Jump to content

Talk:One America News Network/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor

Obvious consensus to include far-right in the lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC is to request comments in order to generate productive discussion to obtain consensus on what appropriate bias descriptor to use (if any).

Should this article describe One America News Network with a political bias descriptor, and secondly, is "far-right" the appropriate descriptor to use if one is appropriate?

Aeonx (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Bias descriptor)

  • Yes, Right but not "far-right". I'm here based on seeing the RSN question here [[1]]. In looking at the sources used to support "far-right" we have ABC news, CBS news, DailyBeast and Vanity Fair. DB's PRS entry says it's generally reliable but has a strong bias. I would think that this classification would count as bias vs reliably reporting facts their reporters collect. Vanity Fair is considered reliable for popular culture but this isn't a pop-culture question. ABC and CBS are generally reliable so I would give some weight there. However, I also think the media bias charting sites shouldn't be discounted. Both put OAN in a mid-right category. In the case of the Media Bias Chart, showing just the OAN stories it shows more in the neutral/balanced range vs the right two most designators. Based on that I would say we should stick with "right" but not "far-right". For what it's worth, Media Bias Fact Check, a rating site that a number of editors don't like, puts OAN between "Right" and "Extreme Right". I think using "Right" is a good compromise. No one can reasonably dispute the label applies and it avoids disputes. It's a good compromise. Springee (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, far-right. Reliable sources such as ABC News and CBS News describe it as "far-right". The shift to "far-right" is more pronounced since Trump's presidency, as the network has purposely sought to outflank Fox News and other conservative news outlets. This includes hiring far-right crackpots, such as Jack Posobiec and Chanel Rion, as "reporters", and unrelentedly pushing unhinged far-right conspiracy theories and brazen pro-Trump falsehoods as "news reports". Describing the website as "conservative" or "right" is not only imprecise (because it covers a broader spectrum) but does a disservice to non-crackpot versions of conservatism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Your, BLP violating comments don't actually make a real case here. Also, while some sources describe them as far right, do we have other sources that just describe them as "right"? This is one of the issues with these discussions. It's easy enough to do a keyword search for "OAN" and "far-right" but what about the cases that don't say "far-right" or don't use a bias descriptor at all? Certainly I would take the opinions of either of the bias organizations over most editors around here (myself included in that "most"). Springee (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That keyword search is too simple. It could be OAN or spelled out. It could be far-right, far right, or something synonymous. O3000 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think what you are missing is the part that it's easier to try to find sources that describe it as "far-right" or "far right" since I can do a key word search. It's harder to find sources that don't since then I have to find sites that describe it but don't say "far right". Anyway, here are some examples that I found with a limited search. Dallas Morning News calls it right leaning [[2]], this NPR article calls it "conservative" [[3]], this MSN article says "right-wing" [[4]]. Given that there isn't a single standard barer for this sort of thing I think Wikipedia should err on the side of conservative labeling. "Right" would only be left out of the description if we decide "conservative" was an acceptable substitute. "Far-right" however, has baggage attached to it in a way that "right" does not. When sources aren't universal we should stick with the less contentious. Springee (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, this doesn't prove much since we have no way to know how many refer to it one way vs the other. As I said above, it's easy to do a key word search to find examples but harder to do a key word search that would find examples that don't use the keywords. I also think we need to be very careful when using clearly left leaning sources like The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, The Intercept, The HuffPo, The Warp or Politico to assign a subjective label to a source on the other side of the fence. That's like asking the Republicans about the brilliance of the new law from the Democrats. This is where we should be picking the safer path. Springee (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. We have identified multiple sources that we consider to be generally reliable who use the term in their own voice. Unless that descriptor is seriously contested in other reliable sources, then it is appropriate to use it. This is addressed somewhat in WP:YESPOV, but more importantly, this has been the practice here at enwiki for as long as I've been editing in the American politics topic area (8 years). For example, we went through a similar exercise at Breitbart News, and yet people still complain that Breitbart is not far-right against all objective evidence to the contrary. - MrX 🖋 17:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment about News Sources. Whilst these news sources may very well be in their own right, trustworthy and reliable sources of general information; I have no reason to believe that would be the case for competitor news outlets such as OAN, especially ones that are opposite-leaning or biased (ie. The Guardian); and it would seem very logical that the media would attempt to discredit such opposition by claiming they are more extreme than they are. I would really like to see some WP:RS where the notion of independence and impartiality is maintained for such a claim. Otherwise it's like asking a political party what they think about the other political party and saying that's a reliable source of information. It's a complete fallacy. How many RS are there that state OAN is "far-right" that are NOT news networks or media outlets themselves?? Let's establish the reliability of the information FOR THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO not just assume it because the sources may be generally reliable; as an encyclopedic reference that is a fundamental principle. Aeonx (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is an excellent source. I can't imagine that they think for one second that OAN is a competitor. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't make assumptions as to your rating of what makes an "excellent source", however I will state The Guardian (one example here as a RS), is not giving any independent explained analysis or Fact-based reporting; it's giving OPINION; and I question the reliability of that opinion to then make a statement of fact in a wikipedia artile. Encyclopedias are built on facts and evidence; not option. Given the Guardian is left-leaning and naturally opposes right-leaning or right-wing editorials; and until I see any evidence to contrary for this specific case, which I haven't, I think it is fair to assume that OAN, like any other news/opinion media network, is potential competitors/rival over audience. Aeonx (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a bit ludicrous to assert that OANN is actually a "competitor" to these other long-established sources, each with substantially larger audiences. OANN's U.S. Alexa rank is 5,789; CNN's is 12; The Washington Post's is 38; The Guardian's is 71; ABC News' is 208; CBS News' is 263; The Daily Beast's is 373; Vanity Fair's is 1,212; and even the The Intercept's is 1,807. - MrX 🖋 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
RS label opinion as opinion. If it's not labeled opinion, it is something we can use. If you have a problem with RS, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, far-right - It is also right since you can't be far-right and not right wing. But since far-right is well documented, we should use the more descriptive wording. Or, we could use less descriptive text and just say it's a TV channel. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, far-right - per the dozen-plus high-quality and mid-quality sources marshaled by MrX. We follow the sources here. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

O3000 and Neutrality, can you show it's actually the majority description? I've already shown that most of MrX's sources should be discounted. Let's suppose we could find all instances of RS's describing OAN a no descriptor, "conservative", "right", and "far right". What percentage would have to say "far right" before we would expect that label vs something else? Take it a step further. Should we only use sources about OAN or sources that add the descriptor in context of another article? Take the ABC and NBC sources in the article lead. In both cases the article was impeachment related, not specifically about OAN. How do sources about OAN describe it? Those are the better sources to use in a case like this. The DailyBeast article is more about OAN but is partisan commentary rather than fact based reporting. That puts it into the opinion category and certainly into the area where WP:RSP said it's likely to be less reliable. This is a problem that has come up in previous "labeling" cases. We have generally reliable sources who throw out a label while introducing something in a story. Often that story isn't about the labeled thing but Wikipedia editors take that bit and run with it. In research literature this is citing the first paper found vs citing the actual source. (The first time one of my works was cited the person cited me for a fact that was background to my paper. They should have just looked at who I cited and cited them directly). Anyway, if we are going to apply a contentious label we should really reserve that for sources about the topic. Justifying a contentious label because some article use it is bad editing on our part because it doesn't answer if experts think it, if a majority or even a plurality describe it as such or if the sources really have strong grounds on which to make the claim. I don't suggest using the media bias websites (the discussion above and that brought me here) as sources with weight. That is, we should not add a sentence saying "Bias Check says this site is rightofleft". However, in cases where bias is in question I think we should give their opinion weight. Those sources are specifically in the business to weigh in on questions like this. Second, absent some way to say how many sources don't label OAN far-right we can't be certain if right is the more common descriptor. If it is, how can we justify using "far-right"? Springee (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

