish. I don't think it is a very contencious issue. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Wallis as an apolitical Christian spokesman

The criticism section on Glenn Beck and social justice mentions that Jim Wallis said that what Beck said attacks the Christian faith and Christians shouldn't listen to Glenn Beck. The reader is led to believe that the criticism by Wallis is based solely upon his faith and that politics has nothing to do with the criticism. The fact is, Wallis is a well-known liberal/progressive/left-winger. Even the liberal New York Times refers to him as "left" and "religious left." I contend that the reader needs to know the political background of the person making such a broad statement on behalf of all Christians. The use of "liberal" would be sourced to the NYT article.--Drrll (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps using a properly sourced description of Wallis as a social justice advocate would solve the problem. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Good idea.--Drrll (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Applying labels to critics ("well known liberal", etc.) is subjective, generally a violation of WP:NPOV, and usually discouraged in encyclopedic articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The label that I suggested here, "social justice advocate" or something like that (and only provided that it can be legitimately referenced) relates directly to the point of contention between Beck and Wallis. It makes perfect sense that someone who is a staunch fan of "social justice" in a religious context would criticize someone who despises the concept, thus it helps the reader understand where the criticism is coming from. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I can dig it with sourcing; the context you provided is informative and appropriate. My reply was more intended towards the original impetus, seemingly a political "left-winger" style labeling. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck controversy

I find the section under Controversy about Glenn Beck's comments about social justice not really notable. It's just a comment he made that was criticized by two other Christians and received barely any media attention. To be frank, Beck has made much more controversial claims before that. But most importantly, I don't see what it has to do with Fox News as a channel. All of the other criticisms seem to focus on Fox in general, and the one section on Beck sticks out like a sore thumb. Joker1189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

I agree. The proper place for such information would be the article on The Glenn Beck Program. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters as a reliable source

Media Matters is being used as a reliable source for derogatory content in this article. Just like the Media Research Center/Newsbusters, Media Matters is not a news organization, but instead fits under the category of a self-published source. From Wikipedia policy on reliable sources: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". The burden of establishing that Media Matters is an exception to this rule falls on the editors wanting to keep that content in.--Drrll (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They can be used as a reliable source for their own opinion. They are not reliable as a source of factual information because of their bias. So long as there is not undue weight given to their opinion, and that that opinion is also expressed within other sources they can be used. It will not be possible to have them removed as a non-reliable source, it is best to impart that their view follows NPOV and Weight criteria. The best approach is to use the primary source from which MMfA uses instead of MMfA itself. I notice that at least one reference to MMfA is a blog within MMfA, which should be right out. Arzel (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
After looking at the contested section, I see it is Research by MMfA which is self-published. For this to be acceptable it would have to have been reported in a secondary source. The same type of research from MRC would not be acceptable within MSNBC or other liberal people and/or organizations. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning. Could you describe the exact language in WP:V to which you refer? SaltyBoatr get wet 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
When I look to the RSnoticeboard for guidance I believe that I see a general consensus[6][7] that MMfA is considered a RS for use in criticism of media organizations.SaltyBoatr get wet 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS policy on self-published sources overrides noticeboards, and besides, the consensus in neither example is decisive (there are other examples of MMfA on the WP:RSN as well). Would you argue that the Media Research Center/Newsbusters.org are reliable sources?--Drrll (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
In this specific instance, the comments of the MMfA seem reliable source per WP:Policy for use as criticism of FNC. Have any problem with the asking of that question at the RS/noticeboard? SaltyBoatr get wet 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not at all--go ahead and ask. Perhaps you could ask if it makes any difference whether the article is a BLP or not. Hopefully a more decisive answer will result this go around.--Drrll (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Ask all you want -- Media Matters is an accepted reliable source for their own criticism when it is directly related to their mission. You can pretend not to hear it all you want, but this has been covered at least two-dozen times at WP:RSN. Sounds like what you mean is "Hopefully I'll get an answer I want to hear this go around". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"Pretend not to hear"--what pretend not to hear Blaxthos the oracle? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been much of a decisive determination in all those previous requests, especially considering that they usually attract mostly editors who have a stake in the outcome. No, that's not what I meant, but I have to wonder if you'd respect the decision if it was decisively against your position by a bunch of uninvolved editors. I guess that since you believe that MMfA is a reliable source that you also feel that the Media Research Center/Newsbusters is also a reliable source. Or is it different since they have that evil conservative slant instead of a liberal slant?--Drrll (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and posted the question for you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed this specific case, but I want to respond specifically to the statement, "Policy on self-published sources overrides noticeboards." We need to be precise here--no one editor has complete and utter understanding of how to apply policy. The point of a noticeboard discussion is to have a number of editors get together, talk, and figure out how best to apply a policy. What that statement is really saying is more like, "My own interpretation of policy should override the consensus interpretation reached by editors at the noticeboard." Croctotheface (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of the criticism in question is mentioned in the Fox News Channel controversies article, which includes MMfA as a source. So perhaps the main article's subsection just needs updating. And the falsified report on a Tea Party rally (with stock footage) was covered by The Daily Show so I'm sure other (more acceptable) coverage wouldn't be hard to find. PrBeacon (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, MMfA is not a news organization, an academic source, or an established book publisher, so it qualifies as a self-published source. Noticeboards can't override WP policy. There is only a small window for MMfA to qualify--the "largely not acceptable" qualification.--Drrll (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet did you apply the same standard to the Gerth book as a source over at the MMfA talkpage? PrBeacon (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon, don't bypass the huge leap of logic Drrll just made, specifically his assertion that anything that isn't a "news organization, academic source or established book publisher qualifies as a self-published source." Drrll, I am not sure if you're just ignorant of policy or intentionally trying to misstate policy, but in either case your statement is just flat out wrong. At this point it's clear that he doesn't actually read the policies he asserts. From the general overview (the intent) of WP:RS:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

