Talk:Fox News controversies/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Media Matters for America Source Deletions

About 70% of this article is MMFA opinion on Fox News Channel. MMFA is not an unbiased source for news and information as it has now stated openly it wants to destroy FNC as a news source. I suggest that MMFA content be deleted and replaced with independent news sources. Kilowattradio (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that with the development that MMfA declared that it wants to take down FNC, plus the campaign they run (http://www.DropFox.com) to have advertisers boycott FNC (not to mention their activist arm Media Matters Action Network), MMfA can hardly be justified as a reliable source about the FNC. Drrll (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-iterate what I stated earlier. We need to come to some consensus understanding here. IMHO, MMfA claims of "controversy" related to Fox News are insufficient to satisfy WP:RS standards for inclusion unless supported by the provision of clearly related and reliable third-party sourcing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using MMFA sources per se. Sources can be biased, but they need to be accurate. Is there any problem regarding the accuracy?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the only issue. Context is the other problem. Example. Paul said, "People say that I beat my wife, this is not true." It is accurate to say Paul said, ".. I beat my wife..". MMfA and other such sites add their own bias to a story making it difficult to maintain a NPOV. They may report accurate statements, but they present them out of context, or they focus on trivia. Futhermore, since they are actively trying to destroy FNC, they cannot be used as a primary source for a controversy. That MMfA says something is controversial is not enough. We already know that they are extremely biased against FNC. Just because they say something is notable doesn't mean that it is. Independent 3rd party sources should always be used to lay the foundation of notability for any supposed controversial event. Arzel (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Providing context is important yes (and imho a part of accuracy in the bigger picture, that is accurate descriptions or reporting take context into account and provide misleading cherry picking in your example). I agree that a 3rd party source picking up on MMFA an story is definitely better as far notability concerned (and possibly better for context as well). However that does not conclude that MMFA cannot be used at all. If it is accurate and the context appropriate on a particular issue, it could be used directly as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is accurate and the context appropriate on a particular issue, it could be used directly as well.

MMfA content, as I read the opinions of a substantial and growing number of editors contributing to prior and related RS/Ns, is in decline as a reputable source and WP:RS is, by no means, a given. MMfA's recent declaration of "War" on FNC will, in all liklihood, exacerbate that decline and will (IMHO) be reflected in subsequent RS/Ns on MMfA's RS status.

For that matter, many experienced editors have opined that NO source possesses some WP:RS "imprimatur" and that the WP:RS of ALL sources are subject to contextual editorial consideration with an associated focus on WP:UNDUE. As one editor stated in relation to a particular source generally held as anathema to those of the left persuasion, if MMfA content is legitimatly notable, there will surely be less-biased sources from which to draw WP:RS sourcing, particularly in relation to alleged FNC "controversies". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with that, but similarly as in my posting to Azreael, I have to say you are not delivering an argument that MMFA can't be used at all (rather the opposite actually). That this article should not rely heavily on MMFA because that is likely to violate WP:UNDUE - I agree, but that's a different issue (no use at all versus overly reliance).

As for MMFA alleged decline of reputability (or its accuracy and context), I'd like see some evidence rather just hearing the opinion of an individual editor. It is not the first time that MMFA is being discussed here or elsewhere and so far afaik the essential result was always that MMFA can be used. That assessment might change - sure, but it is not going to change simply because an editor states vaguely that its reputation might have declined or dislikes it in general.

So the bottom line is, I'd like to see some concrete and convincing evidence regarding a possible lack of accuracy, correct context or a recently tarnished reputation. That's concerning using MMFA at all. As far as an overly reliance on MMFA is concerned I agree that would be violating WP:UNDUE and hence needs to be avoided. I agree as well, that in general 3rd parties sources should be preferred.

On that note I don't really see MMFA as a source for sourcing the existence or notability of Fox News controversies (that indeed needs to come 3rd party sources, MMFA publications alone don't create a controversy), but rather as a source providing details on a particular controversy. Say the controversy is that "Internal memos require fox news staff to use certain (politically slanted) terms" (that needs to be reported in 3rd part sources) and then MMFA might be used for providing specific or additional details (content of various memos)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So the bottom line is, I'd like to see some concrete and convincing evidence regarding a possible lack of accuracy, correct context or a recently tarnished reputation.

Perhaps the following from "Mediaite" (whose politics are no state secret) might fill that niche quite nicely. Here's their closer as an appetizer...

Media Matters was once a pioneering project that is now generating lower quality content than ever before. And with surprisingly small readership and diminishing sphere of influence (particularly considering how well-funded they are) maybe their donors should be asking if that money could be better spent funding websites where the Media actually Matters. [1]

There's more than partisan "smoke" in those RS/Ns I alluded to...and this was Mediaite's take BEFORE MMfA's declaration of "War" on FNC.

P.S. A link to "recently tarnished reputation" will be forthcoming as soon as I can find it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not the item I had in mind but, for currency, this should suffice. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems as if there is consensus for finding MMfA unreliable for this context. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Per your observation, the lack of response here and the "Mediaite" cite above, I have removed long-tagged content as unsupported per WP:RS. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a consensus for unreliability per se, just for a bias and that media matters publications on their own do not create notability, i.e. at least the general topic/theme needs to picked up by other media as well to provide notability. In such a case Media Matters might be used to add some details, but it shouldn't be used for topics not published anywhere else.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Journalist vs commentator

The article does a poor job of distinguishing journalists from commentators. Readers may be under the impression that Fox commentators are dishonest because they they intersperse their opinions with regular news. Of course journalists are held to much higher professional and ethical standard. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an RS or three we can use to cite that, or who is a journalist, a news reporter/news caster, or a commentator? If so, I'm all for interspersing something suitable. But of course, that also begs the question, is there confusion among audience and critics as to which is which? I haven't run into articles or stories that cover the first, though I have seen quite a few that cover the second (that perhaps would achieve your goal?). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edits

This section says "In August 2007, a new utility, Wikipedia Scanner, revealed that Wikipedia articles relating to Fox News had been edited from IP addresses owned by Fox News,[82] though it was not possible to determine exactly who the editors were." but funny enough when you go down to the citation and click it, it leads you to a dead link. The citation should be fixed or the comment removed I would suppose.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a primary source anyway, rather then directly invoking the scanner, e should cite some (secondary) source reporting on the scanning.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For now i replaced it by a an archived wikinews article from back then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please. Wikinews is a decidedly unreliable source as is Wikipedia itself. I am removing the citation. Whether this content is WP:V or not must be predicated upon the provision of WP:RS sourcing. Either source it or it must be removed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the "Guardian" cite, it appears to source the related content. I have re-cited it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note the "for now". But for what's it worth Wikinews is community edited like Wikipedia but not necessarily unreliable, as the news they publish and archive go through an editorial and fact checking process. Nevertheless citing a (non community based) publisher like the Guardian is certainly a better option. In any case the point here was to replace the (dysfunctional) primary source (direct call a the scanner tool) by a (reliable) news report.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't wikinews fall into information feedback? I know that Wikipedia is never a reliable source for articles, thus I am not sure how Wikinews would be a RS. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because it's not a reliable source Arzel. It can be edited by anyone. I was unable to find any reliable sources. The Guardian article says "Users traced back to the rightwing TV station have edited a number of pages about its presenters. . ." Traced by who I wonder?? Their paper? I'm not saying companies and other organizations don't keep tabs on articles concering them, but the sources for this are complete rubbish. No big names like CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or anyone who it would actually benefit to say something like that ever mention it in any articles. And besides, if something dubious like this was going to be left in just quote the article that states they edited only articles about their presenters, not articles about their company in general.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews can not be edited by anyone in sense you can do that in WP. As I said above Wikinews is community based, but the news go through a community editorial and fact checking process and archived afterwards and the archived news are not editable anymore. As far as reliability is concerned Wikinews is probably better than Fox. However one might object against Wikinews on the grounds that no community based are allowed (independent of their exact editorial process), though that might be debatable as well it is nevertheless a proper argument against Wikinews. As far as the "missing big names" are concerned, the Guardian is a big name, it is one of best known British newspapers and news portals.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So then you try to insult Fox -- a company that this article is actually about -- which shows that you really have a problem with Fox that you try to rectify through editing an article; your bias is clear. It's also clear that you don't have a very high opinion of Fox. To say Wikinews or Wikipedia is probably better than Fox is pretty laughable. Yes, one might object to Wikinews on that grounds that as long as the community is in agreement, they can't write whatever lies they want with no repercussion; that would be true. But that's not how it works for "mainstream media" such as Fox. They get "called on the carpet" for such things; namely by their competitors such as CNN etc. You still didn't address the other major names that are missing that would actually have a stake in a tidbit like that. I suppose all of them just missed that story right?--YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that rather than me trying to "insult Fox" you are insulting our sister project Wikinews. And as far as Fox and "being called on the carpet" is concerned, that is probably the reason we have this article in the first place (as fox has been called on the carpet quite often). I didn't address the other "major names" there's no need for it. There is no requirement that something needs to be reported by all major (US) media to be mentioned here. Moreover you probably misunderstand the point of my posting above. I was merely correcting your misleading insinuations above (Wikinews is like WP and unreliable due to anyone can edit, Guardian is not a big name) - nothing more, nothing less.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm stating that as long as the community is in agreement, they can write whatever lies they want on Wikinews before editing is closed with no repercussion. Just like they can on Wikipedia. That's a fact. I'm not saying there's a requirement that something needs to be reported by all major US media. I'm stating a fact that if something such as this was true it would have been reported by at least ONE major US media; which it was not. My insuations about Wikinews are not misleading, instead, they are correct and factual. Wikinews is not a reliable source for anything, just like Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by any Academia, or otherwise. Wikipedia article aren't your personal blog for "calling people on the carpet" so I'm not sure why you seem to think it is.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is crap like this article here?

