Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Fox News/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 76.31.177.30 in topic Fox's deliberately tilted coverage
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

FoxNews actually has NO political affiliation and has shown NO bias toward any candidate. The current version incorrectly states these things and makes numerous false claims about their stories. Using such bias "sources" as mediamatters, the Daily Beast (an obvious tabloid), The Washington Post and New York Times and Politico (ALL competitors of FoxNews and notorious for being left-leaning) and random users is not responsible; and shows a bias on Wikipedia's part. This is like describing CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, etc..., using Breitbart.com's opinions on them. As I said, the proposed changes would eliminate the glaring bias and lies, being currently displayed on the page.

I may have missed some; but these changes would put the page as being encyclopediac, rather than opinion. Having pages that describe people and things in a bias way goes against Wikipedia.org's written rule about being neutral. For example, even though I view various news outlets (including FoxNews) as having a left-leaning bias, it would betray a stance of neutrality to list them as such.

 Not done Please see: Talk:Fox News/FAQ O3000 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Soldier397 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Soldier397, No bias towards any candidate? Really? Or do you mean no bias towards any Republican candidate? Even that's not true. Guy (help!) 12:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump and Fox News

I think this article mentions the fact that Fox News generally supports President Trump. This article shows that might be changing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump has been criticizing Fox lately. He is seen occasionally tweeting about how One America News is better, and—who knows?—maybe the president will ditch the former in favor of the latter. FreeMediaKid! 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

web site starting in December 1995

The source used doesn´t say anywhere that it was created then, a new source needs to be put there2600:1702:1A10:24F0:2DF1:6E08:ECAA:B689 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove Undue Weight Tag

As this tag was placed in March and still no arguments have made to support leaving the tag, I would like to get a consensus to remove it. RemoveSlipandslide (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think no arguments have been made since April 2018. Two years by now. Anyone with specific proposals on the exact problematic content? Or we can remove the tags. starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
There is clearly a problem.... extremely imbalanced. I assume all would agree with that. It needs major consolidation instead of a tit-for-tat format. Reads like daily news releases added day by day reported by its competitors.--Moxy 🍁 03:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

FDU study?

I was surprised not to see mention in the article of either of the Fairleigh Dickinson studies (like this one) about news consumption. They've been covered pretty extensively by e.g. Business Insider (among many others), drew a response by Fox, as well as a response-response. I see a couple mentions of it in the talk page archives, but presumably before it got as much coverage as it did. Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - go ahead and try to add it? starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Identification as a "Conservative" News network in 1st line

I question the necessity of calling Fox News a "conservative" network in the first line, when its conservative political slant is already extensively covered in the second half of the lead.

The other problem with this wording is, as a news network, Fox covers things other than politics. For example, the deaths of famous people, crimes, international tragedies, natural disasters, etc. This is just general news that has nothing to do with partisanship or a conservative spin. Therein lies the problem with calling Fox a conservative network in the first sentence. Fox is a news network that has a significant conservative slant in its political coverage but not all of its coverage is political. Hence, calling it conservative in the first line is gratuitous when we've already covered the conservative aspect of their political programing throughout the rest of the article in great detail. Amorals (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"Conservative" is not used to characterize obituaries or football scores. It is a category of news and editorial commentary. So it is not gratuitous. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you miss the point User:Specifico, or at least you may be unintentionally making the point for me, that Fox news does in fact cover obituaries and football scores, so just calling it a conservative network implies all it does is 100% political news and editorial commentary. Therefore, it seems gratuitous when you already extensively cover that aspect of its programing in the 2nd half of the lead.

I didn't write this article, so I didn't already do anything here. Most daily media cover deaths and sports. Fox's brand and its revenue relate to its conservative editorial slant and its conservative evenening cable TV programming. That's a fact and that's why it's widely tagged "conservative" -- regardless of whether that label really does it justice. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a conservative network, or, if you prefer, a conservative channel, according to books, newspapers, commentators. That's what Roger Ailes, a former press aide to Nixon, set out to create. Guy (help!) 20:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC is a Progressive Network and so is CNN according to books and cable executive that is a fact!Guitarguy2323 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This two-part reversion is not trivial or UNDUE content

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&diff=966779267&oldid=966777817

The first part is yet another element that is reflective of a pattern described in the last sentence of the lead and needs to be documented in the body. The second part is about an organized effort to get sponsors to drop major FNC hosts, which appears to be yielding significant results, causing Murdoch to create a team to combat it.

Both parts should be restored. soibangla (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The first part got almost no coverage so yeah undue. I like the scare quotes around error though, nice touch. The second part is mostly to do with specific shows, on those articles it might be due, here not a lot of impact over all. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+crops+trump+ghislaine yields quite a few, actually. We can add them to the restored edit. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Still fails weight in the long term view of the company. Give it a few weeks and see if it is still a thing I suppose. Until then it is a clear WP:NOTNEWS. PackMecEng (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Final Lead paragraph.

This paragraph is combative and bised using biased sources. Have a seperate section in the main article. Or at least describe CNN and MSNBC as extremely biased for Democrats which is a fact. Wikipedia should be unbiased and this lead looks like a 'progressive' hit job.