From the self-published sources section of the reliable source policy:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Drrll, please explain how your statements are supported by policy. Please point us to the actual language in policy you believe supports your position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, my brief comment may have been unclear: the skewed logic was my point. PrBeacon (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The Gerth book is hardly self-published--it is published by an established book publisher and authored by a Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT journalist--a far cry from MMfA.--Drrll (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Who said it was self-published? The author's bias is well-known, yet you apply a double-standard when the source supports what you want it to. And winning a pulitzer isn't as big a deal as you seem to think. PrBeacon (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The book is clearly a reliable source, while it is hardly clear with MMfA. If the author's bias is well-known, you must then have reliable sources that say that. Name one.--Drrll (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not so clearly to an objective eye -- he's been criticized as venomously anti-Clinton. I mentioned it to draw a parallel, not rehash the argument you've had with three others at the MMfA article. PrBeacon (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so you and those on your side are able to have an objective eye, but not those on the other side of an issue. "He's been criticized as venomously anti-Clinton": apparently not by a reliable source; criticized as such by people on a place like the Democratic Underground forums?--Drrll (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources (Eric Alterman and others at The Nation newsmagazine, Gene Lyons' books, salon.com, even mediamatters.org itself), but what's reliable to you is only what you agree with, it seems. As I said this isn't the place to argue about Gerth, and I note how you're deflecting the point of faulty logic and double standards. PrBeacon (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos, under what category of non-self-publilshed sources listed in the reliable sources policy does MMfA fit?
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: it is not a published source--it's a self-published source; who has established besides MMfA that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications: who says that MMfA is an established expert on the topic of the article, Fox News?; when has their work "been published by reliable third-party publications" (note I did not say when has their work been referenced by third-party publications, as is also the case for The Media Research Center)?
I believe that my statements are supported by the policy I quoted at the beginning of this section, by the policy that you quoted, and by the policy that delineates exactly what is a non-self-published source.--Drrll (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
When confronted with policy language, you try and make a stand on the definition of the word "published". That may be the most inelegant attempt at Wikilawyering I've ever seen... where in the hell do you get this stuff? Drrll, you're not really helping convince anyone you're here in good faith, nor that you have any experience or familiarity with policy and its application. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The distinction between being "published" and not being published is not trivial--it distinguishes between a solidly reliable source and a questionable at best self-published source. I noticed that you conveniently avoided mention of the source of MMfA's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", MMfA's status as an "established expert on the topic of the article" (Fox News), and whether MMfA has been "published by reliable third-party publications". Once again, you impugn someone's good faith.--Drrll (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Your assertions regarding the definition of "published" are not supported by policy or Wikipedia practice.
  2. MMFA is an established source as a media watchdog. Your attempts to say that they have to be an established expert on "Fox News" shows that you're both ignorant of policy and doing everything you can to wikilawyer.
  3. MMFA opinions have been widely published by other sources.
You still haven't given any actual policy that supports your assertions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. WP:V#Reliable Sources talks about "published" sources; shortly thereafter WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) talks about "self-published" sources in contrast
  2. Even if policy only requires that MMfA be an "established expert on the topic" of the news media, what reliable source backs up that claim? MMfA?
  3. "MMfA opinions have been widely published by other sources"--what WP policy allows a self-published source to be used if referenced by other sources? If it is backed up by policy, that would mean that the Media Research Center qualifies as a reliable source.
  4. As I already said before, the policy I quoted at the beginning of this section, the policy that you quoted, and the policy contrasting "published" and "self-published" sources all support my assertions.--Drrll (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that this was archived soon after I wrote it on WP:RSN, so I'll include it here as well. Given the fact that we are supposed to be putting forth an effort to make the articles in Wikipedia as neutral as possible as per WP:NPOV, and Media Matters on its own website calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", I can't see any way that MMfA could possibly qualify as "Reliable", as per WP:RS. The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV (edit: and WP:COI, upon further reflection), how can it be considered reliable? Rapier (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps the compromise here is to use secondary sources that describe MMfA's criticism of Fox. There is a book published by Simon and Schuster, ISBN 9781416560104 and a article in the New York Times Nov 1, 2008 that solidly are "secondary publishers" that are describing MMfA criticism of Fox. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Allow MMfA criticisms in the Fox News Channel article if those criticisms are reported in reliable sources and attributed to those sources instead of to MMfA. I believe that a reference to that book would need an attribution like "according to Media Matters' Eric Boehlert" since at the time he wrote the book he worked for MMfA, as opposed to being a journalist or an independent academic.--Drrll (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
To keep some peace, that could work. Though, we must note that over at WP:RSN a well respected neutral editor recently expressed opinion[8] that MMfA could be used as a reliable source here. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to distract from the compromise that looks like it might be coming through, but I want to respond to Rapier/Sean's original point. WP:RS does not said that our sources must themselves pass WP:NPOV. In fact, given some of the stuff that this article discusses, if they did, we'd have to have a serious conversation about whether we could ever cite Fox News itself. (To be clear, I think that we can and should be able to cite Fox News.) Croctotheface (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Croc, you can pick one name, either the real one or the nickname. Once you do that, go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources and you can read WikiPolicy on questionable sources. For the record, I don't think The National Center for Public Policy Research should be used at a reliable source either, for the same reason. Rapier (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That part of the guideline makes no mention of sources being questionable because they have an editorial opinion. Your argument was, in essence, that sources had to follow NPOV. That is not true at all. It would arguably mean we could not cite Fox News. Croctotheface (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I addressed it completely, you simply don't like it because you don't agree. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." This describes MMfA perfectly. Your bias is that somehow Fox News Channel equates with Media Matters for America, when the proper end of the political extreme would be, as I stated earlier, the National Center for Public Research - an organization the self-identifies as conservative. If you want to open up the argument (again) that somehow Fox isn't a reliable source, be my guest. I'm sure you'll enjoy as much success as every other left-leaning editor that has tried, but that has nothing to do with MMfA Rapier (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any of those descriptors describe Media Matters. "Poor reputation for checking the facts"? I'd imagine you'll provide a long list of factual errors they've made to back that up. "No editorial oversight"? They have a clear editorial structure. "Extremist" and "promotional" do not apply. "Relying heavily on rumors"? What evidence do you have to support that notion? And finally, "rely heavily on personal opinions"? It's true that they have a point of view, but that doesn't mean that they only publish opinion--most of what they publish is not opinionated at all. The ratio of news to opinion is basically like a newspaper. You can find a comparable level of opinion in tons of reliable sources.
The only assertion you've made that's you've actually supported with fact is that MM does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Sources don't have to do that. Regarding my Fox News comparison, I said clearly and unambiguously that I believe we can and should be able to cite Fox News. But they do have a point of view. If your issue is that they are not avowedly conservative (which should not matter if they are in fact conservative, just as it should not matter if MM suddenly deleted "progressive" from their self-description), then what about something like the National Review? Should we be prohibited from ever citing them? That seems like an awful idea to me; we should certainly be able to use the National Review if it makes sense, but they are avowedly conservative. Croctotheface (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A consideration of "Media Matters" and other "partisan media-watchdog organizations" as RS was extensively discussed in a recent RS/N. Blaxthos has commenced another RS/N directly re-addressing this question. Other interested editors are encouraged to participate there as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake, any reason you're re-posting this announcement after I already gave notice at the top of this section? The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that they qualify as a reliable source (and that hasn't changed in this most recent posting). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake, any reason you're re-posting this announcement after I already gave notice at the top of this section?
Yes. Given the direction of this discussion, it directly relates to the RS/N you opened, would enhance that discussion and, considering the current length of this discussion, might easily be (and may have been) overlooked.
"The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that they qualify as a reliable source (and that hasn't changed in this most recent posting)."
As one can read in the most recently concluded RS/N on the subject, opinion is considerably mixed as to an unqualified RS status for Media Matters and I simply disagree with your characterization. However, I'll defer further comment here pending completion of the current RS/N. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake, let's be really clear here -- the RSN discussion you continually reference is not about evaluating MMFA against WP:RS... the RFC is actually about treating MRC and MMFA as equal sources (speifically, the title is "Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?"). FAIR, MRC, Newsbusters et al have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that MMfA qualify as a reliable source. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall editing this article or participating in any discussions here (if I did, it was a long time ago), so I think I qualify as uninvolved. I've got enough edits to qualify as experienced. MM is a partisan org that has a stated bias against what they consider conservative news outlets. They're not always right or wrong. Each of their statements needs to be assessed on an individual basis. The idea of considering a liberal organization (yes, they are liberal. Even the NYT calls them liberal), who is a self-appointed "watchdog" of conservative news, to be "reliable" without question is ridiculous. They have a bias and the neutrality of statements beeds looked at each time. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift36, unfortunately you are confusing WP:RS with WP:NPOV. Also, your use of ":*" (bullet points) on article talk pages makes the talk pages hard to read. Could you please conform with community standards and use indentation? Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not confusing them. I'm commenting on more than a single narrow question. Sorry if you want everything to be about a specific, narrow point. Since their product is often based on their opinion, the reliability and neutrality are connected. As for the bullets, I don't see where they make it any harder to read and I like them. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for indenting. Is there any evidence of a significant lack of reliability of MMfA? SaltyBoatr get wet 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been indenting. I just use the bullet before it. As I've said, each statement needs evaluated. They are a reliable source for their own opinions, of course, but care needs to be taken about what is opinion and what is fact. If it is opinion, then we are in a NPOV/UNDUE discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
MMfA is a reliable source for their opinion, they are not a reliable source for factual statements due to their admitted bias. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"admitted bias"