Is there some reason you folks allow bullshit articles like this to be posted? I'm just gonna guess on this, but I'm willing to bet you do not have comparable pages about NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, et al ad vomitus. Wikipedia is turning into a politically correct piece of shit.

Feel free to contribute to the "politically incorrect" piece of brilliance called conservapedia instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Such BS rants should be removed on sight per wp:NOTFORUM.TMCk (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

actually, there is a CNN controversies page, and NBC,CBS and MSNBC all have controversy sections in their main articles. Ucanlookitup (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies related to Russia

1. Following the 2008 South Ossetia War, Fox News had an interview with 12-year-old girl Amanda Kokoeva and her aunt Laura Tedeeva. When Mikheil Saakashvili was blamed for the conflict, the interview had been abruptly interrupted. [2]

2. Following the 2011 Elections in Russia, Fox News reported on protests in Moscow. However, the material used shows protests that took place in Greece. [3]

--ConCelFan (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted incorporation of #2. In addition to a basic question as to the WP:RS of the source and the rather absurd banality of issue itself, please support, via supporting citations if you can, how this content rises to satisfy consideration under WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be peremptorily disposed of as the essence of WP:COATRACK. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, RT (Russia Today) is not a good source on this for sure, but there are reports on this gaffe in reliable media as well (for instance: [4]). I can't see a case of WP:COATRACK here, but I guess a case of WP:UNDUE might be arguable, if one considers the episode as simply an innocent embarrassing mistake. On the other hand Fox seems to have a track record of such "innocent mistake" and one might see it rather exemplary for its shoddy reporting & editorial control/standards.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fox News has a history of such "innocent mistakes", a history that exhibits two important characteristics: that the mistakes occur far more often than with other networks, and that the mistakes are overwhelmingly likely to be in the direction that's favorable to Fox's right-wing world view. The problem is that no one mistake proves such tendencies. To inform the readers properly, we have to provide the information and let them judge. If Fox News has fired some scapegoat intern over this, and asserted that it was all that one person's fault, we can include that explanation, too, properly attributed. JamesMLane t c 17:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

...that the mistakes occur far more often than with other networks...

Simply an absurd, WP:OR supposition totally ignoring the left-wing (and your own), pro-active, anti-Fox News campaign to document and over-hype every Fox News failure to cross a t or dot an i...and a quite shameful abuse of this WP project itself Mr. Lane. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, right, this is completely OR, I personally just concocted this absurd idea that Fox News exhibits any bias whatsoever. And Ronald Reagan cut taxes and balanced the budget, and Saddam was behind 9/11.

Come on, Jake, get real. You're not required to agree with what you call the "anti-Fox News campaign" but it's absurd to pretend that it's a creation of a few Wikipedia editors. This is one of the serious issues that's been raised about Fox News. We should not assert as fact that these mistakes evince bias, nor should we assert as fact that the critics are out to "over-hype every Fox News failure to cross a t or dot an i...." We also shouldn't adopt that latter POV implicitly, by suppressing the facts relied on by the critics. To avoid abuse of the encyclopedia, we simply present the facts and let the readers decide for themselves. JamesMLane t c 00:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, right, this is completely OR, I personally just concocted this absurd idea that Fox News exhibits any bias whatsoever.

Not what I said...and I'll not entertain strawmen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 in review

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-worst-fox-news-moments-of-2011 has some fluff, but plenty of examples of abject bias and towards the end it starts getting into some serious issues. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC relating indirectly to this article

At the talk page for the main article, Talk:Fox News Channel, a Request for Comment has been initiated on this question: "Should this article's summary of the more detailed Fox News Channel controversies article include reference to the dispute about Fox News viewers' levels of information?"

To keep the discussion in one place, editors who wish to comment should go to Talk:Fox News Channel#Request for Comment to read the specific proposed addition and to weigh in. JamesMLane t c 03:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

FDU Study

Can we get some secondary sources for this instead of a press release? Arkon (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added 2 newspaper articles on the poll/study, but I'd suggest to keep the link with access to complete questionnaire and methodology in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is gratuitous, WP:COATRACK junk...and it speaks to an alleged Fox News VIEWER deficiency not a "Fox News Controversy". Nowhere does it claim (that I've seen) that Fox News is somehow responsible for the alleged viewer confusion. I'm removing it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with that here. The study/poll fits exactly into the section, where it was added, the title of which (test of knowledge of fox viewers) was even introduced by yourself by one of the article reorganization if i recall correctly. Also note that your cited WP:COATRACK is an essay so anything but policy. --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

...the title of which (test of knowledge of fox viewers) was even introduced by yourself by one of the article reorganization if i recall correctly.

No, you recall incorrectly. My participation in that discussion was limited solely to resolving the dispute addressed by the RfC and I made no comment whatsoever as to the appropriateness of the content in an article entitled "Fox News Controversy". I may yet...but I'll await responses from other editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And still more on this subject. According to the LA Times article cited (emphasis mine)...

The overall survey, conducted from Oct. 17 to 23, had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. Because of the smaller sample size among those who selected a specific news source, the margin of error would be much higher.

The "finding" of this purported "survey" begins to look considerably more like a premise in search of confirmation, a plausibility not likely to be explored or reported by media whose biases might delight in any anti-Fox News innuendo. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement about margin of error is true of every poll that reports their results by demographics (most of them). It is not an indication of bias. Is there any other reason you think the survey is biased? Ucanlookitup (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me be more clear then. I'm referring to "media" biases in reporting...not poll bias itself. The LA Times cite notes in its LAST paragraph, quite specifically, that the "margin of error" for the anti-Fox News innuendo being trumpeted here is "much higher". Also, the "reportage" might just as easily have headlined (generally an editorial decision btw) the alleged confusion of MSNBC viewers. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of the three cites listed, one headlines it with Fox without mentioning MSNBC. Another mentions both and the third mentions neither. In any event, I don't see how that is an argument for not including the statement here. The statement about the margin of error is simply irrelevant. It is true of any poll that breaks the results up into subsets. Ucanlookitup (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I could see an argument that this doesn't belong in the "Controversies" article because it belongs in the main Fox article. IIRC, however, earlier studies with similar findings were chased out of that article by Foxophiles, and relegated to this daughter article, so until we refight that battle it should stay here. As for Jake's personal opinion about the import of the study, his personal opinion (like my personal opinion that Fox is a dishonest charade) have no place in Wikipedia. If there is significant published criticism of the study, from someone more prominent than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, we can add a report of that criticism to the article, with proper attribution. JamesMLane t c 19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That poll by FDU reaches conclusions that are difficult to sustain. For instance, this sentence by Dan Cassino "the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all." Arguing that someone who watches one news outlet, however biased, is somewhat more ignorant about certain issues that someone who does not watch any news at all is unsustainable. Therefore, the press release title of FDU's poll (Some News Leaves People Knowing Less) is in my opinion deeply misleading. When you don't know anything about Egypt, as the poll suggests, it is impossible to become less informed by watching a given source, for knowledge on the subject was non existent to begin with. You can not know less, if you don't know anything at all.

