Talk:Fox News/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Far-right in the lead

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

---

So Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs), who last week edit-warred to remove "conservative" from the lead 1, 2, to add "left-wing" to MSNBC 1, 2 3 4, and CNN 1, 2, 3, now wants to add "far-right" to this article while leaving "conservative" in place. Thoughts? ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:POINT seems relevant, —PaleoNeonate – 13:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand on this, some sources do point out that Fox promoted far-right personalities, views and conspiracy theories. One source used in the article mentions it. The body itself doesn't really cover this more than indirect mentions and promoting Trump. The lead, as a summary of the body, cannot make such a bold statement in these circumstances, it is WP:UNDUE. —PaleoNeonate – 13:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

About this, IMHO I think because of how contentious and relative the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are (and how it has been used to attack media outlets like MSNBC), I believe that this term should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. I think mentioning allegations of media bias is good a bit further down in the second or third paragraph, but not in the first paragraph.

Political position is out of the question, and we strongly rely on "neutral point of view". We describe how academics and other reliable sources think of Fox News, just like we describe how they think of CNN or MSNBC in their respective articles. That does not mean that we make our own judgement and say that FOX News is liberal/conservative per Wikipedia:No original research.

I disagree with the actions of Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs), and if necessary, I think filing a report on the ANB is a good idea if you think they are being disruptive. Aasim (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet the MSNBC article doesn’t mention allegations of bias at the top like Fox News.67.149.20.230 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Chimichangazzz has now been blocked for a while so possibly won't reply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I still have my belief that it may be a little unnecessary to have the word "conservative" in the lead. The second and third paragraph does a better job at explaining the allegations of bias, and while the cited sources for that word are reliable and independent of Fox News, having that word in there makes it seem that we, Wikipedia, think that Fox News is conservative because of those sources, not that these sources describe Fox News as conservative. My above comment mentions how these two words are often thrown around to attack reliable news sources.

If you look at CNN controversies, you see whenever there are allegations of left-wing bias, you see it describe it very carefully with appropriate attribution: "A 2019 Pew Research survey showed that among Americans who named CNN as their main source for political and election news, 79% identify as Democrats whereas 17% identify as Republicans. Among major broadcast news networks, the CNN audience displays higher levels of partisanship than ABC, CBS and NBC, but lower than Fox News and MSNBC." We are not here to say that one source is conservative or liberal. We are here to state how other reliable sources view the source. Which is why I am opposed to having that word in the lead. Aasim (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

As I've argued before, I think the solution here is to find reliable sources that characterize other outlets as "liberal" or similar, as there are reliable sources that characterize Fox News as conservative. Bear in mind that Fox News is the only television outlet created (as least through the 1990s) with an explicit mission to slant right to offset perceived left slant of other outlets. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well... MSNBC started out as a neutral outlet but then moved to the left. NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)

And Fox News, according to NewsGuard, frequently publishes conservative opinion NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)

And CNN has been found to post a lot of anti-Trump and liberal-leaning commentary as of recently. NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)

At least, that is according to my browser extension. It does a good job at flagging websites that may not be reliable. The only thing left to do is find reliable sources that indicate that indeed, MSNBC and CNN are liberal news channels. Aasim (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Per the above I don't think "far right" would be reasonable, but conservative is so defining and reported by so many sources; with the lead being a summary of the body, it does deserve prominent mention. It's possible that the lead repeats it too often, though... —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The "far right" inappropriate as was the addition of "far-left" to CNN - just a "boogeyman" label that violates neutrality.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I know it has been a few months, but is it okay to remove "conservative" from the lead or not? Aasim (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the multiple sources cited, both in the lead and the body, and given that this inconclusive discussion is months old, no, it isn't 'okay'. That would require consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how a matter of spectrum could be argued. in a world where sexuality has a spectrum, personality has a spectrum (autism), and the political agenda has a spectrum, how is citing a media article conclusive evidence as to whether or not something is true about another media source? (even with a mirror, you can't actually see your eye) in an attempt to be unbiased, i hope the wikipedia community can remove bias. it is becoming ever more prevalent. i think Fox News is conservative, but i know people who have left it for being liberal. my experience isn't the issue. the issue is that the article, in the first sentence, advertises that Fox News has an agenda. the other major networks don't seem to have that. this is what Chimichangazzz is trying to relay. AndyTheGrump seems to be the only person/user in this thread that doesn't think there is a consensus about bias. wikipedia is being polarized. in the years to come, this polarity will not serve humanity well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32ashu (talk • contribs)

This discussion is long-over, and the user I referenced in the beginning was blocked 6 months ago. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Opinion vs News?

Is it fair to call it a "news channel" if much of their most popular programming isn't news? I realize their name has news in it, but that's a little misleading. Wouldn't something like "social commentary channel" be more accurate? Steven (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinion and commentary shows are often the most popular shows on “news" networks. MSNBC’s most popular show is the Rachel Maddow show.EdJF (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

change "Fox News controversies have included, among others, practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party," to "Fox News controversies have included, among others, accusations of practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party," CrocoDIilios (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are not accusations, those are hard facts. Dimadick (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone with the ability to make edits, should edit the Former hosts and contributors section to show that Eric Bolling, Dick Morris and Greta Van Susteren now have programs at Newsmax TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:9FC0:60:88A0:C163:F7DC:F704 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

broadcast area: Canada?

the info box for this article includes Canada as a broadcast area; while the CRTC allows the rebroadcasting of the American network in Canada, Fox news itself is banned in Canada due to its lack of ethical journalistic standards. Fox news is also rebroadcast in several other countries. So, why is only Canada (along with the US) included in the info box? This appears inaccurate. Damien.Otis.x (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Either Fox News is broadcast in Canada or it is not broadcast in Canada, this distinction about it being "rebroadcast", whatever that means, does not make sense. Fox News itself states it is available up there... [How to watch Fox News Channel in Canada How to watch Fox News Channel in Canada]. Zaathras (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

AFP did a fact check in 2020. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Section clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS

The section "Report that Biden administration was building Trump wall" clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. The only source that covered the story is Media Matters and The Hill source only mentions Fox News in passing. I did a google search and I couldn't find any other media coverage of the story aside from Media Matters. Since Media Matters constantly complains about Fox, this one particular story doesn't seem notable enough on its own without significant media coverage from other sources. X-Editor (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"I think Media Matters constantly complains about Fox" is not a valid reason to remove content. The sourcing is sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. If we are to include this section simply because MMfA covered it, then there would be dozens more sections like this based on MMfA alone, which is UNDUE and would BLOAT the article. Only stories and controversies covered by multiple reliable sources should be featured in this article. X-Editor (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the Wikipedia, not X-Editor's Wikipedia, where you get to present arbitrary inclusion criteria. Besides, another editor has added a 2nd citation. Zaathras (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the second source only mentions Fox in passing. X-Editor (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The real unfortunate aspect of this is that you are being less than truthful. The citation clearly states that Fox News was the source of Scavino's lying tweet. Further down in the article is another lie that originated with Fox News. Do not misrepresent reliable sources in this topic area again, please. Zaathras (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The source I was referring to was The Hill and I had no idea about the existence of the AFP source you've provided. In fact, I have no idea where you even got that AFP citation from. I really do not appreciate you calling me a liar when I had no idea about that AFP source to begin with. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That explanation seems a bit odd, as the most recent edit to the article when I made my "Besides..." comment above was "another source" by user Aquillion. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually did not notice the reference. Sorry about that! I withdrew the complaint below X-Editor (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't seem notable enough. And as early as 13 May 2021 00:56:49 (the first wayback copy that I could find) the headline was "Biden administration to resume border wall construction as crisis worsens -- Priority repairs in Rio Grande Valley will begin in six weeks" -- the words "Border Lie" were not present and the Media Matters source for those words that I can see is a tweet by a CNN employee (I'm not able to see their video clips). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Five minutes after I wrote that, Firefangledfeathers removed "Border lie". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I did! Good call on that. I also feel like a whole subsection for this is undue. If there are other "inaccurate headline" bits to bundle it with, I'd consider it. My default preference here is to remove the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a news story, and is mostly sourced to MMA, which doesn't have solid reliability. I agree with Firefanledfeathers it could possibly be introduced elsewhere. I'm removing the content. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will note the removal was reversed by SPECIFICO. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla: was there a guideline or policy reason for your original insertion of this section?SPECIFICO: Do you believe you have consensus for your re-insertion or do you believe you don't need it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The only "RS" that verifies this story is MMfA, which is only marginally reliable according to WP:RSP. Not exactly RS if you ask me. Since your entire reasoning for keeping the source in is flawed, I suggest you revert your edit until you can give an adequate explanation. Since I've been getting mixed messages on MMfA's reliability, I might take MMfA's reliability to WP:RSN. X-Editor (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think your concern is more of an NPOV question. There is no doubt that the content is Verified, which would be the RS question. However this fact might be determined to be UNDUE if the consensus should agree with you. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The content is mainly verified by one marginally reliable source. That's not enough sufficient for verifiability. X-Editor (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I rejected that view twice, see above. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it meets WP:VERIFIED. Whether or not it should have its own subsection is another question. ––FormalDude talk 20:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Some may need a reminder on what WP:NOTNEWS is and what it is not. There are 4 criteria found at the link. Primary Sourcing, Routine Coverage (announcements, events, sports, or celebrities), Who's Who, and Celebrity Gossip. This does not meet any of those. Zaathras (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Since there's a reliable source documenting the Fox story, I am withdrawing my complaint. X-Editor (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News and Small Business

The network's past emphasis on small business, seems to be Irish-Canadian, if you want to cross cite the Fenian Brotherhood invasion of Canada in the 19th century, through small networks of personal monopolies (unions of business as fraternal unions, outside of official police commission approval).

This is telling, combined with ownership by Rupert Murdoch, a British media magnate critical of American policies (cross reference his ancestor's controversy about the race and origin of Moneyz, a Prussian general of American heritage, serving under Pershing, the American Expeditionary Force).

That was in the early 20th century, that particular controversy with General Moneyz, US General Staff.

Is Fox News a standard of Irish bigotry, having latest over Sky News, a British Conservative (medical interest party of Parliament in Britain)? Rustghoul (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Should this article have an awards section?

Listing any awards and accolades Fox News has earned or won (Edward R. Murrow, Peabody, Pulitzer, Emmy, etc.) would be good information to include here. 97.126.21.233 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That would be a good suggestion, yes. However, we generally don't include empty sections in articles. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you don't sound very neutral. Probably should not be allowed to edit this article in the future. 166.196.103.40 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a reason they're allowed to directly edit the article and you're not. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ON 23 August 2022 Nur Ibrahim tried to answer "Has Fox News Never Won a Pulitzer, Emmy, Peabody, or Edward R. Murrow Award?" The National Press Foundation has lauded some Fox employees in the past. It doesn't seem that there's anything worth mentioning. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Remove either of the duplicate versions of this: "...while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. Critics have argued that the channel is damaging to the integrity of news overall."

The first occurence is in paragraph three, the second one is under the political aligntment section. Superconductr (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead is a summary of the article, so everything in the lead should be found in the article body. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate

@Zaathras: Would you mind elaborating on this? I also don't think It's appropriate for this page to be directly citing Media Matters as a source at all, given its "War on Fox News", it is not an objective or neutral source on the subject and there are plenty of better and more reliable sources, such as mainstream outlets and academic papers. Media Matters should only be cited in the context of more reliable sources mentioning their analyses of Fox News and their obvious left-leaning bias should be disclosed, as it is in the Media Matters article. X-Editor (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"it is not an objective or neutral source" We do not need neutral sources. Per Wikipedia policy on opinionated sources:

• • "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

RELATED: I just reviewed our article on Media Matters and was surprised to see defectively weak sourcing for "left-leaning" there. I am going to that article and will remove that label, which needs to stay out until the weight of RS sourcing can be demonstrated if such exists. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: it is not poorly sourced. NYT, WaPo, Hill, and CNBC all describe it as left-leaning. If you revert, I'll return it to the long-standing text (you know that is standard procedure), but a discussion could happen on the talk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't need to point out that Richard Nixon was the 36th white president of the United states. Most media outlets have an inherently-progressive core, which is why we go to lengths to point out the ones that are not, e.g. Fox News.Zaathras (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The NYT, WaPo, The Hill, CNBC, Politifact, Rolling Stone and Business Insider all refer to MMfA as left-leaning, see refs in the WP article for that claim. The same cannot be said for mainstream sources. WP:RSP also gives better ratings to mainstream outlets than to MMfA, which it refers to as a "partisan advocacy group". The same cannot be said for mainstream outlets. MMfA is significantly more left-wing than the mainstream media. X-Editor (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Media Matters should probably not be used here. Per RSP There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed. Why would a marginally reliable partisan advocacy group specifically geared towards anti-Fox content have weight? PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there are bias editors which need to be addressed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you have a specific complaint against a specific editor, then WP:ANI, WP:AE are the places to go. Not here, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

didn't fox start in 1986? or 1996 as your page says? 75.161.43.146 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Though Murdoch completed his purchase of part of the Fox entertainment mega-corporation in 1986, the Fox News channel wasn't started until 1996. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Conservative in the title

I noticed that while Fox News is described as a Conservative media organization. That is true, and would not have caught my attention if it weren't for a single other liberal organization being described similarly, even Vox or Politico.