Some of you just keep restating the same thing. And you wonder why new editors don't want to get involved? There is no "admitted bias" that is your presumption. PrBeacon (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They specifically state that they report what they feel is conservative bias or untruths. I can admit that MRC is biased to the right, the fact that you can't admit that MMfA is biased to the left tells me pretty much all I need to know. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not my business to judge MMfA's bias, nor is it yours. According to your (faulty) logic, a watchdog group challenging conservative bias etc is itself biased? Even if you think so, it's certainly not "admitted" by them. PrBeacon (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be dense. According to the (sound) logic of everybody here that is trying to be respectful of your opinion: Any organization that defines itself as progressive, and states that its sole purpose is "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" is biased. I am willing, as a conservative, to state that any conservative organization (Such as the Media Research Center) is too biased to be used as a reliable source on anything but itself. We aren't trying to push an agenda, we are simply calling a spade a spade and not allowing an organization that has a stated bias and agenda to be used as a reliable source against that which it states it is against because it cannot, by definition, be "reliable". Rapier (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't be patronizing. If another editor claims the MMfA has an "admitted bias" its not unreasonable for me to challenge that. Bias here has several degrees of meaning and implied meaning, the most basic of which are bent, tendency or inclination of temperament or outlook. While MMfA calls itself progressive, that does not automatically mean prejudice or unreasoned judgment. What respectable news organization would call itself biased? (in the second sense, because that's what is presumed). And to your point about them being unreliable even if they are biased, I believe there are several uninvolved editors over at RS/N who say otherwise. PrBeacon (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
They are a liberal organization (the NY Times characterization, not mine) that is set up solely to monitor conservative news outlets. In case you missed it, liberalism and conservatism are pretty much opposites. They characterize themselves as "progressive", which again is the opposite of conservative. They judge items that promote the "conservative agenda" as to whether or not they are credible (again, according to their own website). Jusdging credibility is opinion based. So you have a progressive org, offering their opinion about the credibility of the political opposites....but you don't see any possibility of bias? The term willful blindness might apply here. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"What respectable news organization would call itself biased?" MMfA is not a news organization. They present (mostly) published information which they feel promotes a conservative bias. They present this information from a liberal/progressive point of view. This is the very definition of BIAS Arzel (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Berkley Integrated Audio Software?  :-) As noted earlier, SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOUR POINT LEGITIMATE and is rather dickish. In any case, the "bias" discussion really isn't germane to a discussion about WP:RS (or WP:NPOV for that matter). Reliability and bias have absolutely nothing to do with each other -- please stop trying to use that argument to exclude sources with which you do not ideologically agree. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • He puts a single word in caps for emphasis....you put 9 words in caps (for no legitimate reason I can see) then call putting things in caps dickish behavior. The irony of that is all most too much. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Blax, you are mistaken. The very definition of the word "bias" is: "a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology, or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective. " This is why these sources are not "reliable", as much as the fact that you agree with them makes you want to include them. Rapier (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Restating for the sloppy readers: I never said they weren't biased. I'm objecting to Arzel's claim of "admitted bias." And Rapier that secondary meaning is your presumption of the term bias. A fine point, perhaps, but I think it's important not to just let that slide in this argument. Yet another editor (Niteshift) chooses to patronize rather than discuss in civil terms. Does anyone still wonder why these threads devolve so quickly? PrBeacon (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a fine point, no point at all, on either case. You have just reached "fringe" argument status in my opinion, and there is no reason to continue this argument. All any reasonable person needs to do is read the "About Us" section on the MMfA website that the descriptors that we've been quoting comes from and it is apparant that there is "admitted bias". The definition of "bias" offered is not mine, it is the definition that a consensus has agreed upon according to Wikipedia editors on the bias article. If you like, I can give you Webster's definition "an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment". That doesn't really help your argument either.Rapier (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion, you're entitled to it so why can't you respect that of others. There is no "admitted bias" on the MMfA site, that is your interpretation. There is no definition of bias on the wikipedia page. The webster's one you give doesn't support your interpretation either. As i said, fine point: notice the semi-colon. The secondary meaning does not always or automatically follow from the primary.PrBeacon (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Webster's may or may not (I don't have one handy), but Random House and American Heritage dictionaries do: "a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question" They say they are "progressive" (that indicates their inclination) and they only concentrate on conservative outlets and often what they deem (using their inclinations) as not "cedible" (an unprejudiced answer). Don't like that one? How about "to cause partiality or favoritism". They only go after one group to promote their own POV. You are looking for a bold print statement from them that says "we're biased". Of course they won't say that in such simple terms. I am NOT being condescending or insulting when I say that you're missing the forest for the trees. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Only slightly, and saying you're not doesn't make it so. Anyway, since you came in late I'll recap: Arzel claimed the bias near the very top of this thread (2nd post) but it went unchallenged, Rapier picked up on that later, then it eventually morphed into "admitted bias." MMfA admitting a left-leaning outlook (bias1) does not mean that they are admitting prejudice (bias2) -- I contend that there is a distinction, including your "especially". You argue that they are synonymous -- I don't believe that's true. Especially if we were to turn the argument around to FNC and its conservative bias. It's clear to me that you & others here won't give up any ground on semantics so it may be another issue for WP:POVN. PrBeacon (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I stated that I wasn't saying it with the intent of being condescending. Now you can judge my intent too? Your "turn around" is wrongheaded. A) Fox doesn't call themselves a conservative organization, MM calls themselves a progressive org. and B) FNC is a news organization. MM is not a news org. They are an activist group. So you're comparing apples and oranges. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
heh, "wrongheaded" another poor choice of word(s). Can't you disagree without being so disagreeable? WP:AGF then I will too. PrBeacon (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Now I'm confused. What is offensive about "wrongheaded"? It means miguided. Your thinking, in comparing FNC and MM on the basis that you were comparing them, was misguided. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


