Talk:Fox News/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Programming

ET	Format^[1]	Program	Host(s)	Location	Description
6a-9a	Opinion	Fox and Friends	Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade	Studio E, NY	The channel's morning editorial program (HD)
9a-11a	News	America's Newsroom	Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum	Studio J, NY	A daily look at what's making news and Politics. (HD)
11a-1p	News	Happening Now	Jon Scott and Jenna Lee	Studio E, NY	A daily look at Breaking News in the world. (HD)
1p-3p	Opinion	America Live with Megyn Kelly	Megyn Kelly	Studio J, NY	A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD)
3p-4p	News	Studio B	Shepard Smith	Studio H, NY	A daily editorial look at Breaking News in the world. (HD)
4p-5p	Opinion	Your World with Neil Cavuto	Neil Cavuto	Studio E, NY	Business Program. (HD)
5p-6p	Opinion	Glenn Beck	Glenn Beck	Studio D, NY	Political opinion program. (HD)
6p-7p	News and Opinion	Special Report with Bret Baier	Bret Baier	Washington	American politics and world news followed by political opinions from DC. (HD)
7p-8p	News	Fox Report	Shepard Smith	Studio H, NY	The channel's evening newscast. (HD)
8p-9p	Opinion	O'Reilly Factor	Bill O'Reilly	New York	Political opinion program. (HD)
9p-10p	Opinion	Hannity	Sean Hannity	Studio J, NY	A nightly editorial program. (HD)
10p-11p	Opinion	On the Record	Greta Van Susteren	Washington/NY	Nightly editorial program. (HD)
3a-4a	Opinion	Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld	Greg Gutfeld	Studio E, NY	Nightly talk variety program. (HD)

As of October, America's Newsroom moved to Studio H and America Live with Megyn Kelly moved to Studio A, temporarily, as the FOX News Channel prepares the set for the America's Election HQ Studio (in Studio J) for Election Night on November 2, 2010

Thefoxfanatic (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone confirm this please? What is the source used for this, thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Martha MacCallum announced that there would be studio changes via/ Twitter, other observations are based on viewing the programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Then that would be original research and a Tweet; these are not acceptable sources. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Their new slogan should be: "Fox News: some facts, but mostly opinions". Kevin Baas^talk 14:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; and MSNBC's would be "The place to go for LIBERAL politics." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't tit-for-tat. I didn't say "extremist conservative opinions" though i very well could have. you escalated. let's get back on track. are we putting the program schedule in the article? Kevin Baas^talk 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kurtz Polling Information

In an OP-ED Kurtz, with the Washington Post said some (unnamed) survery said that 7 of 10 journalists thought FNC to be conservatively biased. This is probably true since 8 of 10 journalists are Democrats(per the Pew Excelence in Journalism studies). However, we cannot make a statement of fact that 7 of 10 journalists think this or that based on the second-hand claim of Kurtz. Just because Kurtz does shoddy journalism doesn't mean it should make it's way here as a factual statement. If he can't identify the survery then it is probably not notable. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kurtz is likely a liberal, but he is generally a straight shooter and a good journalist. He is one of those rare journalists who has reported many times on misdeeds of liberal journalists (he's often a good source for unflattering material in WP articles on liberal journalists). Many liberals don't like Kurtz because he will go after their people. That said, I agree that there needs to be better details available about the survey. Drrll (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The source identifies Kurtz as a "Washington Post staff writer"; there is no indication the claim is inaccurate or that Kurtz's piece wasn't subject to fact-checking. RS is clearly satisfied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then please tell me who did the survey, when it was done, and what the actual numbers were. As I said before, we are using opinion as a basis of a fact. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel here. Like, Drrll, I also respect Kurtz's abilities, but as presented in his column the survey and its results are anecdotal and not notable. If the missing information that Arzel refers to had been included it would be different. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick connected note. You might be surprised at how much "factual latitude" columnists and special features writers are given. On a couple of long-past occasions I complained about"facts" that were presented in columns for my local newspaper, The Providence Journal and was told that the writers were basically trusted by their editors not to make up stuff. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's on post-election polling, then we prefer the sources that don't give the data and methods, apparently; i.e. the ones that aren't scientific to the ones that are. Though I dare so there may be other exceptions that i'm not aware of (i was surprised to learn of that one!). Kevin Baas^talk 13:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that all we really know is that Kurtz has asserted that there is a poll in which 7 of 10 journalists believe that Fox is heavily biased to the right. While a poll showing such results is perfectly plausible its actual existence isn't clearly established. The organization conducting the poll should be named and its existence should be verifiable outside of Kurtz. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Name names

Don't debate the adjective many.[1] Instead, find out which prominent people say that Fox News is a propaganda organ of the Republican Party, and attribute the statement to them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that Fox News has a "bias toward the political right" is not tantamount to asserting that fox News is "a propaganda organ of the Republican party." Of course, doing what you say, finding sources that have made that more specific assertion and scrapping the "some/many observers" business might be a viable way to proceed. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

though for more general statements, such as "Fox News has a "bias toward the political right"", the sheer number of such sources would be a practical impediment on anything less than a sub-article devoted to the topic, and picking only a few would be undue weight and unrepresentative of the magnitude. Kevin Baas^talk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree names other than Media Matters who exists to attack Fox News or competitors to Fox Nes.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to include a factual statement about FNC, all you need is one relevant peer-reviewed academic article or book from an academic publishing company that states it as a fact or says that there is an academic consensus that it is a fact. Forming a conclusion about how common a view is by conducting a survey of what various people say is original research. TFD (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's find some peer reviewed sources that indicate that Fox News is biased, shall we? I mean, it is, after all an entirely plausible conclusion that they are not biased at all or are biased towards the left. Manticore55 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check the main page footnotes 47-49 which are used on the fox Bias claim. 1 is from the Democratic party, the seconfd from Media Matters and the third from FAIR the last two are extreme left leaning groups.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Either make a statement of fact based upon a good reference, or else spell out who says what. This "Many people say" formula is very bad. And no, it is not undue weight to pick a few of the most prominent. Jehochman ^Talk 08:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to look at the subarticle for sources. looking at the summary amounts to assuming the conclusion. Kevin Baas^talk 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.136.149.20, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please include President Obama's recent (2010) comments regarding FOX NEWS.

24.136.149.20 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Arzel (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Citation Needed

{{edit semi-protected}}

In response to a citation request for "Following this, a senior Obama adviser told U.S. News that the White House would never get a fair shake from Fox News.", under the heading: Obama administration conflict with Fox News, I am submitting this as the source:

http://politics.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/10/23/fox-pushed-team-obama-over-the-brink.html

I apologize if this has already been submitted, as I was unable to find any historical discussion on the issue.Darren Means (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the source isn't peer reviewed. But it could be useful to put it in the News Corp article. But just because it talks about Fox News doesn't mean it applies to Fox News. Manticore55 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am confused. Are you saying that US News and World Report is not peer reviewed, or that this link itself is not peer reviewed? This is the requested citation source, of the above article. As far as it applying to Fox news, the article is specifically about the conflict between Fox/Fox news and the Obama administration. If you are saying that the subject and heading Obama administration conflict with Fox News, do not belong in this article, then you can open another request to do so, but that really has no bearing on the citation I provided. Darren Means (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been established by Consensus that anything conservatives don't like on this talk page much be in an academic peer reviewed journal to be acceptable. Regular wikipedia policy and common sense do not apply here. Manticore55 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

...Or we don't like opinion pieces being used to assert facts. As long is it is properly attributed, I am for inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is true. Gravity is only a theory, as is evolution. Manticore55 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from stuberman, 26 October 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Surveys of people's opinion of Fox news are very different from reputable analyses of program content. Inclusion of a citation from Pew Research Center about the bias exhibited in 2008 election coverage at http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 would provide a reputable balance to popular opinion. Please append the following to the section labelled "Assertions of conservative bias"

A 2008 Pew Research Center study http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 shows positive versus negative coverage tone of Obama and McCain between MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and the media overall. Fox News had the most consistent coverage tone between Obama and McCain (0-12% variation for Fox versus 49-62% variation for media overall and more extreme for CNN and MSNBC).