In those cases, their liberal bias is mentioned inside the page, or at the end of the first paragraph, where I believe it should belong for Fox as well. It is obviously a bias to push one company as "Conservative" or "Right-wing" on its face, yet not do the same for others, even when they are far-Left and promote misinformation. Mr manor11 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mr manor11: Vox and Politico are not "far left" and do not promote misinformation. ––FormalDude talk 02:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Vox and Politico are definitely on the "far left" of the political spectrum and certainly promote misinformation at times, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to describe Fox News as Conservative in the first sentence of the article. Overall, it probably is because that is how Fox generally advertises, particularly during prime-time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CessnaMan1989 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be wise to look through the archives for past discussions on this topic. Zaathras (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The lede of Vox says the news outlet is described as left-of-center and progressive. As for Politico, its owner Axel Springer SE supports a free market economy and the European Union, both of which are economic liberal positions and antithetical to the far-left. Politico also supports Israel, which is a position that both liberals and conservatives hold. When you say liberal, I assume you're talking about social liberalism. In that case, it's a bit more complicated than that. X-Editor (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, yes they do, especially race hatred lies. But besides that, I never even claimed they were in my talk post. I said left wing misinfo sites never get called out for it on the wiki pages, yet moderate right sources like fox news get "Conservative" pushed into sentence 1. It's a clear bias, to attempt to make the leanings of center-right and right wing sources seemingly more pronounced, while Marginalizing the bias of leftists, even when extreme. Mr manor11 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I did not see anything relating to this question in the linked discussion post. Mr manor11 (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia deals in facts, not feelings. Facts that are supported by citations to reliable sources. Fox News is not "moderate right", it is far-right, as supported by sources. The few far-left-leaning news sources out there do get characterized as such, for example Occupy Democrats and Mother Jones. What you personally view as "left" actually isn't, and your opinion will not make its way into a Wikipedia article. Zaathras (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You are calling a Neoliberal Network "Far Right"

This is one big opinion piece written by liberals. Mr manor11 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Where does this article call Fox far-right? X-Editor (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no "source" you claim the words of rival networks are "Objective" when I can just as easily label CNN "Far-Left" Using Fox News as a source, it's equally as credible as the reverse.

Also, your "Left" Sources didn't even hold up either, Mother Jones does not say it's a socialist news source in the intro, it says it further down, just like I think it should be for all of them.

I want it fair, we treat all the networks equally, and not force partisanship into the titles, no matter who it is. It's a shame you don't seem to like that. Mr manor11 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones magazine is not socialist, nor does it say any such thing in the article. As it has been pointed out over the years (again, read up on the archives), Fox News is an outlier in mainstream media in that it has a conservative leaning, thus we label it. Similar to the lede of Barack Obama taking note that he is the first African-American president, and George Washington doesn't go to pains to say he was the first Caucasian president. Zaathras (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Mother Jones article says it is progressive in the first sentence. X-Editor (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should drop the “conservative” or “far right” label. First of all it is 100% subjective, what may be far right to someone may not be to someone else. There is no objective measurement that assesses where a news organization measures on the political spectrum. Not to mention it does not mention CNN or MSNBC as left leaning (which they certainly are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.172.169 (talk • contribs)

Discussion to deprecate Fox News. See RS/N

See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

This template will take you to the maintained and updated list.

Excellent work. I hope to see these references utilized in the article immediately—Fox News has proven itself duplicit, and this time they can't deny it.

Moderators should probably be prepared to lock down this page. I'm sure some of the Fox News fans will be doing their best to undo legitimate edits referring to this scandal. 98.251.192.45 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Up to 83 sources now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox news should not be described as a news channel

As the Dominion Voting System's defamation suit against Fox has laid bare Fox doesn't report the news in good faith. It disseminates right wing propaganda, conspiracy theories, and lies. They should not be classified as a news organization 24.187.50.239 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Above you will see a collapse list of sources. Many of them make your point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. At best, Fox News being a news channel is highly controversial and disputed Andre🚐 04:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by classified as a news organization? Like how it says The Fox News Channel...is an American multinational conservative news and political commentary television channel and website...; you want news to be removed? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It should be described as Political commentary, entertainment, opinion, or some other descriptor that is not news 24.187.50.239 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to "de-news" the opening sentence of the article of, um, Fox News. Their journalistic integrity is certainly in tatters as the Dominion lawsuit exposes a lot of nefarious, partisan activities behind the curtain. All of that can and should go into the article, but let's stay grounded in reality in how the lede describes the subject. Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh fine Zaathras, be the voice of reason and moderation, just like Fox Andre🚐 23:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a gift. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is so clearly the reasonable approach, yet such glaring bias motivates people to suggest that we actually don't call it by it's name. HC (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF. And, no one said we don't call it by its name. You can name yourself whatever you wish. The suggestion was just that we don't call it news. We also don't call Onion News Network a news network. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If the IP user starting the conversation comes back and clarifies otherwise, I'll concede, but it very clearly reads to me an upset that the lede calls it "news" in the opening sentence. Never mind that the lede dedicates nearly half of its bulk to summarizing Fox News controversies. And actually, Onion is called news in the lede: "Onion News Network is a parody television news show". HC (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's called a parody of a news show. Again, we will always call anything by its chosen name. That does not mean that we will say in following text that the name is accurate. And, I don't think we will get consensus to call Fox a parody television news show -- yet. We have an article on the rap star Charlamagne tha God. We call him that name in the article. We do not refer to him as a god in Wikivoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Im not suggesting it shouldn't be called Fox News. That is its name, but it shouldn't be described as a news channel. 24.187.50.239 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• We might consider "news and entertainment" rather than "news and political commentary", since AFAIK Fox itself has described its commentary side as entertainment. A quick search suggests that there's many academic sources talking about how Fox blurs the lines between news and entertainment, too. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think that would be less accurate. What they talk about on Fox News is undoubtedly "political commentary". That they escaped some legal trouble some years ago with a technicality involving "entertainment" is an interesting story, but doesn't help explain what Fox News is. This also only applies to the TV channel, not the website.