But "right-wing" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive adjectives. There us no (policy-compliant, unbiased) reason to choose just one term.Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
They are on a spectrum. [centrist - center right - right - far right]. Far-right (and far-left) is treated as a label suggesting a fringe end of a spectrum. It certainly can be a contentious label (WP:LABEL can apply). Springee (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there is every reason to use the correct (or more accurate) term which I believe should be Right-wing in this case, not Far-right. I think in a narrow spectrum, you could have Left - Center - Right; in which case OAN would be described as 'Right' not 'Far-Right'. Aeonx (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Could either of you offer reliable sources for a mutually exclusive spectrum of terms that would apply in this case? I am aware of none, and in my experience the Venn diagram laid out by such labels offers considerable overlap. Also, the use of "hit counts" to compare the frequencies with which terms are used seems predicated on the same spectral framework and therefore invalid in such instances as this. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No-one is saying they are mutually-exclusive, what we are saying is there is a spectrum; and the general rating by independent sources, and the same sources that call it "far-right" actually call it "right-wing" more often than "far-right" [The Guardian – Describes OAN as “rightwing” (no mention of “far-right”) [16], abcnews – Describes OAN as “conservative” (no mention of “far-right”)[17], CBSNews – Describes OAN as “pro-Trump right-wing” (no mention of “far-right”) [18], CNN – Describes OANN as “a right wing cable news channel” (no mention of “far-right”) [19], The Daily Beast – Describes OAN as “right wing” (several times, no mention of “far-right”) [20]. We can't pick random articles that OCCASIONALLY describe OAN as "far-right" to suit your opinion. There is NO Reliable Source that has independently, reliably, and consistently described OAN "far-right". None. Zero. Zilch. There are a lot of politically-motivated people here driving an agenda. I'm driving WP:NPOV and accuracy; that's my motivation. Aeonx (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The last I checked, Aeonx, The Guardian, ABC and CBS were all considered reliable sources. All refer to OANN as "far right". They don't have to do so in every article to make the label "stick", in spite of your (policy-agnostic) personal belief to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
But they don't consistently refer to it as "far right". As I showed below CBS didn't use "far-right" in my search. That's not to say no CBS story ever used the term but CBS did use "conservative" and "right-wing". ABC used "conservative" 3 times and "far-right" 4 times but at least two of those articles had common authors and shared paragraphs based on overlapping content. Springee (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I question the quality of your search, then, since this article from CBS does use the term "far right". And as I suggested above, your "consistency" requirement lacks a basis in WP policy, and seems highly subjective. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I explained my method. I said I used a site specific key word search and took the first page results. I didn't claim this was comprehensive but it was better than the method others have proposed which thus far is largely "someone said it thus it must be the best". You are wrong in saying it lacks a basis in policy. It's aligned with NPOV. Springee (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is this google/I Ching method of divination endorsed in policy? Perhaps I'll give it a try. Newimpartial (talk)`
We are free to use reasonable methods to attempt to establish weight. Simply showing that something exists in some articles is not sufficient to show it's the most common version. I certainly wouldn't claim my method was at all fool proof but what other methods have been suggested? Perhaps a way to bypass this would be to state that the network has been labeled "conservative", "right-wing", "far-right", "Pro-Trump", "promoter of conspiracies" etc with citations. Attributing the descriptors avoids having to establish which is best/most used etc. NPOV is satisfied and it allows a fuller range of the descriptors. Springee (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Which sources? The media bias sources often used around here don’t support the far right label. Springee (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The user Mr. X above already provided a healthy-sized list of them, to which you had no valid rebuttal, but harder to do a key word search that would find examples that don't use the keywords being particularly weak. We don't strive to prove a negative to support an argument. Maybe you do, but we will not. ValarianB (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
These "RS" which I dispute as being reliable in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, more frequently refer to OAN as "right-wing" not "far-right". So why would we pick a few cases where they refer to it as "far right" and use that even if they were reliable?! It makes no sense. I can find countless examples of ABC, Guardian, Huffpost, Washington post and others refer to OAN simply a right wing or right leaning, a simple Google search proves it. Aeonx (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No ValarianB, my rebuttal is sound. Ignoring concerns that we are using passing descriptors that don't offer supporting evidence as "reliable sources, several of the sources are not RS as they are being used here. For example, DailyBeast, per WP:RSP, Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.. In this context the Daily Beast is certainly offering an opinionated characterization of a conservative source. We should not use their opinion as a basis for a statement in Wiki voice. The same sort of commentary applies to most of the examples MrX cited. My other concern also stands. See my web search below where I found "conservative" to be the most common phrase (beyond "none"). So why should we pick a less common, more extreme label? That is a concern per WP:LABEL. Springee (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Your rebuttal was laughable. We follow the sources, many of which describe OANN as "far-right", and that is the end of the discussion. Perhaps you should stop bludgeoning every editor who disagrees with you. ValarianB (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion civil. As I showed before, if we follow the sources then we use "conservative" as it is far and away the most common descriptor. Can you shown the policy that supports "many of which"? What about those sources that are inconsistent? Again, please follow civil. Springee (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion on my part is civil, if you feel otherwise than by all means make use of the appropriate noticeboards. If there is anything here at all that is incivil, it is your continued WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion. All that is needed it to show the numerous sources that label them "far-right", there's nothing more to say, as long as said sources pass WP:RS. ValarianB (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Calling the replies of others laughable is not a specific violation of civil but it is disrespectful and moves the tone of the discussion in the wrong direction. You are incorrect that "All that is needed it to show..." is sufficient. I've already shown that, by more than 2:1, sources call them "conservative" and that many sources do not use "far-right". Can you offer any reason why we would pick the less common descriptor? Which policy supports that? Springee (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Afraid that is not all that is needed. We have to consider WP:UNDUE, it's a fundamental to WP:NPOV. It's not sufficient that a few supposed Reliable Sources (again), np SPECIFIC evaluation of competitor news as being reliable has been established for this case, make passing comment that OAN is "far-right" that gives an undue bias to the MAJORITY of such sources NOT referred to it as "far-right", the majority of time. Aeonx (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it is, and honestly this tag-teaming by the two of you is quite tiring and also pointless. This is a Request for Comment, and as long as some editor's input is grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and is not some asinine concoction like "Yes, call them super-far-far-far-right because monkeys are cool!", then you don't get to gainsay my contribution to this discussion. As a final point, I will note the bleedingly obvious, in that "right" and "far-right" are not in opposition, they are not an either/or choice. Far-right is a subset of right in terms of political ideology, we could think of it like a specialty. Any source that notes the deviancy of OANN away from run-of-the-mill right-wing rhetoric and into the rarefied air of white nationalism, neofascism, and similar hallmarks of the far-right ideology will suffice. So really, all we really need is a single notable one to describe them as far-right, and we're good. More is better of course, and we have them in abundance. Hopefully the satisfies you two gentlemen, as I shant comment further. ValarianB (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • OANN is not a "competitor" to the Washington Post, Guardian, CBS News, etc., all of which support the "far-right" descriptor. And even if they were, under your reasoning no media outlet could ever be used as a descriptor for another media outlet. That's not supported by any policy or guideline, nor by common sense. Neutralitytalk 00:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
All news sources are competing with each other for eyeball time whether you like it or not. Ideally a scholarly article could be used as a source rather than other news articles. The labels are completely subjective and mostly meaningless anyway, especially when talking about a news source which is constantly in flux and has how many guests on in a single day? Should every OAN host and guest be labeled far right because they've been on OAN? The handful of OAN clips I've personally encountered have been interviews with libertarians. It's amazing how much energy is being put into a phrase here. It seems like some users really want to call OAN fascists but know they can't get away with it directly. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
A rare voice of reason in this discussion. Thank you for your comments and opinion, I wholeheartedly agree. I personally believe it is important that we use accurate descriptors in the lead of articles because I am concerned with ongoing systemic bias on Wikipedia and the growing new tenancy to lean towards extremes definitions based on Surveys and editor opinion rather than factually accurate definitions with reliable independent sources. I very rare become so involve in discussion rather than editing on Wikipedia despite being here for over 10-years. Aeonx (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Pelirojopajaro, the term libertarians has a wide-range of meanings, the adjective preceding the term "libertarians" is crucial. To say labels are completely subjective is inaccurate, or may be just imprecise. These terms are commonly used and are defined; though descriptors are debatable. At wp we use what RSs say, not our own subjectivity. X1\ (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, far-right: There is more than ample sourcing to classify OANN as a far-right organ. pbp 15:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, but a synonym not associated with Nazis should be used - The far right page on Wikipedia indicates that it consists primarily of fascists, Nazis, authoritarians, white nationalists, and various other despicable groups. OAN is absolutely a fringe, extremist network and deserves to be labeled as such due to an abundance of sourcing, but I can't find any indication they support fascism, Nazism, theocracy, ethnic cleansing, etc. The use of the term "far right" in the American sense and "far right" in the sense of that page just isn't accurate and would mislead readers into associating OAN with the wrong group of extremists. The term "radical right" is an American synonym and more accurate placement in the American sense - if we're going to link somewhere, that would be a better spot as it is less likely to mislead readers. Perhaps it could be worded "OAN has been described as being far to the right" or something along that lines. Toa Nidhiki05 16:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I personally agree that the term "radical right-wing" or "fringe rightwing" would be more precise, but are there are any RS to back that up? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Most sources call them "right wing" or "far right". Toa Nidhiki05 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Fringe is more accurate given their penchant for conspiracy theries, which is why WP has deprecated them as a source. But, RS don't use that term very often. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This comes back to the primary issue. The majority of RS's that offer a descriptor use "conservative" so that is what we should use even if we personally think something more damning is more accurate. Springee (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, right: OAN is very widely regarded as a conservative news and opinion outlet. The description of it as far-right is controversial and should not be stated in Wikipedia voice. I oppose any mention of conspiracy theories or any negative accusations in the lead unless additional information is added to balance it out, because otherwise it would be lending undue weight to criticism of the organization. Wikipedia articles tend to give too much weight to leftist criticism in their articles about conservative people or organizations, while conservative criticism is conspicuously absent from articles on leftist figures or organizations. Display name 99 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, so the most common descriptor is "conservative" why wouldn't we use that instead of the less common, "far-right"? This seems to be a question that is never answered. If we are going to pick a single descriptor wouldn't NPOV say we should pick the most common one used by RSs? This is why I think it makes more sense to not use any descriptor in Wikipedia voice and instead include the range of descriptors used by RSs in an attributed sentence (see my suggestion below). Springee (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
X1\, most if not virtually all of the sources that you cited are not reliable sources in terms of describing things in the conservative movement. Display name 99 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This kind of casual Nietzschean relativism is exactly contrary to Wikipedia norms and practices, Display name. There is no special set of "conservative" sources that are more reliable for describing "conservative" things. Consensus reality is described by scientists, scholars and reputable media, and WP:FRINGE views must always be treated as such. Thus we must use for OANN the terms used in reliable sources, and not in unreliable but "conservative" ones. At least, that is what WP policy dictates. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99, you do not appear to know how reliable sources is defined in Wikipedia; or possibly unwilling to accept the Community's definition: no wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I said nothing about conservative sources. What I said was that the sources that were listed could not be depended on to describe events in the conservative movement in a fair or impartial fashion due to their left-wing bias. You wouldn't write an article about liberal people or liberal news sources based on what Breitbart says about them. We shouldn't write about a conservative news source based on what known liberal news sources (especially very liberal ones like the Huffington Post, The Wrap, or Vanity Fair) have to say about them. Display name 99 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
But this shouldn't be considered a FALSEBALANCE, left vs. right type issue. Reality doesn't come in two flavours. Breitbart is never considered a reliable source, HuffPo and Vanity Fair generally are. Their reporting on the so-called "conservative movement" is as good as any we have available. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what all the left-wingers say. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
See WP:RSPSOURCES. For an outside analysis, see User:Valjean/Essay/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here. X1\ (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
X1\, I skimmed that essay and it amounts to nothing more than a hacket piece written by a liberal making no attempt to shield his biases. The text makes it clear that conservatives and Trump supporters are not welcome on Wikipedia, and is among the best indicators that there is that Wikipedia's policy about writing articles with a neutral point of view is wholly disgregarded for articles on contemporary American politics and cultural conflict. But we're not talking about Trump here, so I don't even think that this essay is relevant. Display name 99 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99, see the RSs within the essay; not Valjean's comments. X1\ (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
X1\, because the essay is written by someone making no attempt to hide his support for progressivism, the list of sources is, like the comments, completely partisan. The list of reliable sources attempts to create a false balance between acceptable sources on the left and acceptable sources on the right by including as acceptable neutral or right-wing sources outlets that clearly skew left or are very left. At least half of the "neutral sources" are clearly left-leaning, just like The Hill even though it's somehow listed as skewing right. The Economist and Time both probably deserve to be listed as neutral, but like I said are classified as skewing right in order to give a false balance. It's notable how there is no criteria of reliable sources that are "Right." You can have reliable sources that are classified as being on the left, but not on the right, according to the agenda-pushing editor who constructed this list. One of the results of this is that there are double the number of reliable sources that are left or skew left than are on the right. The list of unreliable sources is even worse, with the fact that there are many more sources on the right listed as unreliable than on the left makes it clear that we're dealing with someone who has no interest in being neutral. Unlike with the section on reliable sources, the section on unreliable sources does not make even the slightest attempt to hide the author's biases. Seriously, please give up on citing that essay. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99, your use of clearly is wp:OR and not how wp works. X1\ (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd hat these rants; but I wouldn't know where to start. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to establish that they are unreliable, you will need to first take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise they are still considered RS. Northern Moonlight 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, right. Far right, just as far left is vague, unclear, and loaded. The lead should avoid such characterisation. The body of the article will provide neutral dispassionate information representing the views of the organization as accuratly as possible. The fact that the organization is on the right is non controversial and not disputed by the organization itself, it therefore belongs there. Francis1867 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Bias descriptor)

