Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Pauline Cameron

The "other controversies" section includes the claim that:

"Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News was allowed to cover the Bush Campaign in 2000 despite the fact his wife was campaigning for Bush."

The claim is marked as citation needed. As near as I can tell the source of the claim is this video which shows Carl Cameron and candidate George Bush chatting prior to a televised interview. I'm unsure of a good way to site this though. Anyone have any thoughts?

• added link to film footage Ucanlookitup 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

removal

removed 'liberal' from front of watchdog group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.100.40.174 (talk • contribs) 10:24, February 8, 2006.

not quite

Every major personality on Fox News - Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson

Almost but not quite. Shepard Smith is a major personality, isn't he?

Removing the PIPA report

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers.

I have been thinking about this for some time and I am not sure what this shows - i.e. a conservative slant or not. For example, I believe (and IMHO it is very reasonable to believe) that the US and France are working closely together to fight terrorism. That does not mean, however, that the US and France get along, or have the same viewpoint of what the best methods are etc. To me this is a more sophisticated view of the relationships between organizations - that they work together to reach common goals (or they work together when thier tactics agree), but are divergent when it comes to operational or tactical methods to reach that goal (or on other tactics upon which they disagree).

This is why this PIPA report, imho, is not reliable in reaching the conclusions that it claims - it created questions that were purposely ambigious and assigned one response as a misperception and, presumably, the other as the "correct" perception. Because this one seems so obvious to me - that to respond yes to the question of Iraq and al Qaeda working together is a reasonable response and not a misperception - creates doubt in the accuracy and notability (i.e. the report feels like utter nonsense to me - and yes I have read almost all the PDF at different times since it was released) that it should not even be included.

Are there objections to removing this report? Trödel•talk 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No objection. It's an attack on Fox News viewers, not Fox News, so I consider it irrelevant. In addition, the report turned out to have fundamental methodological flaws that rendered it worthless anyway. --Aaron 23:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Objection. It's relevant because by "attacking" viewers, or rather suggesting that they are misinformed reflects to at least some extent on the accuracy of their sources of news. Also, I'm not sure you understand the report fully, Trödel. The misconception there is that the US had evidence of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda working together, and it's a fact now that no, they don't have such evidence. If you personally believe it's possible that Hussein and al Qaeda have worked together to acheive common goals then that is a completely different matter. 81.178.99.223 03:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Second the objection. The information reflects a correlation between the degree to which people are misinformed regarding Iraq, and their reliance to Fox News as a source of information. Fox News' pro-war stance is noted elsewhere in the article. Amibidhrohi 05:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Misinformed" is your POV. It has no relevance to the article. And, no, it doesn't have any relevance. Why do people watch Fox News? Usually because they're ALREADY conservative or right-leaning. So the poll doesn't have anything to do with the way Fox presents the news.--Hbutterfly 07:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Misinformed means you've been provided with incorrect information; if these people hold beliefs which are factually incorrect - as is clearly the case, e.g. the belief that the US had clear evidence of Saddam Hussein working with the al Qaeda, this is obviously incorrect and Rumsfeld has stated that there was no link between the two - then it would suggest that they are misinformed. This is fact, not opinion and not POV. Political leaning and the fact that these people may already be Conservative is irrelevant as you can still be Conservative without being misinformed and holding beliefs that are known to be incorrect. 81.178.99.223 10:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly outlining my point. This comment reflects the same POV as PIPA - ie "...beliefs which are factually incorrect - as is clearly the case, e.g. the belief that the US had clear evidence of Saddam Hussein working with al Qaeda..." means the same thing as a "...no link... [to the 9/11 terrorism];" and thus is a "misperception." As stated above - working together and having a joint operation are not the same. There is clear evidence that Huessen and al Qaeda worked together - harboring of al Qaeda members, providing funding to known al Qaeda operatives, providing training grounds for al Qaeda, etc.