MSNBC had 43% positive coverage for Obama versus 10% for McCain and 14% negative coverage for Obama versus 73% for McCain.

CNN had 36% positive coverage for Obama versus 13% for McCain and 39% negative coverage for Obama versus 61% for McCain.

Media overall had 36% positive coverage for Obama versus 14% for McCain and 29% negative coverage for Obama versus 57% for McCain.

FOX News had 25% positive coverage for Obama versus 22% for McCain and 40% negative coverage for Obama versus 40% for McCain.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuberman (talk • contribs)

Not done: From the article, "In many ways, the data offer hard evidence to confirm the notion that, at least when it comes to politics, MSNBC is now a counterweight, or leftward leaning alternative, to the tone of coverage seen on another cable channel, Fox." Also, "There are a few aspects of candidate coverage that highlight Fox’s differences with other outlets. One occurred the period from Sept. 15-23, when the impact of the economic meltdown on Wall Street was becoming clear and the political playing field began to shift toward Obama. On Fox, the assertions about the Democrat that week were much more negative (55%) than positive (15%). During the same period, in the media generally, Obama’s positive coverage (35%) exceeded his negative coverage (30%) " -Atmoz (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, The data indeed shows that MSNBC is left of Fox News but the data does not show that Fox News coverage during the 6 week period surveyed was biased against Obama. In fact the data over 6 weeks shows a slight positive bias in favor of Obama! The data shows that Fox News is general has a negative bias towards both candidates. Additionally, cherry picking a single week where Obama's positive ratings on Fox dropped below the average does not change the outcome that the average ratings were more positive for Obama. This implies that during the other 5 weeks in the survey period Obama's positive rating were higher than the average. I am requesting that this objective data from a survey by Pew of the lack of political bias be included in the Fox News page. Otherwise this article suffers from a lack of objective data other than surveys of individuals' perceptions. For Wikipedia to remain credible it needs to allow content that is reputable even if it isn't agreeable to each editor. Stuberman (talk) 2:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've detranscluded the {{edit semi-protected}} template now that discussion is taking place. --Stickee (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@Stuberman: I've never edited this article or talk page before. I was simply responding to the editsemiprotected template that was placed on the page. Whenever I do so, I look at the source provided and judge whether I think the edit requested is verified in the source. In this case, I did not. I thought that you were doing your own original research by interpreting the source to a particular point of view. -Atmoz (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters

Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" organization. Using them as a source to claim Fox News is misrepresenting the facts is the same as using Fox News to claim CNN or NPR is misrepresting the facts and is a violation of the NPOV. I think that section should be edited to remove media matters and use a valid, objective source instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.60.43 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Media Matters is not peer reviewed. Manticore55 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your pointy trolling isn't appreciated Manticore55. Soxwon (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

point only applies where one is disrupting the discussion in a manner that is not relevant to the discussion at hand, or when one uses satire to over enforce. I am enforcing actual consensus based on previous discussions. WP cites sarcasm with a point with which does not agree, but in this case I agree that consensus is clearly established. I admit I find it humorous, but the fact remains that I see NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that non peer reviewed academic sources are accepted by those that mean to criticize Fox news. I am not enforcing EXAGGERATED consensus (per WP Point) I am enforcing ACTUAL consensus. I am not over enforcing, I am actually enforcing that which has been shown to be the consensus on this article. Manticore55 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the opriginal poster Media Matters has no credbility, they are funded by George Soros and it's only purpose is to attack conservative media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see past (archived) discussion, most recently RSN, outside editors: MM is reliable, media watchdog MMfA has been repeatedly upheld as a reliable source of criticism. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

America's Election Headquarters

Should the phrase that Fox News uses, "America's Election Headquarters," be put in the section of Fox News's slogans? Is it a slogan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.179.72 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Every potential 2012 GOP candidate works for Fox News (except for Mitt Romney and everyone who holds office)

Does anyone think this is notable? NickCT (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the article does not claim "every" - it specifically excludes Romney, for example - the claim is trivia at best, and probably inaccurate trivia to boot. Collect (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not an academic journal. Non pro fox news sources require academic journals to prove something, and even that isn't quite enough to convince people to achieve census. Clearly the New York Times is too biased to report bias. Manticore55 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One columnist, who is a self-described liberal, expressing an opinion doesn't make this an "issue". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been established ([[2]]) that a hundred columnists is not enough if it claims FOX news is biased. And besides, you are correct. It doesn't matter if the liberal columnist is right or not. If almost all the major Republican candidates are working for Fox (and the other one is a millionaire who self funds) that doesn't matter to this article. Of course, even if it were my opinion that it did, consensus is that it has to be established by an academic journal if it is an anti fox fact. I do find this ironic since, FOX advocates anti academic bias, such as advocating against Anthrogenic Climate Change. Source? I'm sure there is an academic journal I could find somewhere.... Manticore55 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid comparison. One guy giving a theory doesn't make something an "issue". Manufacturing an issue based on the opinion of one guy is a WP:UNDUE issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

the thing is it's neither a "theory" or an "opinion", it's a demonstrable assertion. BIG difference. And I mean WHOOPING. strangely there seems to be a great excess of people who couldn't tell the difference if it ran them over like a freight train. However, regardless of the veracity, it's a sourcing issue. Kevin Baas^talk 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, Paul Krugman is a well-respected and highly regarded economist. Were this an issue of economics, I would advocate inclusion. This, however, has to do with politics, and is thus just another voice in a sea of opinion. Soxwon (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually have to agree. Using this article as RS to raise this point would be similar to using the editorial section of the WSJ or virtually anything from Fox News as a reference. I was just WP:FORUMing here. Don't mind if we hat this section.

I think it is an interesting point though. Very unusual that so many potential candidates should work for one media outlet. NickCT (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The election is two years away, there is plenty of time for another candidate to emerge. Soxwon (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