  • Thanks for reformatting the RfC, Aeonx. Could you please also rephrase the RfC statement as a question? Something along the lines of "Should this article describe One America News Network as "conservative", "far-right", or a combination of the two?" The exact wording is up to you. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the specific questions for comment as requested. Aeonx (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks again. — Newslinger talk 13:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The primary justification for calling the site "far-right" is editors finding articles that introduce AON into a larger article as "far-right". Having found a number of examples edits have decided this is the correct descriptor. This is a flawed method and one that should be discouraged in any Wikipedia article. It fails for several reasons.
1. Are the claims actually supported by evidence in the article or are they subjective descriptors added by the writers? With news sources that tend to be more hard fact based this is less a concern but with sources that mix a lot of commentary and appeals to emotion in their reporting (Daily Beast for example) or sites that are reliable for "pop culture" (Vanity Fair) this is an issue.
2. What do articles about OAN say? The list of articles claiming "far-right" are not articles about OAN, they are articles about something else that involves OAN. It's problematic that Wikipedia would create a primary statement in an article about OAN to sources that added it as an unsupported intro comment. I'm not sure how many here have published peer reviewed research but this is something that good reviewers are not OK with. Instead we should stick to articles about the subject as our primary source for such claims. That leads to point 3.
3. What do the media rating sites say? As was mentioned at RSN, we have two media bias sites. These sites have a systematic method for rating bias. I would hope that we could agree they are more methodical that a bunch of Wiki editors arguing. Both sites say OAN is right but not far right. Perhaps the issue is we only hear about a few of the OAN stories and ignore ones that don't cause a controversy.
4. Wikipedia should err on the side of caution. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia even if too many articles appear to be written by editors who are hostile to the article subject. That means if sources use a range of descriptors from nothing to right to far-right to "wackjob-fascist-right" we should err on the side of the least controversial, most universal label. If editors are going to dispute the label that's a good sign it shouldn't be used.
4. Does a list of say 10 sites claiming "far-right" really reflect the consensus among reliable sources? I did a website search for "NEWSORG.COM" and "One America News" and looked at the first page of results to see what descriptors were used in each story. The object is to get some feel for the most common descriptors.
CBS News: Top 10 links, 9 are actual articles, No descriptor: 4; Conservative 4; Right/Right-wing 1; Far-right 0.
ABC news (abcnews.go.com): None 3; Conservative 3; Right 0; Far-right 4* overlap of authors and text.
NPR (npr.org), 3 hits: None 2, Conservative 1.
NBC 9 actual articles: None 4; Conservative 2; Right 0; Far-right 1; "Pro-Trump" or similar 2.
CNN 8 articles, (10-2 repeats): None 2; Conservative 2; Right/right-wing 2; Far-right 2.
Fox News 5 articles: None 3, Conservative 1, Right 1.
NYTimes 9 non-opinion articles: None 5; Conservative 2; Pro-Trump/Trump friendly 2 * I don't have a NYT login so this was done based on the search returns.
In total : None 23; cons 15; right 4, far-right 7, Pro-Trump/similar 4.
In looking across organizations, All used "conservative"; 3 used right/right-wing; 3 used far-right; 2 said pro-Trump or similar.
Based on the above "Conservative" is clearly the most common descriptor. Right is less common that "far-right" but is mostly due to ABC News where the same writers contributed to related stories. Regardless, it's clear that "Far-Right" is not the dominant descriptor. Excluding "none" the dominant would be "conservative". This survey of sources is why it's a bad idea to just harvest sites that have the keywords of choice and use that as proof. Again, ideally we would use external sources "about the subject" as our guide.
To be honest I don't care about "OAN" specifically. I personally discount them as an unreliable news source. However, the arguments I'm seeing above and the desire to use the most extreme label possible is a reoccurring problem on Wikipedia. I'm hopeful that we can actually address this logically vs what on many articles ends up looking like a group of good faith but like minded editors expressing their own views rather than an encyclopedic summary. Springee (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
We are not close to using the "most extreme" label. We must maintain NPOV. But, as an encyclopedia, we should include more detail when available. Otherwise, we would just say it's a TV network and end the article there. Far-right adds additional detail and understanding. If we have adequate sourcing, and we do, it belongs. There are strong sources adding this detail. This has nothing to do with our personal biases, nor perceived biases of sources, and certainly not "competitors" in the news field. Most people have never heard of this network. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Far-right is a precise term. Far-right lies within "right-wing", "right" and "conservative". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
O3000, you are right, we could use "far-right-MAGA-quack" or such but let's be realistic here. If you think "far-right" adds additional detail and understanding then that should be in the body of the article, not in the lead and not sourced to a specific subset of sources. We have "more adequate" sourcing to call it "conservative" so we should do that instead. We have stronger sources saying that vs "far-right". As the sample above makes clear, "Far-right" is not the most common term and it's a NPOV issue to it vs other terms. Snoog, you are correct, "far-right" is a more precise term but it is not universal so we need to be careful about using it. If you wish to say some sources use the term some of the time that is actually correct. Springee (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That is not honest. No reliable source says: "far-right-MAGA-quack", so we cannot use it. Yes, we have sourcing calling it "conservative". We also have source calling it a network. So, we could just say that and end the article. But, if we have more useful detail from multiple reliable sources, we should include it. The fact that every source isn't as detailed does not prevent us from using reliably sourced info. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I hope you understand that was tongue in cheek. Again, no, we should not use the more controversial label (see WP:LABEL) when it isn't the most common descriptor. If we want to say "some sources have labeled it far-right" that's fine. This is clearly a NPOV issue to use the more extreme, less widely used label. "As detailed" is misleading absent those sources providing the evidence why they chose the terms in question. Incidentally, why would you oppose following the Media Bias Chart. You suggested it looked good[[21]]. Springee (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The Fontes chart was discussed some time back at RSN and, as interesting as it is, the general consensus was don't use it as a source in an article. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone proposing using it as such here? It's being used as evidence supporting an editorial choice. Springee (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Well yes, it is an editorial opinion of Fontes. But, seems to me folk were including it as a source. O3000 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't specifically see anyone citing it in the article but I wasn't involved in earlier discussions. I'm pointing to it as, if you will, an expert witness on the subject. They have a clear, published method and if you click on OAN they even show how the rated the individual sample articles. To be honest, it seems that more of the issue with OAN is reliability vs lean and that is something that comes out in the chart data. Do keep in mind that one doesn't have to be right or left to have a poor reputation for reliability. Springee (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It's far, far more than that; and RS would not have used the term far-right for simple incompetence. But, neither of us will change the other's mind. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That is true... but most sources that choose to include some sort of descriptor don't pick "far-right". Half of the sources I check didn't use it at all. "Conservative" is used more than twice as often. Springee (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Springee, but what does conservative mean? It used to mean social conservative, then became movement conservative, and now is a catch-all term for everything from hard right (Trump is on the left of the current GOP, remember) up to just short of neo-Nazis. Guy (help!) 22:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Compromise Solution? I thought I would offer a compromise suggestion. What about taking the descriptor out of the first sentence then offering a second sentence which attributes a range of descriptors from RSs. Something like, "The network has been described as "conservative", "right-wing", "far-right", "Pro-Trump", and "promoters of conspiracies"." This does a few things. First, by taking it out of Wikivoice and offering a range of descriptors we avoid NPOV concerns as well as the whole argument as to which term is best. Second, one of the arguments for "far-right" was that we should offer the reader additional insight. Offering a range of descriptors does that by showing that RS's aren't in universal agreement and shows the range they have used. Springee (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This gets my vote. Although I would probably describe it as right-leaning to far-right. I think it's the most accurate description given it's a relative new media outlet with a wide range of content that can at times be consider far-right. Aeonx (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, far-right And no, we should not call it "right-wing" or "conservative". Full disclosure of personal bias: I'm a right-wing conservative myself, so is Angela Merkel, David Cameron, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy and many other respected and serious current and previous politicians. OAN and the Trump administration are far-right, much closer in both ideology and behaviour to fascism than to anything even remotely like normal right-wing politicians. Far-right is well supported by reliable sources and entirely accurate. "Right-wing" or "Conservative" are label for Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph and similar media, and not applicable to OAN.Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
That may very well be your valid opinion, which you are entitled to. But as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on evidence - not opinion; and there is wide-ranging evidence of questionable reliability of OAN reporting (if you'd call it that) ranging from conservative to conspiracy, from right-leaning to far-right. Describing it uniformally as just far-right isn't really correct. Your personal comments about Trump and other politicians are really not relevant. We need to keep the facts and evidence; we don't have a shortage of opinion we have a shortage of reliable evidence to describe it CONSISTENTLY as far-right, and only far-right. Aeonx (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course we all are entitled to our opinions. As for your opinion that all sources always need to use far-right, I can only repeat what others have already said: it is your personal opinion, and not WP policy. We do not have a shortage of sources describing it as far-right. On the contrary, we have an abundance of sources saying exactly that. Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Aeonx, see Wikipedia:Opinion. X1\ (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The identified sources that do state OAN is 'far-right' do not consistently state OAN is far right, it's mentioned occasionally by some journalists in competitor news outlets. This we've already established. The issue is that one of reliability and consistency. In fact there are many more sources, including the same ones that describe it a far-right, that describe it as conservative or simply right. The evidence of this is above.
I never said all sources must always describe it as far right, I simply state they do not consistently do so. There needs to be a balanced weighting to give a unbiased and WP:NPOV.
So actually it IS WP Policy, specifically WP:RSUW, that the article weighs sources as demonstrated above is reflected in the article. Currently, it is not the case. Aeonx (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Aeonx, you do see that both Conservatism in the United States and American far-right is in the OAN lede (even though, at least some, US conservatives are offended that a conspiracy-peddling website, labeling itself as "news", calls itself conservative)? X1\ (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Aeonx, I think you are missing their recent and widely discussed increase in extremism. While it may have been debatable in 2016, that really no longer applies. Guy (help!) 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
See the RfC in te section above. O3000 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • thank you for flagging your claim as opinion not fact. Your opinion is out of line with the fact that multiple reliable sources call it far right. Guy (help!) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have boldly deleted a bit of the pejorative polemical comments on OANN

The citations are to polemical sources, which are unreliable in this context. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC))

Reverted per WP:BRD. Also, no evidence has been provided that the sources used are "polemical". Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is stated as fact twice that Kristian Rouz is paid by Sputnik but the only source for this does not seem to provide substantial supporting evidence

The Daily Beast article used as source for this claim mentions plenty of overlap between Russian propaganda and Rouz' reporting but there isn't any evidence of employment by Sputnik mentioned. It seems like adding "as claimed by the Daily Beast" or some other mitigating disclaimer would be appropriate for the time being.

Kristian is/was a freelance contributor to Sputnik. You can see articles by him published by Sputnik at: [22]. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The Washington Post mentions this fact as well. It draws heavily on The Daily Beast article, but one assumes the newspaper independently confirmed this piece of information. The New York Times has followed suit. Philip Cross (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should "Pro-Trump" be removed?

I'm not sure if "Pro-Trump" is an accurate descriptor when "Far-Right" is used. I don't know if it is a good idea to link media sources to certain political candidates on wikipedia. The "Pro-Trump" aspect of OANN is mentioned in an entire section in the article already, as well as the second paragraph. What I'm suggesting is a change from "One America News (OAN), is a far-right pro-Trump cable channel founded by Robert Herring, Sr.," to "One America News (OAN), is a far-right cable channel founded by Robert Herring, Sr.,"EnviousDemon (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Responding to my own section, because I think I should explain myself further. I feel that having "Pro-Trump" in the first paragraph, seems like we're trying to emphasis the "Pro-Trumpness" of OANN, which, while it is definitely a Pro-Trump network, OANN existed before his Presidency, and will likely still be around in when Trump leaves office, either in January or 2025.EnviousDemon (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Today's New York Times said: "...One America News, a conservative cable network that the president has latched onto for its obvious pro-Trump viewpoint." [23] I don't have a strong opinion about inclusion in the lead. Their pro-Trumpness does appear to be a major part of the organization's attempt to increase its footprint. At least at this point. Of course, that may not be true in the future. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
At this point, the Pro-Trump aspect is more intrinsic to the channel's identity than the conservatism. It should be in the first sentence of the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

By that logic all left wing media should be labelled "pro-Biden" or "pro-Democrat". Owen Molloy (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Or all left wing media should be labelled "anti-Trump" Owen Molloy (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the key aspect in my view is the sourcing. Reliable sources refer to OANN as "pro-Trump" and don't refer, say, to the NYT as "anti-Trump". We follow the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbiased news

This is the only news Network that I've ever found to be totally unbiased. They simply report the facts. 72.198.82.208 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 16:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Far-right or right-wing?