To continue to rely on a study that whose conclusions are disputalbe, whose definitions are slanted, and whose survey wording is purposefully vagues is, IMHO, reckless and encyclopedic of us as wikipedians Trödel•talk 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this debate hinges on a personal (and possibly unfounded) belief that there was a significant link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and that the US government had this information at the time of this survey, perhaps you could provide some citations that support your position? Here are a couple of news articles that would suggest the opposite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm. There are many more, from credible sources, with similar conclusions.

Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two,"

Regardless of this the fact remains that this is a report from a recognised organisation that has been widely used to demonstrate - as Amibidhrohi already stated - "a correlation between the degree to which people are misinformed regarding Iraq, and their reliance to Fox News as a source of information" and therefore belongs in this article alongside other criticisms of Fox News. Whether or not you think this report is biased or vague does not dictate whether it belongs in the article or not, in fact it would be POV to dictate whether or not it stays because of your personal opinion. If however, you can provide evidence that the report is biased, skewed, its assumptions over the facts inaccurate, or otherwise flawed, you could add this to the article as a rebuttal of its claims. Simply removing all reference to it and acting as though it never existed would be damaging for the article and is borderline censorship. 81.178.99.223 13:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowlege, the Washington Post did refer to this study in one of its articles. The study has been cited by people arguing the quality of Fox's journalism. For those reasons alone, the findings deserve to be in this article. It is not for us to review or dispute whether or not the findings are reliable. To do so would effectively be 'original research', not permitted on Wikipedia. The information as presented DOES point to a controversy, and DOES qualify as an ALLEGATION of bias. It has never been for us to determine whether or not the bias alleged stands to all criticism, nor does the title of this entry require us to. If you wish to create another article titled "Absolutely Undeniable Evidence That Fox News Channel is Biased", and then keep this particular bit of information out of that article, by all means do so.Amibidhrohi 01:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is directly for us to determine notability in deciding what is kept or not kept. Usually verifiability is helpful in determining notability; however, in a subject matter that has a plethera of material we need to make good choices about what is notable or not. As the verifiability policy states: "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it." Trödel•talk 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point exactly. The PIPA report is most certainly notable, whilst your argument so far seems to have been that it should not be included due to it being unreliable or vague in its conclusions. Not only is this POV but also has little bearing on its notability. 81.178.99.223 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unreliability has no bearing on notability? Please explain. Trödel•talk 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not making a lot of sense. First you say verifiability is useful in determining notability, then you're saying that just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's worth publishing...The article points to a correlation between the viewers degree of misinformation and their reliance on Fox News. The article clearly shows this. The paragraph on the entry doesn't state anything the study hasn't implied...The correlation itself is notable. A cause-and-effect conclusion isn't necessary for the findings to be noteworthy. Whether the causation of public ignorance is produced by Fox News, or is an already present state of the viewing audience that selects news sources that cushions their ingrained ignorance is irrelevant; the bit in the entry doesn't imply any causation. The study has been quoted by other major publications. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. Amibidhrohi 00:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this really belong?

The Simpsons has made a number of critcisms and spoofs of Fox News (and the Fox network in general). In the episode Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington, Republican and Democrat congress candidates appear on Fox News. The show's announcer opens with 'Welcome to Fox News, your voice for evil'. The Republican is shown with a halo above his head, whilst the democrat is depitcted with devil's horns and is shown upside down, with a USSR flag in the background. There is also a 'news-ticker' at the bottom of the screen including, amongst others, stories such as 'Do Democrats cause cancer? Find out at foxnews.com' and 'Rupert Murdoch: Terrific Dancer'