True true.... NickCT (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is unusual that all five potential candidates are former office-holders. Anyway, Krugman's opinion is not notable in this case. TFD (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How many presidential candidates in the past 100 years can you name who were not "former office holders"? (Clue: Ike was the only one from either major party). Can you name any Dem possibles who are not office holders or former office holders? "Unusual"? Not by a long stretch! Collect (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clue correction: Wendell Willkie, but certainly you're right that most presidential candidates have been elected to something else first. A more important point is that Fox has four prominent Republican politicians as regular paid contributors, while offering the same kind of invaluable exposure to the following Democratic politicians: _____, _____, _____, and _____ (assistance in filling in the blanks is requested). JamesMLane t c 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Willkie -- the Democrat, of course! 2 out of a hundred or so possibles over 25 election cycles? So "unusual" is still inapt. Meanwhile Pawlenty, generally listed as a possible, is not a Fox commentator. Nor is Romney. Figuring out Dems is tough because no one announces against an incumbent this early at all - thus making the implicit question impossible to answer. Fox does, however, regularly have Dems on the air, to be sure. Just not "presidential hopefuls" because that, currently, is a null set. Collect (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fox has politicians of both parties as occasional guests. The issue is having politicians as regular paid contributors. During the Bush administration, there were plenty of prospective Democratic presidential candidates; I'm not aware that any of them were hired as regular FNC contributors. Furthermore, even though, as you state, the Democrats currently have no presidential hopefuls who are situated similarly to Gingrich-Huckabee-Palin-Santorum, they do have former elected officials. (Note that CNN has picked up Eliot Spitzer.) Fox's roster of former-electeds-turned-contributors appears to be "balanced" as four Republicans and zero Democrats. This information is certainly relevant (although, of course, without my snarky reference to the "fair and balanced" slogan). JamesMLane t c 15:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ones named are all paid contributors and not just guests. As for Dems announcing that they are potential candidates there is a norm in politics: Do not run against the guy who has the power in your party. The clear point is that the claim has been shown to be false by counter-example, which is all that is required. Collect (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What is probably most notable is the number of possible candidates that do not currently hold office. If you don't hold office, you have to do something to keep your name in the news. In the 2008 election, all of the major Democratic candidates were senators and therefore unable to hold paid outside positions. I can't think of a single major candidate from either side that wasn't a govenor, senator, or representative in 2008. In 2010 you probably won't have any Democratic candidates to worry about besides Obama, and the only other possible challengers to Obama are already serving or working for him, so the "balance" in relation to the 2010 election is not relevant. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is Politico, not Krugman

The attacks on the Krugman column as opinion, and therefore irrelevant, are completely misguided. Krugman wasn't offering an opinion; he was stating an objective fact, and then offering opinions about it. If the Krugman column were all we had, it would be adequate sourcing for the underlying fact.

But, of course, the Krugman column isn't all we have. Krugman expressly credited his source, Politico (whose President and CEO, incidentally, is a former assistant to that well-known Bolshevik, Ronald Reagan). Let's focus on this article in Politico, which establishes the fact -- Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum are all prospective Republican candidates and are all on the Fox News payroll. The article goes on to point out some of the issues raised as a result. Of greatest relevant to our article is that Fox is providing four right-wingers with "a lucrative and powerful pulpit". Politico states:

Their Fox jobs allow these politicians an opportunity to send conservative activists a mostly unfiltered message in what is almost always a friendly environment. Fox opinion hosts typically invite the Republicans simply to offer their views on issues of the day, rather than press them to defend their rhetoric or records as leaders of the party.

In addition to what the situation says about FNC's overall right-wing bias (Krugman: "Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan"), the Politico article refers to the issues of the disadvantaging of other Republican candidates and the problem of Fox News reporters who must cover their co-employees.

This is an unprecedented situation that certainly deserves mention. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's probably notable for a 2012 election article, too. Kevin Baas^talk 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that I'm on the fence, as it appears that the story received scant coverage outside of the Paul Krugman column. Soxwon (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

google news search for "fox news contributors" (quoted search) notice the first link with 15 news items [3] Kevin Baas^talk 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this mostly a WP:CRYSTAL situation? Arzel (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How so? Kevin Baas^talk 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it is making an assumption about who the major 2012 GOP field will be. According to the 2012 election page there are a number of listed potential candidates that are not included in this opinion piece. Furthermore, this is something that cannot even be verified because there is no way to verify that it is actualy true. If in a few months when people actually start to declare their bid it turns out to be true then it will probably be a topic of discussion and possibly worth inclusion. Right now it is opinion and not really that notable. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not making any assumption. The information can be verified easily, just by looking at the 2012 election page that you mentioned. (in almost the same sentence in which you said it couldn't!) And as was already mentioned, it's not an opinion on whether the potential gop candidates are all paid contributors to fox news, it's an objective fact. Kevin Baas^talk 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All? Romney? Pawlenty? Seems that all < all substantially. Collect (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm loathe to say it, but I agree with Arzel re WP:CRYSTAL. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All those candidates on the 2012 election page are sourced by at least two reliable sources. that leaves, however, the adjective "major", and its narrower scope, left unaccounted for. yet looking at the five claimed major ones, esp. in relation to the others, i don't think you'll find much disagreement, esp. among pundits. so it probably wont' be too difficult to find sources for that. Kevin Baas^talk 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 2012 election cycle is already ramping up -- it only seems subdued because of midterm election season now, and candidates don't wait as long as they used to -- so WP:Crystal is moot. I agree with James says, this should be incorporated into the article. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of Republican who has announced their candidacy at this point. Was there someone I am unaware of? If not, it's a bunch of speculation and WP:CRYSTAL looks like it could apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was about people who have announced their candidacy that would be a valid point, but it is not about people who have announced their candidacy. it is about people that are widely held to be considered "potential" candidates. e.g. by pundits and the like. it happens every election cycle. it does not follow that if people have not announced their candidacy saying that they are "potential candidates", as verified by numerous reliable sources, is "speculation". for an example, see the 2012 election articles and the sub-articles on "potential candidates". (which btw, might be a good place for this info.) Kevin Baas^talk 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Widely held" based on sheer speculation and nothing really factual. But it still comes back to the grumblings of a person or two that didn't end up with widespread coverage and whether or not that rises to the level of being a significant enough issue to inclued. At this point, I'd say no. If it becomes a bigger issue, then perhaps. But at the present, I can't say it merits inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree with that general sentiment, and also the election is still kinda far off. and somewhere on the election pages might be a better place for it, if like you said, it gets more coverage. Kevin Baas^talk 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is not necessarily whether the prospective candidates have announced. Names are listed at United States presidential election, 2012 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 if they've been discussed in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly why Krugman's claim means nothing. If you use his information about the 2010 field then it is WP:CYRSTAL if you don't use his information than he is substantially off the mark, because the field is far greater than what he is claiming. Arzel (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not just talking about Krugman's opinion piece anymore. As James says above, the original source is Politico [4] a news outlet with conservative connections. They name the major candidates working for Fox News, all of which have been listed by other sources as potential candidates. In addition to the quote already mentioned above, there are other observations worthy of consideration for inclusion:

"At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety. With Fox effectively becoming the flagship network of the right and, more specifically, the tea party movement, the four Republicans it employs enjoy an unparalleled platform from which to speak directly to primary voters who will determine the party’s next nominee. ..."

"Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network. But it’s such a lucrative and powerful pulpit that Palin, Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee have every reason to delay formal announcements and stay on contract for as long as they can."

"The idea of the four prospects — and especially the former Alaska governor — facing media questions only on a network that both pays them and offers limited scrutiny has already become a matter of frustration in the political and journalistic community — and not just among those the intensely competitive Fox is typically quick to dismiss as jealous rivals. ..."

"What worries some in the political and media community, though, is that behind Palin’s incessant attacks on what she calls “the lamestream media” is a strategy to de-legitimize traditional news outlets so as to avoid ever facing any accountability beyond Fox."

-PrBeacon (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion deserves a follow-up since the next election cycle is starting. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested in discussing the issue as it relates to this article, and not trying to sweep it under the carpet, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace talked with John Stewart on the Daily Show this evening [5] and the full interview should be online soon. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Escaping the "crystal" distraction

We have another observation about the Republican politicians on the Fox payroll.

The previous discussion was sidetracked by a false concern about WP:CRYSTAL, triggered by the observation that the four Republican politicians who are Fox hirelings are all prospective presidential candidates. I don't think it's at all within the purview of that policy; it's not crystal-ball-gazing to say that Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and Santorum are all currently being discussed in the media as presidential prospects.