My knowledge on the article subject is limited but it seems as per the above discussion that conservative is a more common descriptor. I don't hold an opinion on this personally but it seems logical that we should go with whatever is the most common descriptor in reliable sources. That said, propagation of far-right conspiracy theories on the part of OANN must also be addressed, as it currently seems to be. trainsandtech (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Update On further research it now makes sense why the lead has labelled OANN as far-right and, given the positions and falsehoods it has promoted, this seems to be a reasonable descriptor. trainsandtech (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2020

OAN is a Conservative News Source just as CNN is not a Far Left News Channel. You have a Double standard here. 216.105.139.4 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done There is no double standard. The only standard is the description in reliable sources. GMGtalk 14:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Substantial Request Paragraph containing citation [31] Reason: the citation 31 describe the reliable source for its paragraph, the citation doesn't exist. its a fake citation loop created to promote a personal bias.

Requesting the deletion of that paragraph 2600:1700:B20:2BC0:6814:D4C3:A318:699F (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

no Declined - Footnote 31 contains a list of 11 reliable sources supporting the material. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Change the description so it is not so biased.

The information stating it is "Far Right" is an opinion. If you want to be factual, and provide information like an encyclopedia, you should provide correct, factual info like what is provided on the website. See below for suggested description of the network straight from its website:

One America News Network is owned by Herring Networks, Inc. Herring Networks, Inc. is a family owned and operated, independent media company focused on providing high quality national television programming to consumers via its national cable networks. The for-profit company was established in 2004 and has its primary production operations in California and Washington, DC. https://www.oann.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎71.193.58.122 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. The far-right descriptor is supported by 10 reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a public relations vehicle, so this article is not going to use the description from OANN's website. — Newslinger talk 16:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Change first paragraph of header section from

" One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a far-right, pro-Donald Trump cable channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., launched on July 4, 2013.[21] The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates news bureaus in Washington, D.C. and New York City. "

to

" One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is an far-right cable news television channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., launched on July 4, 2013.[21] The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates news bureaus in Washington, D.C. and New York City. "

The descriptor "pro-Donald Trump" is redundant because it is explained more concisely in the following paragraph. Furthermore, it is misleading because it implies the channel's entire existence is predicated on Trump, which it (technically) is not. The format for the opening descriptor should match that of other similar pages (like Fox News), which it currently does not. Also the descriptor as it currently exists is grammatically incorrect, 'a' should be 'an'. KenzoShibata (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Reverted by Snooganssnoogans. Since there's no consensus,  Not done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 23:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Grammatically incorrect, Trumpracist is not a recognized word. Voodoo child miami (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by Werldwayd. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Was OANN's assertion that crime rose 13% in the U.K. actually incorrect?...

Or was this simply a matter of insufficient sourcing on a live broadcast? On July 20, 2017, The Guardian claimed that violent crime rose 18%, citing the Office of National Statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1000:1E7:9E2:D734:D131:3159 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

No citation of Reference #38

“ The channel is prominent for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[38]”

The link to “38” is a dead end. There is no support cited for this opinion. Yxsonarczqptv (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yxsonarczqptv, that is not true, in fact, there are a whopping 13 references includede in [38]! You need only scroll down to the references section.--Mvbaron (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the source for this?

The channel is prominent for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[38] Macbeth64 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems more like an opinion than fact. Macbeth64 (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a bundled citation. Click on the references within the citation for details. For your convenience, here are the 13 cited sources within that citation:
13 reliable sources describing OANN as a publisher of falsehoods and conspiracy theories
  1. Darcy, Oliver (May 8, 2020). "Meet OAN, the little-watched right-wing news channel that Trump keeps promoting". CNN. Archived from the original on May 8, 2020. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
  2. Baragona, Justin (December 26, 2019). "The Year of Batshit Crazy at OAN, Trump's New Favorite Cable-News Channel". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on June 3, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  3. Newman, Jared (June 10, 2020). "Roku is heavily promoting OANN, Trump's latest source for conspiracies". Fast Company. Archived from the original on June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  4. Giambalvo, Emily; Bieler, Des (June 16, 2020). "Mike Gundy apologizes, says he was 'disgusted' with OAN views on Black Lives Matter". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  5. Mackey, Robert (June 16, 2020). "Trump's New Favorite Channel, OAN, Keeps Lying About Buffalo Protester Assaulted by Police". The Intercept. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  6. McCormick, Andrew (May 27, 2020). "One America News was desperate for Trump's approval. Here's how it got it". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on October 19, 2020. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
  7. Atran, Scott (4 January 2021). "Psychology of Transnational Terrorism and Extreme Political Conflict". Annual Review of Psychology. 72 (1). Annual Reviews: 6.6. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050800. PMID 32898462.
  8. Sampathkumar, Mythili (October 20, 2017). "Donald Trump's false claim about UK crime rate seems to have come from conspiracy theorist news network". The Independent. Archived from the original on June 15, 2018. Retrieved August 18, 2019.
  9. Grynbaum, Michael M. (June 9, 2020). "One America News, the Network That Spreads Conspiracies to the West Wing". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  10. Cranley, Ellen (October 28, 2019). "Trump favorite One America News has been called 'paid Russian propaganda' — this is what happened when I watched it for a week". Business Insider. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  11. Gordon, Devin (May 19, 2020). "Trump's Favorite TV Network Is Post-parody". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  12. Smith, David (June 15, 2019). "Trump has a new favourite news network – and it's more rightwing than Fox". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on October 15, 2019. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  13. Rupar, Aaron (May 13, 2019). "The other conservative news network Trump keeps tweeting about, explained". Vox. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
Note that the seventh cited source, Annual Review of Psychology, is a high-quality academic publication. — Newslinger talk 10:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reporter exhibits potential conflict of interest

It is a relatively new story told largely by The Daily Beast, but it goes on to show that the surreal One America News Network may have reached a new bottom—if there even is a bottom for them. The story, which will likely be picked up by other news outlets, is that Christina Bobb, the chair of OAN's Weekly Briefing, is working for the president's legal team on cracking down purported voter fraud, and she has yet to disclose the potential conflict of interest. Keep an eye out for more information on this apparent breach of journalistic ethics, as it may be useful for improving this article. FreeMediaKid! 05:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

OAN is falsely accused of being a far right organization. In fact they are fair and balanced with journalistic integrity, unlike the intellectually dishonest mainstream media. 2604:6000:F3C5:3B00:198B:4889:6D3E:EC1E (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet another article that demonstrates why Wikipedia is not a reliable source

WP:NOTFORUM and the dead horse requests that you stop beating it. FreeMediaKid! 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When I want to show bias to my students, I show them Wikipedia articles like this. And it's why Wikipedia isn't considered a good resource for research.

But hey, if that's how you want to be remembered, more power to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.230.10 (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

My Opinion

The term "Far Right" should have quotation marks. Or maybe put said "Far Right" thing in the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMacG4pedia (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The far-right descriptor is supported by 10 reliable sources, none of which are opinion pieces. Scare quotes are not warranted here. — Newslinger talk 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Far-right is a completely subjective measurement. Wikipedia would not allow an article on hamburgers to describe hamburgers as 'delicious', you cannot claim a subjective measurement of 'far-right' is somehow "citable" just because you dredged up some articles where the opinions of the writer seeped through. Additionally, those sources actually do almost nothing to back up your claim: The Associated Press source simply describes them as far-right, much like this page, without any further embellishment. The capability of a journalist to simply vomit opinions onto a website does not count as a source all on its own. Additionally, there is a TREMENDOUS conflict of interest that you're using competing news sites as a "source" for finding ways to descredit a news source simply because you personally do not like it. CNN, a far-left rabidly anti-Trump network (should I find some random articles on the internet to "cite" those claims? Somehow I doubt you would hold that same standard if I did) has every reason to try to discredit everything OAN says, because OAN itself goes against CNN's own agenda. This goes for other sources like The Daily Beast, The Intercept, Politico Europe, Vanity Fair, all of which every reasonable person would acknowledge are left-wing biased.
To stick with the hamburger example, it is akin to you citing articles written by Gordon Ramsay where he says "Hamburgers are a delicious meal common in western cuisine". Just because Gordon Ramsay said it doesn't make it not an opinion. MAYBE if he wrote an article where he carefully described the fatty blend of ground beef combined with multiple complementary ingredients and referenced the science of taste that described that combination of flavors of being highly receptive in studies mapping people's brains... but that isn't what your articles are. They literally all say "blah blah blah OAN. OAN, a far-right news agency, is blah blah blah". THAT IS NOT A SOURCE.
To add insult to injury, that you are describing sites like the Daily Beast as "credible" in an attempt to discredit OAN. Yet many of those sources are described as being as far left as OAN is "far-right", thus defeating your entire biased agenda.
Furthermore, let's add in a third aspect of your bias - the subtle notion that you are suggesting that lying or peddling conspiracy theories is, itself, an exclusively "far-right" thing to do. I do not defend OAN's record nor do I consume their content (or am even able to do so if I wanted to). However, when Washington Post is caught lying, why do you not add 'noted for lying' to the headline Wikipedia page on the Washington Post? Again, it is interesting that only non-left-leaning news sources seem to get discredited with descriptors of being "far-right" and "conspiracy theories", yet the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia has not blackened the eyes of any left-leaning media outlet that pushed that narrative, and a conspiracy theory it absolutely was.
Finally, your reasoning here is 100% reductive. By using exclusively left-leaning, subjective sources to "cite" your wild claims, you are perpetrating a fallacy. It is almost a certainty that you would not accept OAN as a "credible source" for something like, say, 'CNN is far-left'. You will not accept them as a source, because you "credibly cited" OAN as being far-right conspiracy theory nonsense, BY CITING CNN. This is not exclusive to you, or even anything new. We're used to it. But it is, by itself, a fallacy that discredits anyone foolish enough to fall for it.
Newslinger - Given your complete inability to have recognized, or even acknowledged anything I just wrote - additionally to your foolish credit that you are claiming a site like the Daily Beast is somehow of higher credibility than OAN - you should be removed from this article as a biased editor who is peddling a personal agenda, augmented by your insistence that "far-right" stay as a descriptor even though there is not one single left-wing news article on Wikipedia that I can find that is described as "far-left". Your rationale that a subjective descriptor such as 'far-right' can somehow be cited, and your citations are articles that simply call OAN "far-right" as a brief description of what OAN is to their readers, is an embarassment to the integrity of Wikipedia and your capabilities to be a neutral editor.
To whit - The Daily Kos is, in the chart I linked above, on exactly the left's same level as OAN is on the right. Yet the Daily KOS is somehow described as "center-left" on their page. Really? And what, pray tell, would you consider far-left? A news site run by the ghost of Mao himself? Before you attempt to claim you have nothing to do with that page, you HAVE edited that article, and in fact, your edit directly reflected the short description for the article which is where one would put a 'far-left' descriptor.
One could make a further argument that your own User page promoting "Sourcerer", a non-profit initiative that you make no secret is funded by multiple left-leaning companies, alone should discredit any notion of impartiality on your behalf. When you are receiving money from Snopes, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, you absolutely should not be entrusted to remain neutral.2600:8801:207:9D00:ED37:9F5F:7983:FDB (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Your comment is loaded with personal attacks, but contains no substantial arguments against the "far-right" descriptor, which is supported by these 10 reliable sources:
10 reliable sources describing One America News Network as far-right
  1. Rubin, Olivia; Reevell, Patrick; Bruggeman, Lucien (December 5, 2019). "Giuliani in Ukraine with conservative news outlet in effort to discredit impeachment probe". ABC News. Archived from the original on February 28, 2020.
  2. Lederman, Josh (December 23, 2019). "Inside Giuliani's new push to flip the script on Trump's impeachment". NBC News. Archived from the original on February 26, 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2020.
  3. Darcy, Oliver (May 8, 2020). "Meet OAN, the little-watched right-wing news channel that Trump keeps promoting". CNN. Archived from the original on May 8, 2020. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
  4. Baragona, Justin (December 26, 2019). "The Year of Batshit Crazy at OAN, Trump's New Favorite Cable-News Channel". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on June 3, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  5. Ecarma, Caleb (April 2, 2020). "Trump's Other Favorite Propaganda Outlet Uninvited From Press Briefings". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on April 14, 2020. Retrieved April 12, 2020.
  6. Newman, Jared (June 10, 2020). "Roku is heavily promoting OANN, Trump's latest source for conspiracies". Fast Company. Archived from the original on June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  7. "Gundy's OAN Support Angers Star Oklahoma St RB Chuba Hubbard". Associated Press. June 16, 2020. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via U.S. News & World Report.
  8. Giambalvo, Emily; Bieler, Des (June 16, 2020). "Mike Gundy apologizes, says he was 'disgusted' with OAN views on Black Lives Matter". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  9. Scott, Mark (May 24, 2020). "American nationalists' European vacation". Politico Europe. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  10. Mackey, Robert (June 16, 2020). "Trump's New Favorite Channel, OAN, Keeps Lying About Buffalo Protester Assaulted by Police". The Intercept. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
The ABC News, NBC News, Fast Company, Associated Press, and U.S. News & World Report articles are already sufficient to support the "far-right" descriptor by themselves; your description of them as "exclusively left-leaning" is not supported by any evidence. Your criticism of the others is irrelevant, since the guideline on biased or opinionated sources states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". All of these sources are considered reliable and use "far-right" to describe OANN, which justify their inclusion. The May RfC concluded that there is consensus to use the "far-right" descriptor in the lead section of this article. Although I did not comment in the survey section of that RfC, it was a highly-attended discussion in which well over a dozen editors did participate.