It seems kind of odd to have that in there. The Simpsons spoofs everything. That doesn't prove that Fox is biased.--Hbutterfly 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This page isnt about proving anything. Its about indicating the 'allegations of bias', which this clearly is Robdurbar 11:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also add that it should be kept in mind that this is a young article, and although, at the moment, that reference may seem out of place amongst more factual or serious allegations, the article could be expanded to include a section consisting entirely of popular culture references to a bias in the Fox News Channel. 81.178.99.223 13:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that one too. It's a commentary on Fox News' appearance of bias. The entire "other controversies" section needs to be split up into some good sections...On its own, the entire section is intimidatingly large and condensed. Maybe a section can be added regarding "Fox News in popular culture" which would include criticisms and other such commentary on Fox News by known personalities and programs... Amibidhrohi 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "other controversies", what's with all the people listed? I don't think having pundits talk is any indication of bias. Dick Morris, Zell Miller, etc. are not reporters and are not supposed to be unbiased. Every news network has pundits, etc. --Hbutterfly 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at the risk of sounding pedantic it's actually "Other criticisms" not "Other controversies", I think this distinction is relevant however. Also, I don't understand your point; the only times Dick Morris and Zell Miller are mentioned is in the allegation that Fox News deliberately sets up debates or discussions that pit staunch, outspoken conservatives against unthreatening, moderate liberals (see Fox News liberal). The article is not trying to suggest that there's a bias simple because Fox News commentators themselves are not unbiased. 81.178.99.223 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

an idea

instead of the the current laundry list of liberal grievances copied from mediamatters.org and other left wing sites. why not just put a link to a couple of these wacko websites at the top of the page and people can check them out if they want? seems more prudent than this current waste of space article. just a suggestion:). looks like amib has really worked his magic on this page. RonMexico 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself, this encyclopedia is not without it's own biases--IworkforNASA 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, buzz off. I hope Fox News is paying you to censor out all negative observations documented online. If they are, they should probably give you a raise too. You do one heck of a job. Amibidhrohi 19:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm....

Though, seriously, do we think this article would benefit from a section of denials and explanations against this criticism, for balance? Robdurbar 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as those defenses are published and known, and not the opinions of editors here, sure. Amibidhrohi 19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. let amib have his fun. i think it's funny how commentators opinions are counted as "controversial" for the purpose of this article. maybe someone should get a couple of Alan Combes quotes to use as evidence of a "liberal bias". again, i think Amib would have saved himself alot of trouble and effort if he just copied and pasted mediamatters.org on here. RonMexico 14:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we think this article would benefit from a section of denials and explanations against this criticism, for balance? Robdurbar 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mara Liasson

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

       Actually, you are incorrect.  Charles Krauthammer is on more often than Liasson is, and he was on just tonight, actually.

CNN controversies and allegations of bias

Please also see this page, for reciprocity 66.98.130.224 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

research

The UCLA research has proven that FOX is conservative and conservatives do not dispute the facts. Also, the "liberal" tag get removed from FAIR.org. So somehow, liberals claim that what the conservative really believe is not the case, and then distort the truth that FAIR is not a liberal organization. Does this make sense? The depths that liberals will go to... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ER MD (talk • contribs) .

I've heard about this study in the news. The conclusions are highly controversial. In any case, the language of the entry is NOT supposed to imply that the article endorses a particular study. There is a separate section for studies and observations, add this particular paragraph there. The entry is not supposed to be 'making a case' or an indictment, and so such research shouldn't be included in the opening. The language of MD's edit makes it seem as if the conservative audience of Fox News are all aware of this particular study, or at least its conclusions, which is ridiculous. As for FAIR, if IT calls itself a liberal organization, add the 'liberal' adjective, but if it doesn't, don't include it. To do so is to put in your own opinion of the organization, which is both POV and original research (check out the rules on both). Amibidhrohi 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Using your logic, don't call FOX conservative unless they use the tag. And the second sentence distorts conserative viewpoints, so it needs to be changed. Why lie about your opponents viewpoints? FAIR calls itself "progressive" which is the same as liberal. However, conservatives dispute the Orwellian speech by its implication that opponents of "progressive" must be "regressive." You must believe in lying and distorting the positions of others if you continue to revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ER MD (talk • contribs) .

