Wikipedia

Talk:Fox News/Archive 12

< Talk:Fox News
Latest comment: 15 years ago by NcSchu in topic McClellan Admitted He Lied
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Draft to-do list

Here's a list of outstanding issues:

  • 206.15.101.1-2's edits. Here's the diff: [1]
  • Right-wing vs. Conservative
  • Ratings drop
  • AQH vs. CUME rating
  • Kerry's Pen
  • "Major Stories Fox Has Broken" in general
  • Oil-for-food
  • Cavuto - Social Security - Michael Jackson
  • Whistleblower lawsuit
  • Ailes "rebuttal"
  • FAIR bulletpoint rewrite
  • Bias section reorg

The last two aren't currently live, but are issues that I would like to see addressed. Does anybody else have anything to add? crazyeddie 17:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll go add them into the to-do list. Feel free to add stuff into there directly. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose getting a lot of editors on this page and going through these methodically, perhaps votes, etc. Also, does anyone have a suggestion as to what template to put on to the main page to get anons to come to this page before editing? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall a "controversial topic" template. Maybe that would be a good starting point? crazyeddie 17:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It says to only put the template on the talk page, but I'm looking for one that can be put in the article :( — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd imagine we could use it as a starting point, and adapt it for our own uses. Could we get a link to it? I wonder what the rationale is for only using it on the talk page? crazyeddie 17:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited the NPOV dispute header to be more specific to our situation, perhaps that would do? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except I'd take out the "possibly". This article is controversial, no question about it. crazyeddie 18:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am 206.15.101.2 - Why I made my edits

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I am 206.15.101.2. I made many edits on the page when I read what was there, because frankly it seemed to be written with very little neutrality at all. The page was seemingly written with the purpose of making Fox sound as right wing and conservative as possible. In only 1 case did I remove anything (I'll explain later). Here is the resoning behind my edits:

Roger's Aile's bio

1) Roger Ailes's bio - Isn't it odd that the network president's bio listed anything he did in his life that could be tried to Republicans, but nothing that he did which could be considered non partisan? Even more odd is that it would omit possibly the most relevant part of his bio- that he was the president of 2 other television networks before Fox (CNBC and America's Talking). It should probably also be noted that at CNBC he made huge gains in ratings and profits, something he is credited with doing at Fox. All I did was add more to his bio-- but because CNBC and america's Talking aren't considered "right wing", people would rather omit them.

As a matter of fact, no, it's not odd at all. Why? Because when evaluating the objectivity of a major news organization, it is essential to understand Ailes' three or four decades of close affiliation with the Republican party. (Three or four, depending whether you believe his affiliation ended in 1993 when he went "mainstream.")
While we are at it, we need to mention that Ailes was executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's television program, circa 1991.[2] ---asx- 21:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
----
My apologies on that one. I thought that you edited that bio section under the Bias section. My bad. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)


Here's the original text:

The CEO, Chairman, and President of FOX News is Roger Ailes. After he began his career in broadcasting, Ailes started Ailes Communications, Inc and was successful as a political strategist for Presidents Nixon and Reagan and in producing campaign TV commercials for Republican political candidates. His work for former President Richard M. Nixon was chronicled in the book The Selling of the President: 1968 by Joe McGinniss.

Here's 206.15.101.x's version:

The CEO, Chairman, and President of FOX News is Roger Ailes. After he began his career in broadcasting, Ailes started Ailes Communications, Inc and was successful as a political strategist for Presidents Nixon and Reagan and in producing campaign TV commercials for Republican political candidates. His work for former President Richard M. Nixon was chronicled in the book The Selling of the President: 1968 by Joe McGinniss. Before Fox, Ailes became president of NBC's cable channel CNBC in 1993> He deveoped another NBC cable channel, America's Talking, which later turned into MSNBC. Ailes also hosted his own nightly show, Straight For-wareL Ailes increased ratings 50% at CNBC during his tenure and profits tripled.

There does appear to be a few typographical errors in this version. Could Eric (that's 206.15.101.x, right?) clean those up? These errors were a major reason I mistook these edits as vandalism. Might also wikify a few things. Does anybody have any other objections to Eric's version (of this particular paragraph)? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much discussion on this point. If nobody objects, then I suggest archiving this section in one week. crazyeddie 07:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Murdoch/Newscorp

Murdoch / Newscorp - In this section said "Murdoch's ownership of several conservative outlets including the New York Post and The times". Omitted is that Murdoch and Newscorp own dozens (hundreds?) of companies, most NOT considered conservative. All I did is add a list of many of Murdoch's companies. Fox detractors would want you to think that he only owns conservative companies. Whaat is wrong with factually listing the companies?

Granted, not all of Murdoch's companies are considered conservative. But there just may be a more graceful way to make note of this distinction than listing all gazillion of the companies he does own.
I would welcome compromise language that makes it clear that not all of Murdoch's companies are conservative mouthpieces, but doesn't list all of his holdings. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Here's the current version to get you all started. Keep in mind that this is part of the Bias section, only evidence that either tends to prove bias or disprove it is ontopic. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

While digging through Silverback's recent edits to this article (preparing for the Silverback/Shem edit war item on the checklist), I ran across a bit that got lost in the shuffle. The link is good, but does require some soul-destroying registration. If what this source says is true, it does raise some questions about Newscorp. Are we really sure that it isn't the case that all of Murdoch-owned news sources really are conservative? Out of all of Murdoch's companies, how many are news sources? Out of those, how many are considered liberal or are at least not considered conservative? Out of those, how many were started by Murdoch/Newscorp and how many were acquired by Newscorp? (If a news source is considered liberal, and was relatively recently acquired by Murdoch/Newscorp, it could be that the new owners haven't had time to affect the corporate culture yet.) crazyeddie 7 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

This section also seems to no longer be under discussion. Let's archive it after a week. crazyeddie 07:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

WTVT Lawsuit

The WTVT Lawsuit - This is my only deletion. I deleted it because the page is about Fox News. Nothing else anywhere on the site talks about local affiliates. fox nwes was not sued. WTVT was. On the NBC Nwes page are there mentions of NBC local Affiliates that have been sued (they have been). On the ABC News page are there mentions of local ABC Afillates that have been sued? No. Again, the lawsuit was not against Fox News.

During the Trodel Rewrite, it was decided to retain this bulletpoint because it is a frequently used allegation. We retained it, but did our best to debunk it - by making clear that the lawsuit was against an affiliate, not FNC itself. However, Big Dave Diode has brought up evidence that FNC was involved in this lawsuit, despite the protection that the affilate system provides. So this topic is also earmarked for discussion elsewhere, and I suggest we table it. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. A review of my previous posts regarding WTVT's listed "in-house counsel" shows that Fox News' defense that this was "just an affiliate" and had nothing to do with them, is clearly and unquestionably false. Ailes' claim that he never read the Monsanto memo is difficult to believe when counsel in Atlanta is being assigned to a case in Florida. Please restore the deleted paragraphs.--Bigdavediode 1 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
BigDaveDiode again -- There is a good story at Salon which somewhat addresses Fox's relationship with its affiliates. It is regarding the Bush DUI story that Fox attempted to take credit for "breaking" (despite it being broken locally by the affiliate). The story is located at [4] Fox does takes full credit for their affiliates actions when it is convenient, but in the Monsanto case, they portray themselves as a disinterested third party. As you can read in the article, once broken locally Fox had little choice but to cover the DUI story. With this Monsanto case, however, Fox claims that this was just an affiliate and that it has no relationship to the affiliates.
Should there be any confusion left as to their control of affiliates, and their false denial of culpability in the Monsanto case, News Corp. has begun transferring 35 of their affiliates' TV licences to News Corp. You can see this here: [5]. Hardly the action of a non-controlling third party as they claim. I believe that their denials were false with an intent to deceive. It would assist readers in better determining what credibility they have if their behavior was accurately documented in the article. --24.83.2.136 06:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Currently, the paragraph has been restored. I intend to open discussions about revising this paragraph in the light of Big Dave's comments, after other issues have been resolved. crazyeddie 5 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

This bulletpoint apparently still needs to be rewritten (assuming that people aren't happy with the current version). However, I think this is being adressed under other sections of this talk page. Suggest we archive this in a week. crazyeddie 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

John Ellis

John Ellis - I added the line "a few minutes before the other networks" to the part about John Ellis (George Prescott Bush's cousin who was working for Network News Service and Fox Election Night 2000). Although conspiracy theorists like to say that Bush's father's cousin, working for Fox, decided that Bush should be president and made the call for Fox early. In reality, all the networks, looking at the same numbers, made the call at roughly the same time, and although Fox was first by a minute or two, every network made the same call within four minutes.