Wikipedia editors do consider The Daily Beast (RSP entry) more reliable than OANN (RSP entry). Your personalization of this content dispute is unjustified. The Wikipedia community classified OANN as a low-quality source in December 2019, and if you are unhappy with this classification, the correct venue for appeal is the reliable sources noticeboard.

I never said that "lying or peddling conspiracy theories is, itself, an exclusively 'far-right' thing to do"; I said that the "far-right" descriptor is adequately supported by reliable sources, and that the May RfC found consensus for its inclusion in the lead section. Your accusation that I "personally do not like" OANN is also incorrect; I hold no particular sentiment about OANN, although I do recognize that the Wikipedia community has found it to be generally unreliable. If you have found reliable sources describing Daily Kos (RSP entry) as "far-left", feel free to add them into that article. The short description I added to the Daily Kos article on 18 January 2019 was copied from the infobox and the first sentence of that article at that time.

Despite your personal attacks, I remain committed to ensuring the reliability of Wikipedia articles. Sourceror is a technology project that aims to make the data in the perennial sources list more accessible to users who are not necessarily Wikipedia editors. The details of the project have already been disclosed on my user page, and it has nothing to do with OANN beyond the fact that the perennial sources list indicates that the Wikipedia community had deprecated OANN in the December 2019 RfC. — Newslinger talk 12:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The line in question violates a core principle of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Please read the "Avoid stating opinions as facts page" on the [point of view] page. Under this policy it is suggested you rephrase your sentence something to the effect of "The Guardian, CNN and numerous other sources have described OAN as far-right." Furthermore, I suggest that this sentence be moved to the criticism panel where it more aptly belongs and that perhaps you elaborate on it more. Also, I'm very sorry for prematurely deleting this portion -- I didn't realize it was already under debate.
--Marico Corado (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
When the preponderance of reliable sources state something, we state it without attribution. You could argue that everything is opinion. But, that's wouldn't be useful. Also, calling this a criticism would be a judgement. Further, we avoid criticism sections. O3000 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There are now 13 reliable sources that describe OANN as "far-right", including Nature's "The next-generation bots interfering with the US election". Nature is one of the most respected academic journals. The use of the "far-right" descriptor was already confirmed in the request for comment at Special:Diff/963861639 § RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. The neutrality policy states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The first sentence describes the topic for what it is, and reliable sources overwhelmingly describe OANN as a far-right cable channel. Attribution is unnecessary – it would be unnecessarily verbose to say "According to Nature, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, Fast Company, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Politico Europe, The Intercept, The Economist, and the Poynter Institute, ...", since it's clear that the "far-right" descriptor is widely used. — Newslinger talk 21:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

These are issues you are free to take up with Wikipedia, however, I think the ruling on the matter is clear. If Wikipedia intended to philosophize about the difference between opinions and facts, they would have stated as much. As it stands, your descriptor stands in violation of Wikipedia policy and the direction of the consensus on this talk page. I suggest you rephrase and move it to the reception section to perhaps elaborate on. --Marico Corado (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
As WP:NPOV states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe OANN as "far-right", which makes it an essential descriptor for this article. The May request for comment confirmed that "far-right" is the most neutral and appropriate descriptor to use in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalseWikiInfoFix (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on editors. Comment on content, not on people. FreeMediaKid! 14:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

OANN to switch to Rumble

OANN has announced that it will switch to Rumble, a sister video-sharing website of Parler. It is the only news of its kind that I could find, but like the potential conflict of interest in my other post, it may be worth looking into in the near future. It is also worth noting that the source, the Washington Examiner, a run-of-the-mill perennial source that is conservatively aligned, correctly reported on OANN'S suspension on YouTube and put scare quotes around cure, implying that what the channel was promoting was fictitious. FreeMediaKid! 00:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

Remove "Guglielmi, Giorgia (October 28, 2020). "The next-generation bots interfering with the US election". Nature. 587 (7832): 21. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03034-5. PMID 33116324. Archived from the original on November 10, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2020." from the references.

This reference is being used to quote who have called this news network "Far-right" but the reference does not do that.

When reviewing the article to see if they were calling this news network far-right, the interviewer did not state this but the author of the article has included in quotes. This is not a fact that the interviewer stated but something that the author Giorgia Guglielmi included as an opinion.

When looking further into his article in that one section you can review the article he references in that section "Ferrara, E., Chang, H., Chen, E., Muric, G. & Patel, J. First Monday https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i11.11431 (2020)." this article only speaks about QAnon and calls it a far-right conspiracy, it does not state that One America News Network is far-right.

As this is Giorgia Guglielmi personal opinion and not one stated by the interviewer or this network it should not be included as a factual reference. 156.34.32.47 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Evaluated" by https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evaluate means to "1 : to determine or fix the value of 2 : to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study". Giorgia Guglielmi did not do an "evaluation" by definition. If they did so they would have made the multiple references to those multiple studies or articles required for this to be supported. As you need more than one reproducibility and multiple sources to make this, this is basic scientific research.

They took one study from "Ferrara, E., Chang, H., Chen, E., Muric, G. & Patel, J. First Monday https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i11.11431 (2020)." which did not even talk about One American News Network, then took the person interviewed Emilio Ferrara quote about One American News, and made a personal decision that it was "far-right". There was no reference to One American News Network in the article they reference for their study, so there was no reliable source for them to say that One American News Network is a far-right network. They has no references on why this network is far-right, just an opinion. This source is not a reliable source for calling this news network "Far-right".

Based on the following evaluations this news network is only just a right-wing network:

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-11-24/youtube-suspends-oan https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/24/you-tube-suspends-oann/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/an-inside-look-at-one-america-news-the-insurgent-tv-network-taking-pro-trump-to-new-heights/2017/07/05/7475f0a4-4fa2-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/22/one-america-news-founder-touts-miraculous-hydroxyc/ https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/24/21660572/youtube-suspends-oann-video-coronavirus-misinformation-monetization https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/24/youtube-suspends-oann-for-a-week-after-it-posted-fake-covid-19-cure.html https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/youtube-suspends-one-america-news-network-a-trump-favorite-for-peddling-covid-19-misinformation/ https://www.insider.com/trump-tweets-out-fake-voting-claim-right-after-oan-segment-2020-11 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/18/oan-liberal-reporters-327915 https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-youtube-oan-covid-misinformation-20201125-4abcn546afgm3hfngvyczbpabi-story.html https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/reuters/youtube-bans-one-america-news-network-from-posting-new-videos-for-a-week-523965/ https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-youtube/youtube-bans-one-america-news-network-from-posting-new-videos-for-a-week-idINKBN285078 https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/24/youtube-suspends-and-demonetizes-one-america-news-network-over-covid-19-video/


I am not even asking for this to be changed to from far-right to right-wing. What I am asking is that you take the ONE reference that has been included out, as it is not factual but opinion based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.32.47 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not reopen the template until consensus for a specific change has already been established.
Guglielmi appears to be reliable for this analysis. This excessive list of sources is not productive for this change. See also the FAQ at the top of the page. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost Useless

I came here because I was curious to learn something about OAN. I've heard it mentioned a couple times in passing and wasn't sure what it was. To be fair, I did learn which TV services it's on, when it was founded, where it is headquartered, and which political leaning it has, but all of that was in the first sentence. The rest of the article focuses almost entirely on criticisms of the network, which while entertaining, are hardly the reason why I looked it up on Wikipedia. Surely I'm not alone in that. I'd like to know it's history, financials, future, viewership, programming, personalities, etc. I could have guessed that Media Matters, the Huffington Post, and John Oliver weren't OAN fans. While the confirmation of my assumptions doesn't hurt, it was hardly necessary.

Others have criticized the "far-right" designation in the opening sentence. I hate to even mention it, for fear that I'll get lumped in with the crazies, but I would suggest that "right-leaning" is far more appropriate and enduring than "far-right, pro-Donald Trump", true or not. Not only is "far-right" unnecessarily opinionated, but it's absurd when followed immediately by "pro-Donald Trump". By definition, if it aligns itself with one of the most popular republican presidents of recent years, it's hardly far-right. That's just plain old right. But, while that statement is egregious due to it's prominence in the opening sentence without any qualifications (like, "considered by many to be far-right"), it's hardly any more biased than much of what follows, all of which is useless to anyone seeking an uncolored description of OAN. I have no problem with the article listing criticisms and notable inaccuracies; those are of interest to anyone wanting to understand how reliable their reporting is, but I can't be alone in thinking that shouldn't be the primary focus of the article.