Still, I call this a distraction because it's not the most important aspect for the article about Fox News. Forget everything you've already read about the race for the White House in 2012. Pretend for the sake of the argument that we have absolutely no idea who might be on the Republican ticket in 2012. It could just as easily be Charles Manson. Fine. What we do know, and what's important for the FNC article, is this: Fox News has four former national politicians on its payroll and all four of them are Republicans. That fact is highly relevant for readers who want to determine whether Fox News has a right-wing bias. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the apparent belief that a "national politician" is a specific enough subset of all politicians ... Pat Caddell is a Democrat last I checked. Kirsten Powers is a major Democrat as well. As is Richard Socarides. As is Geraldine Ferraro. All are paid Fox News contributors. "All four of them are Republicans" is false on its face as a claim. WP is great for allowing RS cites - but requires that we at least not post material which is palpably false on its face, no? Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If Pat Caddell was a Democrat last time you checked, then you haven't checked in more than 20 years. According to one unimpeachable source, "In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party...." In any event, Caddell, Powers, and Socarides are not politicians, in that none of them has ever run for public office as far as I know. Ferraro certainly has been a politician -- it's another question whether she still counts as one, given that she hasn't run for anything since 1998 and at age 75 is no longer considered an active contender for anything. I thank you for noting that she is on Fox. I should've remembered that, given that she used her Fox platform to attack Obama.

Multiple observers have commented on the invaluable free publicity Fox is giving to four Republicans who (unlike Ferraro) are the subjects of current speculation about their roles in 2012. That isn't crystal-ball-gazing, but a report and assessment of current facts. At a minimum, however, we should note that Fox's paid contributors include five national politicians, and name them. JamesMLane t c 13:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And still the claim stated was palpably false (that Fox only hires Republican non-office holders). As Obama is an incumbent, the odds of any Democrat being mentioned as his opponent is highly unlikely! So we have a false claim, and that is that. BTW, tell the NYT about Caddell: [6] 1999 "But they gave their most vigorous support to a Democrat sitting on the same panel. He was Patrick Caddell, a Hollywood writer and former adviser to the Presidential campaigns of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart", [7] "Patrick Caddell, President Jimmy Carter's pollster, said that Howard Metzenbaum, a fellow Democrat and former Ohio senator, had a reputation for being difficult" 2005. Somewhat biassed Media Matters says: "Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell present themselves as Democrats yet do nothing but attack President Obama and his administration " [8] just last week. Caddell is generally described by reliable sources as a Democrat, despite his lawsuit years ago. Collect (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of this premise is based on the fact that the 4 mentioned are "national politicians". None of these currently hold any office, nor are any of them currently running for any office. 2 (Palin and Huckabee) did seek national office, so we can call them "national politicians" if we must. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum have even run for, much less held, a national office, so calling them a "national politician" is really dishonest. The fact that Gingrich hasn't held any public office in over a decade (12 years) makes calling him a politician even debateable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Gingrich does not have presidential aspirations is extremely disingenious at best. There are numerous reputable sources that clearly state that the 'official announcement' is pure theater, and that most candidates that are actually running put out signals and feelers long before they actually run. MOST serious political observers have noted that Gingrich has presidential aspirations, and further Speaker of the House is indeed 'national' office. Furthermore your comparison of the prominence of the democrats to the republicans in their respective policies justifies my extreme disregard for the true spirit of consensus in this article. Manticore55 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, where did I say that Gingrich will not run? I didn't. He may. He may not. At this point, it is speculation and we don't deal in speculation. Second, Speak of the House is not really a national office. He was elected by the voters of a single district in Georgia. Then his peers picked him to be the Speaker. He has never appeared on the ballot for a national office. Have you ever seen "speaker of the house" on your ballot? Speaker of the house isn't really an office at all, it's a position, like being chairman of a committee. There is no need for a separate oath to the position, which would be required if it were an actual office. And I didn't comment on the prominence of any Democrat, so I don't know who you intended that for or if you're just reading things that aren't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're attacking a straw man. No one ever said "that Fox only hires Republican non-office holders". What has been said, by more than one observer (not Wikipedia editors but people in the real world in published articles), is that Fox has several Republican politicians as paid contributors. One particular feature that has been commented on is that four Republican politicians hired by Fox have attracted at least some discussion (again, not by Wikipedians, but in published sources) as possible 2012 candidates. We're not talking about people like Bob Dole, who would be analogous to Ferraro as someone who's sought national office but who is not now considered a player on the national stage. That's why the aspect of the free publicity is important.

The phrase "national politicians" doesn't come from any of the sources, IIRC; it was my shorthand for purposes of this discussion. What I intended was along these lines: people who've run for elective office on a major party's national ticket; people who've mounted a serious, credible campaign for a spot on a major party's national ticket; and people who've attracted nonnegligible attention in the mass media as possible candidates for a major party's national ticket. Even if you expand it to all politicians, i.e., everyone who's ever run for public elective office, are there any Fox paid contributors besides the five mentioned so far in this thread?

If we were to content ourselves with merely listing the five, and didn't report that multiple observers have commented on the presidential prospects of the Fox Republican roster, we'd be doing our readers a disservice. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. There is validity to the point and words mean things. This still comes back to a few people making an observation that hasn't really become an issue, save in certain, narrow circles. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters

A lot of criticsm comes from Media Matters and to describe it as a media watch dog group is wrong. It excists to attack conservative media. We should change description to progressive advocacy group.Basil rock (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They don't claim to be just a media watchdog group. From their own "About us" page: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." They don't give two craps about the rest of the media, only conservative media. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That is true, but that does not negate it outright as an information source according to numerous veteran Users in past talk archives, and that consensus is respected.
However I feel as you do, as Media Matters not only violates WP:NPOV, but the kicker is that the mission statement also violates WP:GOODFAITH. Wouldn't such core violations classify it as having the weight of fringe theories? Bullercruz1 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they specialize in a certain type of media does not mean they are not neutral. Their reliability is determnined by the accuracy of their reporting. See the numerous times it has been questioned at RSN.[9] TFD (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Specializing or concentrating on a certain subject isn't the issue. That they self-identify as progressive is the issue. By identifying as progressive, they are showing an agenda. They don't even bother to claim that they are unboased or neutral, rather they display their bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hunters are "neutral" in only one sense - if one says he is a deer hunter, one expects him to target deer. MM says it targets the right wing - hence it is no surprise that they target the right wing as they define it. MM decidedly targets Fox. MM does not target CNN or MSNBC. Many consider such specific targeting of some media to be a form of bias. Collect (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Fox News reaches 102 million households, while the largest left-wing outlet, Mother Jones has a paid circulation of about 1/2 million, it makes sense to concentrate on the former. TFD (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And MSNBC has approximately the same potential reach as Fox. Unless, of course, one regards MSNBC as in the center of the spectrum. Collect (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is typical of extreme views, as sometimes expressed by FNC hosts, to see the world in black and white so that people who disagree with them are "far left" GE, G. Soros, etc. are all described that way. In fact CNBC supports American capitalism (as do GE and G. Soros) and their views differ from say those of Korean Central Television. In between CNBC and KCT are a whole host of news outlets which could be termed "left-wing", none of which have any substantial following in the U. S. In fact right-wing news watchdogs do not monitor those groups either. TFD (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Find reliable sources to back what you WP:KNOW. I would also point out that CNBC and MSNBC are not the same outlet, so comments about CNBC are a tad irrelevant to anything I wrote. Collect (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with targeting ideological media, while ignoring non-ideological media? TFD (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, target "ideological medai", but that doesn't mean anything in terms of their neutrality. They are biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to assert that Fox is "ideological" whilst MSNBC is "non-ideological." I do not grant that assertion. Collect (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who believes that FNC is "right wing", which btw is ideological. Do you have any evidence that MSNBC is ideological? TFD (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean aside from Chris Matthews and the "thrill running up his leg" over Obama? Ok, how about the LA Times: "MSNBC seemed permanently mired in third place among the cable news networks when it hit on the idea of consciously counter-programming Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes' Fox News. If Fox would be a mouthpiece for angry conservatives and the Republican Party, MSNBC would stud its schedule with enraged liberals and Democratic Party partisans. It worked." "So, having consciously recruited and encouraged a level of open partisanship and biting bias that on some nights tops even Fox..."[10] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As I never said Fox was "right wing" in any post, I consider your post to make zero sense. When ascribing statements to folks, it helps if they made the statement else folks will quickly discern improper debating techniques. Collect (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have no information about the ideology of either network, how can you say that it is not "neutral" that the comment on one and not the other? It could be they target networks that have the greatest error rates. TFD (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment on MSNBC was And MSNBC has approximately the same potential reach as Fox. Unless, of course, one regards MSNBC as in the center of the spectrum. As for whom they "target" - that MM clearly states -- I daresay you have read the statement of purpose of MM? Collect (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Fox is not right-wing then there is no reason to suspect bias, is there. TFD (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