Again, a frequently used allegation (by conspiracy theorists). The Trodel Rewrite retained it in order to debunk it. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Original version:

  • That John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m [6]. Though all major networks called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m., Ellis has since admitted to informing both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone of how projections were going on election night. [7]

Eric's version:

  • That John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m a few minutes before the other networks.[8]. Though all major networks called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m., Ellis has since admitted to informing both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone of how projections were going on election night. [9]

Hmm, it appears that Eric's addition "a few minutes before the other networks." is redundant, because it is immediately followed by "Though all major networks...". However, it might also improve clarity. It does need an initial coma though, not to be grammar Nazi or anything :-). crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

So, other than the typo, opinions on Eric's proposed change? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

It looks as if the current version is still the original version. Does anybody prefer Eric's version? If not, let's archive this after one week. crazyeddie 07:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

FAIR Report

The FAIR Report - Here I added the label "liberal media watchdog group" to FAIR. I think it's important to point out who they are. Let me ask this question: The New York Post and The Times can be labeled "conservative outlets" and used as examples of Murdoch's conservative empire, but FAIR can't be labled "liberal"? The general thought on the Fox Wikipedia page seems to be that calling somethign Conservative is neutral, calling something liberal is not.

It was decided a while back, that if it's necessary to label FAIR at all, to use the label "progressive", since they have used that word to describe themselves. (Although, that was in the context that they support non-profit news services.) It was also decided, at the time, that no label was necessary. I have also suggested that we rewrite this bulletpoint, since it doesn't accurately describe FAIR's report. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

To put this another way, "liberal media watchdog group" has been inserted, word for word, into this bulletpoint any number of times, and, to date, everytime, the consensus was to remove it. Has that consensus now changed? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Unless somebody wants to again suggest adding this label, let's archive this section in one week. crazyeddie 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

On Air Personalities

On Air Personality Bios - This is another example where people clearly wanted to only list anything that can tie a Fox anchor to "conservative" outlets, and omit anything that doesn't. Again, I didn't delete anythign, I simply added RELEVANT facts. Wouldn't it be relevant to note that Brit hume spent 23 years at ABC News? And Seven years as their Chief White House Correspondent? What's wrong with listing that John Gibson was an anchor for MSNBC and reporter for NBC News? That Neil Cavuto was a host on CNBC for three hours a day and bureau chief of PBS' Nightly Business Report? These are facts... and just because they don't tie the anchors to conservative causes, doesn't mean they should be omitted.

The "On Air Personality" section is part of the Bias section (although it's called something else right now). The "real" bios section is here: FOX_News#Personalities. So, yes, background information that neither ties anchors to conservative causes, or doesn't tend to show them as something other than conservative, is clearly offtopic. crazyeddie 30 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Neil Cavuto

"Bush Apologist" - This is probably the least neutral thing on the page. It read: 

          "Neil Cavuto "has been described as a 'Bush apologist' by critics 
          after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President 
          George W. Bush wherein Cavuto told Bush that domestic lack of support 
          for the Social Security debate  was due to Americans being "distracted" 
          by Michael Jackson's child molestation trial."

First of all, the link you get when you click "critics" goes to Commondreams.org, a (proudly) liberal website. This is not a label I am assigning to them, here is what their website says: "Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future." So sourcing a website that's stated goal is to "to promote progesssive (liberal) visions for America" is neutral? Again, I didn't delete it, I simply pointed out that the source is a liberal activist group. Additionally, the wikipedia listing is incorrect when it says Neil Cavuto "told" Bush that lack of support for Social Security was due to the Michael Jackson trial. Cavuto ASKED Bush if he thought American's were distracted. There is a HUGE difference between an interviewer asking and telling.

I do have some misgivings about this Cavuto-Social Security-Michael Jackson passage, which was added rather recently. I can't personally can't make up my mind whether to keep it or not. This issue is already listed on the To-Do list. So, once again, could we table it for later discussion? Right now, I'd rather focus on issues unique to Eric's edits. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

This issue may or may not have already been settled. Either way, it's being covered further down. If nobody objects, let's archive this section in one week. crazyeddie 07:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OutFoxed and Newshounds

OutFoxed and Newshounds - Forget about the fact that having listed as "external links" two websites who'se only job/goal is to be anti-Fox seems a bit unfair... but to simply label "outfoxed" a "documentary" is very misleading. I labeled it what it is, an anti-Fox documentary.

I also pointed out that although it may appear from lookign at Wikipedia that Newshounds is an additional group that is anti-Fox, it is actually run by the same people who made "Outfoxed". The "News Hounds Manifesto" on their website says 

               "Like many projects, this one started out as something else. 
               In early 2004, eight middle-aged citizens from different 
                backgrounds and locations around the USA teamed up via MoveOn.org 
                and the internet (thank you, Al Gore!) to volunteer our services 
                for OUTFOXED, a documentary film by Robert Greenwald regarding 
                Fox News  Channel."

Again, I didn't delete it, I simply pointed out that it was the same people.

Original version:

Eric's version:

Since the name of the documentary is "Outfoxed: Rubert Murdoch's War on Journalism', do we really need to spell out "anti-Fox"? I think it is rather obvious. I have no objection, in principle, to noting that News Hounds is made by the same people as OutFoxed, but I do think that it can be written more gracefully from an aesthetic standpoint. I have no objections against it on the basis of POV. Perhaps we should list News Hounds first, and then mention that OutFoxed was made by the News Hounds people? crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

The name is "Rupert" not "Rubert." ---asx- 21:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objections to how this now stands in the article? If not let's archive in one week. crazyeddie 07:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary

In summary, I'm not trying to start any pro-Fox / Anti-Fox fights. I'm simply trying to put some FACTS on the site-- even if they don't support people's vision of trying to make Fox sound as conservative as possible. If this site is truly supposed to be neutral, what's wrong with having the anchors and president's bios on there-- INCLUDING the parts that don't sond republican? And why is it NPOV to label something conservative, but not NPOV to label something liberal? (even something like commondreams.org that is proudly liberal)?

I called 2 things liberal - commondreams.org and FAIR. Both were sourced without any explanation of who they were. However, in the "On Air Personalities" section, the following things are labeled conservative:

"...the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard"... "The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Manhattan Institute, a conservative thinktank"... "Tony Snow is a conservative columnist"...

Plus, when referring to John Gibson's show, it says it "is frequently cited as an example of FOX News deliberately blurring the lines between objective reporting and opinion/editorial programming." OK... by who? Frequently cited where?

These types of opinion/ POV are allowed to creep in... but my edits are not.