But this discussion, and that poll, is an objective reflection of the state of US media and political debate. Outrageous claims, totally indefensible and illogical, are made by both sides on a regular basis, and each side's supporters acts, unquestioningly, as an echo chamber. Dan Cassino does address this issue, here, by saying "People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest."--Ianonne89 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that I don't think this poll should be included in the entry. If it does, it should equally be included in all entries related to all news outlets referred to by the poll. --Ianonne89 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that is why you deleted it at Fox while adding at MSBNBC at the same time?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion of the article's conclusion are not relevant to whether or not it should be included. If you can find a reliable source that casts doubt on the conclusion of the article, that can also be included. Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have also added that it is difficult to see how the unsustainable results of a poll can be considered as controversy. There's nothing controversial about alleged ignorance of viewers of certain news outlets.--Ianonne89 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the "contradiction" you see there isn't really one as it has to with the function of brain. The storage capacity of it is limited so it selects, filters and reinforces some information (while dropping others). Polemically speaking Fox (and to some degree partisan TV and commercial TV) as well simply floods people with so much crap that certain important information don't get reinforced ans hence drop from the memory. As far as people not watching the news is concerned that is not to be equated with receiving no news at all (which is the assumption for your "contradiction" above), it simply means they get there (news) information through other ways than regularly watching those partisan TV channels and apparently in those cases their brains seem retain certain memory patterns better, i.e. they are lees likely to be dropped.

A note to other editors, in the context of this issue it worthwhile to check Ianonne89 contributions ([5]), I find it quite telling.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Meta comment - This debate is now occupying the talk pages of both the Fox News Channel main article and this one. For the purposes of debate continuity, please consider restricting further section comments to the main article talk page. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add in further refutation of the false premise -- which by the way has no place on wikipedia as we do not filter based on what's right or wrong but on what's verifiable or not -- there's a well known fact in signal processing, that when you're trying to reconstruct a signal from various noisy channels, some channels do not help you at all no matter what you do with them, because the noise to signal ratio is just too high and since you can't separate the noise from the signal you will always get a more faithful reconstruction of the original signal by simply disregarding the problematic source in full. in other words, not only is it entirely possible that giving a particular channel even an iota of weight will degrade signal reconstruction, it is mathematically unavoidable; it is certain. it is known as the problem of "source selection". Kevin Baas^talk 14:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently there seems to be somewhat of consensus building to exclude the poll in the main article on Fox News due to severe problems with study (see discussion). If that consensus becomes firmly established in the next couple of days, I'd to do remove it FDU poll here as well. Though I still consider the FDU and its institute reputable enough for mentioning its work in general, this particular poll is so obviously riddled with "unfixable" problems that all that WP could do with it in a good conscience, is mentioning that such a study exist, but since it is not neither a really important poll nor one that has caused major traction in the media, I see no point in that approach. The best option is imho to use editorial discretion/judgment to drop it, i. e. remove it from the article as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you feel a consensus is reached, perhaps you could summarize the weaknesses here and let this group of editors weigh in. The discussion on the main article talk page is, well, not exactly concise Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately ther are still a lot of (imho pseudo)arguments against the poll being put forward that actually obfuscate the decisive reason that renders it useless. From my perspective it is essentially Fat&happy's argument. He pointed out a flaw, that is imho unrepairable and beyond any reasonable partisanship.

The study uses only 2 question to assess the knowledge of foreign affairs (already that alone might raise eyebrows). One of those 2 question renders itself more or less invalid due to a sloppy use of language. It used the term regime when it meant government for its question about Egypt. This is highly problematic as this changes the correct answer to the question, as the government (president, various ministers) were successfully toppled but the regime (the country's overall power structures, in particulal the military council, security forces) was not (yet). Meaning the pollsters are evaluating their own question wrongly (considering its literal meaning and not substituting regime by government). For the second question (about Syria) the difference between Fox and others doesn't seems to be statistically conclusive (confidence interfals overlapping) due to the relatively small difference in percentages between Fox and others. So we kinda left with nothing to draw conclusions from.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

hmmm - I could weigh in on the specifics of this argument (and I might) because I don't find either argument convincing. Especially the argument about the margin of error, since it is the a classic misuse of the statistic (margin of error of the differences would be the correct statistic), but I think it misses the bigger point. Why are wikipedia editors, who as a group have no particular qualifications, passing judgment on the methodology of the study? Our job is to evaluate the reliability and notability of the information. Personally, I'm on the fence on this one, but the debate seems to have gone very far astray from the legitimate role of a wikipedia editor.Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well what exactly is not convincing here?

The argument about the meaning of regime requires a rather large leap of faith that the poll respondents were not simply uninformed about the events in Egypt but were in fact "super smart" and answered the question on narrow technical grounds. It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me. It seems reminiscent of Palin's supporters arguing that, in fact, Paul Revere was warning the British about gun control. Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see an misuse of statistics?

The margin of error of a poll does not apply to differences within the poll. This article explains the proper calculation. It is a very common mistake and you'll see it done by many reputable (but wrong) authors. It is also a good illustration of why Wikipedians should not try to be statisticians. Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as WP authors concerned are concerned. I assume by "as a group" you mean, that can not be sure about the qualifications of an an individual wikipedian?

I agree that WP authors should normally not second guess reputable sources but report them as they are. However that is only true, if the WP authors decide to use it as a source to begin with. Also the FDU poll does not exactly pass the as test as "reputable peer reviewed publication" either, it is at best at lower end of formal reliability in the sense of a run of the mill average academic/university publication without having particular reputable author/institute/university behind it nor even an editorial process of a(n independent) publisher.

The argument about the reliability of the source and the notability of the poll is, imho, what we should be debating. That's why I'm still on the fence. The arguments about the content of the poll are just distracting from that discussion Ucanlookitup (talk)

Well as judging notability and reliability cannot or should not (always) be done without looking at the source's content as well, i.e. at least superficially doing some basic sanity checks, such as internal consistency, not (seriously) conflicting with established domain knowledge and similar. This is in particularly important if we deal with source at the lower end of our reliability range. In that sense I don't think we went astray for the WP editors role at all, but we are at its very core.

Personally I do actually believe (as a personal guess) that the poll's general claim (fox viewers are less informed about foreign affairs) is true, but that assessment is based on having seen enough lousy fox coverage (just take it's ridiculous coverage of Iraq/the Iraq war during the last decade). However I cannot honestly say that this claim follows from the poll results, i.e. if we write something "an fdu poll shows that fox viewers tend to be less informed in foreign policies" that is imho almost a straight lie as the poll shows no such thing. Or to put it in more general terms WP editors should not include formally verifiable material, if they "know" it not be true/accurate.

Current Wikipedia policy would seem to disagree. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Although there is debate on the topic. Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Now there is still a weak argument for including the poll on notability reasons alone (as in it is notable because it was covered by a (very) few (major) news outlets, so we should cover it too). However if we decide to cover it based on notability we need to come up with correct description. The original description is a no-go for the reason outline above. We could resort to simply literally quote some bits and maybe tweak the language (as in the FDU poll claims to show or according to FDU the poll shows instead of the FDU poll shows). However depending on how the quotes are picked there is still a big danger of creating misleading information (as the quotes may essentially suggest something similar to our original text). We could outline some of the studies issues in an accompanying footnote, but strictly speaking that could be considered as OR and hence creating another problem. So all we honestly could do, is quoting the exact poll question and the replies of the interviewed, that imho could be done. However that would make an somewhat awkward text and judging from discussion so far there still editors who oppose that anyway, so it might be easier to simply drop it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note, stand by for part 2 in which Fox News viewers incorrectly identify who is bailing out European countries Part Deux Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a mistake to look at the FDU study in isolation. One limited study by itself might not be worth including, but the broader subject of FNC viewers' information level is clearly significant, having been the subject of multiple studies (reaching different conclusions). The FDU study is one more bit of information in that topic area. If it's all that flawed, it should be easy for editors to find a prominent spokesperson who says so, and to edit the text to include a report of that criticism, properly attributed. (Pursuant to JakeInJoisey's meta-comment, I've elaborated on my views on the main article talk page.) JamesMLane t c 05:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point. It also highlights a problem with JakeInJoisey's meta-comment. If the discussion boils down to a question of undue weight (or if you prefer notability),which I believe it does, then we could legitimately arrive at a different answer for this page than for the main page. What might be too much detail for the larger topic may not be for a more focused page. Another problem I have with the meta-comment is that the discussion on the main page seems to have degenerated to partisan personal attacks. I don't have much interest in participating in that. Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The information might be included in the main article and in this one, included in the main article only, included in this article but with the main article having a summary and a link here, included in this article with no mention in the main article, or excluded from Wikipedia entirely. Because of the interrelationship of these alternatives, it makes sense to have one unified discussion. It's regrettable that the discussion on the main article talk page hasn't been more focused. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A another (possible final) comment from me and a late answer to Ucanlookitup:

First of all thanks for pointing the statistical issue one should be aware of, I didn't pay attention that beside yes/no the survey allowed third option with "don't know". However even taking that into account the information is still (too) weak to claim something like "fox viewers are less informed in foreign affairs" or even for a rather generic "fox viewers know less" (than who?). As far as foreign affairs knowledge is concerned Fox only sticks out in the "botched" regime question (see above), in other 2 questions Fox is more or less in line with the other commercial or partisan TV. So even if we ignore the questionable approach of assessing foreign affair knowledge by only 3 questions, the conclusion imho is more something like "people getting their news from partisan or commercial TV tend to know less (in foreign affairs) than listeners of National public radio"

As I said before we have a study which is formally still reliable and reputable, but clearly at the lower end of the of scale. Now if editors agree that there are quality issues in such a case it is in their discretion to simply drop such a problematic source. However that is an option not a must and personally I'm not really opposed to including the FDU study but it should be done in a careful manner, to avoid that we end up peddling nonsense to our readers. The same goes for summarizing several studies in one description. Keeping that in mind the current description is still highly problematic:

In 2011, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that New Jersey Fox News viewers were less well informed than people who did not watch any news at all. The study employed objective questions, such as whether Hosni Mubarak was still in power in Egypt.

