Talk:Fox News Channel controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News Channel controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
February 2006 – July 2006 June 2006 – August 2006

Contents 1 PIPA poll criticism 2 Jeremy Glick Photo 3 Watchdog group mentioning removal 4 Clean up of weasel words 5 Acciendal dubbing of Democrats 6 John Moody 7 Bias? 8 Groseclose study 9 Obama Madrassa Media Scandal 10 Rationale behind my recent edit 11 Foxattacks.com

[edit] PIPA poll criticism

The article currently states "Criticism of the PIPA poll has been of a partisan nature." I goes on to list two critics of the poll and their comments: Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly making the statement true by defintion. Those who opposed the statement failed to meet my previous challenge to name one criticism of the PIPA poll that isn't partisan and satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. So, moving forward, since the truth of the statement is supported by the sentences that follow it does not require an additional supporting cite. Or, alternately, those who'd like to see it removed only need to come forward with a single criticism of the PIPA poll that isn't partisan. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's so inherently obvious, one might ask why the sentence is even needed. It might as well read, "Criticism of the PIPA poll has been done by white people". Equally "justified" by the facts, equally pointless. It seems obvious that the sentence is motivated by a desire to diminish criticism of the poll, but this is a very strange and non-encyclopedic way of going about it.

There's also the issue of whether Bill O'Reilly truly is a partisan. He claims to be independent. We've gone over this before, and you said he was a partisan because he works for Fox News, and thus has a vested interest against the poll; I'd argue that you're confusing the terms "partisan" and "interested party"; they're not synonymous. Korny O'Near 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary because there's crticism, and then there's partisan sniping, and the difference between the two is not always going to be apparent to lay readers. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Isarig's addition of putatively non-partisan criticism of the PIPA poll.[1] The talk page of another wiki, sourcewatch [2], is not a reliable source. I would say that Isarig needs to read WP:RS and WP:V, but since I know he already has, it's WP:POINT that he's unfamiliar with then. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You have previously insisted on the unsourced and unverifiable formulation "All criticism of the poll was of Partisan nature". We now have proof that not only was this unsourced and unverifiable, it was also wrong. There is criticism of the poll which is non-partisan. What you are now claiming is that non-partisan criticsm of the poll is found on blogs, which are not WP:RS. That's quite a different claim, and begs the question of why it is needed to editorialze in this manner. let's just list the criticisms and the critics and let the readers draw thier own conclusions about the sources and the nature of the criticism, as is the common practice throughout WP. Isarig 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. What part of "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." don't you understand? FeloniousMonk 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How about actually answering my question, and for once, stop violating WP:CIVIL? Isarig 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me FM answered your question. As for civility, why is it that every troll tries to hide behind that concept? •Jim62sch• 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And to me it seems he didn't. You come in calling me a troll and complain about people using W::CIVIL to complain about the behaviour of certain editors. What a joke. Isarig