Sorry for any typos. had a lot to write and not a lot of time. EricEric125 29 June 2005 17:21 (UTC)

Personally, I think many of these edits are justified, although others may not. I look forward to working with you and the other editors in sorting this entire article out. Thanks for coming back and explaining yourself :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)
Yes, most of the changes were in good faith, not vandalism. I think if the Britt Hume bio is going to be that much longer than the other personalities, for appearances it should be put in a separate entry. That make sense given his role in putting the organization together and giving it credibility.--Silverback June 29, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Perhaps, and then give a short mention in the article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 29 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

The Brit Hume bio is actually part of the Bias section. The "real" bios section is here: FOX_News#Personalities. Before Eric's edits, the Brit Hume paragraph consisted of a single sentence. Since this bio is part of the Bias section, the additional information is offtopic. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Any objections to archiving this section? If not, let's archive, after one week. crazyeddie 07:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No progress by the reverters

Latest comment: 18 years ago33 comments4 people in discussion

Those who kept reverting to restore the "right-wing" name calling still have not given references for the labeling of certain personalities as "right-wing", and still have not proposed language properly attributing such labeling. Since the protection is not helping, it should be removed. I would like to get this language that noone appears willing to support (except by reverting) out of the article.--Silverback June 30, 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Why do you think we protected the page?!— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Here is a compilation of Silverback's recent edits. Other than Silverback, it should not be assumed that "So-and-so's version" means that So-and-so endorses that particular version, it's just that So-and-so was the last person to edit before Silverback. Let's take this item by item shall we? crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Ratings success

Already marked for later discussion. Suggest tabling. crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

What do you mean by tabling? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tabling is short for "laying on the table". Parlimentary speak for "Let's pause this discussion and get back to it later." I'm afraid if we open too many threads of discussion at once, it's going to be messy. We already have enough things to discuss opened already. Let's get those issues decided, then we can pull the next one off the stack. crazyeddie 08:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Major news stories first broken by Fox News

Already marked for later discussion. Suggest tabling. crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

This section should be removed in its entirety. These are NOT major news stories, they have NOT been taken up as major stories by the mainstream (i.e. non conservative) media as major stories. Nor has there been any further development of the stories since they were first 'broken'. None of the individuals identified by Fox have been indicted or removed from office - although there have been other individuals who have been removed from office or convicted.

The claims made by Fox in the oil for food scandal would certainly never be allowed to remain in Wikipedia as 'facts'. At this point they remain unproven assertions and fairly unreliable ones at that. the description of them as 'Major Stories Broken by Fox News' is in effect an endorsement of the truth of those articles. At the very least the section would have to say 'the truth of these allegations is disputed and unproven'. Once you add in the disclaimer the section is utterly pointless. If people want to keep the section it should point to stories that have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and not as was the case with this section a current controversy where the motives of Fox in publishing the story are very much in dispute. If we were writing an article on the Washington post before Nixon resigned it would be relevant to have a section headed 'Watergate allegations' or such, but it would not be appropriate to have a headline describing it as a scoop, broken news or any other plaudit. --Gorgonzilla 01:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A few hours after the change Fox themselves post an AP story that identifies a different person entirely as the recipient of kickbacks [10]. Fox did not break the oil for food scandal, only the accusations that have not (so far) been justified. The accusations against Volker in particular appear to be unfounded at this stage as Volker headed the enquiry that issued the report. --Gorgonzilla 03:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

While I'm certainly willing to agree that the stories listed weren't major, I think this section would be worthwhile. How about putting the section header back in, put up a "expand this" message. We should also make a note that stories must be vetted on the talk page first, to ensure that they are major and that FNC did break them. How does this idea sound? If nobody else seconds it, I'll let it drop. crazyeddie 07:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversies and allegations of bias (Intro)

Silverback's version, as of 06:20, 26 June 2005[11], and of 12:10, 23 June 2005[12]

FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim that the network has a conservative bias and tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most allege that bias at FOX News is systemic, and implemented to target an largely Republican audience.
Many media commentators and competitors have alleged that FOX News' reporting is characterized by editorials disguised as news and have jokingly referred to FOX News as the "Faux News Network", the "Republican News Network", or "Unfair and Unbalanced." Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[13]

FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim that the network has a conservative bias and tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most allege that bias at FOX News is systemic, and implemented to target a largely right-wing audience.
Many media commentators and competitors have alleged that FOX News' reporting is characterized by right-wing editorials disguised as news, and have jokingly referred to FOX News as the "Faux News Network", the "Republican News Network", "Fear and Bias" or "Unfair and Unbalanced." Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:

Comments

As a Fox critic myself, I do not allege that Fox targets a largely Republican audience, but I do allege that it targets a largely conservative audience. Many conservatives are not members of the Republican party. Also, if we are including the nicknames that critics have for Fox News, I see no reason not to include "Fear and Bias".

So, I support retaining the current version. I might be in favor of replacing "a largely right-wing audience" with "a largely conservative audience", but only if there is a consensus for doing so. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

I agree...and perhaps Republican party should also be changed in your version to something about right-wing. Whenever I hear allegations of bias it's conservatives not republicans. Republicans can be liberal as well. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I would disagree that Republicans can be liberal. Moderate perhaps, but not generally liberal. (Barring the occasional oddball one-percenters.) Furthermore, the FAIR report mentions that (in their opinion at least), Fox has both a conservative and a Republican agenda, and that sometimes the two agendas conflict. (FAIR gave an example of one incident where a Fox anchor criticized Bush for not being conservative enough, and drew fire from Republicians.) Basically, the way I see it, about a third of the country is Republican, a third of the country is Democrat. The remaining third is uncommitted (or members of a minor party). Much of the conservative population are commmitted Republicans, but some are members of the uncommitted third. FOX, IMO, is targeting the entire conservative population, not just the portion that are Republicans. Then there are the liberals and moderates who tune in to see what all the fuss is about...

I would say that it is safe to say that critics of Fox allege that Fox is biased both pro-conservative and pro-Republican. And, if necessary, we have a source to prove it - the FAIR report I mentioned. crazyeddie 08:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Just in case, by "prove it", I mean that critics allege, not that these allegations are true. crazyeddie 08:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that critics of Fox news are joking when they refer to it as 'Faux News' does not honestly represent their views. It suggests that they consider the bias in Fox News to be trivial and humorous rather than intentionally dishonest propaganda. Regarldess of whether this view is fair or unfair it is a sincerely held belief and the introduction of modifiers to reduce the impact of the criticism is actually one of the main things that Fox is accused of employing in their reports.

So you are suggesting removing the "jokingly"? Does anybody else want to comment on this issue? crazyeddie 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggest archiving this section after one week. If anybody has objections to the way the intro now stands, then let's start a new talk section to cover those objections. crazyeddie 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

On-air personalities

Silverback suggested alternate title: Allegations of Bias among On-air Personalities [14]

Intro

Shem's version, as of 11:39, 19 June 2005 [15]

A number of Fox News' anchors are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.

Silverback's version as of 07:24, 19 June 2005 [16]

Many of Fox News's anchors are considered to be right-wing conservative by the channel's critics.

24.186.137.160's version, as of 04:24, 26 June 2005[17], and JamesMLane's version, as of 11:49, 23 June 2005[18]

A number of Fox News Channel' anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.

Silverback's version, as of 06:20, 26 June 2005[19], and as of 12:10, 23 June 2005[20]

A number of Fox News Channel' anchors, hosts and personalities self-identify as conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[21]

A number of Fox News Channel' anchors, hosts and personalities are self-professed right-wing conservatives, and several others are considered such by the channel's critics.
Comments

I suggest replacing "anchors, hosts and personailites" with "on-air talent". "Right-wing conservative" is not redundant, since it might describe someone who is right-wing even for a conservative. However, in lack of other evidence, I highly doubt anybody would self-describe themselves as such. So: crazyeddie 8 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Crazyeddie's proposed version

Many members of Fox News Channel's on-air talent are self-professed conservatives. Several others are considered to be right-wing or conservative by the channel's critics.