The issues are:

• the study never employed an "objective question" regarding Mubarak. In fact Mubarak is not mentioned in the questions at all, instead the question used the ambiguous term "regime", which means that no and yes can be correct as answer (regime as government/president and regime as power structure (police, military council). Yes they were successful in removing the president but no they were not successful in removing the military council, both threads can be found in reliable news reporting. Hence question is anything but objective.
• imho the result of the study is more correctly described as "partisan TV news viewers (among then fox viewers) are less informed" rather than "fox viewers are less informed".
• Since some of the conclusions seems questionable, it is might be necessary to qualify these sections if they are to be used at all. Depending in the exact description of the findings, I don't think we can honestly use a "factual" description as in "the FDU study found ...", but instead we might need something like "claims to have found" or "FDU researchers claim based on a survey, that .....".

All in all I'm somewhere between neutral and slightly in favour as far as the inclusion of the FDU material in general is concerned. However I do think the current description needs to be fixed and without fixing it it might be better to drop it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the reply Kmhkmh - The statistical issues are deeper than simply having three choices. The poll compares one sub-group (Fox viewers) to all other groups of viewers (lots more than three). But I raised the statistical fallacy only to make a larger point. Wikipedia editors are not experts (generally speaking) on polling methodology and should not be second guessing the experts in the field. If your points are sound (or anyone's, I'm not singling you out), then we would expect that published authors would have published the same criticisms and we could site them. If we can't find published authors that point to flaws in the study, then we can't introduce the argument. That's the whole point of wp:verifiabilty

That said, you're rewording makes sense to me. 'Objective questions' is editorializing a bit, Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. On material with less exposure and reputation, you cannot always expect to have a published criticism available. To exaggerate the point a bit, the less reliable or reputable (and with less exposure) some published information/opinion is, the less likely you are to find some published criticism (or review). People, i. e. other experts, will simply not bother in particular with the most outrageous stuff out there. For that and for other reason WP editors need to second guess their sources, but they need to walk a fine line there. They cannot introduce their own criticism or opinion of a source, but to some degree they can decide which sources (or parts of them) they use and which they don't.

Yes, if we can't find published criticism pointing flaws, we (normally) cannot introduce an argument about the flaws into the text, I agree there. But we should not introduce material, we do not consider to be correct either (unless the source is so reputable, that coverage is required for any decent somewhat comprehensive treatment of the topic).

No matter whether they are experts or not WP editors need to assess sources and their content they want to use, that's a fundamental requirement for any (decent) writing and there's no way around that. Yes there is a higher chance that a non expert might get it wrong, when assessing the sources and considering how to use them, but that is an intrinsic problem of WP, that cannot be avoided. You cannot create decent encyclopedic articles by having WP editors simply working as "transcription monkeys" literally copying any formally reliable source out there - that's an absolute no-go (for legal reasons alone actually). They need to summarize, filter, rephrase, and provide context, there's no way around that. The fact that they are more likely than experts to produce errors in that process is reminder for them to be "extra careful", but ultimately something WP has to live with. Ideally most of those errors will be removed down the road through the WP's self correcting mechanisms.

Getting back from all of that to the FDU study. It is exactly the situation of a source being formally still reliable/reputable at the lower end, but not important or reputable enough for other experts to really bother. It is not published in a journal and the only external sources assessing it, were non experts as well (2 newspaper journalists). Now we are exactly in a situation, where we carefully need to assess how we use that source or whether we even might not use it at all. We certainly cannot describe its results as factual, when we actually do no just doubt them, but regarding some aspects already know that they are wrong. For instance we do know that they never asked a question about Mubarak literally and we do know that there actual question was problematic (the regime vs government), hence we should never give a factual description like "The study employed objective questions, such as whether Hosni Mubarak was still in power in Egypt", even if the study were to claim that literally in its analysis, because we know it not to be true. Also note I'm not arguing to publish our own criticism of the study in the WP article, I'm just arguing for being careful how we phrase the results of the study and which results/aspects of it we should use (at all).--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You've characterized FDU as at the lower end of reliable/reputable. I really don't see the basis for that. They are covered by mainstream media enough to solicit criticism of their methodology if it was appropriate. Certainly opponents have weighed in on previous studies. Substituting our critique of their methodology in the place of credentialed authorities seems to me a very dangerous precedent. Nonetheless, I do agree that the summarize of the study should be objective and accurate. I would support a wording change that included qualifiers like "FDU concluded that..." Ucanlookitup (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course their is a basis for the lower end of reliability/reputability statement. There are formal reasons for that and personal editorial judgment as well. At the upper end there are peer reviewed scholarly articles and books by very reputable scholars from very reputable institutions/universities published with very reputable scholarly journals and publishers. The FDU study doesn't seem to qualify for any of that and in addition it doesn't even qualify for large mainstream media coverage/scrutiny either, it was only reported/discussed in a very few mainstream media outlets. On top of that there is some editorial concern of overreaching conclusions in the analysis (assessing foreign knowledge based on 3 questions and the "botched"/ambiguous question regarding Egypt). As far as "our" critique is concerned, I already agreed that we cannot work that into the article (as it would pose o policy violation/OR), it does however provide us potentially with a valid reason to drop the study or parts of it. There's difference between the (required) editorial judgment of the accuracy and reputation of sources (i. e. judging whether to include them in the article) and the unwanted personal commentary or opinion about certain sources in the article. My whole point is about the former not the latter--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In summary (I believe), WP:EditorialJudgement can legitimately trump anything (and I think I read that somewhere). JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it renders all policies meaningless. It's a policy, unless I don't like it, then it's EditorialJudgement. Ucanlookitup (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No it does not, neither various other policies nor JakeInJoisey's cited policy/argument can be taken to an extreme or formal strictly literal sense, they are to applied with common sense and context and with respect to the overall goal (having a correct and informative encyclopedic article). We actually even have a policy for that as well(WP:IAR), but of course this policy is not to be understood as rendering all other policies invalid/pointless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it renders all policies meaningless.

Simply an absurd overstatement. "Editorial Judgement" assumes both a consideration of all relevant WP:Policy and CONSENSUS in that same "editorial judgement". JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC Controversies?

Where's MSNBC Controversies article page? Don't despair my little left wing friends, I'll make it happen for ya. Jetijonez (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your nasty tone is evidently intended to convey a belief that Fox News and MSNBC are being treated differently because of left-wing Wikipedians' bias against Fox News.

Okay, let's treat the two networks the same way. Currently, the right-wing criticisms of MSNBC are found right in that article, in the section MSNBC#Criticism and controversy. When it comes to Fox News, though, much of the criticism is relegated to this daughter article, leaving the main article with only a summary, and an inadequate one at that.

So, to eliminate the bias, all we have to do is follow the model of the MSNBC article, and incorporate the criticisms of Fox News into the main article, after which we can delete this "Controversies" article. Are you on board? JamesMLane t c 08:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! For the record I'm a Democrat, and I'm a little embarrassed that these discrepancies are happening here on WP. This is an Encyclopedia not a Blog! so opinions need to be left at the door. Jetijonez (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, opinions aren't left completely at the door. We report facts, including facts about opinions. Whether the article subject is Fox News or MSNBC, we should give a fair presentation of the major opinions about controversial aspects, including the significant facts upon which each side relies, but we report such opinions ("X said Y") rather than adopting them.