P.S. I'm not even going to mention the embarrassingly bad "See also" links. There's only two: "Cyberwarfare by Russia" and "List of conspiracy theories". Not "News media in the United States", "AWE", or even "Media bias in the United States". Am I supposed to believe that OAN, is itself a conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.105.242 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I would not call this article useless. One America News Network originally did have a center-right alignment with right-wing talk shows, but since 2016, especially in the late 2010s and 2020 and probably onwards, it has been known to tilt further to the right and correspondingly propagate more falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Far-right need not be qualified, insofar as the reliable sources can demonstrate (and have done so) why it is far-right. None of us is going to get you "lumped in with the crazies", but based on what I have said and what the reliable sources demonstrated, it would be using weasel words and violating neutral point of view to describe the channel as being simply right-leaning. Additionally, I have two problems with your assessment that Donald Trump is a popular Republican president. 1. He is actually among the least popular Republican presidents in contemporary history. 2. Just because the person that OANN is allied with is popular—which as I have just said is not the case—does not make it exempt from being labeled as far-right. That is a fallacy, and even if Trump were popular, the channel by nature is still far-right.
While others and I have refuted criticisms like most of yours, I would like to point out that you are right that the article could use some cleanup and expansion. We could make the "See also" section be more related to the channel. We could also add more information about the channel's history, programming, viewership, etc., but that would obviously require reliable sources. If you can find sources with the information, you are welcome to submit an edit request and suggest which changes should be made. Otherwise, it seems that the only things the channel is notable for are its perfect support for Mr. Trump and the veracity of its own information. FreeMediaKid! 12:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You have a point about including more info. Problem is, financials are unknown as it is privately owned, viewership is not recorded by Neilson, history is brief, and future is unknown. O3000 (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you on your first point; the "Programming" section needs to be expanded, and "Content" should probably be renamed to "Criticism"... ~EdGl talk 19:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Related issue: The framing of the "Reception" section does not reflect the changes that happened after 2016, so the reader is left assuming that a professor thinks OANN is unbiased and John Oliver thinks it's biased. Tdougan (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

The AONN page provides many OPINIONS vs FACTS. Ie. “...promoting falsehoods”. That’s an OPINION not a fact. A fact is “the company was launched in 2013”. It’s verifiable. The remarks like “promoting falsehoods” is simply an OPINION.

FIX IT. 2601:42:C080:C310:9CBC:816E:A7EF:CD5F (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence "The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories." is a factual claim, and meets the verifiability policy because it is amply and reliably sourced. See Special:Permalink/998815577 § cite note-40 for the 14 citations. Please note that the seventh citation (#32) is to Annual Review of Psychology, a high-quality academic publication. — Newslinger talk 05:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

OANN vs Other News Outlets

OANN is not a "far right" news network. It's a conservative news network based on traditional values and pro-American content, as compared to CNN and other main stream media outlets that tend to follow the progressive and far left agendas, which agendas put America second to the far left's extremely radical political views and policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.208.145.41 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The "far-right" descriptor is supported by 13 reliable sources: see Special:Permalink/998815577 § cite note-14 for the list. A past request for comment at Special:Permalink/963861639 § RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor confirmed that "far-right" is the most appropriate descriptor for OANN. — Newslinger talk 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 US Elections

The cited source on Edison links to a Politifact article which links to this statement from Michigan: "In order to report unofficial results, county clerks use election management system software to combine the electronic totals from tabulators and submit a report of unofficial results. Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results." This appears to blame human error again on software problems. Now is this why the Michigan Secretary of State blamed human error for all irregularities? "The company said it has not found data that back up OANN’s report or Trump’s tweet." Politifact makes this statement as an _appeal_to_authority_ from Larry Rosin and Edward Perez. The data in question may be had from here (warning, high traffic, slow site, use only if needed): https://git.maga.host/databased/data_processing/-/tree/master/fraud-detect-pedeinspector/EdisonData and was historically here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201119052246/https://github.com/favstats/USElection2020-NYT-Results from their official postings which are still here, such as: https://static01.nyt.com/elections-assets/2020/data/api/2020-11-03/race-page/pennsylvania/president.json Wikipedia may presently assert in all respects that those problems are human error, or does it? 173.14.238.113 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what high quality reliable sources say. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to evaluate raw data. That is contrary to the policy that forbids original research. Since reliable sources report that the relatively minor election problems in Michigan were due to human error, then Wikipedia will as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If all that is needed is a third-party review of the above data then such may be found here: https://patriots.win/p/11Q8XSXwJM/processed-the-data-from-pedeinsp/ I understand you may have thought this analysis was a minor problem. Why? 173.14.238.113 (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Its not an wp:rs?.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Hi- please change (in header section):

"One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a far-right,[14] pro–Donald Trump[22] cable channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., that launched on July 4, 2013.[27] The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates news bureaus in Washington, D.C., and New York City.

Its prime-time political talk shows have a conservative perspective, and the channel has described itself as one of the "greatest supporters" of Trump.[28] Trump himself has promoted both the network and some of its hosts.[4][29][30][31]

The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[40] On November 24, 2020, YouTube suspended and demonetized OANN's channel for one week as a first strike under its three-strike community guideline violation policy for falsely claiming the existence of a cure for COVID-19.[41] "

to:

'One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a cable channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., that launched on July 4, 2013.[27] The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates news bureaus in Washington, D.C., and New York City'.


please change (under 'Coronavirus outbreak conspiracy theories'): 

'In November 2020, YouTube suspended OANN's channel's ability to upload videos for one week and demonetized its channel for violating YouTube's policy against promoting COVID-19 misinformation.[39]'

to: 'On November 24, 2020, YouTube suspended and demonetized OANN's channel for one week as a first strike under its three-strike community guideline violation policy for a video uploaded to YouTube containing 'harmful Coronavirus misinformation'.[39][41] However, OAN's rebuttal states “We believe that the opinions of frontline doctors should also be heard, regardless if their views agree or differ from the CDC,” and that the video in question was not made ‘public’ but was ‘unlisted’ on YouTube for review by internal OAN staff only."[145]

please also add footnote #145 with: Ellefson, Lindsey (November 25, 2020) OANN Blasts YouTube Suspension: ‘Arbitrary Rules Infringe Upon First Amendment Rights’ THEWRAP.com www.thewrap.com/oann-blasts-youtube-suspension-covid-violation/ Retrieved February 14, 2021.

(Thanks in advance for your help!) Mediagargle (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the discussions about why we say it is far right.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 Partly done: I've added a sentence containing a proportionate summary of OANN's response to YouTube, based on the provided article from TheWrap (RSP entry), in Special:Diff/1009503289. The rest of the edit request was not implemented, because it would have the effect of whitewashing the article in violation of the due weight policy. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This request has been ignored. ADv5207 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it has been partially implemented. See above. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous Label

The author discredits himself, or herself as a reliable contributor by using the term "Far Right." There is not a definite measure of far right or far left. Regardless of the "sources" the author continues to hide behind. He, or she comes across as a far left activist, not an actual source. Also, by locking the sections from others to edit, the author makes himself look even more fragile and politically motivated. OAN is definitely on the right end of the spectrum, but it is no more "far right than CNN or MSNBC is "far left." The author of this article should take a course on bias in the media. As it stands, this article reads more like a political hit piece than a factual source of information. This is unfortunate. Wikipedia used to be a great place to gather information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsFixThatBias (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many authors, not just one, thankfully. Not sure this user understands how Wikipedia works. GoldenGoose100 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
OAN is far right because not only does it qualify for the classification of 'right' media, it is also a highly unreliable source https://www.allsides.com/news-source/one-america-news-network-media-bias 86.14.189.55 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Then let's call it ALL AUTHORS who use biased terms such as "far right" et al.

The remarks on the character of the individual who has locked the editing options, are precise.

Unlock the editing options and let the pieces become unbiased. ADv5207 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The far-right descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. See the protection policy for details on page protection. — Newslinger talk 04:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

“Far-Right”

“today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, white supremacism, white nationalism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views.”

None of these are displayed by OANN. Rather, media outlets which are left-wing have simply looked at OANN and declared that they are far-right compared to them, not by any actual standards or definitions of far-right. Pete Pizzo (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. We don't perform our own analyses. O3000 (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Neo-fascism would actually seem to be an accurate description of OANN, so that's not an argument against it. (Not saying we should call OANN neo-fascist as the label is charged, but it wouldn't be incorrect). Jeppiz (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
They are certainly far-right, but I am not so sure about the neo-fascist claim, or whether alt-lite is an even better description. Lastly, Pete Pizzo, it does not require looking at the sources to determine the ideology of OANN. One just needs to look at it firsthand. Have you watched any of the network's content? It is surreal and over the top, using common fallacies to fill in the spots of lacking evidence. We do not call it far-right because it is right-wing. We call it far-right because it has a serious problem with fact-checking its own claims and more often than not almost looking like InfoWars. I am not at all trying to insinuate that you (or anyone else for that matter) are an idiot, but using the Occam's razor to examine its bombastic claims, it does not take a genius to understand why the source might not be reliable. FreeMediaKid! 05:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
They're definitely far right. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The description in general is not an appropriate manner to address news articles. The language used to describe the channel is inflammatory at best. Can this be reconsidered with a less aggressive approach? Mgem1200 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. A prior request for comment resulted in unambiguous consensus to support the "far-right" descriptor based on reliable, independent secondary sources. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Although the sources labeling OANN as “far-right” are usually reliable, they are coming from organizations that are historically left-wing and center-left. This particular issue is not a matter of whether or not usually reliable sources say it’s far-right, but rather their relation to this specific topic. OANN is definitely right-wing, but even by Wikipedia’s own standards they are not far-right.

== We wouldn't be able to label it a ultra-right christian neo-nazi QAnon-supporting hate network 86.14.189.55 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, we do not reject them because they are historically left-wing and center-left (which, by the way, they would not be outside the USA).Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The phrase far-right is inflammatory, and is opinion, NOT FACT. According to Wikipedia's premise, only fact should be displayed on any topic.

How this slips through and is then sheepishly locked for editing, defeats the entire premise of Wikipedia itself.

It is shameful. ADv5207 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can the "far-right" label be removed on this article or at least the header section? For comparison, there is no "far-left" labels on the articles for CNN and MSNBC, yet those networks are often rated as left by organizations studying media bias, such as https://www.allsides.com/news-source/one-america-news-network-media-bias and https://www.adfontesmedia.com/.

The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. A prior request for comment resulted in unambiguous consensus to support the "far-right" descriptor based on reliable, independent secondary sources. The descriptor is a factual claim, and not an opinion. Regardless, the assertion that "According to Wikipedia's premise, only fact should be displayed on any topic" is incorrect; see WP:RSOPINION. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

This is an extremely biased description and should be edited for a more fair assessment 110.130.3.150 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

As noted: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Kuru (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Connection to the Unification Church of the United States

Does the One America News Network or its owner have any connection with the Unification Church of the United States? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say they do?09:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Though I agree with the reply "Do you have any RS...?", speaking without attribution is not in real good faith. Registration is easy enough to do... jimswen (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a right,[14] pro-Donald Trump(for obvious reasons) [22] anti-propaganda cable channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., that launched on July 4, 2013.[27] The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates news bureaus in Washington, D.C., and New York City. 105.226.142.43 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources say far-right. So this cannot be acted upon.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"FreeTalk 45" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect FreeTalk 45. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#FreeTalk 45 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Under the section "Dominion Voting Systems", I would add this: On August 10, 2021, Dominion sued the network along with Newsmax and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne ([24]). 2603:6010:D307:98CA:532:38D7:6DD:8159 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: See diff.
I removed the part about Newsmax and Overstock, as that portion is not really relevant. I added some information about why the lawsuit was started. This was the implemented edit:

On August 10, 2021, Dominion sued OANN for "knowingly and continuously" spreading false election fraud narratives.