All I know is what they say about themselves:[11] Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Which seems to be clear enough, no? Collect (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They have been brought up countless times at RSN. But remember that RS relates to facts - we can look at other sources if we question their facts, which are usually pretty obvious. TFD (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the ability to be considered "reliable" enough to pass RS with being an automatic pass in getting past NPOV and UNDUE. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No I am not. It is rs for facts. So is Fox News. TFD (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't abut whether or not they pass RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We cannot reject opinions expressed in reliables source because they are opinions. We need to show various opinions using the proper weight. TFD (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, if MMfA is a RS for facts, then so is the Media Research Center / Newsbusters. Drrll (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And that is the problem, weight. They are rendering an opinion to further an agenda against the subject (FNC). To build a section around criticism by an agenda driven opinion group is giving it too much weight. If this were a section based on more neitral third parties and we were talking about including a comment by MM, that would be a different issue. But using their bias as a coatrack to hang criticism on, just for the sake of including criticism, then calling it "neutral" is not NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an absurd discussion. MMfA is biased to the left, to claim otherwise is to be simply ignoring reality. They have no sense of neutrality in the least, and while there is nothing wrong with their ideology, to present their criticism as coming from a neutral point of view is a severe disservice to WP. Not only does it not pass the smell test, it further propagates the view that WP is liberally biased and lessens the value of WP in general. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mcclellan

Alright, we had this discussion before, but that was with both sections. I would like to narrow this down a bit. I think that the White House talking points section should not be in the article b/c it mainly consists of a man promoting his book through controversy (the Hardball transcript) and then an HP piece about O'Reilly's reaction. There seems to be no wide coverage of this event, or even major coverage when it happened. A g-news search reveals little about the talking points, save for blogger and HP pieces. I for one, would like more than a Hardball Transcript for a book promotion, HP, and blogs for an entire section of the article (I could possbily see a statement where he accused them, but that's about it). Soxwon (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on FOX

While I understand that there is a "Controversies" section already set up in this article, there appears to be a phenomenon appearing in which FNC (usually quoted as "FOX News") is publicly attacked (hereby referred to as 'Comments' in the interest of neutral tone) by many public figures and sources, some of which are quite reputable.

I find this widespread and unique enough to deserve a section of it's own, or even just a mention. If sources are required I believe I can hunt them down but I'm not very good at that.

The 'comments' are unique in that:
(1) A meaningful amount of comments are personally against FOX.
(2) A meaningful amount of comments seem to be negative referendums of FOX with no elaboration of any kind (made-up example: "FOX News is Bad!")
(3) The above types of statements are made by public, noteworthy, and sometimes powerful people/entities.
(4) Certain comments seem to have become de facto axioms to some public groups ("FOX News is Racist." Anecdotal, but can probably find polls. If not, ignore)
(5) A similar multitude of comments (1) and (2) do not seem to exist with other high-rated News Organizations, not even close to.
(6) (Possibly a stretch) FOX News could be construed as the most - but at least considered one of the most - watched News Organizations based on viewership. Also, FOX News is regarded as near-equal to other powerful News Organizations in terms of reliability/likability. This makes the entire event less explicable and, therefore, more noteworthy (as opposed to same events occuring against a small, fringe -madeup- News Organization like "Fascist News Channel" or "Communist News Network").

Agreement? Contention? Maybe someone who knows what I'm trying to say and can throw in some great sources so I don't have to do my own dirty work? I'd like to get a dialogue rolling on this. Bullercruz1 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I think these are valid points and all of these things should be removed immediately from the Fox News article. Manticore55 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mant, that's not what he said. I can understand your frustration from trying to discuss changes over the past few months, but sarcastic comments like that just make it worse. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Beacon on this one Manticore. Rapier (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears I did read this wrong. I admit *I* like the idea, but I think as pointed out below, for non conservative politicians, only academic journals can be used. And before you accuse me of being 'pointy', what precisely do you call the wikilawyering of 'Undue' below? Seriously. Manticore55 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea, and while it would take a little work I think it's worth the effort. There are legitimate critisisms of the network, and there are baseless and partisan attacks by notable groups and individuals. Seperating the two would be valuable as long as everything is reliably sourced Rapier (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

...and there are baseless and partisan attacks by notable groups and individuals.

Exactly on point, and the entire first paragraph of Accusations of misrepresentation of facts is supported only by MMfA citations with an echo from "Huffington Post". How on earth does this even approach satisfying WP:V/WP:UNDUE? Even moreso (given recent RSN discussions), MMfA has no greater RS standing than the "Media Research Center", "Newsbusters" or any other self-declared conservative partisan entity whose stand-alone cites would be deleted post-haste.

The entire paragraph mandates a {{CN}} tag and, without provision of substantial supporting citations under WP:V/WP:UNDUE should be deleted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So...how do I comment here without being accused of 'pointyism'? We've already established what constitutes supporting citations on this article? So if we can't find academic journals citing that said politicians have said these things, then it is clearly undue. Manticore55 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why look, its a comment made just above in archive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_26#RS.2FN.2C_outside_editors:_MM_is_reliable that shows that your argument has the weight of a helium balloon. But 'both sides' are the same....except of course, when they're not for your convenience. Manticore55 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, Media Matters for America and Huffington Post are reliable sources that can be used. It is preferable, however, to use other sources due to the weight issues surrounding MMFA and HP. I personally feel they are not enough in and of themselves when discussing political issues. Soxwon (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright well I see a possible problem/edit-warring arising from this.
First I think it is important what constitutes an "Attack" versus "Criticism". And we must accept that there can be both in one statement, the main purpose is to determine if there is a significant amount of "Attack" - not criticism - for this particular inclusion
Second, is the fact that veracity (secondary sources) of the "Attacks" relies on other news sources - FOX News's competitors - and powerful public figures; meanwhile, these are the very forces attacking FOX News in the first place, unlikely to report on attacks to FOX news. Secondary sources may not exist; as such, this section would contain a dangerous amount of primary sources as we would have to use the words straight from the horse's mouth. Does this eliminate the idea outright?
Third, and most conflicting, is that it seems that many secondary and tertiary sources we rely on in Wikipedia state as fact these attacks - conflicting because such loaded statements are not befitting any journalistic source. Nonetheless, by Wikipedia standards, if these sources echo this does it not change it from an "Attack on FOX News" to more of an encyclopedic addition? Example:

5 major news organizations, along with 7 federal house-members/senators, AND the president plus his cabinet call FOX News a "Racist, hate-mongering smear machine working for extreme conservatives".