As for the organizational question, you should start a separate thread if you want to propose merging the content of this article back into the main Fox News Channel article where it belongs. Expect fierce opposition. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives may think they want us to be consistent in our treatment of Fox News vs. other news sources, but anyone who pays critical objective attention knows they definitely DON'T want us to be consistent. They don't realize that we are going soft on them. The contrast is actually much more stark than they realize. So yeah, i'm all about being consistent. But to satisfy the conservatives on WP we can't be TOO consistent. We need to blow up the MSNBC controversies a little and diminuiate the Fox News ones to make them look a little more equal, and thus reduce the incredulity factor a little bit; make it a bit more palatable. I believe that is the current state of affairs and "correcting" it to much would invoke calls of "liberal bias", like Fox News does to news sources that report the facts, or their pundits and "news reporters" call anyone who discloses anything that doesn't corroborate their pre-established beliefs, however factual or obvious. Kevin Baas^talk 17:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Going soft"? Ha, you are a funny guy and I needed a good laugh. The reason why their is an FNC controversy article and there is not one for MSNBC is because you and your leftist comrades on WP desire to put every single negative thing that TP, FAIR, and MMfA write on their web pages. The result was a page that was little more than an attack page of TP, FAIR, and MMfA whines, but since the POV pushers on WP refuse to remove the tripe a sub-page of it had to be created to at least give the illusion of NPOV. Of course you still try to load up as much tripe as possible into the main page. It would be quite easy to create a similar page for MSNBC as there is no shortage of material. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

case in point. confirmation bias: 1, reality: 0. Kevin Baas^talk 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Discredited military and counterterrorism editor - Coatrack?

A recent edit alerted me to the existence of the above named content which references a 2002 event. Despite the now decade old "news", some quick research reveals that the subject in question also managed to hoodwink Columbia University, The Dallas Morning News and New York Magazine. While a NY Times cite is certainly WP:RS, how did this now-dated, rather coatracky and hardly Fox News-centric content find a home in this article? It should be removed, post-haste. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see a coatrack here and the content fits well in the section where it is mentioned. The guy life story is certainly not Fox centric (but why should it?), however the content used for our article is. The "dated" argument makes no sense to me. The WP:UNDUE might have some merit since he worked for Fox only for a short period of time, but that a a question of editorial judgement, personally I'm somewhat undecided on that part and I'd like to see input from others on that one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The "dated" argument makes no sense to me.

Let's just say there's been a lot of water over the dam inre the subject himself since the event referenced in that 2002 article. One can only speculate on just how prominent this Fox News aspect might be in a contemporary treatment of the subject by the same author. I suppose one might attempt to find a much more recent treatment on the same individual for some contemporary relative notability assessment on his short stint at Fox, but it ain't gonna be me. Anyway, that was my reference to "dated"...FWIW. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of Media Matters

As Media Matters has declared a "War on Fox News" with a "campaign of guerilla warfare and sabotage", merely describing MMFA as a "liberal watchdog group" does not sufficiently characterize its POV. William Jockusch (talk)

Thinking about this a little more -- can anyone think of a reason Media Matters should be treated as an RS for this article at all? Typically if group A says it is carrying out a "campaign of guerilla warfare and sabotage" against group B, group A should then not be considered an RS for information about group B. William Jockusch (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the primary reason to treat it as a reliable source (in the past), was because its context/reporting was reliable. If media matters now decides to pursue a "campaign of guerilla warfare and sabotage", then most likely its content stops being reliable and it can't be used anymore. However that doesn't really affect its earlier (reliable) publications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that story dates from May, 2011. What would be the appropriate way of handling it for purposes of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The response to this issue is underwhelming. I am therefore going to make a proposal. My proposal is that per its campaign, MMFA is not an RS for purposes of this article, and all MMFA references should be removed.

I am willing to entertain the possibility that this could be too extreme. If the silence from everyone else continues, I will take that as assent to my proposal :) So if you don't agree, please speak up! But I think any alternative proposal needs to explain why the use of MMFA is justified, and how its bias should be described to the reader. William Jockusch (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well your proposal is declined. As I tried to indicate above you need to look at it on a case by case basis and remove only those (more recent) ones, where there is good reason to believe the information/claim of media matters is wrong. And of course keep an eye for future addition being sourced by Media Matters (only).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, in that case, how do you think MMFA should be sourced? Do you believe that "Liberal watchdog group" is sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. Sources in an article don't come with our personal assessment or description in the article but with their regular/official names (as you do with any citation in general). The question at hand is, whether we have (recent) content that is sourced with media matters only and where we have reason to distrust its accuracy. In particular due to the change at media matters from an accurate media or Fox watchdog to a "guerilla fighter" against Fox, that might not stick to accurate reporting anymore. Note the problem isn't even the focus on fox (reliable sources can be biased or focused on a particular subject but their reporting needs to be accurate and somewhat comprehensive on the issue they cover and are cited on), but that it following William's quotation (now) pursues a guerilla war against Fox and hence might resort to other means than just critical but accurate reporting on Fox (such as hiding ot twisting important information, providing false information, writing pure (inaccurate) propaganda pieces, etc.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about my view that MM is unreliable. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Media_Matters William Jockusch (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Video game bias...

Shouldn't their bias against video games be mentioned? Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto... They are quite infamous with gamers... 208.96.65.201 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can research the controversy from the video game community or in a political community in which claims have been made for bias within FOX News on this issue, citing specific examples, I believe it would be relevantly placed in this article. Adrade (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What's up with Fox poll bias?

Normally, I expect PPP polls to show Obama doing better than Gallup and Rasmussen. However, lately both Fox News and WSJ are more in the bag for Obama than PPP. What's up? Gallup and Rasmussen continue to show little change in the race, but with News Corp changing it's numbers so dramatically, they're causing many sites to imply that Obama is making far more gains than could be implied without the help of News Corp. Is there another case of bias here, even if it's pro-dem bias? WaywardGeek (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at Push polling, it is a political behavior where fake questions are worded to acquire desired answers after which the results are inflated and presented to low-information voters as legitimate polling. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Purported

There seems to be a lack of knowledge regarding the word "Purported". In the context being used here it is the appropriate word as it means the meaning conveyed, professed, or implied. Secondly, it is used in several other areas within this same article. I don't see why there exists an attempt to remove this word which is clearly being used properly and also works to remove the 1st person WP voice from the statement. My guess is that those that want to remove it are doing so becuase they think it implies that the statement is not true. To those editors I suggest they review the word and the meaning. Arzel (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See my reponse on my talk page here where the OP inquired.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, every time the term is applied, it would benefit by having a ref/ref reference so that the source of the report can be checked for veracity and legitimacy. I agree, there is no big reason to scrub the term from the article unless said reports are not verified as true. Looking at the history of edits, it looks like some considerable effort has been applied to provide suitable, testable references, so I'd have to agree, there's no need to select any alternative terms to "purported." Damotclese (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MMfA Again

I see that since User:QuackGuru is now tagteaming with User:Bullrangifer we will have to discuss this new addition. There is no evidence that the Climate study by MMfA has any WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. MMfA is constantly going after FNC, plus they have a stated objective to destroy FNC. As such, pretty much anything they is going to be extremely biased. My first basic question, however, is why is this notable? Given the pure amount of material that MMfA puts out about FNC if this is the standard than this article would be nothing but MMfA. Arzel (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The text is relevant from a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is everything they say relevant? They have hundreds if not thousands of pages of stuff on FNC. What makes this special? Arzel (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters fails the basic criteria for a RS, and in fact falls neatly into the category of a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. As it says in WP:IRS, "context matters". When a source exists primarily for the purpose of undermining organizations like Fox News, as MM does, it's pronouncements cannot be taken at face value without independent corroboration. MM may be a RS for information about itself, but not much else. Roccodrift (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, MMfA has been discussed many times at WP:RSN and although opinions vary, if properly attributed it can generally be used (I say generally as there are few sources that can always be used. A personal opinion claiming that MMfA's primary purpose is to undermine Fox, or even 'like Fox' whatever that means, is irrelevant (and not claimed in Media Matters for America. In fact its 2013 "Misinformer of the Year" award went to CBS. It's true that in 2010 it increased its focus on Fox in an effort to change it, but that's doesn't disqualify it as a source, and I note that the attempt to remove its tax exempt status as an educational non-profit failed. Dislike its politics all you want, but you are wrong on the RS issue. And we certainly don't need some form of independent corroboration. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant they have a dedicated objective to destroy FNC. I continue to not be surprised by the long string of liberal editors that defend the use of sources like this. Let me ask you this. If this little piece of crap is notable and has to be included, then what is the line for what MMfA crap can or cannot be included? Arzel (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is not really relevant to policy at all for the exact reasons explained by Dougweller. Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. It does not limit article content.- MrX 15:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability in this manner is weight. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Another source says the same thing. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is MJ reporting the MMfA non-published research. Arzel (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a good summary for the Fox News Channel article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That section is set up as actual research. That is not an actual study, furthermore they (mmfa) were actively trying to destroy FNC at the time. Regardless, there is an actual study that was added and left. You don't need both for the same thing, especially when one of them is worthless. Arzel (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got no support, Arzel, so I suggest you drop it as you are edit warring. Take it to one of the boards if you are convinced you are right. If you want to suggest a change in the section heading feel free, in any case I see there are two entries there labelled reports, not studies. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that an Admin would be more objective, but I know that not to be the case. Did you even read the very next section? That is the same material, only from better sourcing. Why do you want to duplicate the material? Why is MMfA opinion notable when they have a dedicated objective of destroying FNC? Please don't let your personal bias get in the way here. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I moved the similar information to the lead to summarise the body. The guardian reported on the study. QuackGuru (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That settles it. I love the "Please don't let your personal bias get in the way here." comment by Arzel - irony anyone? Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not a summary. I don't see any Irony only blatent bias by the both of you. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The text in the lede is similar to the body. The lede should summarise the body. It can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You moved content from the body into the lead. In exactly what world is that a summary? I don't have time to deal with your POV pushing right now and apparently a certain Admin lets his bias show rather than follow WP policies. Arzel (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this article limited to controversies that make Fox look bad?