I guess there's logic in there somewhere. I also note that I'm hardly the only editor who has noted that you are trolling. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Isarig's addition of more putatively non-partisan criticism of the PIPA poll.[3]Reading the James Taranto article it's clear that Taranto is partisan, advocating the conservative viewpoint. Also, one of the cites Isarig provided Taranto is criticizing John Carroll's use of the poll, not the poll itself.[4] Legitimate, non-partisan criticism of the poll would be an academic source, analysis by an impartial thinktank, etc. Not op-ed from a conservative commentator. Who's criticism of the PIPA poll is going to be cited next, Rush's? FeloniousMonk 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Using your logic, anyone who will be cited as critical of the poll will be a partisan. Both my cites(do take the time to rad them next tinme) refer to the poll itself as propaganda. You asked for a single non-partisan, WP:RS that criticizes the poll, I have given you the opinion page of the WSJ. There's no WP requirement that sources be academic. It's game over. Go pick a fight over something else. Isarig 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the WSJ: bastion of conservative editorialism (it's all about money and greed -- ggreed is good!--, you see). •Jim62sch• 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welocme to your opinion of the WSJ. The point stands - I've provided a sourced, WP:RS criticism of the poll which you've removed - that is vandalism. Isarig 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not vandalism, it was in keeping with previous reverts related to the issue.•Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing material sourced to WP:RS is vandalism. I a suggest you acquaint yourself with WP policies. The defence that others have also committed vandalism is hardly valid. Isarig 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Stop disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 15:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing material sourced to WP:RS is vandalism. I a suggest you acquaint yourself with WP policies. You will note that new editors are here telling you that your formulation is highly POV. Isarig 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, actually, it's not. yadda, yadda. •Jim62sch• 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From James Taranto: "Most of Taranto's commentary is politically oriented and conservative/libertarian in perspective. He mercilessly lambastes various public figures and organizations, from John Kerry, invariably described as "the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam," to Reuters, headlines about which always involve excessive use of quotes in mockery of the service's overuse of what Taranto calls "scare quotes." He's clearly partisan no matter how you slice it. Again, legitimate, non-partisan criticism of the poll would be an academic source, analysis by an impartial thinktank, etc. calling into question its methods or conclusions. FeloniousMonk 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read it, as well. He is described as "conservative/libertarian". Mind telling me what the libertarian position on the PIPA poll is, or on Fox News? I also note the other section you conveniently left out, which is particularly relevant to this media related dispute: "Best of the Web also includes non-political items which are concerned with journalism nationwide." You do not get to disaqualify sources because you don't like them, or because you percieve them as too "conservative" for you liking. WSJ is WP:RS, Taranto is "conservative/libertarian". Game over. Go find another nit to pick. Isarig 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As a former poli-sci major I've tried to discern the difference betwen conservatism and libertarianism and the only diff I've found is that libertarianism is more anarchic, and ironically, more conservative. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welocme to your POV. Perhaps you should spend some time correcting the information WP presents at Libertarianism (which does not refer to conservatism even once) and Conservatism which seems to bear out that they are distinct philosophies. that way you'll have less time to make uncivil attacks on other posters. Isarig 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether they cross reference each other is irrelevant. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd think that if they were the same thing, there'd be some mention of it. But I repeat my offer - go and enlighten the WP editors of those 2 articles that they are in fact, one and the same. Perhaps you should add a merge tag on one, or even both. Isarig 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing reading comprehension poses a problem: where did I say they were "one and the same"? •Jim62sch• 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Taranto is a conservative pundit. As mentioned in his Wikipedia article in his WSJ column, Best of the Web, Taranto is known for aggressively attacking the liberal position. A quick review of his articles at WSJ's OpinionJournal shows he constantly defends the Bush administration and the conservative agenda:[5] [6] Taranto also aggressively defends Fox News (which the PIPA poll among others implies is biased toward the conservative view):[7] [8] Writing from a particular POV is called partisan punditry where I come from, not that I expect you to admit that... FeloniousMonk 22:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Taranto is the editor of OpinionJournal.com, the WSJ's on-line editorial page. He describes his own politics as "my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road". His WP page describes him as a "conservative/libertarian". I'm sorry if he's too conservative for your liking, but there is nothing to identify him as a partisan in this issue. You have a WP:RS criticising the PIPA poll. Time for you to move on - maybe you can find another 700-google-hits Scando-Iranian blogger who once wrote "Fox is the SUCKs". This one is done. Isarig 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. Taranto is no less a partisan critic of the poll (or pundit) than Coulter or O'Reilly. FeloniousMonk 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

