Talk:Fox News

Active discussions
  (Redirected from Talk:FOX News)
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Concern: The introduction mentions alleged bias or other controversial information.
  • WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. It is appropriate to overview the controversies and allegations of bias, as these are substantial.
Concern: The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say Fox News is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well?
  • Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, the view that Fox is conservative dominates. For the lead we restrict ourselves to the dominant view, conservative bias, while noting that this viewpoint has dissenters. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias. No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
Concern: Does the article take any position regarding the allegations of bias?
  • Wikipedia takes no position on whether Fox News is biased. The introduction highlights the existence of a notable controversy concerning the perception that the network promotes conservative political positions. Neither the introduction nor the article takes a position on whether such a perception is accurate, we merely reflect the consensus of reliable independent sources.
Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.

Newfound opposition to Trump, oppositionEdit

My recent edits on the new relationship between Trump/Trumpism and Fox News has been reverted. I understand that the lead should be a summary of the article, but I think these new developments (as well as the rise of Newsmax and OANN as far-right alternatives as a result of Fox's more critical stance on Trump, bolstered by Trump himself) should be mentioned as this issue has been mentioned a few times on the talk page. – Bangalamania (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that Fox News still counts a being pro-Trump, with its prime-time conspiracy theorists considering Mr. Trump to be the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election. It may be useful to note in the body of the article, however, that Fox News has been met with increasing criticism from right-wing watchers who do not consider it conservative enough and would prefer far-right media outlets. While that may be true, it would be ironic, considering that Fox News was the one that reflected and reinforced its viewers' anti-Democratic Party ideas. As much as I have been disgusted by its journalistic standards, I would actually feel bad to see it dissolve because it was not "conservative" enough. FreeMediaKid! 01:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree with you on all points there, although I would add that if it is mentioned in the body of the article that there should be a brief mention in the lead of Trump supporters' opposition to Fox ebbing away. And I do note the irony of seeing right-wingers calling out Fox for being "Faux News" because it isn't right-wing enough. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello freemediakid!, can you provide a reliable independent source for you statement about conspiracy theorist. But I also agree with the OP, it could use an update as this is a big change in the way they are reporting. WILDGUN96 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

RevertEdit

A edit I made moving the descriptor of "conservative" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead and added "some" to the statement former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives", with the reason given that these edits were "not an improvement". As per remedies, I have raised this here to see if a consensus developed. In the mean time, as more than 24 hours has passed since my original edit, again as per remedies, I will re-instate. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits (the first of which removed "conservative" and the second of which de-emphasized it) are a violation of the editing restrictions on this page, as well as a the spirit of WP:BRD. Fox News is a "conservative cable news channel" and should be described as such (as countless reliable sources do). Just saying it's a "cable news channel" and adding a sentence lower down the lead about how it is "known for its conservatism" is not the same, and fails to clearly and succinctly inform readers that its primary claim to notability is as a conservative news channel. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Its primary claim to notability is not as a conservative news channel. Its commentary content certainly is, but its news reporting is (nominally, at least) independent. RS do describe it as having such an opinion stance, but it's not befitting of the first sentence. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:WEASEL regarding the word "some" Vrrajkum (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing practices that are antithetical to improving this articleEdit

A certain editor, whom I will not name, has as I see it showed an aversion to even slight improvements to this article. I plan to restore my most recent edit, which was already a compromise as I see it, as more than 24h has passed. Any editor who has an opposition to these is free to justify those here, in accordance with ArbCom remedies. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You are edit warring and not assuming good faith. Gain consensus for your edits. O3000 (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020Edit

Shorten the final paragraph of the article’s introduction. It is nearly identical to the Political alignment section of the article. I understand why deleting the paragraph would not be feasible, but I believe cutting it down is very much necessary given that there’s few differences between the paragraph and the Political alignment section of the article. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Swil999 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020Edit

2603:9001:407:C800:56BD:79FF:FE4D:6E3D (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally find your "accessible reading material" on FOX NEWS is incorrectly based! FOX NEWS' contributions are open, clear, and informative for all open minded, clear thinking & true information seekers!

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fox's pattern of anti-semitic attacks on George SorosEdit

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#NPOV_issues_on_wiki_with_regards_to_politics, @Masem: has suggested that the section Fox_News#Glenn_Beck's_comments_about_George_Soros should be expanded to cover the entire pattern of anti-semitic attacks that have been made by Fox hosts. I am starting this discussion here to work on wording and establish sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)comments by this sock puppet are struck per wp:talko

More specifically, I suggest that the section talk in general about Fox's controversial hosts and the network's apparant continued support for them; touching briefly on any specific incidents with them on the assumption that the host's bio page would have more detailed coverage. It's not just Beck that is controversal at Fox, but also Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. My point at the NPOV board is that this article gets a bit too focused on microscopic aspects when those aspects are better covered as part of the macroscopic picture of criticism of Fox. --Masem (t) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"Specific incidents" would seem to also include specific long-term TARGETS of Fox's attacks, correct? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The way I would envision a section would be "Controversial hosts" and would be read something like (not final wording, this is off the cuff) "Fox News has been criticized for its continued support of its controversial hosts of its various talk and opinion shows. Among such hosts include: (list format here to have two or three sentences on each) Glenn Beck, who has spent several years making anti-Semitic remarks and false conspiracy theories about George Soros. Fox has defended Beck's comments as..." with the understanding that if I went to Beck's page, there's probably a good full paragraph or three about this (and I see there is). Remember that this article (Fox News) should center on criticism of Fox News, and so in talking about Beck specifically, we need to establish just enough (his repeated attacks on Soros) to understand in reasonable depth why Fox is criticized for carrying Beck, not for why Beck is criticized. Leave details of the latter to Beck's page. --Masem (t) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Asking you and others to help provide sources regarding anti-semitism by Fox hosts or regular contributors below. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) ===General background:===

Sources re: Glenn BeckEdit

Sources re: Tucker CarlsonEdit

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/20/tucker-carlson-claims-he-didnt-use-anti-semitic-trope-despite-suggesting-vindman-has-a-dual-loyalty/

Sources re: Newt GingrichEdit

Sources re: "Fox & Friends"Edit

Fox NewsEdit

Comment only. I like the information all being in one spot. (like a book). Don't break it all up please. 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:101:5F0:E455:40FF:2C22:563C (talk)

"and conservative columnists, such as Jennifer Rubin"Edit

Jennifer Rubin does not identify as a Conservative and has sought to distance herself from that label. Should this sentence be rewritten? Juno (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, Rubin was a conservative when she had the valor (the gall, I would call it, although that term has negative connotations, so it is best to avoid it) to criticize Fox News. While I do believe that she still considers herself to be a 1990s-kind conservative and not a right-wing populist, it is irrelevant to write down what she believes now. However, if she had cited Fox News as a reason for her denouncing current right-wing politics—which could be mistaken as 1990s conservatism—I could see someone clarifying in the Fox News article that she has since renounced the label, citing Fox News as one of the reasons. FreeMediaKid! 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021Edit

In the controversy section, there is a subsection called Journalistic ethical standards. This section should include the case of McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC. This case determined that Tucker Carlson is NOT being a reliable source of facts. This is the argument of the Fox news lawyers. There are many articles about this case including the judge of the case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye 2600:1009:B016:9143:8967:869:58E4:22A0 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 15:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Fox News" page.