I ask because I put in a controversy that made Fox critics look bad, and three different editors took it out, with the respective comments of "rubbish", no comment at all, and "unencyclopedeic trivial nonsense." So I have got to ask -- is this article supposed to be limited to controversies that make Fox look bad? William Jockusch (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it shows what kind of person Maher is, but it is not really relevant to FNC what he says. Maher making an absurd statement is more appropriate on his article. Arzel (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about critics of Fox News; it is about Fox News. You could post controversies about Wikipedia because it has a page about Fox News controversies, but that wouldn't make sense here - it would make sense on a page about Wikipedia controversies. This also isn't about making anyone look bad - it is bringing into the page issues directly relating to Fox News, or because of actions of Fox News, that have generated intense public discussion or disagreement. This is particularly relevant here because FOX portrays itself as "fair and balanced", journalistically objective- so controversy can develop fairly easily when that objectivity appears to have been breeched. Adrade (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

William, I would also add that the NPOV aspects of the testable, verifiable information here does not constitute the work of "Fox critics" yet is a partial enumeration of some of the more blatant realities concerning one arena of political propaganda. A cursory critical examination of the Fox "News" channel can not help but be overwhelmingly critical of the lies, distortions, and virtually treasonous activities of the corporation. Admittedly summarizing Fox "News" while remaining NPOV requires considerable calisthenic prowess. :) Yet as two others have noted, quoting things entertainers have said about Fox "News" seems rather irrelevant. Besides, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart at the Colbert Report and The Daily Show would be better critics to reference. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed that?

No page number was given and the source does not appear in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did add the source to the body, and based on your edit summary I thought that was the only complaint. I have added a page number.Thenub314 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

It seems most of my edits to this article were, with the statements that the lead should include close verbatim copies of material. But that is not what the MOS that I was pointed too actually says. Thenub314 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead went from a little section to vastly overweight and far too detailed. It does not follow the WP:LEDE policy. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the version as of my last edit and tell me what you think. I was trying to fix exactly this problem. Thenub314 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your version was fine. Unfortunately my opinion will not help you with that particular editor. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok Thanks, I am coming back from a couple year wikibreak, and wanted to make sure I was didn't miss something important in the meantime. I will do my best to work with him and find something we are both happy with. Thenub314 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope User:QuackGuru will join us in discussing issues here. I see he likes to keep his talk page clean, and he likes his cleanup tags to be very specific to the problems at hand. So, I am suggesting a complete lead re-write since we do not agree on whether or not it is too long, too detailed. In order to do this I think we need to come to an understanding about what "summary" means. From the edit comments, I think we are dealing with one group who feels "A close verbatim copy" of sections of the article is a summary, while others (my self included) feel a very short description of the contents of the article are in order. Perhaps if we can come to an agreeing about this we can move forward a bit more easily. Thenub314 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I expect at least three full paragraphs with a strong source at the end of each sentence. You can't replace sourced text with unsourced text for such a controversial topic. Key points from each section in the body should be summrised in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the paragraphs are not summaries. There are lots of quotes and very specific issues with specific detail. Have you ever written an abstract, introduction, or conclusion for a research paper? Those are good examples of summary. A simple reading of WP:LEDE shows several violations of the guideline within this lede section. Arzel (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Take this section.

CNN's Larry King said in a January 17, 2007, interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, "They're a Republican brand. They're an extension of the Republican Party with some exceptions, [like] Greta van Susteren. But I don't begrudge them that. [Fox CEO] Roger Ailes is an old friend. They've been nice to me. They've said some very nice things about me. Not [Bill] O'Reilly, but I don't watch him."[6]

This is not a summary. If it is a summary I would like to know what it is summarizing, especially since it is simply an exact duplicate of the first paragraph of the Media Figures section.

CNN's Larry King said in a January 17, 2007, interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, "They're a Republican brand. They're an extension of the Republican Party with some exceptions, [like] Greta van Susteren. But I don't begrudge them that. [Fox CEO] Roger Ailes is an old friend. They've been nice to me. They've said some very nice things about me. Not [Bill] O'Reilly, but I don't watch him."[6]

The very next part of the second paragraph is not even a summary, since the material doesn't even exist in the body of the article. QG simply cut it from the body and put it into the lede.

A study by Media Matters for America found that between August 1 and October 1, 2013, on Fox News "69 percent of guests and 75 percent of mentions cast doubt on climate science," compared to "[half] of those quoted in The Wall Street Journal... about 29 percent in The Los Angeles Times, about 17 percent in the Washington Post and about 12 percent in Bloomberg News."[7][8][9]

I won't put the third paragraph down here, but it is the same story. The first half of the third paragraph is also an exact duplicate of a paragraph in the body. It is an exact duplication of the first paragraph "Obama administration conflict with Fox News" section. The second half of the third paragraph is an exact duplication of the first half of the second paragraph of the "Fox News responses" section. This is very poor summarization if you are simply going to move the same exact content into the lede. I have reviewed hundreds of papers, and this approach would get an outright rejection. Arzel (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Arzel is exactly right, and you can replace sourced text with unsource text as long as your not removing the points or sources from the article. The sourced text and unsourced text have different functions. One summarizes the state of affairs with the Fox news controversies, the sourced tells you about specific events. The effect of putting these in the lead elevates the priority of these specific events above anything else mentioned in the article. Thenub314 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. The lede needs a solid rewrite. The additions by QG were not helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

QG has not responded and has not fixed up their mess, but they have been actively editing. I say start the lede over from scratch. Arzel (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already responded. I previously explained the lede should contain text that is summary with a strong source at the end of each sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What you have written is not a summary. Are you going to fix your non-summary? Arzel (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been several days. QG apparently has no intention of creating a correct lede. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have given it another shot at rewriting trying to take into account some of the criticisms I was getting while working. I will leave up the re-write tag until some kind of consensus is reached. I am well aware I am not much of a writer, and of course improvements are welcome. Thenub314 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to the lede

I just wanted to commend the editors who have improved the lede. It looks more like a regular wikipedia lede now. It is a more tightly edited, well-written, brief summary of the body, with robust refs. I imagine it was a lot of difficult work. Well done. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Difference in opinions regarding climate change do not constitute a controversy.

The sentences referring to climate change in the lede paragraph should not be included there. I have attempted twice to remove them, and it appears another contributor has attempted to do so as well. The reason given for having restored the statements about climate change is that it gave context to their views and was therefore an important part of establishing controversies. Now, we can sit here and argue about the validity of climate change, or we can attempt to make this page about controversies involving the Fox News Channel. I am arguing that the second paragraph of the lede is not a controversy involving the Fox News Channel, but instead a mere difference of opinion. If it is to be labeled a controversy, it should be labeled a controversy involving The Guardian and Media Matters, as their argument for 97% consensus has been argued against by Forbes.com as seen here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

If it is important that the paragraph citing The Guardian's study purporting 97% consensus among climate scientists remains then it must be just as important to state that the Fox News Channel's opinion is validated by this article, and I therefore suggest that we immediately add this pertinent information to not only this page, but also that we add it to any and all pages pertaining to media outlets which have not supported the findings in the studies cited by Forbes.com. After all, if it is controversial for the Fox News Channel to repudiate findings from The Guardian, it must be just as controversial(if not more so) for others to repudiate claims refuting The Guardian's finding. Execrated (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The return of the non-summary to the lede is a violation of WP:LEDE anyway and has been reverted. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why a group dedicated to attacking Fox deserves placement in the lede for issues of climate change. The lede should encompass the basic points of noteworthy criticism regarding Fox News, not simply whatever criticisms we can dredge up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What I figured is that it's a quite valid point if you want to talk about media bias, as it shows the easily identifiable tilt towards the right that the FNC has. To argue that it constitutes a controversy, or that it is important to have it in such a prominent position in order to "establish the context of the views held by the FNC" is moot for two reasons. The first, and only needed reason, is that it does not constitute a controversy. Disagreements regarding opinions is not controversial at all, but rather a normal part of everyday life. Second, the cited sources are in no way incontrovertible. As evidenced by my link provided earlier, it isn't that hard to find repudiation for the claims at The Guardian, and from a source which could be claimed to be more reliable. Besides those two points, the simple fact is that the paragraph is neither related to the article nor does it add any kind of content. It included a citation to Media Matters, whose mission statement is to "comprehensively monitor, analyze and correct conservative misinformation in the media." This alone should disqualify them as a source for information regarding the media, as they clearly state their intention to only correct misinformation if it might be classified as "conservative." That's akin to citing Andrew Jackson as a reliable source on Native Americans, their culture and their rights. The biggest error seems to be that because Media Matters is loud and constantly in the media, it is somehow a reliable source of information. The fact is, however, that it isn't hard to find citations repudiating many of their claims and the only reason they aren't more common is that it appears some people like hearing what they have to say, and therefore do not want to find any information which might contradict them. To be clear, I cannot think of a single reason that reliable information regarding bias at the FNC should not be written about here on this page. I just think that we should attempt to ensure that the information is coming from a reliable source, that it is pertinent to controversies including and bias at the Fox News Channel and that if there is an opposing view which supports the FNC it should also be cited and provided for people so that they may come to their own conclusions, instead of supplying a one sided view in an attempt to lead people into believing that the FNC, and by extension anyone that watches them, is some kind of extremist group that ignores established fact.