  I'd be worried about wp:synth, wrt sources that show Fox "blurs the line between news and entertainment". At least, on lede text, I would be. We should try to write ledes that can explain quickly what it is to someone who's been living under a rock. If we told this hypothetical ignoramus that Fox News is entertainment, I don't think he'd agree with that after taking a look. HC (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sure I'll be reverted but I upgraded the lead to say "news entertainment and political commentary." I'd consider an improvement but I'm sure others may differ. Andre🚐 01:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd call that weasel words. Fox media does report regular news often. I'd revert, but I'm on mobile right now. I will later if someone else doesn't. HC (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what WP:WEASEL are. Andre🚐 01:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have asked several times when is the "real" news on and can't remember getting an answer. If you look at the viewership, it would appear that a very small part of what is viewed as a function of hours * ratings is not hosted by those that the owner has stated under oath lie. It's difficult to argue with "news entertainment and political commentary". Actually, that may be overly polite (weaslly if you prefer). O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  On the website is most of it. HC (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of what? I have found that the site, from which some might use as references here, has the most blatant examples of opinion presented as news than one might find on, say, the Baier or MacCallum shows. soibangla (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just replace multinational conservative news entertainment and political commentary with cable. Then the description can be in the following sentence with a little breathing room to state it properly without a big run-on sentence. The second sentence can explain that its news is not all fit to print. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox News anchor engages in wild speculation

This is not news, it is propaganda of the Tucker Carlson variety. Again, she is a Fox News anchor, supposedly not on the opinion side.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/banderas-floats-theory-biden-behind-trump-prosecution-election-meddling-double-standard/

soibangla (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox as entertainment

Fox News is listed by the TV Guide - a property, coincidentally, owned by Rupert Murdoch - as an “entertainment” channel. In 2007, Roger Ailes said that Fox News’ direct competitors were entertainment channels, citing TBS and USA as examples. In Canada, Fox must label its broadcast “for entertainment purposes”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgardn14 (talk • contribs)

What change are you proposing to the article. ValarianB (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The only source I've seen is Huffpost Canada 1 April 2017. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The HuffPo article clearly states that it is an April Fool’s joke. Also TV Guide does not list Fox as entertainment. Was not able to find any article featuring Ailes comparing Fox to TBS or USA. I was only able to find people repeating these claims, verbatim, elsewhere on the web without sources. Check TV Guide’s live TV listings and it lists multiple FNC shows as “newscast” as it does for ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. https://www.tvguide.com/listings/ Gerlandosss (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the claim that Fox is listed as entertainment in Canada all I could find was this from Snopes: “The claimed distinction that Fox News Channel is only allowed in Canada due to its being classified as an "entertainment" channel rather than as a "news" channel is a meaningless one, as those classifications only apply to Canadian media outlets, and Fox is an American company.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canadian-fox/ Gerlandosss (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox News rating: participate in poll

Feel free to voice your views at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: deprecate Fox News for politics?

The discussion thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News summary judgment has been underway for two weeks. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sean Hanity

Martial arts cannot stop someone with an assault rifle firing several rounds per second. It’s simply not true! 2601:190:500:6652:B02D:4523:91D7:5A2B (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The Dominion controversy was in their analysis and entertainment shows, not in their journalistic reporting

This was FOX's official position in court, and it has been accepted by every actor involved in the controversy and case. It is important to explain clearly that it wasn't FOX's journalistic reporting and journalistic standards that were in question, but instead, their entertainment shows, which operate under different standards, including contractually. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Fox has "journalistic reporting and journalistic standards" ? when did this happen? ValarianB (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Fox lost. So, I don't know that their "official position" had much credence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

How relevant is the difference between the journalistic, i.e. "news reporting", and the political commentary parts of Fox? I guess the most pertinent question to ask here is, "Is Fox News characterized predominantly by their journalistic arm or their commentary arm?", or, put another way, "When people think of Fox, are they thinking of the news room or the opinion section?". I think the fact that the Fox News organization is not a monolith is a lot less important than that Fox is heavily identified with Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jesse Waters and Fox's other opinion hosts, rather than Fox's news hosts. 67.180.148.167 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Woke' California prosecutor 'ironically in charge of ethics' charged with felonies

Left-wing Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon's right-hand woman is facing nearly 11 felony charges after state prosecutors say she helped herself to confidential information about 11 deputies as far back as 2018 and took it with her when she left the sheriff's office to work for the DA three years later. 37.111.164.109 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please explain in detail the changes you hope to make to this specific article about Fox News. Nothing you have written has anything to do with Fox News. You can do better than this if you try. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How is this at all relevant to Faux News?Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And while we're at it, the "left-wing" claim is a bit odd for a man who has been a member of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. But at least his assistant DA was awake. I assume that's what you mean by "woke". This section would look better with a hat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

This article needs to show in its immediate description that FNC is tabloid/sensationalist and should hold no other description. This article needs to show people right away that FNC is propagandic and uses subliminal messages to brainwash its viewers. 2600:1014:B036:9CB9:283E:78FF:FEAB:BBFD (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide a reliable source to support the change you wish to be made. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 23:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

“Conservative”

I don’t think the fact that Fox News is “conservative” needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph; maybe that should be briefly discussed toward the end of the intro. 76.170.142.83 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Empty section in "International transmission"

I cannot edit the article, so I wanted to mention it here. In "International transmission" the section for Scandinavia appears twice, however, it is empty in the second section. Polskimudkip (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks Just10A (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weasel Words

@Soibangla Your current statement includes Weasel Words. They should be avoided when we can add specificity. There is no problem with the statement other than that it is unnecessarily vague. At the very least, a word like "critics" needs be added. Your edit has removed specificity and added weasel word statements. Amend it when you can, or I can fix it later. Just10A (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

what weasel words? "many?" I would agree if the statement were not supported by an abundance of sources, but it is. by mentioning just a handful of specific sources in the text, your edit suggests "only these guys believe it." I can fix it later if you gain consensus. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS states, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."

It additionally states that for an editor to simply view an abundance of sources and convert it to a weasel word violates the Wikipedia:No original research policies. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language. Just10A (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

specifically naming a handful of sources when there exists an abundance of sources is deeply misleading. The sources listed are either stating personal belief or using "some say" language is incorrect and the edit is not OR as it is supported by many reliable sources. I think you and I have said enough on this, what do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is incorrect, please provide it. As of now, the majority of the sources from my cursory glance are either stating the position of a specific writer/paper or are using "some say" language. And even then, they are usually citing who they are referring to after their "some say." Additionally, I already said we don't have to only provide "a handful of sources" we just need to qualify it with something like "critics" or name the sources. That would avoid your weasel words issue.

Again, MOS states that, ""Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." as opposed to using Weasel Words. I'm afraid that is just policy. Just10A (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Just10A, you recently reverted this edit claiming it was undue and had weasel words. I do not see how it is undue and do not believe it has any weasel words. If you would like to explain your reasoning please do so, as I do not see the concerns you have raised in the well-sourced and cited edits that were made. Pinging @Soibangla due to his prior involvement in this conversation. BootsED (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

1.) Reverting at the very least during discussion per WP:NOCON.