I'd use crazyeddie's version, as I thought to myself as well that right-wing conservatives is redundant. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, then after one week, I'll go ahead and make the change, and archive this section. crazyeddie 07:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Silverback's version as of 07:24, 19 June 2005[22]

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[23], and Shem's version, as of 11:39, 19 June 2005[[24]]

Comments

Silverback, what is your rationale for your proposed changes? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

I propose something along the lines of : — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ilyanep's Proposed Version
That, or we remove the Rush Limbaugh statement and make it "second in the country" or something. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... How about this? (Editing mostly done for aesthetic reasons.) Why do you want to take out the Rush Limbaugh statement? crazyeddie 08:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Any objections to my version? Shem? Ilyanep? Anybody? crazyeddie 07:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

Silverback's version, as of 12:10, 23 June 2005[25], as of 06:20, 26 June 20052005[26]

  • One of the most well-known personalities is the popular Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the O'Reilly Factor; O'Reilly often faces criticism from the left over perceived pro-war slant in his news coverage. O'Reilly himself maintains that he is politically independent (chiefly due to libertarian positions on social issues like homosexuality and marijuana legislation). O'Reilly frequently uses incendiary, nationalist rhetoric toward those who hold disagreeing positions, such as accusing Senator Dick Durbin of "slamming America" and "condemning his own country" over Durbin's criticism of the conditions at the United States' Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. [27]

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[28], also JamesMLane's version, as of 11:49, 23 June 2005[29], 24.186.137.160's version, as of 04:24, 26 June 2005[30]

  • One of the most well-known personalities is the popular Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the O'Reilly Factor; O'Reilly often faces criticism from the left over perceived pro-war, right-wing slant in his news coverage. O'Reilly himself maintains that he is politically independent (chiefly due to libertarian positions on social issues like homosexuality and marijuana legislation). O'Reilly frequently uses incendiary, nationalist rhetoric toward those who hold disagreeing positions, such as accusing Senator Dick Durbin of "slamming America" and "condemning his own country" over Durbin's criticism of the conditions at the United States' Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. [31]
Comments

Silverback seems here to be arguing that the left doesn't perceive Bill O'Reilly as slanting his news coverage towards the right-wing. For evidence otherwise, I submit Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness. Although this document doesn't actually contain the phrase "right-wing", it does argue that he slants his coverage in a pro-Republican, pro-conservative manner. It also has the follow sentence: "His often proclaimed opposition to the death penalty quickly wanders off to the far right." I think this could be understood that the left does perceive that Bill O'Reilly does slant his news coverage in a right-wing manner.

If that is not enough evidence, a quick google search using "Bill O'Reilly right-wing" (with no quotes) brings up http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ , which contains the sentence "Hosts like Bill O'Reilly give FOX news a clear right-wing bias." in the first paragraph.

Is this enough sources, or do you require more, Silverback? Do you wish for us to link to these sources in article? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Is this a joke? "Sources" are www.oreilly-sucks.com and "Bill O'Reilly's sheer O'Reillyness"? I thought the entire point of this page was to print NEUTRAL facts. Is the source on the Pepsi page Pepsi-sucks.com? Are the sources on the Coke Page coke-sucks.com? In this day and age, obviously there are people who hate everything, and most of them have websites. To use as "sources" of FACTS websites whose only purpose is to be anti-something is not exactly fair. (Not to menttion that I agree with all of the criticisms of the group FAIR... Fox is criticized for claiming to be non biased but FAIR isn't? Find me any something that FAIR has criticized that isn't conservative).
Wikipedia is not FoxNews – you can attack the "bias" at these sources all day, but you've said nothing to dispute their factual accuracy. Critics are absolutely valid sources; Wikipedia accurately frames facts (events, commentary, biography, et al) within a neutral point of view, but is not some ideologically sterile advertisement wherein persons and entities are presented free from their controversies and criticisms. As for FAIR, if you have a problem with them, you're welcome to go try editing their article. Also, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~ . Shem(talk) 21:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

From the Best Buy article: "A consumer advocacy website targeting Best Buy, BestBuySux.org, has received thousands of letters from disgruntled employees and customers, and ranks among the most popular consumer advocacy websites on the Internet." Although much of the Best Buy criticisms section is unsourced, I recognize much of it from bestbuysux.org. So, yes, it would appear that xsux.org websites are valid sources.

Please read or re-read Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it is often misunderstood.

Note that the current version isn't saying that Bill O'Reilly is giving a right-wing slant to his coverage, it is saying that the left perceives him as giving a right-wing slang. This is in accordance with the NPOV policy. Does anybody seriously wish to dispute this statement about how the left perceives things? crazyeddie 19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think pro-war should be removed and right-wing should remain, and add something about some hard conservatives crticizing O'Reilly as well. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm fairly sure he's pro-war as well, and that might tend to annoy the left. Do we have sources for this hard conservative criticism? crazyeddie 08:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This section seems to have gone dead. Let's archive this. If anybody has any objections to this article section as it now stands, let's start a new talk section. If there are no objections, let's archive this section after one week. crazyeddie 07:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Neil Cavuto

Topic already on to-do list for later discussion, suggest tabling. crazyeddie 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Corax's version, as of 06:44, 19 June 2005[32]

Silverback's version, as of 07:19, 19 June 2005[34]

Rhobite's version, as of 18:21, 19 June 2005[36]

Silverback's version, as of 21:08, 19 June 2005[38]

Rama's version, as of 14:15, 20 June 2005[40]

Silverback's version, as of 18:59, 20 June 2005[42]

Rhobite's version, as of 04:58, 21 June 2005[44]

Silverback's version, as of 05:14, 21 June 2005[46]

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[48]

In most of these versions there is a vewry important factual error. Cavuto didn't TELL Bush anything. He asked a question. There is a very big difference. It would help if people actually watched the interview or at least read the transcript [53]

Comments

This topic is already earmarked for discussion elsewhere. I suggest tabling it, and archiving for future reference when we take the topic back off the table. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

In most of these versions there is a vewry important factual error. Cavuto didn't TELL Bush anything. He asked a question. There is a very big difference. It would help if people actually watched the interview or at least read the transcript [54]

If this is the only problem people have with this paragraph, then it is easily fixed. However, I expect objections to this paragraph run deeper than that. Assuming that the langauge is changed to reflect the fact that Cavuto asked a leading question instead of making a direct statement, does anybody have any further objections to this paragraph as it now stands? crazyeddie 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I really like the last one. Really Strongly vote to use that one. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, by "last one", do you mean "the current version", or "let's just fix the 'told' bit"? crazyeddie 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, the issue is still potentially live, but the section itself seems dead. Let's archive this section, and if anybody wants to bring up this issue again, we'll start a new section. crazyeddie 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Alan Colmes

Rhobite's version, as of 18:21, 19 June 2005[55]

  • Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left as being a political moderate and for percieved submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program. Still, FOX News frequently cites Colmes' affiliation with the network when accused of right-wing bias. This has led to the development of the term Fox News liberal.

Silverback's version, as of 21:08, 19 June 2005[56]

  • Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the anti-globalism anarcho-progressives as being a political moderate and for percieved submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program.

Rama's version, as of 14:15, 20 June 2005[57]

  • Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left as being a political moderate and for perceived submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program. [58]

Silverback's version, as of 18:59, 20 June 2005[59]

  • Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left for occasionally conceding points. [60]

Rhobite's version, as of 04:58, 21 June 2005[61]

  • Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left as being a political moderate and for perceived submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program. [62]

Silverback's version, as of 05:14, 21 June 2005[63]

  • Alan Colmes is a self-professed liberal, although he is frequently criticized by the left for occasionally conceding points. [64]

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[65]

  • Alan Colmes is touted by Fox as "a hard-hitting liberal" ([66]), but he has been criticized by some on the left as being a political moderate and for perceived submissiveness compared with Sean Hannity, with whom he shares a program ([67]).
Comments