This is fake, of course (honestly not very far off what those sources are actually saying though), but doesn't this automatically make a claim for adding "Racist, hate-mongering smear machine working for extreme conservatives" to the article itself under WP:TRUTH, rather than claiming it is a widespread attack?
Bullercruz1 (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing honest criticism and/or stating of grievances with violence. In the latter the one who has had violence done to them is clearly a victim. In the former the one being spoken of is spoken of in the matter they are precisely because they are perceived as an aggressor (or otherwise unethical). So in a way these things are actually opposite. It's kind of like you're calling a tattle-tale a bully. Which begs the question: if you had to side with one or the other, which would you side with? A bit alarming, if you ask me. Kevin Baas^talk 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm trying very hard to not take a side and present the issue straight down the middle. A criticism usually has some sort of middle that connects the two. The recent 'criticism' that I claim are closer aligned to an attack seem to hit the Fallacy of the undistributed middle ([1][2][3 - Damn, broken vid link, but the stories about it are somewhere] Sorry, I know these sources suck but their stories are real and are probably in better sources. In reality, though, I'm having a difficult time hunting down other comments - I know Barney Frank has made a couple just blunt attacks equating to "FOX News is Bad"...there was also an African-American house-woman or senator, on the floor of the house or the senate made a statement like that...like I said I'm probably not going to be able to find them myself, which is why I asked if others know what I'm talking about and could offer their knowledge/sources. Bullercruz1 (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The questions then are whether they rise to the level of signficance, notability, and due weight, whether they can be properly sourced to reliable, notable sources, and whether they are representative examples (per due weight again, i suppose). on the last question i would argue that such examples would only serve to create the false impression that the criticism leveled at Fox are without substance. and therefore serve to obfuscate rather than clarify the issue. Kevin Baas^talk 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do take issue with that last statement; I believe you are jumping to the conclusion that the idea of criticism against FOX News without substance does not exist -- "...only serve to create the false impression that the criticism leveled at Fox are without substance.." -- however, that sentence may just say that because you used absolute terms, probably to save time.
In either case, this discussion is moot on my end, as WP:TRUTH dictates I need secondary sources to prove that it happened, and I can not produce those (due to personal time constraints). Again, if someone could produce the reporting on the subjects I mention above, then I could actually make a point. Thank you. Bullercruz1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

University of Maryland Study finds those who primarily get their news from Fox are significantly more likely to have misconceptions of the truth. The criticism section should be unlocked for this relevant scientific research. When a media organization has become so powerful it can lead a nation to war we should be able to criticize it at any level. At this point it is a humanitarian and moral issue. The wiki is full of Fox news references, but when it comes to the criticism section all references must be peer reviewed? That is blatant censorship. Wikipedia higher ups need to seriously look into why the Fox News Channel wiki is being protected from valid critisism. All Fox news source references should be removed unless they are peer reviewed that seems fair.[1]McGlockin (talk) 12:15, 01 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. Nowhere has it been stated that criticisms have to be peer reviewed, nor is peer review the sole basis for inclusion. However, we do hold sources to a certain standard, and not all sources meet that standard (MMFA and HP are debatable for automatic inclusion). The study you quote is indeed a provocative one and should be considered for inclusion. However, you'll find it a lot easier to engage in civil discussions if you don't engage in accusations of "censorship" and whitewashing. See WP:CIVIL, WP:TRUTH, and most importantly WP:5P. If you would like to see the material included, you are more than welcome to start a new section at the bottom of the page. Soxwon (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth nothing that this study, conducted 7 years ago, was narrow in its focus. It was about the Iraq War. You've already started mischaracterizing what the study concluded (unsure if that is intentional or unintentional). Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that FOX makes a pretty clear distinction of Opinion shows and Hard News shows, such distinctions are even placed on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC, the public opinion, and lean forward

The article says on the Assertions of Conservative Bias section that, “A Pew Research poll released on October 29, 2009, found that Fox News is viewed as the most ideological channel in America. 47% of those surveyed said Fox News is 'mostly conservative,' 14% said 'mostly liberal,' and 24% said "neither." In comparison, MSNBC had 36% identify it as 'mostly liberal,' 11% as 'mostly conservative,' and 27% as 'neither.' CNN had 37% describe it as 'mostly liberal,' 11% as 'mostly conservative,' and 33% as 'neither.'" Apparently, MSNBC is seen by Americans as the least ideological 24-hour news cable channel in America. If you read Wikipedia's article on MSNBC, you'll notice that on several places of the article and their sources related to the matter of MSNBC’s new slogan, they say that “following several years in which many observers noted a politically leftward shift in the channel's programming, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressive identity in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline 'Lean Forward.'" I'd like to ask, what progressive identity..., if Americans supposedly view MSNBC as the least ideological of 3 cable outlets in America? Also, is it possible that today MSNBC would be considered by Americans as at least the the second most ideological network in America’s mind thanks to its new slogan, and not only that but other things like Keith Olbermann’s suspension and the addition of Lawrence O ‘Donnell in its primetime lineup? My questions does have to do with constructive crticism of the article. One has to keep in mind the recent changes that has happened on MSNBC and it could be possible that the public’s opinion about cable TV has changed drastically because of them. Many in the media recently (even the New York Times has) has accused MSNBC of having a liberal bias. Willminator (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The accusation is not without merit. The accusation of bias is based on what they actually do and how they report, not on an advertising slogan. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Studio Update

I'm not cleared to edit the FNC wiki, but I did notice that Sean Hannity's studio is listed as studio J, that is incorrect. Sean Hannity moved this fall to Studio G, which is typically used by FBN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Happening Now is listed as "Studio E", which is also incorrect, Happening Now is streamed from the Newsroom, sometimes referred to as "Studio N".

Bret Baier's Washington Studio is also referred to as Studio 1.

O'Reilly is produced in Studio A.

Greta is primarily in Studio 1 (Washington) but is sometimes in Studio H (New York) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxfanatic (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaming

While I have been learning Wikipolicies for some time, this is the first I've learned of this particular policy, and I definitely think it applies to this particular article, PARTICULARLY the bit about STONE WALLING. Every article, every anti Fox News post made here is shifted with one defense after another to the point of absurdity.

Fox News *IS* biased. It *IS* directly allied with the Republican party. It *DOES* lie on a regular basis to the point that simply saying that it is 'Biased' is absurd. It goes far beyond that. Repeated calls for peer reviewed content are met with calls that the sponsors of the research are liberal. Anything from a partisan group attacking them is called partisan but you can't CALL THEM partisan just because they don't use the words, "Official arm of the Republican Party" in their website even when in all practice they are.