"Using your logic, don't call FOX conservative unless they use the tag." Exactly. In fact, edits made to the Fox News article to label it a conservative network were reverted (correctly in my opinion) for this exact reason, so there's no reason to try and label FAIR as liberal unless they claim to be so. If they call themselves "progressive" then that's the only term that should be used; if - as you say - this simply equates to meaning liberal then others that share your view will be able to identify that. 81.178.71.79 12:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

FOX is not a "conservative" network and neither is ABC a "liberal" network. The networks do engage in biases, so you could describe them as left-leaning or right-leaning. AIM is a connservative "watchdog" group and FAIR is a liberal "watchdog" group. Television news media on the whole is liberal. AM radio is overall conservative. Since FAIR engages in ONLY pro-liberal/anti-conservative positions, they are "liberal." I don't see why people have objections to factsand correct labels. If the KKK describes themselves as a civil right organization, should the wikipedia community call them a "civil-rights" organization or whould they say "allegations of the KKK have been espoused that it may believe in racism." Think about it. ER MD 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

shhhhh, don't try logic here. RonMexico 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Correct labels"? New York's AM radio programs aren't conservative, nor is "TV News" categorically liberal (You call Fox News liberal??). You're generalizing and labelling without justifying your assumptions. It's sad enough that an individual would have such a black-and-white perception of the world around him, worse that he tries to preach it by polluting an online encyclopedia with it. Your reasoning is faulty and is based of untrue 'facts'. There's nothing logical about it. Amibidhrohi 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference in those two examples however, is that the KKK has been well documented, researched and scrutinised for decades which would make a discussion such as this virtually unnecessary. Labelling FAIR as liberal, on the other hand, would be borderline original research (unless you can cite sources to suggest otherwise), so you cannot simply say 'Since FAIR engages in ONLY pro-liberal/anti-conservative positions, they are "liberal."' because this is your own conclusion, not a credible outside one that can be cited. Your argument is basically a straw man fallacy. Therefore it makes more sense to use "progressive" - if indeed an adjective is even necessary, or alternatively something along the lines of "claimed by some to be liberal" could be added - provided sources are cited. I strongly doubt this is necessary however, as this is an article about the controversies and allegations bias regarding the Fox News Channel, not an article on FAIR, and I suspect your motives are to discredit any possible allegations listed in this article, rather than to genuinely improve it. 81.178.71.79 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA , WP:CIVIL

Hey guys...be careful. What I'm seeing around here is useless bickering. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) I agree, the arguments are leaning more torwards personal political opinions than it is torwards disputing the validity of the articles included. If your going to post an argument against the article's validity, state your evidence, don't uselessly waste space. Scphae5 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits by ER MD

Reverted these as citations already existed where he claimed they were needed, and his claim that Turner and Murdoch "hate each other" as grounds for the deletion of a paragraph is ridiculous. He previously claimed that the paragraph in question should be removed until this fact is recognised; if this is the case why didn't he simply edit to reflect this "fact" rather than delete the entire paragraph outright? These sorts of edits should be discussed on the talk page beforehand. It seems to me from ER MD's edits, comments and user page that he is not capable of upholding NPOV with regard to this particular article. 81.178.77.120 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. Amibidhrohi 01:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, Don't get your panties in a bind...I was just doing an experiment to 1) demonstrate the retardedness of the POV argument (with the meaning of NPOV being only the liberal POV) and 2) to see how many people are so inclined to write about the FOX TV station--which is so inconsequential. Why people here have wasted their time with straw man arguments is beyond me. Anyway, I initially was interested in investigating bias on Wikipedia and decided to come to the webpage which would probably be despised the most. I look at George Bush, which wasn't that bad, looked at the Iraq War, and finally came across this page "Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias". By far this is one of the most retarded pages on Wikipedia! I changed the second sentence in the lead section to reflect that conservatives know that FOX was a conservative news outlet but argued that it was necessary to combat liberal bias in the media. Amazingly, nobody changed it back to its original statement... so I was actually shocked. The funny aspect about the change is that it makes the rest of the article completely unnecessary. There is no controversy about FOX being conservative. What is amazing is that people like Amibidhrohi waste their time on this page. Who are you trying to convince? Either way, I had fun with the edits... ER MD 09:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I found the inclusion of Turner's comments about Murdoch to be the most telling. Anybody with respect for journalism would avoid Godwin's Law. Obviously this is not the case here. ER MD 09:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It sure looks to me like some (no, many!) people are using this page as their own personal blogs. Whacked! I have to ask, who would come to this page? Who the hell doesn't know that Fox is biased? There's no "controversy", the "allegations" mentioned in the title have all been thoroughly demonstrated as true. I would favor canning this entirely--it's not an encyclopedia article, it's an editorial. Besides, it hurts my head to read it. BillFlis 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that I also had an inkling that IWorkForNASA might be a sockpuppet created by ER MD, judging from his edits, comments and user page. I then noticed that some other editors (that as far as I know, have had nothing to do with this article) had accused him of just that. Responsible editors may wish monitor the article for any unnecessary deletions and POV pushing from this user, if they're not already doing so. - 81.178.95.242 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lot of unsourced rumours