(I've removed my further comments here as unconstructive and distracting.) -PrBeacon (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Insulting people is not the way to win debates and violations of WP:CIVIL certainly don't help matters either. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift, I suggest you ignore PrBeacon's further attempts to bait. He appears to now be focused only on ad hominen attacks. Arzel (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy (PrBeacon) makes Blaxthos look look like David Gergen. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Arzel you're overstating, good thing NPA is more objective- "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." PrBeacon (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RS/N, outside editors: MM is reliable

Consensus by outside editors at RSN # Media matters (25th time asked) seems to be that MMfA can be used as a reliable source and that it is not self-published.

Blueboar - "As an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that MMfA is a reliable source"
Yilloslime - "Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included"
KillerChihuahua - "Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources"
Squidfryerchef - "Policy and precedent are pretty clear on this. Advocacy groups can be RS"
Dlabtot - "when sources are in dispute, we present all of the significant conflicting viewpoints according to our NPOV policy. ... Almost daily we have folks here at RSN arguing that this or that source can't be used because it is 'biased'. It gets tiresome because it flows from a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy"

The previous RSN discussed whether to treat several partisan groups consistently : FAIR, MRC, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters. There was much support for that but also some compelling opposition. Please read those admin threads before replying here. Thanks. PrBeacon (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks Beacon. Most of us were there, so we were familiar, but the reminder is nice. Unfortuantely, I don't believe that MM's reliablility that is the question here. To me, it is more of a weight issue and whether they are reporting or advocating. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Good summary. A couple of minor points. Yilloslime isn't an outside editor--he/she is involved in the MMfA article. The previous RSN item also asked, using an RfC, whether such sources should be consistently excluded or included in BLPs. The consensus (by a small margin) was to exclude these sources in BLPs. It didn't address use in non-BLP articles like FNC though.--Drrll (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. But I'm not sure about the BLP issue, there was mixed opposition and support including the editors on the more recent RSN. In my opinion that's more of an individual, case-by-case thing. PrBeacon (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That is should be an individual, case-by-case thing sounds like a reasonable position. I believe that I said something similar in one of the discussions about MM on the RSN. I think that holds true for most sources that have an agenda, whether they are conservative, liberal or just plain crazy. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting "most trusted"