In the current version, the labels, and who are applying these labels, seem to be correctly sourced. I see no reason to change the current version. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Colmes is not criticised for moderate views, he is criticized for not really presenting any contrary views at all. It is also significant that he actually reports to Hannity. This is Colmes' first job as a political pundit and he owes it entirely to Hannity. It is very unlikely he would get another job as a pundit on CNN or any other network if he left. Colmes is not hard hitting, he is hit hard and repeatedly and never says boo back--Gorgonzilla 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Disagree; Colmes is very often criticised for being nowhere near as far to the Left as Hannity is to the Right, thus not being an adequate representative of the Left on the show. Shem(talk) 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Well Colmes gets to say so little that it is not really possible to determine what his politics might be, he is shouted down the minute he tries. I think the wording as is does not represent the criticism you make here. The current wording suggests that the left are complaining about Colmes being moderate. The real problem is that he simply does not ask hard questions that might puncture Hanity's balloon. His real role on the show is to provide Hanity with a punchbag. Joe Biden is widely regarded as a moderate but he would easily puncture Hanity's prevaracations, miss-statements and plain ignorance.--Gorgonzilla 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Second point is that Colmes is not criticized for perceived submissiveness he is criticized for submissiveness. The fact that this is a POV is already signalled by the fact that it is prefixed by 'Some on the left' --Gorgonzilla 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, here. Is there anyone of pro-Fox POV here (who has also watched H & C on a semi-regular basis) who would honestly assert that Hannity is not dominant on the show? Shem(talk) 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Third point here is that Colmes is not really criticized, he is dismissed. I don't think that there are very many people on the left who think Colmes is important enough to criticize. He is the TV news equivalent of the sprig of parsley used to garnish a Porterhouse steak, he simply isn't important enough to merit criticism. The real argument here is that like the parsley sprig Colmes is only there to draw attention away from the real nature of the dish. --Gorgonzilla 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Both this section and the issue it covers is still very much alive. I suggest archiving everything above "Comments", and leave the rest with a header called "Alan Colmes". crazyeddie 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Trademark Disputes

Silverback's version, as of 06:20, 26 June 20052005[68], and as of 12:10, 23 June 2005[69]

In 2003, Penguin Books published Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, by the comedian and writer Al Franken. The book criticized FOX News among the media outlets as biased. Before the book was released, FOX brought a lawsuit, alleging that the book's subtitle violated FOX's trademark in the promotional phrase "Fair and Balanced". On that basis, FOX moved for a preliminary injunction to block the publication of the book. The United States District Court Judge hearing the case denied the motion, characterizing FOX's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally". FOX then withdrew the suit. Franken then suggested that the judge's phrase "Wholly Without Merit" would make a more appropriate slogan for FOX.

Current version, as of 17:19, 29 June 2005[70], also JamesMLane's version, as of 11:49, 23 June 2005[71], 24.186.137.160's version, as of 04:24, 26 June 2005[72]

In 2003, Penguin Books published Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, by the comedian and writer Al Franken. The book criticized many right-wing individuals and institutions on grounds of inaccuracy; it included FOX News among the media outlets described as biased. Before the book was released, FOX brought a lawsuit, alleging that the book's subtitle violated FOX's trademark in the promotional phrase "Fair and Balanced". On that basis, FOX moved for a preliminary injunction to block the publication of the book. The United States District Court Judge hearing the case denied the motion, characterizing FOX's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally". FOX then withdrew the suit. Franken then suggested that the judge's phrase "Wholly Without Merit" would make a more appropriate slogan for FOX.

Comments

Here is the main difference:

Current version:

"The book criticized many right-wing individuals and institutions on grounds of inaccuracy; it included FOX News among the media outlets described as biased."

Silverback's version:

"The book criticized FOX News among the media outlets as biased."

Silverback, what is your rationale for your proposed changes? crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Issue and section seem to be dead - suggest archiving. crazyeddie 08:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree the page is slanted very anti-Fox

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I agree. It seems as though just calling something conservative or "right wing" counts as being neutral. Plus, as Eric stated above, how could something possibly be considered neutral that says "John Gibson... is frequently cited as an example of FOX News deliberately blurring the lines between objective reporting and opinion/editorial programming...." Cited by who? Your friends? I'm sure there are lots of people who "frequently cite" the same about any other network. If this is being cited frequently by a well-respected, neutral group, why not say who? (the link goes to yaams.org... which does not "frequently cite" that anyway).

A google search shows 606,000 occurrences of "Fox news" and bias. The same figures for the BBC and CNN are 137,000 and 33,000 respectively. Regardless of whether the claim is fair (it is) Fox has the lowest reputation for accuracy amongst non-viewers in the US media.

Same with Neil Cavuto. He has been "described as a "Bush apologist" by "critics" (a liberal website). So we're allowed to put any name calling on this site, and it become neutral? There are plenty of people who don't share that opinion... can I link to their website?

It certainly seems that the only thing that "sticks" on this page is something that accuses Fox of being right wing. (Not only does the Ailes bio leave out his previous experince running 2 other television networks Eric, but it doesn't mention that he was named Broadcaster of the Year by Broadcast and Cable Magazine in 2003). It seems as though to make it onto here there has to be something that furthers the cause of tying FNC to Republicans. From reading his bio on Wikipedia, you'd think he never worked in TV before, only worked for Republicans. In fact, in addition to running 2 other networks, he was a producer and director for KYW-TV,and Executive Producer of The Mike Douglas Show, for which he won two Emmys. [73]

The list goes on and on... Fitzhume 30 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Conservative Columnist? - one thing I forgot... it's interesting to see how the page says that Cavuto "has been a popular syndicated columnist on both Townhall.com and NewsMax.com"... Well actually his column was syndicated by Creator's Syndicate [www.creators.com], an international syndicate that goes to hundreds if not thousands of newspapers and websites. It's funny that whoever wrote the Wikipedia listing chose two conservative websites that picked up his column... but not any of the hundreds of others that are NOT considered conservative.


Yawn. Gibson doesn't blur the lines, he eliminates them. Cavuto is a Bush apologist. That's as NPOV as you can get to describing what they do. Next question.
Well then will you people please stop attacking and let's start thinking about specific points that we can fix? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 30 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree with Fitzhume, lets stray away from using conservative or liberal sites to "name-call" each of the "anchors" on Fox News, if not purely for space reasons, as once one goes in there, this article is going to get pretty big. If Cavuto truly is conservative, I think one can simply find details about his life that would lead the reader to believe he is conservative without quoting any pundits/whackjobs on the net. That is, unless we have any primary sources or quotes from the anchors themselves that describe themselves, or info otherwise like voting records or member associations, etc. --kizzle June 30, 2005 16:35 (UTC)
To a certain extent, I agree. In fact, I would go so far to suggest that evidence that individual anchors are biased isn't entirely evidence that FNC as a whole is biased. However, if the conservative viewpoint is overly represented, then that would be evidence that FNC is biased as a whole. There is also the question of what thesis the anti-fox POV is trying to demonstrate in this article. Some of these allegations go beyond mere bias, some appear to be actual accusations of lapses in journalistic ethics. I'm proposing that we reorganize the Bias section (or whatever you want to call it) into three sections: "Allegations of Editoral Bias", "Allegations of Bias in Reporting", and "Alleged Violations of Journalisitc Ethics". There are many other, more minor, issues I'd like to work out first before going into this reorganization for real, but I am curious to see if other people agree with this general notion. crazyeddie 1 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
Actually the John Gibson statement is on very solid ground, indeed it's a massive understatement. In the UK John Gibson (and to a certain extent Fox News) is known solely because our national regulator, OFCOM, censured Fox News over an op-ed piece by Gibson about the BBC. OFCOM found that Gibson falsely attributed words to a BBC reporter. Gibson is unashamedly right wing so I don't think we can pretend that he's on air in the interests of truth and honesty. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)
Hmm, could have phrased that last sentence better. I don't mean that right wing means dishonest. But Gibson has been caught being dishonest and does adopt an extreme rightwing stance. It's a bit much to just pass him off as an independent pundit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Exactly. Look at what you just wrote. You started out with evidence of Gibson being censured and falsely attributing, then you concluded that "Gibson is unashamedly right-wing". So lets include in the article all the information you used to conclude this without the actual conclusion that "Gibson is right-wing". Let the reader decide from the same information you have, rather than us spoon feed the reader. --kizzle June 30, 2005 17:33 (UTC)

Hey, first off, POV on the talk page is acceptable, just so long as the end result is a NPOV article. Secondly, Tony didn't say "Gibson was censured and falsely attributing." and then conclude that Gibson was right wing. Instead, he said that Gibson was censured and falsely attributing, and that he is unashamedly right-wing.