I call violation of WP: GAMING, in the extreme. Tacitus2010 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you opinion. Personally, I've never said that FNC isn't biased. I just maintain that many of their critics are also biased, as are most other media outlets. The only thing that makes FNC different is that their bias isn't a liberal one. But being biased doesn't mean they aren't a news channel, as you've tried to claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is, I think, also useful to distinguish between those shows on Fox which are new oriented from those that are not (for example, Beck and O'Reilly) and rather pure punditry. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Failure to realize the sheer amount of lies and propaganda that the "news" section of Fox generates is a basic failure of Wikipedia. All news organizations get some things wrong. Fox News (and I mean the News) routinely lie and are not called out on it, by the Corporate Media or Fox itself. Fox has NO journalistic standard. None. I could provide links here till the cows come home, and showed an actual peer reviewed study, but since the study was from 'partisian' sponsors, it shows that there is literally no convincing 'consensus' here at all relative to the truth. Wikipedia is certifiably a joke. Tacitus2010 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, you are confusing a few "pro fox" editors with wikipedia in general. But more importantly I don't think you have good understandings of the WP project and it's inner workings (yet) and hence what it can and what it cannot deliver for structural reasons.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

University of Maryland survey

I've not noticed that there has been a latent edit war as of late regarding the content of that survey. I don't want to quibble about each word used in the description, but it needs to be somewhat accurately reflect what the survey was about. The survey clearly states that it is about misinformation and it also explains what it considers "false" and "correct" information in this context. So no matter how exactly you want to phrase that, you cannot simply state it was a survey of beliefs and fox viewers turned out to have the following believes, such a description would be an utter misrepresentation of the survey and a violation of WP policy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That survey is clearly flawed. It assumes if you disagree with any administration position that you are missinformed. Basically, if you hold republican views you are missinformed regardless of what you watch. The study has been slammed as well. Push polls like this are not worth the paper they are printed on. Arzel (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether the survey is flawed or not in your opinion is a separate issue (and actually somewhat irrelevant as far as WP and this article is concerned). The survey needs to be described accurately, anything else is clear violation of WP policy. If you have a notable/reputable source (no blog please) that discusses flaws of that survey, you are welcome to include that information, but the current description in the article is no go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Blogs of news organizations are allowed under WP:RS and are considered no different than non-blog material. Drrll (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guideline carefully, it says blogs at news organisations may be ok, but they are by no means "equal" to standard sources such as (acadamic) peer reviewed publications. Whether is particular blog post is acceptable as a reference is something that would need to determined here (based on such things whether the blog poster is a notable/established journalist). In any case hat is the separate issue. The current issue is, that description of the survey in our article is simply misleading/inaccurate and that needs to be fixed. A second issue is whether we should include some text on possible flaws of that survey, that's possible if we can source it properly. However in a highly contested article a simple news blog post is most likely not good enough.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is exact language about the value of blog format material from news organizations vs. non-blog format material from news organizations:

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

As far as whether the blog entry author is a "professional journalists or are professionals in the field," the following is from "About David Zurawik" at baltimoresun.com:

I've been The Baltimore Sun's TV critic since 1989. My writings on TV and media have appeared in such publications as TV Guide, Esquire magazine and American Journalism Review. I have a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Maryland, College Park, and an M.A. in specialized reporting (on popular culture) from the University of Wisconsin.

Please discuss your proposed changes in wording here in Talk so that we can achieve consensus. Given WP policy about news organization blogs and given Zurawik's credentials, there shouldn't be a problem in including parts of his analysis about flaws in the survey. Drrll (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the information on Zurawik, he might be acceptable to be used here. As far as my text suggestion goes, you can check my reverted edit. I'm not particular hung on my own formulation, my main issue is with the current version, which is cleary misphrasing the cited source and that needs to change. Editors you who reverted my edit are free to suggest an alternative text (as i mentioned above already). What that they cannot do however is to simply revert to my edit to version, that clearly misrepresent the cited source. So if they are not willing to come with an alternative text, that describes the source content accurately as well, I will reinstate my old version.

As far as criticism of the survey is concerned, there is no text suggestion so far. I don't have one myself and I didn't look for reviews of the survey in general. I just noticed that earlier edits repeatedly misrepresented the survey as source and that needs to be fixed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved this content to the main article: Fox News Channel controversies. This article's criticism section is intended to be a WP:SS of FNC controversies, not a place for new additions. You might want to move the discussion there, and maybe shift this discussion towards whether the study is notable enough for this article. †TE†Talk 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There was already an earlier limited discussion regarding the notability to include it here I believe. However it might make to overhaul the section here completely aiming for an appropriate summary of the main article, rather listing a few somewhat arbitrary individual points.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

However moving inaccurate content is not fixing the problem, the inaccurate description of the source needs to be fixed no matter whether it is here or in Fox News Channel controversies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you weren't kidding! Obfuscate much, FNC fans? I rewrote it to actually say what they studied and what their findings were. Both of which are plainly obvious from reading the document. Kevin Baas^talk 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Their claims were based of their own defintion of what was considered true. The balanced version made this distinction which is important to put the poll into context. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

no they were not. how could you miss that so clearly stated and essential point? it's not aopinion, its verifiable fact, jsut like wikipedia is. it's based on what the experts held to be true. i'm sure they'll happily give you their sources on those experts if its not already in their report. it is not a matter of opinion, it is simply a question of verifiability, just like wikipedia is. and on wikipedia it is a strict policy not to state our opinion on the truth of the claims but to faithfully reproduce them as they are and attribute them so they can be verified as such. Kevin Baas^talk 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

From the report:

A study of misinformation raises the somewhat delicate question of what is true. When dealing with topics that have been highly politicized, it is common to default to the position that all perceptions are relative and treatment of any position as more or less true is itself inherently political. We believe that such a position is at odds with what is necessary for well-functioning democracy. It is indeed very important for a healthy democratic process to be open to a wide range of positions. At the same time, it is essential that there be means and institutions for achieving consensus about key factors that ultimately affect public policy decisions. On a regular basis government economists come to conclusions about the state of the economy. Such conclusions influence key decisions in the private sphere, as well as government decisions. Such government economists should be, and generally are, open to input from experts outside of government in the course of coming to conclusions. In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion. In most cases we inquired about respondents’ views of expert opinion, as well as the respondents’ own views. While one may argue that a respondent who had a belief that is at odds with expert opinion is misinformed, in designing this study we took the position that some respondents may have had correct information about prevailing expert opinion but nonetheless came to a contrary conclusion, and thus should not be regarded as ‘misinformed.’ It should also be noted that queries about expert opinion were not predicated on the idea that there is unanimity on issues. On some issues, such as climate change, there is a vocal dissenting minority among experts. Thus questions were framed in terms of whether, among experts, more had one or another view, or views were evenly divided.

Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And let me be clear 'cause it seems that you miss this crucial point: they did not ask people what their opinion was, they asked them what they though expert opinion was, whether it was divided or unanimous. not whether the experts were right or wrong, or certain opinions were right or wrong, as you seem to think. while the latter may be subjective, the former is not. Kevin Baas^talk 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy in this video takes a hard look at the study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ PokeHomsar (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Description as a "news" channel

I know that its called "Fox News" but I think its status as a legitimate "news source" has been called into question by legitimate and balanced sources. Perhaps the wiki article should call it a "political channel" or "conservative talk" channel rather than a "news channel".66.245.123.136 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

When did being balanced become part of the requirement? MSNBC doesn't bother hiding it anymore. Other networks have bias. The White House (which has a Democrat in it in case you didn't know) seems to think they are a news source since they give them White House press credentials. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to push for this you'd have to demonstrate a majority of reliable sources refer to it in the language you're proposing (see WP:COMMONNAME for details). NickCT (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

A google search of the top ten pages reveals for "Fox News"

On the first page most Fox News, the Wiki Article itself and other news stations copying fox articles.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,24472,27147,27342,27585&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=fox+news&cp=3&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=fox&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

The second page shows 'partisian' sites showing how fox news is biased....(3) The rest are fox news articles or Fox news sites.

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=5rgHTfrCE4HCsAOaoOCLDg&start=10&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

The third page has this article which is interesting. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News And also has this mention of a wired article talking about the most shameful spin of wiki articles...probably still going on.