New poll released by 60 Minutes / Vanity Fair [9] lists FoxNews in 2nd place with 29% behind CNN with 32%. I think this should be included in the final paragraph of the Ratings and reception section, along with shortening the PPP info already there, so I'm putting the idea here for reworking that paragraph. PrBeacon (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the poll currently on there has a margin of error of 2.8 and Fox led by 10, and the poll you are citing has CNN up by 3 with a margin of error of nearly 4% (3.89%, when 3% is generally accepted in statistics), I don't know if we should put this up without some qualifiers regarding its accuracy.Rapier (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a bias question in the poll. The poll was at the 60 Minutes homepage, meaning it would be heavily voted on by 60 Minutes/CBS viewers, which typically aren't the type who are FNC viewers. That biases the poll. I think only polls done to the general population should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Your assumption is incorrect. It's from "...a random sample of 1,026 adults nationwide". One could argue that the existing poll info within the article is biased to the right, endorsed as it by Politico. By the way, I agree with a previous comment that your posts should follow protocol & not use bullets. PrBeacon (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not my assumption, it was from the link you provided. The VF source tells us "To answer the questions yourself, visit the 60 Minutes homepage at CBSNews.com.". Then it provides a link. Whatever their current poll is appears on that page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Further, CBS interprets it as "Is America becoming a cable nation? With CNN getting 32 percent and Fox News 29 percent as the most trustworthy source of news, it would appear so. But if you factor in that around 50 percent of those that chose Fox were Republicans and 46 percent of those who chose CNN were Democrats (surprise) it might be an indication that America's propensity for fractious ideological divisions has spilled into how they choose to receive their daily ration of news".
Then it's from more sloppy reading. The fine print discusses the polling sample. The additional option you mention has no effect on the published results. As already discussed, it's reasonable to qualify the results. PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Add me to the list of editors asking NiteShift36 to stop with the improper use of bullet points. (pardon the offtopic statement) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep being disruptive Blax. I'll use them when I feel like it and find humor in the fact that when you can't refute something with substance, you resort to tactics like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift, it you want to use bullets, go right ahead. As for the study. One, the margin of error clearly falls between the two. One cannot say with any significance that either CNN or FNC is the most trusted name in news based off that poll. Two, FNC, to my knowledge, is not currently using that slogan. The only ones I have heard lately are "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". Thus the poll really doesn't have any context with the current state of FNC. It would be little more than trivia which doesn't actually say anything. Arzel (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Spiteful, much? The poll is from a reliable source, they include the margin of error, both are worthy of inclusion. Even if you are a statistician, it's not your job to interpret poll numbers here. PrBeacon (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The poll is from a Reliable source, but where is the margin of error? I had to figure that out for myself. Rapier (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, there is no published margin. I assumed it was there when you mentioned it earlier. So your figure could be wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. PrBeacon (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is no published margin of error then the poll is worthless from a statistical point of view. Arzel (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Good thing we leave interpreting results to what's published in reliable sources, eh Arzel? If it's been published in a reliable source, NPOV policy requires inclusion (especially if it's a viewpoint contrasting some other source). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Though it's true that I've gotten involved in some pretty silly tempests in teapots in Wikipedia (I suppose, by definition, every dispute in Wikipedia is a tempest in a teapot) this one takes the kettle. The whole idea of having a ratings and reception section this long is unwise. Public polls of subjective feelings toward news networks will always shift and, from my perspective, have little encyclopedic value. Just another very unimportant thing for Wikipedia editors to argue about. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet you & Arzel have shown no objection when the previous poll went your way. I disagree with both of you that this "trusted" issue is trivial or worthless, in your opinions, precisely because it was used as a slogan by FNC. That makes it relevant. PrBeacon (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Beacon. Do you just like seeing your words in print? Take a look at Talk Archive 25, "Ratings and reception" to see what I have thought about the this section of the article since I first noticed its length and detail. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I could ask you the same thing. You're just sore about getting whooped at raquetball. PrBeacon (talk
Hmmm, how should this read: "In April of 2010, a year after Fox stopped using the slogan The Most Trusted Name in News, a joint 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair study listed CNN 3 points ahead of FOX News Channel in a poll taken by 1096 adults asking "Which of the following do you consider to be the MOST TRUSTWORHY SOURCE OF DAILY NEWS in the United States?", but gave no margin of error in their poll". Yeah, that is absolutely vital! Rapier (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If that's the best way you can edit neutrally, then someone else should give it a shot. I'd assume you were being smarmy but then we might get into another tangent. PrBeacon (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Then the information currently in the article should be removed. PrBeacon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PEW report, different issue

I'm reverting this change to the 'Ratings and reception' section, which removed the PEW report info. The editor equates this removal with the one discussed above. They are not the same. The PEW report does not talk about the old slogan "most trusted." And I believe that Arzel should have discussed this here before making this change. PrBeacon (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where in the discussion above was there consensus for removing the PPP poll material? I think we should apply a consistent standard to keeping or removing polls, regardless of whether they reflect positively or negatively upon the FNC.--Drrll (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Arguments against using the 60Min./VF poll apply equally to the PPP poll, as both are asking about the slogan "most trusted":
Arzel: FNC, to my knowledge, is not currently using that slogan. ... Thus the poll really doesn't have any context with the current state of FNC. It would be little more than trivia which doesn't actually say anything.
Badmintonhist: Public polls of subjective feelings toward news networks will always shift and, from my perspective, have little encyclopedic value.
Rapier: (sarcastically) Yeah, that is absolutely vital!
Niteshift: a poll in 2010 about a slogan FNC stopped using a year ago really isn't that relevant.
However there was no discussion above about other Reception content. And Arzel just reverted my earlier removal of the PPP poll with the edit summary: "You can't have it both ways" [10] which is exactly what you all are trying to do. You don't like the 2nd place poll, but you say the 1st stays in. If the 1st doesn't stay in, Arzel removes a different poll in tit-for-tat editing, refusing to discuss it here -- undoubtedly in frustration that I used your collective logic above to remove the first poll. Edit summaries are not sufficient: "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page.". Looks like we'll need to get some admin help here.PrBeacon (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We obviously can't include every poll in the article, so how about as a compromise we put in one poll that favors FNC and one poll that doesn't favor FNC? I doubt that we could find a source that summarizes long-term polling about FNC.--Drrll (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove them all. Polling information is a snapshot in time which doesn't correlate to current events. If PrBeacon hadn't specifically removed one that was favorable to FNC while leaving the negative it wouldn't be much of an issue. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats not true, you're misrepresenting the Pew report. It's both favorable and unfavorable. PrBeacon (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(note, 'another sidetrack' subsection removed as unconstructive and distracting, per both editors' agreement) -PrBeacon (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Chop down "Ratings and reception" section

I would get rid of most of the Ratings and reception section. Maybe give a general overview of its ratings compared to the other cable news networks in recent years. Perhaps give a statistical fact or two about its highest rated program, The O'Reilly Factor and maybe one or two statistics about the channel's viewership and that's it. It shouldn't be a detailed running blog. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Give a little info about the current ratings status compared to other cable news networks, plus a few notable facts from the past like the fact that it has at times been the highest rated of all cable channels and that it beat out the broadcast networks for 2004 GOP convention coverage. One source that could be used is http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/q1_2010_cable_ranker_fox_news_2_overall_has_top_13_shows_in_cable_news_156760.asp. If the "reception" part of the section title is to remain, include both the Pew poll results and the PPP poll results.--Drrll (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revised text

First quarter 2010 television viewership ratings revealed that Fox News Channel was the second highest-rated basic cable channel, behind USA Network. The ratings also showed that the top 13 cable news shows aired on FNC. In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.