2.) The undue and weasel word issues are similar to the ones already brought up (in fact, the new edit made them worse.) As far as undue is concerned, there is not a ton of sources to compare it to, but Fox is not primarily identified as a propaganda org, particularly when compared to other tertiary sources (what wikipedia is). The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, makes no mention of it in the entire article, much less the lead . Additionally, as already discussed, the majority of the sources are either reflecting the position of the specific writer or are using "some say"-esque language. That, combined with the fact that it's contentious and that other tertiary sources don't seem to include it, presents a decent UNDUE chance.

3.) The edit clearly includes weasel words per MOS:WEASEL. Weasel words are not entirely banned, but they should be avoided and definitely shouldn't be used for contentious claims. At worst the phrase should just explicitly say "critics", and even then that is still technically a weasel violation.

4.) This wasn't mentioned in the original revert, but, in addition to the above issues, WP:MANDY is an essay, not policy. And it is an essay that in my experience is one of the ones most commonly overruled, so that would be an issue as well.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Just10A (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

All boils down to "I just don't like it" with a touch of passive-aggressive condescension ("Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with") at the end. Zaathras (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across that way, but weasel words and undue policy are not "I just don't like it", and are quite clearly cited. WP:NOCON policy is pretty clear here too. Just10A (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the propaganda claim, there were several peer-reviewed journal articles that described it as such. Despite this, it was still listed as described as, we did not say in wikivoice that is was a propaganda source. Encyclopedia Britannica was not used in the citation to say that Fox was described as "propaganda". There are 17 other sources that do that for us, including several peer-reviewed journal articles. Some of the sources can probably be removed to prevent over-citing this fact.

In regards to using the word "critics", we can just remove it and say "commentators and researchers" instead.

Yes, Mandy is an essay, however, the fact that numerous sources, including numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have described Fox as biased, it is fair to say that Fox is biased and not require us to have Fox's rebuttal in the lead. BootsED (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Just10A, you recently reverted my re-addition of the edit again claiming weasel words. To be clear, I did not re-add my edit per your previous comment that you were reverting while discussion was ongoing. As no further discussion has occurred for over a month, I re-added the content to the page. WP:NOCON does not apply in this instance, as you are the only editor here who has objected to the edit, while myself and two other editors have disagreed. Also, please assume good faith and don't accuse me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Pinging Zaathras and Soibangla due to their prior involvement in this conversation for awareness. BootsED (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Just10A, you haven't responded in two weeks. Please respond to my inquiry above, or I will presume that you are amenable to having my edit added back to the page and have no further comment. BootsED (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted their unjustified deletions. At this point is borders on disruptive and will be actionable if it persists. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your original ping. The position was never that the addition was only being rebutted while discussion was going on. It was that it was at least being removed while the discussion was going on, per WP:NOCON, but also explained with points 2-4 why it shouldn't be added as it was at all in addition to it being removed while discussion was going on. Also, I don't think I was the only one, I believe user @FMSky also voiced an issue with this and the lead in the past if I'm not mistaken.

Zaathras, I recommend you review WP:ASPERSIONS, all of the actions were explained and cited clear policy. Your change to the article is without consensus (if nothing else, due to WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS alone [the flowchart helps], the page has sat like this through months and multiple other edits/editors.) As a result, I'm going to return the article to its prior state unless a compromise/consensus is reached on the talk.

I'm more than happy to participate in coming to a compromise that addresses the issues per WP:CONACHIEVE with you guys, but I would appreciate tuning down the antagonism. Just10A (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on your part and your habit of WP:WIKILAWYERING is not conducive to collaboration. I suggest you stop this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is wikilawyering about this? Citing policy lol? Every action has been thoroughly cited and explained. Just10A (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misciting policy is also disruptive, I'm afraid. You keep keep harping on "no consensus!" but if multiple editors revert you, then that kinda means that you lack consensus for your editing suggestion. Zaathras (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not the result of a vote, and a 2 vs. 3 (now 4, I assume) is not exactly an overwhelming tide lol. Especially not one that warrants disregarding clear policy. Just10A (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That there is a policy violation is your opinion. Not fact. Zaathras (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but you haven't supported it. You're more than welcome to attempt to explain why any of the policies I cited don't apply (because they clearly do). As of now, however, you've cited nothing to support it. Just10A (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on the one deleting content. Good luck with that. Zaathras (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not deleting it. You're adding it, per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Good luck with that. Just10A (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, you're more than welcome to make an RfC if you're so inclined about your position. Like I said, I'm happy to work with you guys, I'm just enforcing clear policy that has been explained. Just10A (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The consensus for inclusion is explicit. You are welcome to create an RfC to attempt to change this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Not really seeing a good reason for including this new material to the lead. Especially the way its written. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason for you to remove it against the obvious consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is, because there isnt an obvious consensus for the new material. PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Policy is clear here. You declaring something does not make it so. There is currently no consensus for this material in the lead, and you're citing nothing to support your position. Beyond that, there's not much I can help you with. Just10A (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's stick with talking about what about the edit you disagree with. Don't just cite policy without applying it to the edit at hand. Just because someone disagrees does not mean the edit cannot be made because someone says no. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but based on discussion. BootsED (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What I see here is you have enumerated policies of weasel, undue and original research as objections. What I don't see is persuasive reasons those policies are actually applicable here, but rather they seem to be wikilawered to shoehorn the lead sentence to fit those policies, then you reiterate that you've demonstrated they fit as "clear policy" because, well ... you say so. I don't see that works.

After I added the lead sentence last July, it was removed and subsequently relegated to the body in November. So as I see it, the only relevant policy now is LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Otherwise, why would you not oppose the content in the body, but only in the lead? This leads me to suspect IJUSTDONTLIKEIT in the lead, despite that it is abundantly and reliably sourced. soibangla (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Not really. Apart from the issues already previously voiced by myself and others, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY isn't even the applicable policy here. That just outlines how the lead should be edited as long as it fits the body so that the 2 don't get out of sync, it doesn't outline the standard for including things in the lead. That's in MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADNO, which says that the lead should only cover the most important parts of the article and accurately summarize it. For comparison in the body, FOX is only referenced as a "propaganda org" one time in the entire article. It's not at the forefront of the conversation at all.