I have no issue with it being called conservative because thats what they brand themselves as at least a majority of the newscasters employed at the channel. but at least be fair and have the same type of lead for CNN and MSNBCGuitarguy2323 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources have written about the subject, even if some editors find that inconvenient. The last paragraph is fine. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL It really isn't and your reliable sources are media matters and vox not "unbiased" or respectable. There are many reliable sources that say MSNBC and CNN are anti trump progressive networks even the heads of the stations have said that.

Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I realize that Media Matters has been demonized as a "Soros-funded radical left-wing propaganda hate site" on Fox News and elsewhere, conditioning many to reflexively dismiss it on sight without ever bothering to actually examine it. But Media Matters provides videos and transcripts from conservative sources that are objectively indisputable, and thus should be viewed as reliable regardless of whatever commentary or characterizations the Media Matters editors may provide about it. Many conservatives despise Media Matters because the site watches what they say and publicizes their lies. And liars generally don't like being exposed as liars. soibangla (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Media Matters was literally founded by a Democratic Operative(David Brock). I am not a conservative but to say media matters does good work is bull. CNN and MSNBC have had reliable sources call them out as well and they were considered State TV and the Operative Arm of the Democratic Party as well should I edit that into their article leads? Cause you literally have CNN as non partisan which it is not Guitarguy2323 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Guitarguy2323: You're being a wee-bit disingenuous. Media Matters was "literally founded" by former conservative journalist, David Brock. Prior to starting Media Matters, David Brock had been a conservative journalist for the conservative magazine The American Spectator, editor of a conservative magazine Insight on the News (sister publication to conservative newspaper The Washington Times), and had been a fellow at the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, In 2002 David Brock wrote a book titled, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative explaining why he is no longer a conservative. At WP we follow what RS report in order to avoid making mistakes like you did. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources calling CNN/MSNBC "State TV and the Operative Arm of the Democratic Party," I strongly encourage you to add them to the leads of those articles. Hannity doesn't count. soibangla (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You are now contradicting yourself you said that Hannity doesnt count but you will allow media matters which is the Democratic version of Hannity?  Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguy2323 (talkcontribs) 01:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Last few sentences should be moved to the body and the "critics" sentence with its academic sources restore. Lead full of media sources as of now.--Moxy 🍁 01:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Politicians and Liberal Pundits and Academics have accused Fox of being unfair to Democrats while portraying Republicans in Positive light should work fine. The entire paragraph is a biased hit job.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We use WP:RS here. Please stop trying to push your personal views and personal "facts". O3000 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Look at the final lead paragraph again then come back to me. Again all your "reliable sources" and "facts" are from OPINION columnists at left leaning sites On MSNBC, Joy Reid, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow are all Democratic Party members like all the conservatives at fox its really not that hard. Jim Acosta Chris Coumo and Don Lemon are also registered democrats and progressives. The pargraph needs to be cleaned up or at least neutral like "Critcs of Fox news" Or at least have a separate section cause you are really showing your bias and un neutralityGuitarguy2323 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with GuitarGuy2323. The Final lead paragraph is absolutely ridiculous. MrWendalyeah (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive text

Why is the text in third paragraph of the introduction also repeated word-for-word under Political alignment? Zeph1 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. Using the Find feature on an Internet browser and copying and pasting into the field literally all of the paragraph, I can confirm that it is a verbatim copy of the other text under Political alignment. I feel as if this article is trying to give us the idea that the news channel is conservative. The point is not to dispute that claim; it is that the article more than succeeds in achieving that purpose. Apart from the massive cleanup any reasonable editor knows that this article needs, I feel we can merge some of the content and put some other parts into Fox News controversies. Personally, I would also characterize MSNBC as progressive like the HuffPost. It may not be notably as progressive as Fox News is conservative, but as the "antithesis" of Fox News according to a Washington Post op-ed, it would appear to justify considering at least that network's commentary as progressive. This is saying something, because I would not use progressive to broadly characterize CNN, ABC, or CBS. FreeMediaKid! 03:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking over the article history, it is because someone attempted to move the longstanding paragraph out of the lead; their changes to the lead were reverted, but their creation of a new section was not. I think it's fair to say that it's a section that ought to exist, though (it is an aspect of Fox News that has received extremely heavy coverage in high-quality sources) so probably the best thing to do is to expand and elaborate on it until the two are no longer copies of each other. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fox's deliberately tilted coverage

See: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/media/fox-news-unmasking-obamagate/index.html

"News that Trump's Justice Department had concluded without charges being filed landed with a thud on Fox News. Martha MacCallum covered it on her Tuesday night show, but a search of transcripts did not turn up any other instances in which Fox covered it on air. The story was briefly featured on Fox News' homepage before being removed Wednesday afternoon. Even when it was featured on the network's website, it was not given the same play as the initial unmasking stories were in May. The episode marks yet another instance in which Fox News and its hosts have dishonestly hyped an innocuous national security procedure into a supposed scandal, only to later watch it quietly fall apart before moving on to feed something else to their audience. A Fox News spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday. It's difficult to overstate how much Fox News promoted the unmasking story in May, never mind promoting it as an insidious plot against Trump."

As a pattern of behavior, this OUGHT to be prominently covered in the article. 76.31.177.30 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)