as I wrote before, by your tautological definition, anyone who criticizes the poll is a partisan. But sadly, you do not get to poison the well that way. And there is no excuse for removing the sourced material which inidates PIPA issued a clarification. Please self-revert that removal, as it is your 4th revert on this page in the last 24 hours. Isarig 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Learn to count, and stop trolling and disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You've removed properly sourced WP:RS material - which is vandalism - and have the nerve to call my edits disruptive. You will not bully me out of editing this article per WP guidlines no matter how many of your friends you enlist. You don't like Fox, fine. But don't disrupt the editing of this encyclopdia to suit your political bias. Isarig 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a slight stab at it as what was there before seemed awfully naughty in the POV area to me. Generally on issues such as that, in my opinion, the best way is to just lay the evidence on the table and let the reader decide. Something like "the PIPA poll has been criticized" (or whatever it is) but more pithy/better english :). RN 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't spoonfeed readers, true, but we can't assume they recognize biased opinion either. Op-ed, presented through the WSJ is easily mistaken for neutral reporting by a hungry or unschooled eye. Many of the readers here, a good number of which will be conservative themselves or schoolchildren, are unlikely to note the absence of legitimate non-partisan criticism, taking partisan criticism, which is nothing more than characterizations based on personal opinions, to be credible criticism. "The PIPA poll has been criticized by conservative pundits" is accurate and complete and fair, since there has been no criticism of the poll form other quarters such as other pollsters, academics, etc. FeloniousMonk 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with what you say, but I still have reservations about the pundit part, as it seems a little too specific and quite dismissive (yes, it is fairly obvious to those who follow american politics...). Even that is 1000% better then what was there before though. Also, maybe consider "Conservative pundits criticized the PIPA poll" or something to avoid the passive voice. RN 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "In response to the criticism and to the misuse of the poll's findings, PIPA issued a clarification on Oct. 17,, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks"^[1]." to read "Conservative columnist James Taranto claims that in response to the criticism and to the misuse of the poll's findings, PIPA issued a clarification on Oct. 17,, 2003..." Without a supporting cite to PIPA's actual clarification, all we have is Taranto's cited claim they did, and it's not like he doesn't have a dog in the race. I've searched the PIPA site, www.pipa.org, several different ways [9] [10] and cannot find this clarification that Taranto refers to. Until we do the best we can say is that Taranto claims PIPA has issued the clarification. FeloniousMonk 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Although, thinking of RN's comment, I'm wondering what the pedominantly American fear of the passive voice is all about. Does the passive voice require a higher level of reading comprehension? Yes, but certainly not above the standard reading level of an encyclopedia. Besides, the passive has been chugging along in English for over one thousand years...mainly because it has a value. Good thing we dropped the middle voice though -- just imagine the havoc that might wreak!  ;) •Jim62sch• 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the dislike of the passive voice is because it fails to name the actor and can be used to conceal information unfavorable to the the writers point of view: "It is said that..." instead of "The National Enquirer said..." Ucanlookitup 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one way of using it, but what I was referring to, and you example is can work the same way with the active voice. For example, let's say the IRS send you a notice stating that an error was found on your return and you'll be getting a refund. If it is phrased (active voice) as "We will be sending you a refund" that is actually a lie, as it is the Financial Management Service who will be sending you the check, whereas "A refund check will be sent to you", while passive, is far more accurate. Depends on the context. •Jim62sch• 01:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

but "Financial Management will be sending you a refund" would be both accurate and more informative. Geesh, how did we get on this tangent?

Again, without a cite to PIPA's actual clarification, all we have is a conservative columnist and now The Seattle Times' television critic's quoting it, which may not be complete and lack context. Until the full clarification from PIPA is found, the 'clarification' refered to needs to be attributed to those quoting it. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

you're applying a standard that is not used elswhere in WP. We have 2 WP:RS that say this (and needless to say, countless blogs that relate the detals of the PIPA clarification). PIPA never contested the information as it appeared in the Seattle times and the WSJ. Now, 3 years after the event, we have no on-line record of it on their site - so what? If you'd like, add a footnote that says the clarification is not on the PIPA site, but stop your POV-pushing edits along the lines that it's McFadden who says this. Isarig 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, specifically the definitions part, and explain how the statement "In response to the criticism and to the misuse of the poll's findings, PIPA issued a clarification..." does not assert a fact. A fact which is supported only by secondary sources, one of which, Taranto, has a verified conservative bias and the other we know nothing about. The fact that none of us searching here has been able to find a cite for the actual PIPA clarification from the primary source calls into question its existence. Particularly since it seems to be only touted by a conservative pundit and the, ahem, Seattle Times television critic and some bloggers [11]. So again, find a cite for the accutual PIPA clarification or accept that reference to it needs to be attributed per WP:RS and not be presented as a fact. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it to be fair and balanced. •Jim62sch• 20:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't see why Fox News is openly allowed to fabricate (or falsify) entirely whole new pieces of information like quotes or reports, without stating that the news programs do not share an opinion-based affiliation with the Fox network. This is the only way they can remain legal without having to state that they are simply following their "Constitutional" rights to free speech. I think that Jon Stewart said it best when he was on Crossfire, "Stop it...you're hurting America!". How true. Dark Observer 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Crossfire was on CNN. Dubc0724 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Glick Photo