Please note this is not a consensus and other Wikipedians edit boldy, so this change may be reverted. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Stop the biased propaganda. Stick to the facts! 24.173.18.186 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Kuru (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

The information on the page suggests that this network is politically aligned on the far right. I feel that it’s more aligned to say that OAN is on the right political spectrum. Folks will read far right and that implies radical and folks such as myself would view the far right as being borderline Nazism. 68.194.192.180 (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, please change "far-right" to "right-leaning" or "conservative". "Conservative" is self-admitted by OAN, as shown farther down in the article. "Right-leaning" is accurate, because the references cited show it to be to the right of most broadcast news channels, but perhaps not "far right". Said references do not demonstrate it to be "far" right, nor address meaningful comparisons of degree, which comparisons should include the full range of nationalist, racist or facist ideologies. jimswen (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Change "One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a far-right,[14] pro-Donald Trump[22] cable channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., that launched on July 4, 2013.[27] "

to

"One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a conservative,[14] pro-Donald Trump[22] cable channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., that launched on July 4, 2013.[27] "jimswen (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I see the term "far-right" has now been pointed to the page "Radical Right", which seems to feel that anybody right of where Dwight Eisenhauer was in the 1950's is today a radical. This is turning into transparent, stubborn, determination to slander OANN. That discription (far-right) is politically assertive and Wikipedia should be making the page politically neutral rather than protecting a biased description. jimswen (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


It seems there also is a page titled "far right politics". It states: "today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism,...". Which is the distinct connotation that I object to in describing OANN. It is distinctly inconsistent with anything they have said, or even things said about them by the left-leaning sources in the references. jimswen (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Not really. There are plenty of reliable sources that accurately describe MSNBC, CNN, and other media outlets as liberal. Yet I don't see anything in those articles, and certainly not in the lead, describing these outlets as left-wing or liberal. At the same time, Wikipedia not only allows but actively promotes wording that paints One America News as extremist propoganda. The pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias of Wikipedia infests all articles about US politics and political figures over the past few decades. Green Marble (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If you have plenty of reliable sources that accurately describe MSNBC, CNN, and other media outlets as liberal you're free to add them to those articles. BTW, at least two OAN personalities are raising money for the Arizona audit while OAN provides extensive coverage of it; do CNN, MSNBC et al. do such things?soibangla (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do the folks that regulate Wikipedia’s articles always skirt the question of why Wikipedia retains extreme characterizations of political networks organizations with a right wing or Conservative bias Bye failing to justify such characterization and simply telling those two I’ll check just go edit the left-leaning articles?

Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased and simply provide factual information, without adding political commentary to their articles? Edokin (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Pro Trump

Why isn't CNN and MSNBC called "Pro Biden" in the first sentence of their respective ledes? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that the wording in this article violates a Wikipedia policy or guideline, please cite that. Or if there are reliable sources that contradict the "pro-Trump" label (which has many citations in support), you could provide those here.
If you have problems with the wording for the CNN or MSNBC articles, you should post at the talk pages for those articles, not here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of The Washington Times

I checked the sources about the criticisms of The Washington Times, and I found that not one of them says anything about One America News Network or how the former's content relates to the network. All I see are criticisms of the newspaper's content as racist, promoting conspiracy theories, Islamophobic, and neo-Confederate. Maybe there is a relation between the two, but for the moment I cannot see any relevance necessary to keep the text. Of course, I am not deleting it without discussion since there may or may not be a consensus for the material.

Also, the last source for the first paragraph of History, No. 58, is questionable not because it is a bad source, but because it supposedly verifies something eleven years after the source was first published. I will try to find a replacement. FreeMediaKid$ 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The connection is that TWT had an agreement to feed OANN their content. soibangla (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Times is an authoritative voice on policy, politics and national security news in Washington, and it provides our network a powerful reporting and analytical capability to help our viewers make sense of developments in an increasingly complex, and polarized capital city.

— Charles Herring
Oh, I just read source 48 after reading the above comment, and now I see the relevance. Never mind. Still, reference 58 could be better. FreeMediaKid$ 04:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

coatracking

I removed the following content, which has no direct relevance or relationship to this article:

"[...] The OANN channel originally debuted in partnership with The Washington Times,[48] which had drawn criticism for racist content, including commentary and conspiracy theories about former U.S. President Barack Obama,[55] supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism,[56] and promoting Islamophobia.[57]"

User:Valjean restored the content with this edit summary: "Considering "OANN's agreement with The Washington Times, the new network could use any Times content,..", this content is quite relevant for this history section."

That's interesting, but as the article points out, OANN _could use_ any content from the Times - I see no sources demonstrating that OANN *did* use specific content from the times. They _could use_ content from WT's sports pages, that doesn't demonstrate that they did. As it stands, this is merely innuendo cloaked as history - of a separate entity. The criticisms listed are those of people commenting on the Washington Times - specifically, with no relationship to OANN whatsoever. None of the sources mention OANN.

This is coatracking 101 - inserting specific criticisms leveled about WT's content with no clearly defined link to OANN's content. The criticism belongs on the Washington Times article (already there), not this one. Anastrophe (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days for responses with policy-based rebuttals, but absent those, I'll remove the problematic text. Anastrophe (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Anastrophe, your ping didn't work. It has to be made in a completely new post at the same time it is signed. It is only now that I see this thread, and Soibangla has answered it well. The content is not only good, it's far from a coatrack and should be updated with the content cited below. -- Valjean (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I failed to ping it timely, now I know. As far as Soibangla's content, it's perfectly fine for inclusion in this article. It is however unrelated to the matter I brought up. Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

“One America News Network will provide Americans a new, credible source for national and international news and investigative reporting as well as talk shows designed to foster an independent, cutting-edge debate about the policies, issues and solutions facing the country,” said Robert Herring, the CEO of Herring Broadcasting. The network, which is wholly owned by Herring Broadcasting, will rely on The Washington Times as a key source of news and analysis from the nation’s capital and is building a state-of-the-art TV studio inside the 31-year-old newspaper’s newsroom. “We’re excited to have reporters, editors and commentators from Ralph Hallow to Emily Miller who can whisk into the studio from the Times’ newsroom and provide real-time, trusted reporting and credible analysis on the pressing issues of the day.”[25]

soibangla (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
...And? The problem is not the first sentence I quoted above (I left it in for context, perhaps that was a mistake). It's not in question whether there was a relationship between WT and OANN. What you've posted is unrelated to the matter at hand, which is about insertion past criticisms of the WT that have no direct relationship to the subject of this article. Please draw a straight line between a Daily Beast article (cited) discussing ties between Ted Cruz and Frank Gaffney, and the subject of this article. The quote you've provided is certainly relevant for inclusion in this article, as well as the Washington Times article. The Daily Beast cite might be meaningful to the WT article or to the Frank Gaffney article, and possibly in the Ted Cruz article. But the criticisms of the WT that are presented here are simple innuendo, accurate or not. They have nothing directly to do with OANN. Anastrophe (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, I just disagree with They have nothing directly to do with OANN soibangla (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The criticisms that are presented after the comma have nothing to do with OANN. That's patent, visit the cited articles. They are perfectly valid for criticism of the WT. They've nothing to do with this article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing now that I really did screw up with my first entry. I said that I "removed the following content", then included a sentence that I did not remove from the article. Sigh. The problematic text that I removed is _after the comma_, the listing of various 'grievances' with WT, which I don't doubt exist, but they are criticisms of WT, not OANN. That's coatracking. We have wikilinks for a reason. The interested reader can follow the wl to the WT article, and see all of the criticisms in their glorious splendor. Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason a reader should need to follow a wikilink to see a brief description of a news source OANN has partnered with to provide them content, including by embedding a TV studio in its newsroom. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A brief description would be dandy. What is in place is not a brief description. Here's a brief description: "The OANN channel originally debuted in partnership with The Washington Times, a conservative daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., that covers general interest topics with a particular emphasis on national politics." That's a brief description. That the WT has published content that has been criticized is interesting. But as presented, it's just innuendo. The innuendo may be accurate; that doesn't change that a cite to an article in the Daily Beast about links between Ted Cruz and some operative has precisely bupkus to do with OANN. Just as the rest of the criticisms of WT are unrelated. Those criticisms are detailed in the WT article. Absent a direct link, they're not encyclopedic. It's no different from adding to the article on Harry Truman that "he drove a Ford vehicle, produced by Henry Ford, a known conspiracy theorist and anti-semite". A link is being implied. We don't imply in the encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Did Harry have a business deal with Henry including an office in his factory? soibangla (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-sequitur. Are you suggesting that if he did, then the statement would then be valid for inclusion in his article? What policy would that fall under? Anastrophe (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not a non sequitur at all. The analogy fails. soibangla (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
It's innuendo. Describe please, how it is not. And again - I will ask: Are you suggesting that if Truman did, then the statement would then be valid for inclusion in Truman's article? If so, how? If not, how? The criticisms of WT are just that - criticisms of WT. None of the cites associated with the criticisms mention OANN. Criticisms of OANN within the article are more than an adequate indictment.
While we're here, can you explain in what way my suggested changes would fail on policy?Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, if a POTUS had a business deal with a legendary industrialist and antisemite, and kept an office in his factory, it would be suitable for inclusion in his BLP. Would your view change if we added a source like this?

A TV production company headed by a conservative businessman is teaming up with The Washington Times to start a cable news network that hopes to rival Fox News.[26]

soibangla (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
"Sure, if a POTUS had a business deal with a legendary industrialist and antisemite, and kept an office in his factory, it would be suitable for inclusion in his BLP." The facts are one thing. Are you saying then, that if that obtained, this specific wording would be acceptable in Truman's article? "Harry Truman has inked a business deal with legendary industrialist, conspiracy theorist, and antisemite Henry Ford, and has set up an office in his factory" - that precise wording, would pass muster in Truman's article? I think not - it's innuendo, implying Truman shared Ford's anti-semitism. He may or may not have; the problem is in _implying_ rather than showing. As to the source you mentioned, there's nothing at all inadequate in that quote and that wording. It doesn't devolve into a litany of indictments of the washington times, which, while all true, are unrelated to the facts.
so with that said, would you consider the following acceptable?
"The OANN channel was founded by conservative businessman Robert Herring, in partnership with The Washington Times, a conservative daily newspaper.[27] Herring said in 2013 that under OANN's agreement with The Washington Times, the new network could use any Times content, but was not obligated to do so; he also said at the time that between 60 and 65 Herring Broadcasting employees spent "most of their days" on One America. OANN relocated its news and production studios from the Washington Times building to 101 Constitution Avenue NW, near the Capitol in July of 2014." Or words to that effect.Anastrophe (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That sure looks like a step in the right direction. Keep working on it. -- Valjean (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the wording above? Anastrophe (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Girdusky redirect

I was wondering why "Ryan Girdusky" redirects here as I can find no mention of him on the OANN page nor seemingly any direct connection on an external search Cannonmc (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What purpose does the label "Pro-Trump" serve?