In September 2009, the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various national news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the network as "favorable", and 43% of Democrat viewers and 55% of all viewers share this opinion. However, Fox had the highest unfavorable rating of all national outlets studied at 25 percent of all viewers. The report goes on to say that "partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007".[39]. In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news network in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[41] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only network to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the network, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score. --Drrll (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would make it even shorter, Drrll. Something like this:
The Fox News Channel has led the Nielsen Ratings' measurement of regular viewership for cable news networks throughout most of the early 2000s. [source]. Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has been the highest rated cable news program during the same period. [source]
In September 2009 the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the network as "favorable" and that 43% of Democratic viewers and 55% of all viewers shared this opinion. However, Fox had the highest "unfavorable" rating of all national news outlets at 25% of all viewers. The report also said that "partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007." [source]
In the third week of January 2010, Fox News was the highest rated basic cable channel in prime time. This marked the first time that a news network had led this category, beating out entertainment networks such as USA, TNT, and TBS. [source] Badmintonhist (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that paragraphs 1 and 3 should be combined and two other changes--including pared-down info about the PPP poll and pared-down info about FNC beating the broadcast networks in 2004:
The Fox News Channel has led the Nielsen Ratings' measurement of regular viewership for cable news networks throughout most of the early 2000s. [source]. Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has been the highest rated cable news program during the same period. [source] In the third week of January 2010, Fox News was the highest rated basic cable channel in prime time. This marked the first time that a news network had led this category, beating out entertainment networks such as USA, TNT, and TBS. [source] In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. [source]
In September 2009 the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the network as "favorable" and that 43% of Democratic viewers and 55% of all viewers shared this opinion. However, Fox had the highest "unfavorable" rating of all national news outlets at 25% of all viewers." [source] In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news network in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News. [source] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only network to score a net positive in that regard.

--Drrll (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go ahead and remove the second paragraph or add in the 60 minutes piece. Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Years

Roger Ailes is described as a former Republican Party Strategist. According to Ailes himself in his interview with Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge at the Hoover Institution, he was never a strategist, just a media consultant. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/85840987.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro should include criticism & controversy per LEAD

The introduction for FoxNews needs to mention why they are controversial as a news source. I know there has been extensive discussion on this in the past- archives 21 23 25 etc... But I also see the following summary in the FAQ at the top of this talkpage:

WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.

The [old] Concern, mentioned before that, no longer applies to the current lead.
So has it been watered down since then?
          As it stands now the lead merely states "Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." This is a weak summary of substantial criticism. And it is then countered by Fox's rebuttal. In tandem this falsely portrays the FNC as simply another right-wing outlet and thus frames the rest of the article in such a manner. This does not accurately reflect media criticism of FNC contained within the rest of the article -- including Fox News Channel controversies which by extension is a part of this discussion. I think the lead section should include one or two summary sentences of criticism & controversy from the body text and the separate article. For starters the existing sentence in question could be ammended:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality. [11] [12]

Which is what the criticism section says already. We might also mention allegations of poor fact-checking and mixing commentary with reporting. Murdoch's son-in-law even said that he is "ashamed and sickened by [their] horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards" [13]. I present this last source for context, not as one to be used within the article. PrBeacon (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The left and critics may make those general claims, but the average observer does not, sepcifically with regards to their news reporting. Murdoch's son-in-law is hardly notable other than the fact that he happens to be his son-in-law. His opinion would be undue weight. The current lead is the result of several attempts to reach a neutral compromise, your suggestions would push the tone of the article into a neutral point of view violation. Furthermore, the lead can stand on itself as a basic summary. Arzel (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead shouldn't go in-depth. It should mention that some people feel that they promote a conservative POV, then have that issue addressed in the appropriate section. There isn't a need to try to tell the story in the lead, it should indicate that there is a story later in the article. Also, I'm not too keen on the use of "many" in either version. That's vague and POV. Saying "some" is still a vague term, but much less POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if indicating partisanship is the issue, we should also note that the critics are liberals. Can't make FNC's partisanship an issue without mentioning the partisanship of those "many observers". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
If anything, the noting of the criticism that Fox has a right-leaning bias has been strengthened not watered down as a result of recent past discussions. "Some" was changed to "many"; and "news reporting" (not just "programming" in general) was specifically put into the sentence. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record, here's the equivalent entry, in toto, for the MSNBC introduction...
Many observers of the network say that MSNBC has become politically liberal compared with other networks, particularly in its prime-time lineup.
Res ipsa loquitor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The disparity in sources between the FNC charge of bias and the MSNBC charge of bias should be noted as well. Sources used for FNC: a liberal opinion piece from Slate, a news story from the left-leaning USA Today about an anti-Fox film, a news story from the liberal Guardian, and a news story from Politico about Anita Dunn's anti-Fox comments. Instead of having conservative and right-leaning sources, the sources used for MSNBC are: two news stories from the left-leaning NYT, a story from the left-leaning WaPo, 2 references to the fairly neutral Pew Center for the People & the Press, and a piece from the liberal Huffington Post.--Drrll (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"..briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias" -- much of the response above has ignored this part of LEAD or otherwise dismissed it. That would not stand up to peer review. Because substantial criticism from reliable sources (left-leaning or not) has a place in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. I don't see a past consensus on the current wording -- please provide links to specific discussions where that was reached -- and it is hardly a compromise to simply call FNC "conservative". Alhough I understand the comparisons to MSNBC I don't think that applies here, mostly because as another edited said "the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality [sic] different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently" -NickCT (arch.26). PrBeacon (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the lead "briefly describing its notable controversies"--it seems to already do so. I don't think that the "nature of criticism surrounding FNC is fundamentally different" (you can find the same critiques of CNN & MSNBC being biased in their reporting). You won't find much difference in the "degree" of the criticism either in liberal sources about FNC and conservative sources about CNN/MSNBC. The only major differences in degree can be found in the world of large news organizations, since far more of them are left-leaning than right-leaning.--Drrll (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
First, this entire section is predicated on the idea that WP:LEAD (which is a guideline, not a policy) somehow requires that controversy be detail in the lead. LEAD is a suggestion and it says that is is appropriate to overview controveries. As it stands, it gives an overview type indicator that the controversy exists and that it will be covered in the article. That is apppropriate and doesn't need expanded. Now Beacon, you're saying you don't see past consensus (which existed). Just forget that for the moment. What you see is a current consensus. Why do you even need to worry about what happened before? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately what I see isn't up to you. And what you call 'current consensus' is the same belligerent pro-FNC crowd that tried to get MMfA deemed unreliable in a recent WP:RSN. Even after outside editors there ALL said it is reliable. So I'm happy to bring this issue up there as well. The WP:Lead guideline is more important than you seem to think. It's referenced in the Manual of Style and it's currently up for merger with the section there. By the way, Drrll you can work on changing the MSNBC lead if you don't like it. It's not that relevant to this discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You can do all the labelling you want, I still see a number of editors saying you're wrong and only you arguing for it. Whether you like the people or not, it's still the consensus of those discussing it. The issue of MM and the lead are seperate issues, so stop trying to use the results of a seperate discussion as "proof" of how you are right in this. And yes, I am aware that the Lead guideline is in a merge proposal. Guess what? The MoS is also a guideline. So it's being moved from one guideline to another. Wow, big step up. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not pretend that PrBeacon is Leonidas at the pass here. Many, many, many editors have cited WP:LEAD as the reason for their views here. Chant "guideline, not policy" all you want, but it's a guideline that has always had a pretty firm consensus here, aside from a small but persistent group of dissenters. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think that adding something to the lead about the array of criticisms would be nice, as right now the only thing mentioned is the conservative bias. However, I would suggest that only criticisms covered by other news sources would be used (I would exclude HP, MMFA, and FAIR b/c they have a greater propensity for criticizing Fox News). Soxwon (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon, the RSN notice about MMfA was suggested by SaltyBoatr and put up by Blaxthos, both supportive of MMfA as a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If your point is to counter how i characterized 'current consensus' then my point still stands: the editors who've argued in this thread against changing the lead are the same ones who think MMfA is too biased/unreliable as criticism for FoxNews. Regardless of who posted the RSN note. The bigger issue within that point: Do you folks believe any critics of FNC? PrBeacon (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FAQ = past consensus for lead

  • Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
  • in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
  • The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Note: more info above on the alleged conservative bias.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.
Also please note: my previous posts for this thread neglected to differentiate between the two parts of the FAQ's first point: policy and consensus. PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your addition of "...at the expense of neutrality" is redundant given the preceding text...
Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.
Please explain your rationale for the additional text. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Note that Jake's request for rationale came after his (attempted) revert [14] of the addition, though Arzel beat him to the punch. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I would remind PrBeacon that the current wording was the result of a great deal of compromise between several parties. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"...at the expense of neutrality" is not redundant, it actually summarizes much of the mainstream criticism -- and Fox's denial in the next sentence makes more sense when there is mention of bias first. The wording I added already appears in the body text, as I said above.
@Arzel - would you please cut the lawyer posturing? Distancing yourself from talkpage chat (with phrasing "I would remind PrBeacon..") doesn't give you any more authority. You repeat what you said before (yet without links to past discussion). Fox's denial of bias (without the allegation) hardly counts as compromise. Seems like you're both ignoring the FAQ. Shall we bring in outside editors again? PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
My addition is not redundant with 'conservative' and it appears in the body text
Then it is redundant in the body text as well. "Neutrality" is the antithesis of promoting an ideological "political position" and its addition is redundant and POV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps ideally, philosophically, but its not enough to call them conservative and let the reader infer what you argue. It is appropriate to mention controversy in a lead. Sorry to hear that you don't think so. PrBeacon (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I will assume you are going to append the additional and needed reader "assistance" to the MSNBC article as well? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but I won't stop you. (Drrll already tried that debate tactic, above). PrBeacon (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a "tactic". I'm trying to grasp your rationale for the additional text you want to incorporate. Would you agree, given your position, that the following is an improvement of the MSNBC introduction...
Many observers of the network say that MSNBC has become politically liberal, at the expense of neutrality, compared with other networks, particularly in its prime-time lineup.
JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about 'many' because MSNBC doesn't get the same coverage. Perhaps if you provide reasonable RS, even if they are right of center. But honestly I don't see as much criticism of MSNBC about their journalistic standards as there is for Fox. Thats the tradeoff for being such a popular news outlet. Overall media bias? Who knows, thats difficult to argue objectively. And as we've seen in the two previous RS/N threads, even serious critics of either one will be maligned by the other side. PrBeacon (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You're evading the question (not that I don't fully understand your need for trying). The issue has nothing to do with the degree or breadth of criticism leveled at Fox or MSNBC, but your assertion that...
...its not enough to call them conservative and let the reader infer what you argue.
If you believe that is true of "calling them conservative", then you must also, logically and consisently, hold the same to be true for "calling them liberal". I believe we're done here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, it has everything to do with criticism. They are not your average conservative, whatever that is. You tried to set up a false choice, then get huffy when I don't fall for it. You may be done, but don't include me in your we. PrBeacon (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to the page. The lead has to discuss the controversy. If anything, the current one sentence on the controversy is too little. There are good facts that would help define the controversy and spark interest in the article. We could mention, for example, the Bush talking points, the Obama criticisms, etc. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, the main controversy about FNC is usually accusations about their bias/neutrality. That is already included. You mention "Bush talking points" and "Obama criticisms". Can you give examples of criticism by reliable sources about those issues? It would seem to me, without seeing a specific example, that "Bush talking points" goes back to the neutrality/bias complaint. I'm not sure what you mean about "Obama criticisms". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I assume he was referring to sections in the main article "Talking points from Bush White House" and "Obama Administration criticism of Fox News" both of which are expanded in the subarticle Fox News Channel controversies. As I said at the top of this thread, the lead does not sufficiently summarize these & other controversies with the simple claim that they "promote conservative political positions" which is then followed by Fox's denial. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: I've removed [most of] my further comments in this subthread as unnecessary, as before. I'll remove the rest when Niteshift returns the favor. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe I wasn't clear about what I meant, which was specific examples how it should be worked into the leade, limited only to criticisms as stated by reliable sources. For example, he simply said "Obama criticisms". I don't know what he means. Does he intend to make it part of a listing? A sentence seperate from the "talking points" allegations, etc. But I know what is in the fucking article. I've waited to respond to this but waiting and coming back to look at it still doesn't make what you did (drastically altering your reply after I'd replied to it, then inserting a break between them) look proper. But I really don't want to get into that debate. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You're going to believe whatever you want anyway, regardless of what I say. You've demonstrated over and over that what I actually say or mean has no bearing on what you hear. In any case, he hasn't bothered to come back to clarify exactly how he thinks it should be worked in. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That really doesn't make sense, how could I reply to your points then. Unfortunately both of our arguments devolved into squabbling, I can admit as much. Let's hope that stops. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll try not to assume what he meant. And since he hasn't bothered to explain after nearly a month of waiting for him to explain, what I will assume is that he isn't going to explain much further. You said you disagree with my assertion that it's already there, but it's still there in black and white. You might not feel that it's not enough, but disagreeing that it's even there doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he needs to explain, but that's just my 2c. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon asked me to contribute here, but I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been said by me and others in the archives. The usual suspects are making the same arguments over and over again and not bringing anything new in the way of fact or policy based arguments to the table. Speaking of tables, this discussion should be tabled on account of deja vu. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "usual suspects" huh Gam? I know I wasn't in the archived discussion. I'm betting a couple of others weren't either. Regardless, since you contributed nothing new and think it should be tabled, are we to take your post to mean that you think it should be left as it was per the past consensus? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You can't expect me to tell user names apart when you all keep repeating the same arguments. Maybe if you all added different colors to your signatures or something. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, yes I would expect that when you come in talking about "the usual suspects". So again I ask, are we to take your answer to me that it should be left as is since you don't feel it's worth discussing? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If the usual suspects make the usual arguments on the usual articles, such things happen. And I thought it was perfectly clear that I advocate abiding by the preexisting long-standing consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure what Gamaliel means. On the one hand, table the discussion. On the other, abide by the consensus. Is the FAQ not consensus? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Since you have cited it as justification for changing "some" to "many", I'm working under the presumption that you consider the FAQ section to represent consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from WP:POVN