I removed a photo and caption about Jeremy Glick. There was nothing in the article body about this incident, so the photo doesn't really belong (unless someone adds an item about it to the article body). Cbuhl79 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, why isn't there any mention of Glick in the article? Surely it's one of the most notable controversies surrounding the channel. - 81.178.65.251 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchdog group mentioning removal

Per WP:RS, we should be removing material from this page that is based solely on "watchdog group"'s views on accounts. The following are from the "Evaluating reliability" section:

• With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
• A particular source which aims to have credibility beyond a particular POV is generally regarded as more reliable than one whose audience is narrow in terms of its ideology, partisan agenda or point of view.
• In general it is preferable to cite the original source for an assertion, as well as important confirming sources. It is generally preferable to cite reliable sources over less reliable sources when given a choice.

Media Matters for America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and others are not services for which noteable controversies are brought to fame - just because these organizations may criticize networks for their work, it is not noteworthy in its own source just because they have. Many of this section here are sourced by only the first group listed; some are also sourced by the second. These services are not notable enough to be used as a source extensively in this article; just like other watchgroups like NewsBusters aren't notable enough to be sourced extensively in CNN's main or controversies article.

Sections in this article that only use watchdog groups as sources should either be removed or more sources should be sought. --Mrmiscellanious 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up of weasel words

Several example of point based solely on weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words) such as "some people say" have been removed. Sources based on referenced articles have not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.172.207.3 (talk • contribs) 06:24, September 19, 2006.

[edit] Acciendal dubbing of Democrats

Two reasons this should be reinstated into the artice:

• 1: It happened TWICE.[12]
• 2: The CNN Cheney X thing has a mention on the CNN controversy artice. Why this should be granted an exception in such a case is unclear.

--Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment by Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez. This is a notable incident that was widely reported. Also what did User:Aaron mean by "pulling rank"; I wasn't aware that contributors had rank. --CSTAR 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the two above users; the incident deserves mention. Whether the title of the section should be changed from "False Reporting" is another question. Sure, accidents happen everyday, but if there's controversy regarding biased reporting and O'Reilly's show just happens to label the most reviled politican in America a Democrat, then it deserves mention, Aaron's opinion about its motivation notwithstanding. MastCell 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was just coming back here to try to correct my "rank" statement (though there's no real way to alter an edit summary that I know of). I absolutely was not trying to make some sort of insinuation like "I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have, thus I know better." What I meant to say by that, and should have spelled out, is that TV news is my career, and more than once I've personally been responsible for some Chyron screwup that got on the air (and for which I have, more than once, been on the receiving end of more than one chewing out by my boss). You have to understand that this sort of thing happens every single day, on every news channel and on every local station's news broadcasts. This is a fast-paced business, where you don't have the time to leisurely pore over your graphics hours ahead of the broadcast looking for the tiniest misspelling. If you're lucky, and you work on a show where at least some of the contents are prepackaged and thus can be all put together in advance, you might get a spare two minutes here and there to quickly scan over the contents of the lower thirds you've already fed into the computer, hoping to catch really blatant errors. With this sort of half-assed system, you'll probably catch 75% of the mistakes ahead of time, but that still leaves one out of four that sails out onto the air. Add on top of that the fact that you're looking at a constant stream of (D)s and (R)s if your newscast has heavily political coverage, and chances are the only time you'll notice a mistake there if if it says something like (Y) between those parentheses instead of (R) or (D). And as I said, all of this is assuming you even get that extra time to plan ahead. A lot of these graphics are generated on the fly and fed into the computer more or less live. In that position you don't even have time to think. And on top of all that, you need to keep in mind that the entire control room staff at Fox and CNN and MSNBC tends to turn over every hour or so; the people running things at noon are gone by one, and the people running the show at one are going to be using their own graphics because they don't have a clue what the guys from noon had fed into the computer; thus, even more chances for screw ups.