So, long story short (just scratching the surface), it is not primarily identified as a propaganda org (this is a critic viewpoint), but as a news outlet with clear bias issues (aka, what's in the lead/most of the body), and the alternative is barely even mentioned in the body. On top of that, it's trying to be inserted with weasel word issues. For those issues, it has not obtained consensus for inclusion at this time. Just10A (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What are these weasel words you are referring to? You say you disagree with it being described as a propaganda organization, but that's not a weasel word. As I've stated before, nobody is saying that it is a propaganda organization, just that it has been extensively described as one. We have a ton of sources that do so, so its not undue. If anything the description of it as a propaganda organization should probably be expanded upon in the body in the first place as there's a lot of reliable sources discussing it. BootsED (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, would you be amenable to including the edit without the sentence "it has been described as a propaganda organization" in the lead until more context regarding the propaganda claims are added to the body of the article? BootsED (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Just10A Courtesy ping. BootsED (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean this edit ? Yes, I think it's written very well. Just remove the second-to-last sentence. I would also probably move the the final sentence into the dominion lawsuit paragraph just so all of that stuff is in the same place, may have to edit it a bit to make it flow.

Although, I do wanna be clear that I/we are not consenting to it being in the lead later just because we add a little bit more commentary about it in the body. That was just one objection among several. I would still imagine people would think it's undue, but that's an analysis for then. I just didn't want any confusion. Beyond that, I think your paragraph is well written. Just10A (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I remain unpersuaded that weasel, undue and original research are applicable for exclusion of the lead sentence and I am leaning toward opening an RfC to broaden the discussion to others. soibangla (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We need to add a bit more description about the propaganda claims to the body first anyhow. I don't see any harm in working on describing the many sources provided for that claim in some more detail before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I will re-add the edit to the page but remove the propaganda section until more discussion of it is added into the body of the page. BootsED (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Request a ideological spot in the descriptive box.

Hi. I want a ideological box to be in "programming" or something. It's clearly trumpist and conservative biased. It's like Conservapedia on TV. A strong bias who has led to it broadcasting false information, which is dangerous. Jllo782 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Hi everyone, I want to replace the sentence 'Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization' with 'Fox News is a right-wing propaganda organization' because it's more specific. Let me show my sources of information:

Volantor (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the original sentence and I think the new sentence goes too far by definitively stating FNC is a propaganda organization. I think we should go only so far as to say many have concluded it is. soibangla (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I simply disagree Volantor (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUCKTEST Volantor (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". Volantor (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The duck test does not apply to article content. Of course Fox is a propaganda organization. (My opinions are not that of Wikipedia.) But, it requires massive documentation to state that in WikiVoice, particularly since there exist supporters here. Your proposed change would not be possible at this time. Avoid Sisyphean tasks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Truth matters Volantor (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If a statement is not false, it is true. ... not to say “the Earth is found by many to be round” but "the Earth is round". Volantor (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How many references are needed to state that in WikiVoice? Volantor (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not really have any biased opinion, it is cynically based in neutral facts. Jllo782 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Show me a news show that isn't slanted. 2600:1003:B124:396B:384F:7D87:B848:A19D (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So I guess that we can brand CNN and MSNBC as left wing propagandists, you will agree with this? 46.97.168.128 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN and MSNBC did not have to pay $787 million for spreading lies. Which is a small part of the problem. In any case, those are other articles about other organizations. What Fox is does not apply to what CNN and MSNBC do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, instead they just had to pay for defaming that high school student. By nearly all accounts CNN is not any better than Fox. Jinventor (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Your US left-right scale is messed up anyways, Democratic Socialism is not the same as Communism. And stop labeling far-right republicans as centre-right, they are more Radical than that! Jllo782 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

While I likewise do not support stating Fox is definitely a propaganda organization, as @Objective3000 said regardless of the fact that they arguably are it's hard to back that in WikiVoice. That being said I *do* support adding specifically that fox was accused to be a *right-wing* propaganda organization. That makes it a little more clear what kind of propaganda it's accused of presenting and it should be pretty easy to find citable sources for that claim. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Go and fight over NRK instead, and find out if it is left-leaning like it was in the 50-80s.

It is the state broadcaster of Norway,so it is supposed to be trusted. Jllo782 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2025

Under "Ratings and Reception", the final sentence is

> "Fox News is considered a generally unreliable source for its scientific and political coverage and its talk shows.[122][123]"

The two references (122 and 123) do not refer to Fox News at all, they are both about the ADL. I would think the sentence should be removed until it has valid citations.

I will leave it up to expreienced editors to fix this in the proper manner. Thanks. 75.101.40.5 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done I fixed it, thanks for noticing it!

Lying to it's viewers

Why is fox and friends allowed to lie,to viewers. We already have to listen to republicans lie. The least a so called news program can do is to be honest.nothing but a bunch of cult members,not reporters. 65.131.236.212 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2025

Please add that this is Trump's propaganda media 107.179.245.154 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Please scroll up to see a discussion on the use of propaganda and many others in the archives:

O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2025

“Change Fox News to Fox propaganda “ 134.65.36.180 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. WP:V O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Press BRD

Discussion at Talk:CNN#Template:Press_BRD, but the same revert happened on this talkpage, so if you have an opinon, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Fox has no news license

Fox is not a news channel, please edit this article to reflect the accurate description of Fox, It's pure entertainment. They can put news in the title of the show but they are not a licensed news station. 66.114.185.10 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done The day someone has to have a license to say they're producing news in the US... Well... Let's hope that day never comes. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Fox News characterized as propaganda organization?

Should the first sentence of the third lead paragraph read:

Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization.

Here is a previous discussion. Also see: Fox News#Political alignment in the body. soibangla (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• by many This is textbook Weasel wording. Even though it is supported in body... in the political alignment section? I think the third paragraph is good enough already. If this sentence belongs anywhere, it's not the lede's summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I guess it's not weasel wording. But something about extending a summary beyond what we already have in the 3rd paragraph just feels wrong. I can't support what I'm thinking, though, so count me neutral. I would strongly prefer InvadingInvader's wording incorporated into the "is damaging to the integrity of news overall" sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• No - for the reasons already stated in this and previous talk posts. It's weasel wording, not the primary classification of Fox, and is only mentioned a single time in the body. Not leadworthy. Just10A (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm against it -- better to leave the characterizations in the body of the article. CVDX (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, although slightly more detailed attribution (eg. "researchers" - or "critics, commentators, and researchers" to match the body, although the researchers are the important part) wouldn't be amiss. Per WP:WEASEL, They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. This reflects a section of the body with very high-quality sourcing and is a major aspect of high-quality academic coverage on the topic, sufficient to justify a sentence in the lead; if people feel that that section isn't large enough, or doesn't cite enough sources, we can just expand it in the body as well. And the lead, of course, isn't limited to the "primary classification" (we're not discussing the first sentence of the lead, where that would apply); the purpose of the lead is to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. This is, obviously, an important point and a prominent controversy. Some relevant sources to indicate that it's an important point and a prominent controversy, which can be used to expand the body as well if necessary, include: --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Most of these cites don't properly support the statement though? Even worse are all of the books, which, for instance, are next to useless for such a claim. They are written by 1.) The heads of Media Matters, a source not considered generally reliable by Wikipedia (and actually particularly biased towards Fox), and not scholars. 2.) Brian Stelter, a random CNN news anchor, also not a scholar, and; 3.) Literally just a random dude who wrote a book lol. The best I could find was his LinkedIn, where he's just a run-of-the mill Wealth Management Director .