This article is unencyclopedic, original research. IP Address 00:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out any specific instances of where you believe this to be the case, so they can be addressed? - 81.178.116.202 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I already did. It should be deleted. IP Address 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

False Reports section

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

How relevant is the "False Reports" section at all? All media make mistakes and have inaccuracies in their reporting, and as a viewer of FNC I'm sure that they've made many more false reports than are listed here. That doesn't mean that they rise to the level of "controversies", which the article title indicates the article is about. I don't think being used in "allegations of bias" would be enough justification for this section either. This kind of stuff would be better merged into descriptions of specific allegations that references it, or moved to an article about "Media Accuracy". --70.142.40.34 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dividing up the Other Criticisms section

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

References

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

The John Moody memos

From the article: "by contrast, these memos instruct personalities to give negative press to Democratic or liberal politicians or candidates, anti-war activists, or any public figure or celebrity who disagrees with the policies of President Bush. Anchors and reporters are also expected to give unprecedented attention to wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, or the separation of church and state. "

I can't evidence for any of these statements in any of the cited articles. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Korny O'Near 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fox News liberals" section

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

NPOV CHALLENGE

This Article Doesn't maintain a NPOV in any way shape or form. I believe that it should be deleted or significantly redone.

Any specific issues you'd like to discuss? The process here is to discuss the issues first, then apply the tag if real, legitimate issues are not resolved by discussion. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, I'm moving some sentences from the intimidatingly dense "other criticisms" to relevant sections above. There's a section that deals with O'Reilly, so I'm moving things dealing with Bill from "other criticisms" to "critisisms of pundits"...Amibidhrohi 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure the original anon poster may never come back, but I do have to say after reading this thing that it's a pretty egregiously bad example of POV. Should I cite examples?

The real question is: are people interested in making this article NPOV, or what? I'm willing to put the work in to do so if there are others. --Deville (Talk) 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"War on Christmas"

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

Some changes and "calling the state for Bush"

I tightened up some of the exposition in the Ownership section. I removed the sentence connecting Ailes to Willie Horton, because, as it stood, the reference directly contradicted the sense of the sentence. I guess it could be added back in if there were a source which backed it up.

I was also thinking that the piece of John Ellis is not really relevant here. At first thought, it seems like it might be relevant and might explain some bias, because Fox was the state which first called Florida for Bush. However, as is stated in the article, it's pretty obvious bias doesn't explain this call, as it cannot explain Fox's earlier call in favor of Gore with equal or less information. This paragraph is currently semantically equivalent to "Some people have this theory that X, but a little thought should make it clear that X doesn't hold water". I think we're better off taking it out. Thoughts? -- Deville (Talk) 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and remove it then. -- Deville (Talk) 02:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oddly I didn't see this note, or the corresponding removal, until now. Maybe surprisingly, I would argue to put the paragraph back in. The idea that Bush's cousin was orchestrating the 2000 election via Fox News is a widespread one; I think many people would point to that as Exhibit A for how nefarious Fox News is, despite the story's logical flaws. I think it belongs in the article (with the caveats, of course). Korny O'Near 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole Groseclose thing again

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

PIPA poll and "partisan criticism"

Hi guys, you really should take something to the talk page instead of reverting back and forth. I rewrote Felonius' latest version because I think it reads better but retains his sense. I happen to think Felonius is correct here, in that Coulter and O'Reilly clearly have partisan interests in this matter. I think the argument for Coulter is clear, and as for O'Reilly: first, it doesn't matter what he identifies as, if Pat Buchanana starts claiming to be "a liberal" that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to identify Buchanan as a liberal, and secondly, politics aside, O'Reilly has the obvious partisan interest in that the PIPA poll is criticising the network he works for, so that there is a clear conflict of interest here.