Given all that, I think it's absolutely unfair to accuse Fox of a systematic campaign to switch people's party affilations around for partisan gain. It makes Wikipedia look like bad, because anyone coming here to look at this article that sees this listed (especially under the strongly POV subhead "false reporting") who knows anything about TV news will instantly discount the entire article as worthless. They know the (D)/(R) mixups can't possibly be true, so how can they trust anything else being allowed on the page? (As an aside, the Chaffee mistake is itself evidence that these are just mistakes; Chaffee is a Republican; why would they want to make people think he's a Democrat, especially less than a month before an election where the GOP may well lose the Senate? Qui bono?) --Aaron 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the CNN "Cheney X", it too is equally BS, and was just as much a meaningless dumb mistake. The X was from one of those "swooshes" that CNN uses to switch from one shot to another (usually when switching between two entirely different stories). It shows the director exactly where to cue up that piece of tape (actually, it's usually saved in RAM these days, but you know what I mean) so that when he hits the button, the "swoosh" will take over the screen at the exact moment he's switching camera shots. The next time you're watching CNN, take a look at it and notice that for just about 1/2 second, the "swoosh" fills up the entire screen; that's when the director's supposed to push the button to switch from one scene to the other. The result for the home viewer is a nice smooth transfer from some standup in Washington to, the swoosh and then to, oh, a weather report or something. But if the "swoosh" starts too early or too late, you'll actually see the switch between the two shots, which tends to come off as jarring to the home viewer and, worse, often involves a split second of the new scene being out of sync with the screen (you know, where you see a quick burst of bright static on the screen and the the new scene sliding up into view as what we used to call the "vertical hold" actually takes hold). So anyway, while that X was queued up, just waiting for the transfer from Cheney's speech to whatever was next in the lineup, the director simply hit a button by accident that caused whatever was on screen A (in this case, the X) to be laid over top of screen B (in this case, Dick Cheney live). It could just have easily have been a generic CNN logo plugged into a corner or even another piece of videotape that got overlayed. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, and everyone in TV news just laughed at poor CNN for getting attacked by all those "know-nothings" that just assumed it was an intentional plot.

So, in short: No, the X thing does not belong on the CNN page, and it renders that CNN page just as illegitmate in the eyes of those with actual TV news experience. However - and far more importantly for our purposes - the "what about article A?" argument doesn't carry much weight on Wikipedia. Each page is its own battlefield, and the fact that you find a similar screwup on another article doesn't mean this one should contain the same mistake. Likewise, nobody involved in this discussion is under any obligation to go over to the CNN article and take care of that X mess just because it was invoked over here. (Although I probably will at some point; it's been bothering me for a long time.)--Aaron 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment makes sense now, thanks for the explaination. And you have a point, but to make it more general, we shouldn't be accusing anyone of anything. We should be reporting the accusations of others. Whether or not we think they have merit doesn't matter; that is for the reader to decide. Gamaliel 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually Chafee has often been called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) by the right, his conservative credentials have been questioned, and there was an effort to run a more right-wing, conservative, party-line candidate against him in the primary - so labeling him as a Democrat could, conceivably, be intentional. O'reilly does have a well-documented history of dishonesty about things like this. Just as conceivably, it could be an accident of the type that Aaron describes. I like the edits that Isarig just made; I think this deserves short mention, but as Gamaliel said, it's not up to us to make accusations in the article. For that reason, we should reconsider the section heading "False Reporting" - what about "Accusations of false reporting" or some such thing? MastCell 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better heading. Gamaliel 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That heading may cover two of the incidents mentioned; however the incident about presidential candidate John Kerry seems clearly "false reporting". Whether it was meant as a joke or not is irrelevant, no? --CSTAR 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Moody

The link to John Moody in the Ownership and Management section goes to a John Moody who died in 1958. Is there a page for the Fox News exec John Moody?

[edit] Bias?