I really don't see how that adds anything to the article. No other News Network articles expresses the network's general view on any president current or prior. 2600:1012:B1A3:C61D:4568:28AC:D2CB:8735 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is justified because there is record of Trump himself favoring OANN, or speaking highly of them, over other outlets because of how they "treat him very nicely."[1] They're also recognized as being "Pro-Trump" by other media outlets, more so than other conservative outlets at that.[2][3] -Euphoria42 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that this article is wildly slanted, a conglomeration of negative views without any neutral or positive views. This kind of slanted article gives the impression of an agenda-driven article. It is interesting that editing of the article is restricted to those with a similar agenda, thus no moderating of tone or slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.248.139 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected which means no editing by IP's or those with unconfirmed accounts. If you create an account, make the right number of edits (10) over the right number of days (4) and you can edit this article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Relman, Eliza. "OAN correspondent baits Trump into baselessly attacking the media after accusing reporters of 'siding with foreign state propaganda' during a White House coronavirus briefing". Insider. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  2. ^ "Pro-Trump 'propaganda' outlet One America News Network to lose biggest distributor". The Independent. 16 January 2022.
  3. ^ Abrams, Rachel. "One America News Network Stays True to Trump". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 24 January 2022.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

I am a news junkie and follow all sources both on TV and on-line. I have research and watched OANN and it is not a far right Trump network. Most of the days news in simply an anchor reading from a teleprompter. It is accurate and factual. Of course, during primetime, they air editorial talk shows, but so do CNN and Fox News, but unlike those news sources all other times are spent just reporting the news. I highly recommend that you change the inaccurate narrative summary of OANN to a center to right network expressing mostly factual news except during primetime when editorial talk shows skew more conservative. 2601:246:CD00:76A0:D8F7:79B2:62F2:423F (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would have to agree with the original poster here. This article is so rife with negative POVs the whole thing would need to be revised. The repeated use of "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative in the article clearly reveals the extreme bias and tone of the author(s). Pro-Trump network may be a fair description but their non-political news coverage appears to be relatively fair and unbiased. Not the impression you would get from reading this poorly written wiki screed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.126.250 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

They did not seem to make an edit suggestion. An edit request is for things like "can you change X to Y" and not general discussions about tone. If you wish to have a discussion about that start a new thread. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Cannot label as “far right”

bad faith WP:NOTFORUM complaining

Change “far right” to “conservative”

You need to remove reference to “far right” that is a tactic of the “far left” to minimize their reach. You can call it “conservative.” Just because left wing news call them far right does not make it so. The citations are a joke. Same as me going on MSNBC wiki and saying they are a “far left” news site, and sighting many conservative sources labeling them as “far left”.

This whole article is a hit piece on OAN. Unlike the people smearing them in this wiki I have watched it and the regular news is actually quite good and reports on the actual news without comment or spin.

Just because YouTube took down their video does not make them conspiracy theorist because we all knows those theories frequently turn out to be true. We also know the people in power are trying silence conservative voices like YouTube, Facebook, twitter, Apple, and the Wikipedia warlords and I can go on… these are a matter of opinion and again should not be silenced. there is suppression coming from the left and not the right. 24.140.53.219 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, RS call them far rioght.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
OANN themselves republished an article from Reuters using the far-right descriptor on their website [28]. X-Editor (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

OP has a history of disruptive editing and has been blocked before. Now, this has no bearing on the current argument, but I would like to add the footnote that not a single one of OP’s edits, ever, has not been reverted. So, there’s that.

On the matter of the argument, RS define OAN in this way and we go with what RS says. See WP:RS for more info. Thank you. Tyrone (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

They seem to be WP:NOTHERE. Tyrone (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask, which better source do we need? we have 16 cites for that claim, including ABC news, NBC news, CNN, The WP. What better source do we need, what kind?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m removing the better source needed tags. There’s already an abundance of sources from reputable publishers, I can even add more if we really feel that is needed. Additionally, it’s pretty self evident by reading/watching OANN that they actively advertise themselves as being on the fringes or at least further right than more mainstream conservative outlets. -Euphoria42 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Also just noticed the FAQ for this talk page/article addresses this exact issue, stating that the "far-right" descriptor is "amply and reliably sourced." Previous discussions on this matter have resulted in "unambiguous consensus" supporting the use of the "far-right" descriptor based on reliable & independent secondary sources. -Euphoria42 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Euphoria42, there's no need for additional sources here, it seems justified at this point to me. Spf121188 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Spf121188, But many of those sources, such as CNN, NBC, and the Washington post, are known to have left-leaning spins on their news. Just like it would not be fair to use a Fox News article Calling them "Far Left", it would not be fair to use them here calling OAN "Far-Right" Especially when they are just civic Nationalists, which is not Far-right at all. I think calling them "Conservative." or even "Staunchly Conservative" is more appropriate, and has far less of a negative connotation. Mr manor11 (talk) 3:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, even if we accept that they are "left-leaning" it would be enough for them to just say "right wing", in addition, if we were using 1 source you might have a valid point, we do not we use many. But by all means bring up some sources that dispute they are far right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Mr manor11, I don't necessarily disagree with your points about NBC, CNN and Washington Post, as they do lean left (sometimes in an obvious fashion,) however, in this case, I think their categorization of OAN as far-right is accurate (I wouldn't call Fox News far-right, but OAN I would classify this way,) and I think most of the Wikipedia community agrees with this. I don't want to dismiss your concerns, but the community has made their voice pretty clear on this one. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 16:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine

As an uninvolved editor, what sources can we use for the OANN's reporting of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I ask because there is no coverage of their response to the invasion on that article. --Minoa (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lets see what sources you have? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I happened to come across two sources that might be useful or be a starting point for more research: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/22/pearson-sharp/one-america-news-runs-conspiratorial-segment-claim, and https://voxukraine.org/en/public-health-fakes-the-american-tv-channel-confirmed-the-existence-of-biolaboratories-in-ukraine-issue-14. --Minoa (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor revision to the lead sentence.

Hello, I noticed that the first sentence in the lead describes the network as "pro-Trump."

While I do understand that this description is supported by sources, as it is a news network that covers a variety of topics, it seems overly simplistic to label the network primarily based on its support for one individual. The article's Content section suggests that the network covers a variety of topics beyond politics, including entertainment, crime, and international events.

With this in mind, I suggest the lead be revised to provide a more nuanced and accurate description of the network's coverage (it's general far right influence was already stated prior), For example: 

  'One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a far-right cable news channel founded by Robert Herring Sr. and owned by Herring Networks, Inc., that launched on July 4, 2013.'

Perhaps the reference to its support for Trump could be placed further down in the lead or to omit it entirely, since the fourth paragraph already provides a detailed summary of this aspect of the network in the lead. Thanks. DS_X1 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We dont, we also point out how they are far-right, which covers much of the rest of their content. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

news neutrality

What is "a conspiracy therory"? Opinions not liked, or misinformation like what adam schiff claimed about reliable sources connecting Donald Trump to rusiian election interefernce? 2600:4040:7C47:F000:819A:C15:59B7:D673 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See Conspiracy theory. Adam Schiff is a living person. Please do not make accusations against living people without reliable sources. WP:BLP O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is highly subjective. It demonstrates significant bias based on biased sources. Although a source may be “independent” that doesn’t mean it’s reliable. Instead of “far right” the description should be “conservative leaning”. This networks should receive the same treatment as CNN, MSNBC, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiffStudley1072 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but being RS does, if you do not think any of these sources are reliable take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

162.235.156.85 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

None of this is true and that is why I would never give wikipedia a dime. Wikipedia is just another leftwing propaganda rag outlet that hates conservative opinions. What do you call a 1990's democrat by today's standards? A far right Maga Republican.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s not far-right

It’s not far-right. 2600:1005:B11E:F984:5C0B:BC7E:7AC7:E5C0 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page, as stated in a big box when you posted labeled: "Please read this before posting an edit request for this protected article". O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Too much bias in this article. You're writing an encyclopedia entry not a fact supported opinion piece. 2600:1700:2191:7E3F:4CEC:4B29:8B6A:B0A5 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
What? Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a propaganda article with corroborating opinions, not a true and factual piece. 2600:4040:445D:C200:9852:55AA:BC87:3374 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
But based upon facts, the IP said so. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If your definition of "fact" is "propaganda", then yes, it is based upon "facts". 2600:4040:445D:C200:924C:A8DF:576C:FAF7 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I did not say it was, I said the IP said it was. I would sat it is based upon wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:V!? Pfft! Verifiable facts are irrelevant. You're all clearly ignorant of The Truth™!… Article and sources are obviously wrong. Naturally, legal action may be the only solution to stop this Woke Menace. -- dsprc [talk] 23:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Reception in the lead

I thought that maybe I could propose a way to incorporate how the channel has been received into the lead. There already is a hint as to its reception with "The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories", but I find it interesting that the channel was viewed differently before the late-2010s. It seems, in its short-lived heyday, its reporting was viewed positively, rather than negatively as it is viewed now. After that, the reporting went full Trump mode.

I will admit that the network came to enter the political sphere and widespread public consciousness only after it went full Trump mode, so it may be disproportionate to give a lot of coverage to its earlier reception. Nevertheless, I find it fascinating and sufficiently relevant to include in the lead to note the network's early journalistic U-turn. Therefore, I propose to add to the fourth paragraph the following:

While the channel was praised early on there was early praise for its terse and impartial reporting, with its right-wing talk shows attracting criticism, commentators and media pundits have since attacked it it has since been attacked for peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

It probably conveys more information about how the public views the channel than just writing that it is "known" for conduct unbecoming a journalist. I would have added that sentence in right now, but I am not sure about whether this article's particular lead requires consensus for changes like this, given the level of scrutiny the article receives daily and the back-and-forth on this talk page over what the lead ought to be. FreeMediaKid$ 01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware it began as a straight news outlet. Are their sources for that? soibangla (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Come to think of it, it is not just the pundits, but news agencies and even a scientific journal (a prestigious one, that is) that either has attacked it or at least considers it (which would tacitly convey disapproval) to spearhead falsehoods based on its record of such. The proposed sentence has thus been modified. Now, there seems to be confusion over what my proposal was supposed to be precisely, either because of a misreading, or because I revealed something I did not intend to. In case it is the latter, I based my analysis strictly on the Reception section. If I had claimed that it started as a straight news outlet, I am sorry for misleading you. Perhaps it did at first dabble into falsehoods and conspiracies before progressing to true news in its reporting, only to then revert back to its old tactics. Perhaps the honest reporting was just a ploy to draw in audience, only to then subject its viewers to the kind of brash paranoia that, frankly, feels insulting to my intellect. I cannot prove one way or the other how the channel started, which makes the original intent of the network all the more interesting, so I shall leave it at that. As a matter of fact, of what Marty Kaplan and Don Kaplan said of OANN, which seems to be that the reporting was good, but not the talk shows, Marty actually changed his mind by 2020 and said, as this article articulates it, that "where once the talk shows were 'sand traps' in a 'large field of green', the network 'fairly quickly' became 'more like the Sahara'". I realize that early on could be construed to mean "initially", so I changed the sentence to use "early". Whatever the merits of the edit (which I am glad I brought to the talk page first), the critiques could not have turned sour and begun contradicting earlier praises for nothing. If there is anything else to discuss, from what I am proposing to the merits thereof, I am here to oblige you. FreeMediaKid$ 06:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts while I was away. When I made my edit suggestion, I acted with the understanding that the lead serves to summarize all aspects of the article contents. I should have understood it to summarize the most fundamental aspects, and so I thought that the article needed to summarize critical reception of the network, as opposed to just what it is infamous for.
I realize that my diction is flawed. For one, it may lend undue weight to past positive appraisals when it could just as well be shortened to Since 2017 or Since the late-2010s. Its reporting style, in the form of straight reporting, which has been noted and is (or was) true for non-political stories, could be written into the article body, and perhaps also the lead. Another flaw was my suggestion of attacked. The word is vague and could be understood as physical, rather than verbal or written. Criticized would do. FreeMediaKid$ 07:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_America_News_Network/Archive_2&oldid=1254387210"