Execrated (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sourced text in the lede was replaced with very vague text

See these changes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summaries by necessity have fewer details than the text they are summarizing. Is any of the text inaccurate? If so let's fix it.Thenub314 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

QG you still do not seem to understand WP:LEDE. Suggest your changes here before making them again. Arzel (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple of examples improves the lede at this point. A vague lede does not benefit the readers. I only expanded the lede a bit. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing the body in the WP:LEDE

This edit deleted text that is appropriate for the lede. The WP:CON on Wikipedia is to summarise the body. The lede is way too short. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Climate change is not appropriate for the lead paragraph of an article pertaining to controversies involving the Fox News Channel. As you can clearly see here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

there is differing opinions regarding how many scientists agree that humans are the cause of climate change. Climate change itself is not agreed upon by the scientific community as a whole, and as such attempting to argue that 97% of scientists agree on the cause is clearly nothing more than attempt to further an agenda. If you actually bothered to read the citations you're so intent on keeping on this page, you'd see that their study was done on 12,000 papers, of which only 4,000 were used because they were the ones that they could find which explicitly or implicitly(based upon The Guardian's own guidelines) stated a cause for climate change. The reality, therefore, is that there is only a roughly 30% consensus that humans are involved in climate change, and only when you are looking at papers written and not authors. As for the number of authors who might agree with human induced climate change, the number is indeterminable. Over half of the papers that were actually used for the study(2,142 out of 4,000) were written by only 1,189 individuals. The study does not list the total number of authors compared to the original 12,000 articles, nor does it mention the total number of authors compared to the 4,000 papers they actually used for the study. With such large variables left unqualified, it is possible that only 1,190 scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans, and that potentially as many as 8,000 would disagree. Tell me, again, about this so called consensus?Execrated (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The text deleted from the lede is part of the summary of the body. The references you provided is not about Fox News Channel controversies. Why should this article not have a good summary? There are more problems with the edit that lumped different issues together. The text Examples of alleged bias include specific claims, such as a Media Matters for America study claiming a bias towards climate change contrarians[4][5] as well as more general claims of a general conservative bias.[6] is not well written. We should avoid such words as alleged and claiming. The following text Fox News has publicly denied such charges,[7] stating that the reporters in the newsroom provide separate, neutral reporting.[8] is not a direct respond to such charges. Conflating different issues together like this is pure original research. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well first of all, we cannot avoid the use of words such as "alleged" and "claiming" simply because the allegations being made have not been proven, but rather are just claims made by individuals and groups. How would you prefer that we speak about these things? We cannot speak about allegations and claims without talking about who alleged what and just what they are claiming the bias to be. This is, after all, a page with nothing but the opinions of FNC detractors, the only facts being that the cited allegations and claims were made, who they were made by and just what their allegations and claims are. Now I agree that there needs to be a well written lead paragraph for this article, but that lead paragraph should not include your or The Guardian's opinion that human's are the major or sole cause of climate change. I don't know who wrote the current lead, but I'm more than willing to go back to the older one so long as the sentences referring to so called climate change contrarians are removed. This page is about controversies including the Fox News Channel, not about MMfA's and The Guardian's opinion that there is a 97% consensus regarding climate change and its' cause(s).Execrated (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CLAIM. We don't use such words on Wikipedia and the other text is still a SYN violation in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have not restored that sentence. But to be completely clear, the MOS does not say that we cannot use "claim", it says we must be careful using it. I would argue that it was a neutral sentence but if you disagree we can leave it it. I didn't notice the post about OR before, I will read it and try to find someway we can satisfy both of us. Thenub314 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't disagree I would of left it in. You intermingled the text creating a SYN violation but after I fixed the text you revert me without a logical explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean about SYN violations, and believe it or not I don't necessarily disagree. The text was a bit ambiguous, and as such it could be read with different meanings, one of which would indeed lead to SYN. I think it can be easily correct though by being more specific. One could replace the text "such cliams" with "claims of bias" because that is specifically addressed in the source. But I won't add it back unless you agree this would clear up that sentence.

About removing the paragraph, several users here have commented that adding these sorts of paragraphs is not helpful to the lead. You might have discussed more before reverting my previous edit. I am happy to expand the lead but I don't want to to move back to what it was. Thenub314 (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Thenub314, I don't know where in the lede you want to put "claims of bias". You included the specific claim here about MMfA but now you have wholesale deleted it. I don't understand your reasoning when you previously thought it was okay to keep at least one specific claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest the lead I really liked was in this edit. But after you restored the paragraph I that I and other editors had removed, I figured you really wanted reference to this material in the lead so I worked up that sentence as an attempt at a compromise. But I don't particularly want it there, but it was OK, if you want that sentence taken out that is fine. The consensus seems to be that the paragraph about the same subject is overly detailed and doesn't belong in the lead. Thenub314 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Thenub314, I'm trying to compromise. How about you include a small blurp using the following two sentences and you can do whatever you think is best for the lede. A specific example of perceived bias was a 2013 study by Media Matters for America, stating that their is a bias towards climate change contrarians. Fox News had denied the criticism. The text does not have to be exactly the same as I wrote. You can tweak the text if you think it needs improvement.

I think we can also keep the following sentences in the lede: At times, the accusations of bias have led to back and forth conflicts between Fox commentators and political[7][8] and media figures.[9][10] For example, in 2009 the Fox News Channel engaged in a verbal conflict with the Obama administration.[7][8] QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The lede should be a general summary of the body relative to the content. Inclusion of specific aspects violate NPOV of the lead. Since the article is really just a bullet point list of gripes against FNC, the lede does not have to be very long to convey the content of the article. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia section

is blatant nonsense. We have no source that refers to this edits as a controversy and who exactly has critized Fox News for these edits? Iselilja (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it's blatant nonsense. We have two reliable sources that discuss the FNC violating Wikipedia's COI principles in a context that clearly portrays it as controversial ("Wikipedia Spin Doctors Revealed" and "Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia"). - MrX 20:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian article which is the most prominent source says that "The Wikipedia Scanner.... has unearthed a catalogue of organisations massaging entries, including the CIA and the Labour party". Basically, it says that this is very normal; for Fox news, it is a couple of pages that has been edited. I don't see this "controversy" included in the CIA#Controversies; probably because that article deals with real controversies. And two articles written as reportage hardly qualify as a controversy; there doesn't seem to have been any discussions around this, no particular focus on Fox News and nobody had explicity critized Fox. The second source Information Week uses the phrase "The Fox News link reveals, for example". When the source use Fox News as an example, it's misleading of Wikipedia to frame this as a Fox News controversy that needs its own Wikipedia paragraph. (In an ironic twist, the InformationWeek which is one of the sources for this "controversy" in 2009 had an advertisement tag on their own Wikipedia page, with the article text written in first persons: "our reporters". I believe many of us who watchlist a number of pages see people and organizations editing their own Wikipedia pages all the time; says more about Wikipedia than about the organizations.) Iselilja (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It seem like your position is that this is a very minor controversy? Perhaps it is. I don't necessarily think it needs its own section and I'm not opposed to moving it to another section as long as the flow makes sense. I'm also not opposed to condensing the material a little, as long as it can be done artfully.- MrX 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be better to have it inside a wider paragraph, but with the current organization of the article, I couldn't really find any places where it fits. I removed some names from the article, as I don't see them in the source; these names seems to have been taken directly from the scanner (which was linked to in the article; now dead link). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this page misnamed?

The title of this article is Controversies. Much of the article does not relate to controversies but just criticism. Specifically a controversy is more than the reporting on the press release of a critic, controversies are more than one day stories. Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.