Also, Tony, which Gibson statement were you talking about? There's two in the current version of the article crazyeddie 1 July 2005 19:10 (UTC):

  • John Gibson's afternoon block of news coverage, "The Big Story", is frequently cited as an example of FOX News deliberately blurring the lines between objective reporting and opinion/editorial programming. Gibson gained notoriety immediately after the 2000 presidential election controversy for his advocating the burning of all ballots involved in the election dispute once George W. Bush was sworn into office: "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? I mean, should we burn those ballots, preserve them in amber, or shred them? George Bush is going to be president. And who needs to know that he's not a legitimate president?" [74]
  • An opinion piece on the Hutton Inquiry decision, in which John Gibson said the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [75]. In reviewing viewer complaints, Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: "respect for truth", "opportunity to take part", and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Fox News admitted that Gilligan had not actually said the words that John Gibson appeared to attribute to him; OfCom rejected the claim that it was intended to be a paraphrase. (see Ofcom complaint, response and ruling).

Suggest archiving this section. Objections? crazyeddie 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just skip to the point?

Couldn't this whole issue be resolved very simply? Rather than getting into a very obvious POV discussion regarding CNN vs. Fox News, wouldn't it be objective to simply state that "Fox News is generally considered to be more conservative than CNN, while CNN is generally considered to be more liberal than Fox News."

Remove all references to right-wing or left-wing. Don’t try to imply that either one is more accurate than the other. Stop trying to add un-quoted or mostly editorial (from both sides) references, and state what seems to be pretty clear: Fox generally reports from a more conservative viewpoint and CNN generally reports from a more liberal viewpoint. Leave the marketing out of it.

I don’t think this perspective is presented as POV. It seems to me that both sides of the spectrum consider themselves to be the “correct” or “accurate” view, and that their opposition is either to the right or to the left of themselves. Acknowledge the relationship but don’t imply that one is more correct than the other.

If you think that CNN is unbiased and accurate, you probably think that Fox has a conservative bias. If you think that Fox is unbiased and accurate, you probably think that CNN has a liberal bias.

Can’t we reasonably add an article that states these perceptions without making a judgment call as to the relative accuracy of either perception?

State the two perspectives, add no more than two citations for both, and leave the individual biographies off of the main pages of both topics. Within six months, the lineup of both stations will change dramatically, while the editorial perspectives will (likely) remain the same. Keep the important stuff on the main page and don’t unnecessarily add triviality just to try to prove a point of bias. Intelligent people will be able to scan the article, follow up with the citations, and then make their own decisions.

I welcome anyone pointing out unexpected bias in this edit.

On the other hand, it's my first edit. Be nice :) (edited to add signature) --Wikiweasel 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

AFAICT, in the current version of the article, CNN is not mentioned in connection with bias. CNN is mentioned in regards to ratings. So, whether or not Fox is biased is being considered independent of whether or not CNN is biased. Personally, that's the way I like it.

Furthermore, in many people's minds, the problem isn't that Fox is biased, it's that Fox refuses to admit that it is biased. FAIR, in its report "The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt"[76], had this to say in summary:

Some have suggested that Fox's conservative point of view and its Republican leanings render the network inherently unworthy as a news outlet. FAIR believes that view is misguided. The United States is unusual, perhaps even unique, in having a journalistic culture so fiercely wedded to the elusive notion of "objective" news (an idea of relatively recent historical vintage even in the U.S.). In Great Britain, papers like the conservative Times of London and the left-leaning Guardian deliver consistently excellent coverage while making no secret of their respective points of view. There's nothing keeping American journalists from doing the same.
If anything, it is partly the disingenuous claim to objectivity that is corroding the integrity of the news business. American journalists claim to represent all political views with an open mind, yet in practice a narrow bipartisan centrism excludes dissenting points of view: No major newspaper editorial page opposed NAFTA; virtually all endorse U.S. airstrikes on Iraq; and single-payer health care proposals find almost no backers among them.
With the ascendance of Fox News Channel, we now have a national conservative TV network in addition to the established centrist outlets. But like the mainstream networks, Fox refuses to admit its political point of view. The result is a skewed center-to-right media spectrum made worse by the refusal to acknowledge any tilt at all.
Fox could potentially represent a valuable contribution to the journalistic mix if it admitted it had a conservative point of view, if it beefed up its hard news and investigative coverage (and cut back on the tabloid sensationalism), and if there were an openly left-leaning TV news channel capable of balancing both Fox's conservatism and CNN's centrism.

Additionally, some of these allegations go beyond accusing Fox of mere bias, but are actually alleging violations of journalistic intergrity. Which is why I'm proposing a reorganization of the Bias section, in order to make it more clear what exactly the critics are alleging, and to give the defense a greater opportunity of rebutting these allegations. crazyeddie 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Suggest archiving this section. Objections? crazyeddie 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions -- page should be moved

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

According to the Manual of Style, "Fox" should have an initial capital letter only. We as Wikipedians do not give a crap what Rupert Murdoch thinks the trademark should look like; we are impartial third parties who are not subject to his whims.

I'd do the move myself but the page is protected at the moment. Whomever gets around to it should move the Talk page as well.

See precedents at Dish Network and Sirius Satellite Radio if you plan on contesting this move.—chris.lawson (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the move...Dunno about anyone else. In fact, I'd move Dish back as well. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but the MoS dictates otherwise. I would advise you -- and anyone else -- have a look at Walsh's erudite commentary on this subject here: [77]
What makes it even worse is that the editors on this page can't seem to decide which of the two they wish to use. In the text, it's a fairly even mix of "FOX" and "Fox", which is utterly ridiculous. I don't care how old-fashioned it makes me sound; the MoS and Bill Walsh are right on this one. —chris.lawson (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't have much of an opinion on this one. I'd just like to say I feel a bit disoriented seeing "Wikipedians" and "impartial" in the same sentence together. Then again, I do seem to be hanging out in one of the rougher neighborhoods of the 'pedia. And it was a runon. Anyway... crazyeddie 08:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Issue seems to have been resolved. Let's archive this section. crazyeddie 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Unprotected.

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've unprotected the page. Let's reach a consensus here and make edits according to it. If there's another revert war I may consider re-protecting. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Per the MoS, I'm moving it and changing all occurrences of "FOX" in the article to the proper case. If there is strenuous objection to such, discuss it on the new Talk page. —chris.lawson (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggest archiving this section. crazyeddie 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