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=KrkHTdX7OJCWsgPknZWhDg&start=20&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

The rest of the third page are fox sites.

The fourth page has fox news forwarded articles, 2 anti fox links and Fox or Fox affiliate sites.

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=i7kHTdXYLou0sAOy5ZDEDg&start=30&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

On the fifth page we see fox affiliate links, two 'partisan' anti fox links, and an aggregation news article (associated content which is apparently banned to be linked by wikipedia) which is neither positive or negative.

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=6bkHTbnXBIyssAO2oMSYDg&start=40&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

On the sixth page we have fox affiliate links http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=F7oHTeTwJYe8sAOkr_zgDg&start=50&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

On the seventh page we have 1 'partisan' anti fox link, fox affiliate links and fox forwarded articles.

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=vLoHTc6-AY72tgOCqZW3Dg&start=60&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

On the eighth page we have fox affiliates

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=3boHTcHhJIjEsAOq7qinDg&start=70&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

On the ninth page we have one profox news aggregator http://www.mediaite.com/tag/fox-news/

A snopes article about something that isn't even true.

This Salon article showing outrageous fox behavior. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama

This news week editorial against Fox News.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/17/the-o-garbage-factor.html

And fox affiliate sites.

On the tenth page we have 2 sites dedicated to attacking fox, oh and this article indicating how Apple will be boycotting Fox because of their behavior. http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/29/apple-boycotts-fox-news-because-of-glenn-beck/

On a tech blog no less.

http://www.google.com/#q=fox+news&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=OrsHTY6QN4OosAPj5KnIDg&start=90&sa=N&fp=f96a38144cebfe91

So a totally random sampling of fox sites shows, when removing sites that are simple fox itself or forward articles from fox, numerous anti fox sites that are 'partisan' one of which points out this very talk page as being riddled with Fox news supporters, and 3-4 'reliable' sources flat out saying Fox's behavior is outrageous.

And NONE...we're not even talking about partisan conservative sources...say that Fox is a reliable news source or that it doesn't act in a partisan fashion.

Can we stop the joke now that is the defense of this article?

No? OK then. Tacitus2010 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't use google searches as reliable sources. Soxwon (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. But you can use them as an excellent arbiter for what 'the majority' of reliable sources might say. Especially since Fox defenders regard anything that attacks Fox as 'partisan.' Tacitus2010 (talk) 20:08,

14 December 2010 (UTC)

No you may not, they are not WP:RS and therefore unusable. As for your other comment, we are looking for well-sourced criticism, not attacks. Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Only reliable sources count. Anything else is a waste of our time. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So we want a reliable source that says that most reliable sources indicate that Fox news is biased now? Are news sources acceptable for that or do we need academic journals?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20101215/cm_atlantic/foxnewsbosstoldstafftoplayupclimatechangeskepticism6206;_ylt=Av6PTfY2u63JyXCejqDSB1j9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTQyb3Jub2IzBGFzc2V0A2F0bGFudGljLzIwMTAxMjE1L2ZveG5ld3Nib3NzdG9sZHN0YWZmdG9wbGF5dXBjbGltYXRlY2hhbmdlc2tlcHRpY2lzbTYyMDYEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNmb3huZXdzYm9zc3Q-

And here is an actual academic journal:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

Fox news is Propaganda. Period. Tacitus2010 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Atlantic Wire, your fist link, is "is your one-stop portal for opinion news. While other sites aggregate headlines, the Wire focuses on the columnists and commentators leading the national dialogue" according to their website. Ok, so an op-ed piece. Fine, they have an opinion. That doesn't come anywhere near the claim that a "majority" of reliable sources. The study you cited mentions FNC in a paragraph. I must have missed the part that calls FNC biased. Would you please quote it? Further, neither does nothing substantial to uphold the claim that FNC is not a news service.

I think there's a confusion of terms here, news and propaganda are not a contradiction. It is correct that "quality news" and the "journalistic ethos" attempt to achieve accurate somewhat unbiased reporting and to stay away from propaganda, however that doesn't mean that news providers worldwide always adhere to those those principles. All the news media in totalitarian or semi totalitarian countries has always been propaganda and often questionable regarding accuracy and facts, so in the big picture fox is nothing special there. The only thing that makes Fox stand out somewhat is, that in post WWII democratic societies we might not have been used to such open and shameless propaganda news by mainstream news media. In other words Fox seems to be the first (in the US) main stream tv news channel that turned itself voluntarily into a propaganda channel with little regard for the "journalistic ethos", but if you look at the bigger picture and consider Chinese or Russian TV news than fox is hardly special at all and still as much "news" as those are. Or to make a long story short you simply cannot equate news media with quality journalism, they are 2 different things and fox is the former but not the latter.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At least you're partially right. Unfortunately, you are of the mistaken belief that FNC is the only one who has a bias. What makes them different from the others is that they don't really deny tht they are conservative. MSNBC is the only one that admits they are liberal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest that fox is the only with bias rather the opposite. Even restricted to US mainstream media Fox is not the only one with bias, but it is possibly the only one turned into a propaganda outlet. While all mainstream TV channels show some form of bias and MSNBC certainly targets a liberal US audiences (from a non US perspective it is centrist or even conservative), fox seems to be the only one ignoring any form of journalistic decency, the other channels at least attempt to get basic facts straight and while having a bias they still stay away from pure propaganda. The issue with fox from a journalistic perspective is not being conservative (nothing wrong with that) but with (completely) substituting investigative journalism with opinion and constantly misrepresenting facts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Riiiiight. No accuracy at all. Thanks for your input. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is biased to call FoX News Channel "GOP Pravda", "FoX Newspeak Channel", or "The Propaganda Channel" (as I have done in contexts in which neutrality is not assumed).

As a harsh critic of FoX News I admit that FoX News is deadly-serious in its presentation, has lesser 'fluff' (like stories on 'fashion' and 'entertainment' as CNN has. But that said, it offers little news and much analysis. Analysis sounds noble, but not when it is one-sided assertion of the merits of 'conservative' politicians and ideology and scathing criticism of anyone or anything liberal. The analysis of news has a parallel in CBN News on The 700 Club, except that the analysis on The 700 Club leads to an endorsement of some religious position. Pbrower2a (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"have asserted"

This sounds extremely awkward. Better to use a synonym like "contend" or "claim"?

Senior Trend (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I have to disagree. This turn of phrase is commonly used. Rapier (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, just wanted to hear what people thought. Senior Trend (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Repetition...

Down in the controversies section we see this:

"Many observers of the channel have asserted that it has a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party. Fox News has publicly denied such assertions.[45] Critics and other observers[46][47][48] have asserted that Fox News has a bias towards the political right at the expense of neutrality.[46][49]"

The first and third sentences mean virtually the same thing and make this introduction repetitive and cumbersome. I propose just replacing the first sentence with

"Many critics and observers[46][47][48] of the channel have asserted that Fox News has a bias favoring the political right and the Republican Party at the expense of neutrality.[46][49]"

And then deleting the third altogether. That should eliminate the absurd repetition while keeping the valuable sources added by the third sentence. Furthermore, I'd also question the necessity of the "at the expense of neutrality," bit, as bias in favor of something inherently implies that it's at the expense of neutrality, but that's far less of an issue. Antsache (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Stelter, Brian (October 12, 2009). "A Volley Between Fox News and Obama Administration". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-05.

[1] Stelter, Brian (October 12, 2009). "A Volley Between Fox News and Obama Administration". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-05.

[1]