Perhaps this article should be renamed "Criticism of Fox News Channel". Capitalismojo (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be clearly identified as an attack page at that point, even though that is basically what it currently is. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you really believe that then I suggest you AFD it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This would probably never get deleted at AfD. I think we just need to come to a consensus on what this page will be. Either it's a criticism page or a controversy page or both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is largely an attack page because there is very little rebuttal from FOX or other sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More because it's become a coatrack. I think we should actually consider splitting the articles in two: one for actual controversies, one for noteworthy criticisms (such as criticisms noted by multiple sources as opposed to whatever Blog X/Group Y chooses to highlight on a Tuesday). Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How about change it to Fox News Channel controversy and criticism. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

However we do it, as long as we start pruning to get rid of some of the unnoticed stuff, it's fine by me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of splitting the page, but I am neither here nor there about renaming it "controversy and criticism". I would be happy to add more sources with rebuttals if anyone has some. Thenub314 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

What would the names be of a split? Is that better than "controversy and criticsm"? Does any other media company have a page of criticism? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Live broadcast suicide?

The citation for the live broadcast suicide makes no reference to the alleged even having taken place 87.112.119.147 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to scan your computer, McAfee flagged that link so I removed it. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable. FOX broadcasts live suicide as car chase ends in suspect shooting himself Poynter.org September 28, 2012 3:57, by Julie Moos QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Google doesn't seem to have a problem with poynter.org. Jim1138 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about the RS of the source. McAfee says that that source is a known source of phishing and viruses. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

McAfee might be confused due to this.TMCk (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That may be possible, but what to do about it? If anyone with McAfee tries to check that link and gets a big warning the belief, correct or not, is that WP has links to known bad sites. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Poll

Just reverted a link to a report about a 2011 poll. Here's a link to an actual recent poll.[6]. Another problem with the edit I reverted is that it was much too brief. If we are going to use a poll we need to represent it correctly. By the way, I was able to find the 2011 poll on the univerity's site but no new ones. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Birmingham

Really? I mean Really? Is there nothing to stupid or small? What part of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TRIVIA do people simply do not care about with regards to this article. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the last sentence " He has been criticised for his inaccuracies in the past.[159][160][161][162]" has ZERO to do with the section. The only purpose is to tie it to the other situation WP:OR. Arzel (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Prime Minister has chimed in and has given a stern denouncement of his comments I do think it's notable. It should be in the "Criticisms of pundits" section though, I do think it's undue the way it is now. The last bit about past inaccuracies should be removed, unless these "inaccuracies" are notable, in which case they can be expanded upon.LM2000 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As has been pointed out to you on my talk page, it's had international coverage and of course a response from the British Prime Minister. I note that besides the editor who originally added it, you've got 3 editors, including me, who think it should be included. And now 4 with LM2000. I'm fine with it being moved. And I'm happy with LM2000's comments about Emerson's inaccuracies. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And 5 with me, with similar reasoning. It's extremely rare for a British PM to call anyone a "complete idiot", so that in itself is notable! However, I would go further -- surely the "past inaccuracies" are relevant to Fox's duty of care not to use questionable pundits, or at least to use them with care. And having watched the video, it seems that the presenter egged him on, rather than, for example, asking him to state his evidence. For that reason, I believe that the fiasco is relevant to Fox's editorial policy, not just to a particular pundit. But I don't care enough to move/reinstate anything -- after all, similar criticisms are already all over the article! Enginear (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a pretty nice WP:ATTACK article. The main folly is that has anything to do with FNC. Especially the link to the 1991 book....which was before FNC even existed. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, there are other sources in his article. If you think some of them are better, then go ahead and use them instead. And if you think that sentence is OR, then discuss it here, not on my talk page. I'm not sure if you mean it is OR here but not in his article, or OR in his article and thus OR here. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence has nothing to do with this issue. You are tying it to the issue to present a novel interpretation. You, as an admin, should know better. The issue in general has nothing to do with FNC, but everything to do with him. It is not a FNC controversy, it is a Steve Emerson controversy. Why do you think it belongs here as well. He made a mistake and quickly apologized, you make it sound like he should be tarred and feathered and apparently have more of an issue with FNC thus your inclusion here. Arzel (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. "Complete idiots" are only dangerous when they are given airtime (or the equivalents in other media) by broadcasters with large numbers of viewers, and particularly if they are allowed to put their case unchallenged. In this case FNC, who surely knew that Emerson had a record for spouting misinformation over a period dating back to before they were even founded, chose to allow him on a program with a presenter who appeared to accept what he said as Gospel truth, and even added to it, eg "It sounds like a caliphate" or later, as a double act, Pirro: "Because what's happening is this is metastasizing into a simple takeover. I think even you said Europe is over. What did you say, Steve?" Emerson: "I said the other day, Europe is finished". To allow an exchange like that to occur on a news channel, using misinformation to claim a whole continent is "finished", suggests a gross lack of editorial judgement. The fundamental issue is not Emerson and not Pirro. It is the poor editorial judgement which allowed them to interact unchallenged. Enginear (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Either Fox knew about Emerson's record or didn't care enough to check. Either way, you can't just say it had nothing to do with Fox. It had everything to do with Fox. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do either of you have some reliable sources to back up your original research? Cause if you don't then it doesn't belong. It is not like he has a regular program on TV and says stupid crap on a daily basis. Part of the biggest problem with WP is the blatant hypocritical double-standard. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to remove your last sentence OR or does OR not apply to Admins? Arzel (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to explain what is OR about it? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read [7] and [8] first. I gather you haven't done a search yourself to see if it is really OR. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your linking to the same OPINION piece twice does not make it twice as relevant. Are you going to explain how the last sentence is related to the section? Opinion pieces are of no value to make value laden statements. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing of original research about that last sentence, as Enginear explains quite adequately. Opinion pieces are perfectly valid sources of criticism.- MrX 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is, but it pointless to discuss. Regardless, I have moved this tripe to the appropriate section. Arzel (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Recentism and Undue Weight

These edits smack of recentism and undue weight. Why must we continual treat these articles like news headlines? There is no evidence of long term notability, yet that seems to matter little to some editors. Arzel (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what recentism has to do with anything. We write about plane crashes, shooting, riots, and other events with near real time updates. Some editors thinks this is bad; others disagree. There is no consensus one way or the other. Some editors think it's OK to include every football player, club, and match; some editors don't. And so it goes, this thing of ours.

The measure of due weight is the amount of coverage in reliable sources, as compared with other content in the article, and other viewpoints. It's supposed to ensure that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints. This material, as it currently stands, generously represents Fox News' viewpoint. If there are other significant viewpoints, they can be represented as well. The bottom line is, this is a big deal and very controversial.- MrX 00:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Arzel has attempted to censor every new entry on this site for years through wikilawyering. Don't expect to make any logical argument that he'll agree with. I only hope he is actually employed by Fox News, otherwise, it is pretty sad.184.91.252.144 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be simple personal attack above from an IP. Commenting it out. Collect (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed "commenting out". This is a talk page not an article, and as such you don't get to censor the opinions of others here. FanN | talk | 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I'd like to see us move the relevant data from Fox Attacks here. There's not really a lot of substantial coverage to sustain an article, but probably deserves a few lines here given the scant coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

With no protest, I completed this merge. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clunky sentence

In the 'Media Watchdogs' section, there is a very clunky chunk:

"FAIR also asserted that in a study of a 19 week period from January 2001 to May 2001 the ratio of conservative guests to liberals on Special Report with Brit Hume was 25:3, and obtained similar data from other Fox shows.[21]"

Specifically, the second half just seems poorly-worded. I haven't looked at the citation, but this wording also seems to lend itself to bias. Although this article is about criticism of Fox, this bit becomes very messy and confusing.

I can't think of any better wording, but it is 11:30pm, so I'm not going to worry too much.

[EDIT] it's under 'Media watchdogs' not 'media figures'

Trainguyrom (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty clunky. I took a swing at it. The first source didn't actually mention much about any other Fox shows, but it's a common claim of FAIR's, so I added another source to shore it up. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of individuals

Under this section the following entry:

Susan Estrich[180] – known for her support for the defunct Democratic Leadership Council and once

told Sean Hannity that she was his "biggest liberal friend." *

How is this a criticism? I do not think this belongs in this section, not sure where it belongs on a controversies page of Fox. If you want to include this in Wikipedia perhaps on the Sean Hannity page. Kcphaid (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Per the surrounding context, this was used by Media Matters as an example of Fox using moderates as token liberals to normalize right-leaning views. It's not a criticism by itself, it's cited as an example. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fox News Channel controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824151924/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,256949,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256949,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked this link, it brings up the link to the Ann Colter hate spew, yes. Damotclese (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)