McClellan Admitted He Lied

Latest comment: 15 years ago47 comments13 people in discussion

WH Press Sec Scott McClellan admitted he lied to Chris Matthews about feeding WH talking points to Fox News commentators. This was like a week ago. Why is it still being reported as fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.116 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reference? DockHi 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Youtube video of him on Bill O'Reilly's show, I'll quote my own post in another section above: "By the by, in that video McClellan only says the White House did not send talking points to O'Reilly specifically; his assertion that the White House was doing it to Fox News in general still stands and that's what's reflected in the article." If you have a source where he specifically states that he lied about everything, then by all means post that here. NcSchu(Talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Youtube is hardly a reliable source. DockHi 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, one could quote the transcript of the discussion. NcSchu(Talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is in a reliable source, of course. DockHi 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
YouTube is simply a record of the actual primary source. And, all references( and I mean ALL) should be third party commentary. In other words, this information does not belong in the article at all, unless a third party reliable source commented on it. But that would make this article really short and we wouldn't want that now would we? Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This has no merit because Scott was replaced. He's telling left biased news agency everything they want to hear to sell his book. Talking points are sent all to ALL PRESS, not just Fox. And Scott said, Mathews misconstrued & misunderstood the discussion. Mathews baited him. You're posting of this one disgruntled failure of a political servant is an obvious bias and is not even a footnote in Fox News history. Do you post comments by noted Ann Coulter about CNN or MSNBC? Or Tony Snow's accusations during White House briefings of reportiing bias on those specific news sites? Or how about this, reporting that Hillary Clinton's campaign manager said Fox News was the ONLY news channel to give her a fair shake, the ONLY ONE. Shouldn't that be noted? And the guy who said it to this day holds that true. (fixed/updaged my log in) Taqiyyacrusader (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are not bound to respond to people who fake their signature. DockuHi 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Was that sarcasm? Anyway, I kind of assumed the anon user faked the signature on account that it was identically formatted like mine despite that user never formatting his signature and that he never contributed to pages similar to this, and the fact that it wasn't added with four ~ but instead was added by an IP address. In regards to the response, it's so filled with POV opinion and biases I don't see a need to address it. NcSchu(Talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no sarcasm intended. I really thought and still think that it was fake signature. DockuHi 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it was hard for me to tell—damn Internet! NcSchu(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, seems this has turned into a bottomless pit of mischaracterization. McClelland did not "admit he lied," he simply clarified that the White House did not contact O'Reilly specifically. There is little doubt that they routinely fed talking points to FNC (and others) -- this is hardly a new accusation, and only serves to give substantial credibility to what others have already said. If memory serves correctly, Olbermann posted an email he received from the White House in 2003 that specifically contained talking points (presumably before the White House realized the nature of Olbermann's broadcast). Let's be very careful when presenting fiction as fact and mischaracterizing the actions of others (be they former White House Press Secretaries or other Wikipedia editors).  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I got this logging thing figured out... but McCllelland was misunderstood by Chris Mathews, baited. Check Oreilly's interview of Scott the next day. So for you to put in as a 'gotcha'..oh...I mean as informative, about Fox News is ridiculous. BTW, the White House has a press secetrary & staff who send out talking points, agendas, info, what have you. Obermann can ridicule it. You can act like its a conspiracy. And this report on Fox News is littered with liberal attacks. How about if you take it all out and place in one section. And make sure the same is done for CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC. Except they are liberal bias of course. Taqiyyacrusader (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't for us to judge whether he was 'baited' or not. He said what he said in the first interview, and only took back O'Reilly's involvement in the second. I still don't see a justifiable reason to say he reneged on his entire statement when no notable source says so. NcSchu(Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is for you to judge. To put it in as NOTEWORTHY for an ENTIRE NEWS CHANNEL? Taqiyyacrusader (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - who are you editors? What are your qualifications? How is this article in any way consistent with Fox News primary counterparts such as MSNBC and CNN? I tried to delete this McClennan paragraph because he admitted that they did not supply talking points to Fox News. Your rebuttal is that unless McClennan specifically says that they did not send talking points to individually listed members of Fox, then his general statement will stand and be posted. This is akin to the DNA has cleared the wrongly convicted man, he is scheduled to be released, but he is still GUILTY because the judge hasnt technically signed the order yet. Common sense should tell you the McClennan statement to MSNBC is iffy at best and not reliable, yet you include it! Is this consistent editors with how other subject matter, i.e. CNN and MSNBC are portrayed?Smorrow66 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Give us a source in which McClellan admitted this! That's what we're asking for, but it has not been supplied. This is really just quite a simple thing. We have a reliable source for the original incrimination, hence it's included as it is a very serious accusation from somebody in a position to know. We don't have a reliable source for what you are saying, and citing that Youtube video or O'Reilly Factor transcript will not result in the paragraph being removed as it doesn't contradict the entire accusation. NcSchu(Talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I am the 'wikipedia editor' that initially added the section (I am using a different IP right now). when I added this information, I made sure to state that press releases are very comman and that McClelland stated that the talking points issued were different from a press release. Moreover, the article clearly states that he did not give these to journalists, just commentators. We can speculate as to why McClellan sais this on a 'liberal' network; yes he does have a book out. But without proof, that is, again, just speculation. I thnik we need to look at ourselves and decide what we are really upset about; and the answer is that politics is the heart of this debate. Those of us that are conservative (or whatever) don’t like damming info coming out that counters the fair and balanced nature of Fox. But ask yourself this. If the same info came out about MSNBC or CNN--don’t you think it should be included in the article on those news sources. The answer is yes. And it should not be based on politics, it should be about fairness and accuracy in reporting. We all want that regardless of ideology. Just because the whitehouse gave out some talking points does not therefore mean that the entire republican party is wrong or should be disbanded--it just means there was some unethical behavior among a small group of people. If I said, for instance, "I hate puppies" and later came out and said that I was lying (which McClellan never actually admited to) well I still said that I hated them regardless of what I said afterwards, and my original statement should be notted. McClellan said there were talkings points given to some (not all) fox news commentators, this article is fair in that it specifies that it was not to journalists. McClellan never admitted who he gave it to, may not O'Reilly but maybe everyone else. Heck, maybe it was only one guy--but he still said it. If Clinton was talking directly into the ear of Olbermann, that should be reported too. We work with what we have. Lets try and keep our news organizations living up to the Fair and Balanced standard that they state they are. Therefore, I believe this section needs to remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.49 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things - 1) if you say that McClennan never said who he gave it too - it is unsubstantiated. Need facts to say this is a controversy other than McClennan's winks and nods. Second - you said it yourself - He has a book to sell. How about listing that too! When you state that he said that - it becomes fact in the eyes of the reader. Listing that he is currently selling a book and he is stating these things on a traditionally anti-Bush (anti-white and anti-American) channel will give the viewer the opportunity to judge for themselves the validity of the McClennan claims. The source of the McClennan retraction was his appearance on O'Rielly's radio show - and how about a line where McClennan says that Matthews took his comments out of context? This is only FAIR AND BALANCED - sorry for the yelling but its just so obvious that Fox News is always going to be stressed to be the controversial news channel because liberals hate it since its a popular channel that reflects the views of a large number of viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorrow66 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A Few things-Please act with some civility. How is it unsubstantiated if he didnt say who he gave it to. He said he gave it to fox news commentators. He did say it and he DID NOT say he was lying--he said he never gave them to O'Reilly. Moreover, he still made the initial statements. If Obama says he loves islam and hates america, and then says he was lying or forced into those states by reverend wright..you sure as hell would want those statements listed on his page right? Exactly, because it is all about politics for you. Furthermore, we cannot state that McClellan said this because he has a book out, he may have said it because it was the TRUTH. if it was false, why hasnt fox news filed a lawsuit against him for defamation? WHy havent they, because they would have to admit that he was right. And i dont think we should the take advice on making this article NPOV from someone that says taht a TV network is Anti-American because a few commentators dont agree with President Bush. You are right buddy, everyone who doesnt agree with you hates america and wants it to die? Really man? Reagardless if Fox "reflects the views of a large number of people" (which, again, is unsubstantiated because you dont have a citation for that) doesnt mean that this event did not happen. The fact is that there is proof that McClellan said he gave talking points to fox, we can cite that. YOu dont have proof that he did not, and you have to base your argument around the same tired fallacies (liberals hate fox and they hate america so we need to keep those fags off the internet because they are just adding liews. Here is an idea, try basing your argument for the removal of this section on FACTS, no opinions, or do you even know how to do that?

This section is an extention of the accusation of bias against FNC. It should be removed from here and put into the controversies page since it is undue weight for the main page, and allegations of bias already summarize this type of controversy as a summary for the subpage. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with doing that. Not to be uncivil, but , Smorrow66, who's McClennan? NcSchu(Talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu - you are correct. My fault - it is Scott McClellan - my misspelling. As for the person who posted without listing their user name - funny how this person calls for "civility" and goes down the road of name calling. In my opinion - some networks are Anti-American based on my views of what a good American is. Also - funny how this person procedes to put words in my mouth and chararacterizes my comments as Homophobic because of line that "we need to keep those fags off the internet." Really - how very rude of that person. Please provide a citation of where I ever said "keep those fags...." You cant do it. You are just as guilty of what you accuse me of.

