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)