  I guess you could say they technically count as "commentators," but that seems like an extreme stretch in WP:DUE and relevance to the point where we have no business including such "commentators" in the first place. It would be silly to cite Kevin Roberts or Bret Baier for books about CNN, for instance. Just10A (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Brian Stelter would fall into the accurately-described without any stretch and very Due "commentator" category. Same for the "random dude', a "14-year Fox News contributor, guest anchor, and two-time New York Times bestselling author". We rely on news publications.
  The non-books are all studies published by Taylor & Francis that call Fox News propaganda, and I do not get what you mean by "don't properly support the statement". Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, but as Aquillion says, make sure to be more precise than "many". In this case, be as precise as you can with its wording while staying concise and remaining neutral. My suggestion would be that "Many researchers and commentators have criticized Fox News as being a propaganda organization" or some phrasing pattern of the like. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - "Many" is a problem in the body as per WEASEL. But then we don't like lots of cites in the lead and if the cites are in the body.... This may be a case where the cites may be included in the lead to avoid this type of constant complaint. I'd prefer that the text remain in the lead without the extra cites. If readers want to know the details, let them read more than a paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  when I added the sentence last July, I was aware that "many" was problematic if unsourced, so I included a bundle of many references. though I try to avoid lead cites, I think an exception can/should be made here for such a contentious matter. I suppose some readers seeing that lead sentence might think "whoa! prove that right here and now," rather than look for the many sources in the body. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Change to by critics, commentators, and researchers while literally true that it was criticized by "many," this is more specific and less weaselly. Andre🚐 01:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, with appropriate sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• No, the lead already has material that a bunch of people dislike Fox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I dislike pro wrestling, soap operas, and brussel sprouts. This is not about disliking Fox. It is about what Fox is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I believe he's just speaking colloquially. Not really an issue. Just10A (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I originated this lead sentence last July, and after considerable Talk discussion, I remain unpersuaded that stated objections of undue, original research and weasel are substantiated, especially considering the inclusion of many sources adjoining the original edit to demonstrate who many are, and as I have again proposed for lead inclusion in this discussion. Moreover, I find the content adequately supported not only in subsequent sentences in the lead, but also in the body. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Changing to oppose: Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead was recently closed with consensus against, citing how the characterization had little prominence in the article body compared to the would-be sentence in lede (MOS:LeadRel), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels, which says such labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Characterizations of Elon Musk as an oligarch seen as prominent as characterizations of Fox News as propaganda, so if the conditions around Elon Musk are enough for a consensus against, then the "propaganda" claim also doesn't have wide enough prominence in the article and in sources to add to the lede here. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Probably not suitable for the lead given how complex the subject is and how recent the label has been applied to them. PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not the best term, given the subject and discussion regarding Fox News, even on WP:RSP is very complex. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  It really isn't that complex: just don't use it, unless there's some brilliant non-science and non-political fact that has to be sourced there the act of which you may justify in a 150-word essay due in a week at the National Wikipolitan Seminar. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  The fact you had to say "unless there's some brilliant non-science and non-political fact that has to be sourced" is complex enough for me to keep my oppose. Sorry. Per WP:RSP, Fox News is reliable for non-science and non-political articles, which means a "propaganda" categorization would be improper for anything not-science and not-political. I.e., complex. My oppose will remain and you sort of just proved why. For reference, if it was fully classified as a "generally unreliable source" on RSP, with consensus, then I would not be opposed. But, there is too much complexity with it (and lack of a full "generally unreliable" consensus on RSP) for a straight "propaganda" categorization. I'm not opposing the idea in principle, I'm opposed to it due to the complexity of the source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  RSP does not determine whether or not it's propaganda. Propaganda organizations are often reliable for uncontroversial facts; see things like China Daily. Also, I !voted oppose; I just thought you were having trouble parsing the RSP entry. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose with the argument that characterizing FOX as a propaganda organization in any way, shape, or form, is undue weight in the lead. Not to mention the fact that FOX is at least somewhat reliable for non science/political things, according to RSP.

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Could potentially Support an inclusion in the controversies section. Wording must be chosen VERY carefully to avoid defamation/libel though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

the article does not say in wikivoice that Fox News is a propaganda organization, rather it says many cited sources characterize it as such soibangla (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wildfire's not saying anything about wikivoice. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support cant believe how much this is covered by sources after a search .....do we even have sources that say otherwise?Moxy🍁 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "propaganda" as WP:LOADED but Support "advocacy media" or some variation thereof as supported by RS (, , , etc.) -- and if incorporated into body -- as a somewhat more sober alternative. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and because it's not clear who "many" refers to. Alternatively we can add "by many leftists", that would also be accurate. -77.22.155.18 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.155.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose, calling it a "propaganda organization" is a very clumsy attempt to impose the point of view and original research of a minority group. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  While I also oppose, that is not the finding of a minority group. The viewpoint has no substantial opposition. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support I've added some additional scholarly sources and content on this topic. Note, nobody is saying that it is a propaganda organization, just that it is widely described as one. There are lots of high-quality sources, former employees, and scholars who describe it as a propaganda source. We have dozens listed here. Interestingly, the page for One America News also describes the discussion around it as a propaganda organization. If a bunch of much stronger sources, including scholarly sources, describe Fox News as a propaganda source, why can this not be mentioned on this page and not the other? BootsED (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Was just looking get this closed. I was gonna post to the closing thread, but looking at it now, was the correct RFC tag ever put on this? I don't usually make RFC's so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, this has been untouched for a little while now though, so it should probably be closed and/or decidedly left to disappear. Just10A (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think the correct RfC tag was ever added here. I was never alerted to it and didn't notice it until after I made my edit, otherwise I would have voted.