My whole point in this thing is that McClellan, while selling a book on a competitor's news channel, made some vague comments that the White House provided commentators on Fox News some "talking points". I heard him retract on the O'Reilly show and say that O'Reilly was never given anything like this. All I have asked for is some context to be provided on this section. As a school teacher I have always been amazed by how many students blindly go to Wikipedia and just accept what is there on face value. Of course - due to the open nature of this program - (which is getting better every day, by the way) too many hands can be in the pot. I always explain to my students that they can have any point of view they want so long as they can back it up with facts. To that end - my complaint here is that the McClellan posting is posted as fact, without context. To the person who claims it is my job to prove McClellan did not give talking points so therefore he did - strikes me as ludicrious. Just a note in the body that this a contested issue is enough. Also - does Wikipedia only edit if defamation lawsuits are filed?


"To the person who claims it is my job to prove McClellan did not give talking points so therefore he did - strikes me as ludicrious." Indeed that would be ludicrious if McClellan had never said it, but he did. The section in question is making a claim developed out of thin air, and then tasking others to prove that the statement is false--because if they cannot, then it must be true. McClellan said the white house gave talking points to some, not all, fox news people. I dont think it is necessary to state that O'Reilly was not one of those, because the initial statement by McClellan did not indicate that everyone got these memos. I think we would have to list all of the news commentators and state whether or not they got these talking points--a task that would be impossible without the defamation suit to which you alluded. To compromise, why dont we add something like "while promoting his book on the hardball show...." at the begining so that it clearly states that he may have had an agenda, though we dont know that--in the same way we dont know who got the talking points. I will add that part in if the article is not locked and tell me if it is a good comrpomise. I think we both are letting ideology get in the way of a good article. But i would never call anyone un-american because they beleive something different than me. I am sure you will agree that questioning our government is patriotic, that is what the Revolution was all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.102.187 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

i added the fact he was promoting a tell-all book. and i stated that the commentators were unammed. i didnt add in the part about o'reilly because McClellan was not on the show when he made the claim, nor was he mentioned at all in the section a being pertinent to the subject. it seems like if we state O'reilly, we would have to list everyone else and we just dont have that info. i think the inclusion of the book part puts everything in context. are we coll nnow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.102.187 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deal and it reads well. I hate the my use of the words Un-American were taken literally. I was thinking sarcastically when I wrote that but of course sarcasm has difficulty coming through. All of us are good Americans if we speak up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.160.59 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I changed "a 'tell all' book" to "his memoir, What Happened" in order to correspond to the official genre. The original wording also sounded a bit sensationalist—keep it basic, people. Now, shall we move this to the controversies article? NcSchu(Talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Though the implications of McClellan's admission are broad and serious, many of the other controversies are just as grave... I don't see that this has gotten enough traction to remain in the main FNC article; at this time it is probably more appropriate here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blaxthos, if you think the move is in the best interests of Wikipedia and its mission, then go for it. There seem to only be a few people that care about this section--and you've put more time into this page as any of us. So it's fine by me if everyone else agrees.--130.108.197.97 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. DockuHi 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole section concerning Scott McClellan's allegations should be deleted on the ground that it is not WP:NOTABLE unless the White House was distributing talking points EXCLUSIVELY to FOX. If the White House was distributing its talking points to the media widely, for use by whomever or whenever anyone in the media sees fit, this is a non-story. If McClellen is backing off the fingering of anyone specific (and it certainly looks that way when he says "he messed up") such that you're left with something general then there's no story here because for a NOTABLE feeding of talking points to occur, it would have to be to someone or something SPECIFIC, not just "the media".Bdell555 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N (and the concept it defines) does not apply to article content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Call it WP:UNDUE, then, although "undue weight" is, policy-wise, a sub-set of WP:NPOV and I don't really see this as a bias against FOX problem so much as something that doesn't say anything much against FOX if the allegation has been progressively qualified and/or contested such that it can't be properly discussed without an excessive amount of text relative to the article.Bdell555 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot of 'ifs' and McClellan states it was strictly to Fox News, making it noteworthy and relevant to the mention somewhere. It has been more than a week since these allegations were made apparent, and so far only the specific allegation towards O'Reilly has been retracted. Also, I'm not sure when this happened but somebody changed 'commentators' to 'hosts', when it is clearly the former that McClellan is trying to stress in the interview. NcSchu(Talk) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of even a partial retraction if there is a partial retraction? I removed "unnamed" because nothing in the MSNBC transcript cited as a source for "unnamed" suggests that McClellan did NOT have specific names in mind. In fact, Matthews asks him point blank, "Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever?" and McClellan, far from denying that Bill or Sean were "called", replies "Certainly. Certainly." If, at another time and place, McClellan clarified his allegations such that he wants them understood as being with respect to "unnamed" persons, fine, add a sentence saying he later clarified (or whatever word you want to use) accordingly, cited to a source where he clarifies. But don't conflate two separate instances of McClellan commentary, one to Matthews and one to, say, O'Reilly, into one.Bdell555 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I might add that other sources say White House talking points are routinely distributed widely, which would mean that any claim by McClellan that "it was strictly to Fox News" is contested, and Wikipedia should acknowlege that the claim is contested.Bdell555 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a link, please? The wording of the question Matthews asked is very tricky, as McClellan could have been answering either "Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever?" or "Did you do that as a regular thing?". It's not for us to judge, which is why specific names were not mentioned. The 'unnamed' text was added on the side of caution, as McClellan never explicitly stated names. NcSchu(Talk) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
??? The link to the Matthews transcript is cited in the article! You are clearly "judging" when you conclude that McClellan did NOT mean to name Sean or Bill or anyone else. The transcript is far too ambiguous to justify that conclusion of yours. The absence of data doesn't prove anything. See argument from ignorance. Even if it did, to engage in such reasoning in order to justify the addition of material ("unnamed") that the source does directly state is original research.Bdell555 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between judging how a certain conversation reads and just ignoring a particularly difficult passage altogether, which is what I'm doing in my reading of this. We take what we have, and what we don't have are specific names. NcSchu(Talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

would it help to know that McClellan varified his Hardball statements on Olbermann's Countdown that same night. You can go to Countdown's page and get the transcript. I dont think he would have still been confused if he left Matthew's show, had time to think about it, and then made the same statement to Olbermann. It was the same night's broadcast as the interview in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.49 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor has tried to add information about O'Reilly's reply twice. Now, I removed it both times simply because of a poor reference, but it's also a bit factually incorrect as McClellan did not retract the entire statement, only that O'Reilly was one of the outlets. NcSchu(Talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu, i agree with you. The new text reads as if he retracted the entire statements (because that is exactly what the editor added). But this is misleading and incorrect as he did not retract his statement, he just said that Bill O'Reilly didnt receive the memos. I am not sure why the O'Reilly part is necessary at all because it does not negate what he said. Why is this such a problem!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.197.97 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ok. So we have a little edit war or something going here. Look at the size of this discussion section. One side does not think the statements given on the Oreilly show are pertinent, while the other side thinks it makes the entire accusation false. Here is my compromise, McClellan said on Oreilly that Bill didnt receive the memos, Mclellan never said the whole thing was false (he even verified his statements to Keith Olbermann on COuntdown), but he did say that Oreilly was exonerated from the charges. I added the following sentence that i think can make everyone happy.

Note: McClellan later noted on the Oreilly Factor that Fox News commentator, Bill O'Reilly, was not one of the individuals receiving said talking points from the White House.

There we go, it mentions Oreilly--which is what everyone wanted. I think that is fair. Now can we please move one to more important matters. Or do we need to make an entire article devouted to this talking points scandal. God Bless.

--130.108.197.97 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I was looking for a way to add that in as a simple sentence but failed multiple times at making it sound right. I just removed 'Note' as it that sounded really informal and unencyclopedic. NcSchu(Talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Are things usually this bad when it comes to wikipedia? I mean goodness, it was like the lincoln-douglas debates in here?!?--130.108.197.97 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be, especially when something's controversial. NcSchu(Talk) 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be scared off though! Get a username and be happy! NcSchu(Talk) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News/Archive_12&oldid=1136277710"