Three outside editors at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard # FoxNews have agreed that the lede should better reflect the extensive criticism and controversies of Fox News. Therefore I'm restoring my earlier change as noted above & adding one of the sources from the subarticle FNC controversies. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that same interpretation. Let them come here and discuss, rather than simply pushing your POV. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you're unhappy with the results again from outside editors. User:Leadwind already stated his opinion above. So, to summarize those of us in support of lede change: Blaxthos, Gamaliel, Soxwon, Leadwind, and PrBeacon (me), possibly others like SaltyBoatr, Croctotheface and Soxwon (who've apparently given up trying to balance the entrenched editors here), as well as (at least) two other editors at POV/N Itsmejudith and TFD. Yet you revert my change again disregarding the FAQ and past consensus. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on, exactly what am I agreeing to? (I stopped paying attention to this discussion) Soxwon (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See the original post above. I intended the first change to be a gradual one & only include what the body text already says: "Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality." (change/addition shown in bold) ..But I guess you're partially right, there hasn't been any significant progress on actual wording -- several editors continue to insist that it shouldn't be changed. @Arzel where is the WP policy supporting your edit summary on the revert:[15] "Changes to the lead must be fully discussed and agreed upon" -- and what constitutes fully discussed? -PrBeacon (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As "at the expense of neutrality" appears to (again) be at issue, I just looked at the 4 citations purported to support that text and none (I readily admit I may have missed it) appear to contain that phraseology. Did I overlook it? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you asserting that those exact words must be contained in sources, or just the general concept? Note, this is just a question and not a challenge to your position or an endorsement of the language. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As specific phraseology appears to be an ongoing bone of contention, I think strict adherence to sourcing requirements (to include actual text quotation) may be warranted in this case, Yes. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The phrasing does not appear in quotes so I think it's safe to assume that it is a reasonable paraphrasing of the source(s). Nonetheless, the dailymail.co.uk actually says those very words. But if we don't need the exact words, and I'm not convinced that we do, here are two more sources we could use: businessweek and villagevoice. Jake can you point to specific policy which mandates 'strict adherence to sourcing requirements (to include actual text quotation)'? My understanding of WP:V is that paraphrasing sources is perfectably acceptable in summarizing criticism and controversy of non-BLP articles, and especially in the lead where quotes are discouraged. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The phrasing does not appear in quotes so I think it's safe to assume that it is a reasonable paraphrasing of the source(s).
Were this phraseology not in contention, I would agree, but a quotation with a proper cite dispatches those issues rather quickly, as in this case.
My understanding of WP:V is that paraphrasing sources is perfectably acceptable in summarizing criticism and controversy of non-BLP articles, and especially in the lead where quotes are discouraged.
That sounds familiar and reasonable...and I'll assume your statement to be a legitimate representation of WP:V policy. As to "quotes are discouraged", perhaps circumstances such as this is why they're "discouraged", but not prohibited.
As to the incorporation of the descriptive itself, I would suggest that as it is thus far single-sourced, and that that single source attributes the phrase to an un-named source (it could be the author's own paraphrase), I'm not convinced that it should be high on your list of "must haves" for the lede...but you can certainly source it...which answers my question. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, as long as it is properly sourced, I don't think quotes are required either. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Village Voice is certainly not a very reliable source in this instance. Articles which use derogatory terminology for the president are not what I would consider of high quality. The Buisness Week article is from 2004 and quite outdated, not to mention that they seem to refer to MSNBC as being unbiased in relation to FNC (which is definitely not the case now). Neither of them actual make the statement anyway, so it is mostly a moot point. The Daily Mail doesn't actually make the statement, they are in fact pharaphasing some other unknown people that make this claim, which in interesting since there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that actually make that claim, so I am not clear who they are referring. Most of this doesn't get past the primary reason why the lead is worded as it currently is. The original intent was to present the meme that observers feel FNC is biased, however this particular meme (neutrality) appears to be largely singular which when combined with the preceding text presents a synthesis of material. So either we can present a couple of specific attributed compaints or a general phrasing which covers the overall complaint against FNC. Arzel (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect you to be satisfied with any source critical of FoxNews. And I don't think your interpretation of sourcing (including misrepresenting the dailymail ref & dismissing the businessweek one as "quite outdated") would stand up to peer review, as it has not in the past. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it beyond your capability to discuss in an adult manner? Arzel (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, is it beyond yours? What's immature here is your standard response when defending Fox News from counterbalance -- patronizing and dismissive ever since I got here. You've continued to stonewall changes and encourage others to do the same. Don't pretend otherwise. - 14:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC) revised -PrBeacon (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_26&oldid=789378144"