  On a related note, per your comments on this topic previously in Talk:Fox News/Archive 40#Weasel Words, we will probably need either a new, properly formatted RfC or an uninvolved closer to close this out. BootsED (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Well, the text in the Introduction says "It has been identified as engaging in biased and false reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes,[23][24][25] while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light." ... I am not going to quote the entire thing. It is essentially saying that it is a Propaganda channel. It seems pretty obvious to me. Who are we trying to fool by not including the word "Propaganda"? Vmelkon (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support There are enough reliable sources of researchers for example to mention Fox News has been described as a a propaganda channel. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not how they are commonly described. We would need tons of reliable sources describing them as that, and it would have to be exactly that, not only "have shared propaganda" FMSky (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

References

References

---

Alternative proposal: "Advocacy news"

Should the lead and body be amended thusly:

Lead: The Fox News Channel (FNC), commonly known as Fox News, is an American multinational conservative advocacy news outlet based in New York City.

Body: Fox News is an advocacy news outlet. It has been identified ...

Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, it should. "Advocacy news" is a precise and encyclopedic term that is used by scholarly observers. Using "propaganda" will expose us to ridicule as the sources supporting it are a combination of commercial competitors, books from very small publishing houses (e.g. Diversion Books), and academic sources invoking the term in a glancing and indirect manner. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Diversion book is not significant because of its publisher; it's significant because of its author. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Tobin Smith had an hour-per-week show on FBN and now has a 7,000-follower X feed where he gives stock picking advice. He also has a B.A. degree in marketing from a state college. I wouldn't really describe him as a media studies scholar.Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Fair. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Abolutely not: Are you serious, "Advocacy news"?? Call it a fucking news site, which it is, instead of slandering everything you don't agree with politically.77.22.155.18 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.155.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Please read WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I also personally agree that they're advocacy news, this needs way more sources and prominence to be in the lede, let alone the freaking first sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I bumped it up to nine sources. Let me know if you think that's sufficient or we need a few more and I can drop them in. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  9 vs thousands of sources calling them a news site 77.22.43.200 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.43.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  You'll need to provide references. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Troll 77.22.43.200 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.43.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  None of them have said it's not advocacy journalism. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose putting it as something like "Fox news has been identified as advocacy journalism practicing..." under the political alignment section. Very unsure if it's distinct enough to add to the existing summary of that section and others in the third paragraph of the lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

That'd probably be fine. Stylistically, it's a bit clunky, but not incorrect. Ultimately, by putting "conservative" in the lead we're already calling them advocacy jourrnalism anyway (i.e. there's no such thing as "conservative" straight news or "progressive" straight news) we're just doing it in an oblique way. Chetsford (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Would Support in criticism section. Ridiculously undue weight if first sentence, so Oppose that. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I would oppose in the absolute strongest possible terms putting it in the criticism section as that would recolor "advocacy journalism" to be something inherently bad. Advocacy journalism is a legitimate theoretical construct used to operationalize news reporting, not unlike peace journalism, gonzo journalism, or any of numerous other alternative approaches to journalism. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Still, there's definitely not enough sources for being in the very first sentence. You'd need nearly every mention to mention for something in there, save for the LeadRel exemptions like birthday. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a typological term so does not need to be mentioned in the body relative to its mention in the lead. LEADREL excludes taxonomic names, by inference that also includes typological names such as genres. But you're correct that this is represented in LEADREL in a less than ideal manner. I've initiated a discussion here to generate input about clarifying it in the text. Chetsford (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – this (dubious) definition needs the support of many, many reliable sources, and not a carefully selected handful. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I kind of agree. Looking at the sources again, I'm hoping for more examples of such characterization from mainstream media. (That excludes HuffPost.) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You may not find much as advocacy journalism is a scholarly term, not one WXYZ-TV is likely to invoke during the 5:00 news. That's why all the sources are like the Columbia Journalism Review, papers from the Harvard Shorenstein Center, books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, media scholars such as Linda Elder and Larry Atkins, etc. But if the threshold for our encyclopedia is that we need the El Paso Times to write about it or it's not a thing, you're probably correct that this is DOA. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - If it's advocacy, it's not news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Have you read the linked article? The Nation is certainly news. Even Mother Jones is certainly news. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  They are news with a bias. They are green at RSP; but I don't think I've ever used them. Hard to think of Fox as news at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  That they're reliable doesn't mean they're not advocacy journalism. And I have no difficulty thinking Fox News as news with all their packaging; they're just terribly unreliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, like The Onion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  terribly unreliable due to sloppy incompetence, or maybe something else? soibangla (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's not for us to analyze their content and determine what descriptions to apply to them, only to analyze what descriptions RS give them. And specialty RS -- that is, media scholars and analysts -- universally describe it as "advocacy journalism." This is the actual, real term used.

  This RfC won't pass, though, because editors like the IP editor (above) think it's unfair to Fox that we would apply the same genre to it we apply to Mother Jones, while other editors think it's unfair to Mother Jones we would apply the same genre to it we would apply to Fox. This RfC has cathartically got the Left and Right to unite in a moment of shared rage. They may not agree as to why they're angry at the RfC, but they have at least agreed to be angry at it. So that's something. Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC is about Fox and how the preponderance of RS characterize it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. As advocacy journalism. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  propaganda is distinctly different from advocacy. as the article now includes:

  Writing for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in February 2021, senior media writer Tom Jones argued that the primary distinction between Fox News and MSNBC is not right bias vs. left bias, but rather that much of the content on Fox News, especially during its primetime programs, "is not based in truth".

  the problem is not bias, as bias exists everywhere; the problem is lying. soibangla (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Did you copy the correct passage? I'm not seeing the word "propaganda" in what you pasted. In any matter, this is a case you'll have to take up with the numerous RS that describe Fox as "advocacy journalism", not me. I'm not here to argue whether Fox is or is not advocacy journalism. I'm only here to argue whether or not RS describe it that way. Which they do. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not in the first sentence. When mentioned in other news sources, it is primarily referred to as a news source, not as advocacy news. Looking at the sources, a decent number of them also mention MSNBC. Should MSNBC also be described in the first sentence as advocacy news? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Should MSNBC also be described in the first sentence as advocacy news?" Probably, yes. Chetsford (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support, extensively sourced. High-quality sources that go into depth on it generally describe it in that way or using similar terms; it is not described, in those sources, simply as a news source - its strident advocacy is central to its notability and significance. Most of the objections above don't make sense - the sources are extensive, broad, highly-cited, and high-quality; they represent how it is overwhelmingly covered in academia. Our purpose as an encyclopedia isn't to cover passing mentions in lower-quality sources but to summarize in-depth coverage from the very best sources available; and those are clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of Chetsford's 14 cites: I notice 4 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 mention MSNBC as well, yet MSNBC first sentence is neutral. If I google "All journalism is advocacy journalism" I get more than 14 hits, yet Fox alone supposedly needs the label at the start. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2025

Adding the template

on the top of this article because the article may be needed to WP:COPYEDIT for consistent spelling, grammar, style, tone, and cohesion. Thanks. ~2025-34009-90 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. NotJamestack (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)