All that being said, I agree with O'Reilly that the study is absolute crap, but unless we can generate a source in which a reasonably even-handed commentator criticizes the poll, it is fair to describe all current criticism as partisan. -- Deville (Talk) 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm done rewriting. That inclusion of "most of" is good enough for me. Korny O'Near 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, Felonious reverted my (what I thought was even-handed) change. But as it stands, of course, the sentence added is completely unsupported by the evidence. Showing two examples of partisan criticism does not imply that all criticism has been partisan. Felonius, if you want the current sentence to stand, you should have a source for it, I think. -- Deville (Talk) 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All that you or anyone else has presented is partisan criticism; Coulter and O'Reilly. If you assert that there is other non-partisan criticism, then the burden is you to prove that. I've searched and found none, so good luck with that. Until you can prove otherwise and as long as the article only presents criticism by Coulter and O'Reilly, the statement that criticism of the PIPA poll has been of a partisan nature is accurate. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to disagree here. The statement "all criticism has been partisan" implies the positive statement that there has been no non-partisan criticism. Again, you are making the assertion that there exists no non-partisan criticism. You must give a source for this assertion, as per WP:V. Now, it is true, the negation of that statement, say, "There has been some non-partisan criticism" also needs a source as well. But given that neither you nor Isarig can justify this statement, or its negation, then either the statement should come out, or it needs a fact tag. -- Deville (Talk) 18:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk seems to be confused as to who is making assertions here, and hence, who has the burden of proof. I am not making any assertions - I am removing your assertion that all criticism of the PIPA poll has been partisdan in nature. You do not know this to be true (and obviously, can't know it to be true) and unsurprisngly, have not sourced that claim. The most you can claim is that the criticism that you personally are aware of have been partisan, or you may be able to cite someone notable who has made that claim. But your personal evaluation of the situation is OR, and of no interest to WP. Isarig 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Name one. Just one. Name one criticism of the PIPA polls that isn't partisan.

Until you can a statement that criticisms of the PIPA poll have been partisan is warranted. The notion that the absense of evidence must be cited is laughable. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When you make the statement "All of the objects in set X have quality Y", then you most certainly should cite a source proving this. It is not enough, from a logical point of view, to say "Well, I've searched, and found no evidence that there exists X which don't have quality Y, and therefore I assert 'All of the objects in set X have quality Y'". This is a canonical example of a well-known logical fallacy. The only statement which you can honestly make, at this point, with the evidence that we have now, is "Some of the objects in set X have quality Y". That's it. -- Deville (Talk) 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, as a followup... At the end of the day, do we really need this statement in here in the first place? All you're trying to say here is that Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are both partisan. This is not a controversial statement. -- Deville (Talk) 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Another followup: the statement as it sits now in the article is better, as it no longer asserts an unverified (and unverifiable) claim. However, in my mind it's still not optimal as the statement doesn't really have any content (and won't, until it makes some sort of assertion of "Some evidence", "most evidence", or "all evidence" anyway, but the last is really unverifiable). I actually think the best thing is to put the criticisms by Coulter and O'Reilly there, and of course a lightbulb will go off in any reader's head as to who these two are, and they will note the names and consider the source, no? -- Deville (Talk) 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume lay readers understand the distinction between valid criticism of the poll, such as that from an academic source, and ax grinding from ideologues. Failure to note the difference is to impart undue weight upon Coulter and O'Reilly. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In a word, wrong. This is a fundemental principle of WP editing that we leave it to reader to formulate their own opinions, and not lead them to the conclusions we think are warranted. What you are suggesting is called "editorializing", and is removed everywhere it is encountered on WP. Isarig 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Roger Ailes

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