I found this video on YouTube of a MSNBC report of Fox News bias. I'm not sure when this was originally aired (posted on Nov. 15), but the news is alarming. Significant? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the complete transcript on the MSNBC website. Apparently, The Huffington Post found some memo regarding a Republican bias in Fox News. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Groseclose study

This article states, "A study published in November 2005 by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, comparing political bias from such news outlets as the New York Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, the Los Angeles Times, and Fox News’ Special Report, concluded that Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was closest to the political center, and that Special Report was the most centrist news program on television"

However, this contradicts the citation, which says "The most centrist outlet proved to be the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. CNN's NewsNight With Aaron Brown and ABC's Good Morning America were a close second and third." The citation also says that "Only Fox News' Special Report With Brit Hume and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

Initially, I was going to delete the offending portion, but, since removal would render the paragraph and the following one almost meaningless, I wanted to open discussion of this point. The purpose of the paragraph is, I assume, to present a study showing that FOX is not conservatively biased. If there are any studies that actually say this, they would be appropriate in this section, but the citation clearly does not say this. The following paragraph attempts to argue against the study's methodology, but this becomes meaningless, since the previous paragraph is no longer accurate in claiming that Special Report or Fox News is centrist.

I think either the 2 paragraphs should be rewritten with correct citations or they should be removed. Thoughts anyone? --Geespelvin 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No one responded in the last couple of days, so I went ahead and made changes. Although I think the paragraphs aren't completely clear, I wanted to at least change the incorrect statements about Special Report, so that it correctly reflects the two relevant conclusions of the citation, namely that according to the study Special Report is to the right of center and most news outlets are to the left. --Geespelvin 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Madrassa Media Scandal

I'll add this in this week, if anyone wants to help. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a some extra information on the FNC VP's involvement, as well as some citations.Athene cunicularia 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ADD THE MADRASSA SCANDAL?! This is a major, major incident that discredits fox reliability.

[edit] Rationale behind my recent edit

I just edited this article to try to clean up some misrepresentations. I'm not a Conservative, but rather a Libertarian, and I dislike Fox News as much as most of the Liberals, but I think its important to properly disclose that media watchdogs FAIR and Media Matters, news program Democracy Now, and the documentaries Outfoxed and The Corporation are liberal biased themselves. To not disclose stuff like that is to go down to the level of Fox News and is unacceptable. If you feel that liberal is too loaded of a term, feel free to change it to progressive or whatever the Dems are calling themselves these days. Just please don't portray left wing as objective by not disclosing the slant. You'll just strengthen the Conservatives case for Liberal Media bias and you definitely don't want to do that. 206.251.2.43 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded upon your recent edit, but I have not labelled the documentary or the essay as liberal. The producers of those two pieces of work present them as neutral and factual (regardless of their political leanings). Therefore that is a matter of point of view, and we at Wiki must remain neutral in these areas. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To 206.251.2.43: The article on Fox News Channel controversies is not the place to inject your opinion about whether a media group is "liberal". There are articles dedicated to each of these groups right here on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that they have their own "Controversy" sections that you can improve. If they don't, you can feel free to create one, using evidence and citations, that conveys your point. But if keep doing stuff like this, and it will be seen as vandalism- like what you did to the Prescott Bush article when you said "[He] would be ashamed to be the grandfather of current President George W. Bush."Athene cunicularia 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foxattacks.com

There should be a link to foxattacks.com since it is mostly based from clips from fox news.

they mention an interesting tactic for those who dont like fox news

STEP 1. Watch the Fox News Channel.

STEP 2. Identify local businesses that are advertising on the Fox News Channel. Find their contact info and enter it into our database so that other people will be able to contact these advertisers too.

STEP 3. Call and/or Write to these local businesses and (politely) ask them to stop advertising on Fox until Fox stops acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

perhaps this should be mentioned?

How about immolating themselves in front of the advertiser's headquarters? This tactic drew excellent media coverage in the 1970s. --CliffC 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

hello! after doin many searches and many readings to find the specifics on the lawsuits concerning a fox news affiliate WTVT, to keep this short, concerning the Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson. I'm just curious, shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere on this controversies page? oops forgot to sign first time, Lalelale 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)lalelale