Talk:Fox News controversies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fox News controversies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 6 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

How Fox News distorts the news: A Mueller case study

There should be something useful for this article here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add Joe Walsh warns that Americans listening to Fox News are lied to daily ?

Joe Walsh warns that Americans listening to Fox News are lied to daily on YouTube CNN Nov 3, 2019

X1\ (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the hyphens?

The first paragraph under political figures has a bunch of extra hyphens, but there appears to be a note saying not to delete them. Why is that? Frobird (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegations of bias"

What sort of section title is that? Is there any doubt that the "allegations" are true? I did not see any quotes doubting the right-wing character of Fox. "Allegations" are always something that is contradicted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles such as CNN controversies treat bias claims as allegations. Why should this article be any different? PailSimon (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Those are two different questions. The CNN article says "It's not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either", so, what I said above does not apply there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointing out a double standard with regards to the thinking of others is certainly a valid observation. The CNN article goes into significant detail regarding Allegations of bias but I think you would agree that to point out that CNN has a centrist establishment liberal bias would be a violation of neutrality. PailSimon (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pointing out a double standard with regards to the thinking of others is certainly a valid observation Not according to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, not on Wikipedia Talk pages, where the subject is the improvement of one specific page. If all pages were wrong in one specific aspect, it would be impossible to change that, according to your logic, since the first attempt at change would be rejected by pointing out that it is the same on other pages. That is why the rules are different, that is why we should not follow your logic, and that is why WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST exists. So, since this is the Talk page of Fox News controversies, let's talk about Fox News controversies and not about anything else. You are free to do the same thing I am doing here on other Talk pages, such as the CNN one.

So, please explain why it is an "allegation" if nobody ever contradicted it. But this time without any red herrings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy so I'm not sure why you're so reliant on it. Wikipedia does not prohibit analogous arguments. PailSimon (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More red herrings. I am still waiting for you to explain why it is an "allegation" if nobody ever contradicted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analogies are certainly not red herrings, regardless the article itself states in the lead that it is contradicted.... PailSimon (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! The end of distraction and start of actual discussion. I'd never thought I'd see the day.

I did not see that one because it is in the wrong place. It does belong in the "Allegations of bias" section. The lead should summarize the article and not introduce new stuff. I'll move it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in both really. If the bias Allegations are to be included in the lead then the rebuttal should also.PailSimon (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did keep the sentence in the lead. You deleted it in the article, then unnecessarily reinstated the exact same content twice. A "summary" is supposed to summarize, not repeat. I don't think you know what you are doing. But I guess it's not as bad as before. I can't expect an ideal solution in an environment rife with distraction and obstruction, such as US politics, expecially when the subject is Faux News. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well a summary is by definition a repetition of information. Regardless feel free to add more on responses to allegations of bias to remedy the situation as you see it.PailSimon (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the lead to avoid suggesting that it's only allegations and added the notable example in relation to climate change reporting, —Paleo Neonate – 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hob Gadling for review as the thread is somewhat old, —Paleo Neonate – 21:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm COVID-19 would be another excellent example, there exist related sources... —Paleo Neonate – 21:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not enthusiastic about the word "criticized", since it is used in Wikipedia for everything between a tantrum and a thorough refutation, but cannot think of a better term at the moment. And I still think that the "Fox News has denied" stuff does not belong in the lead, per WP:MANDY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mentioning the refutation doesn't provide any useful information, and this isn't a BLP, more appropriate would be a refutation of the sources that criticize it by other reliable independent sources... As for "criticized" another option would be avoiding any suggestion of attribution (i.e. if it's not considered an opinion, per YESPOV it could be something like "Is notable for...", "Has reported ... misleading ...", etc. —Paleo Neonate – 18:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tentative middle ground using "described" rather than "criticized" perhaps... —Paleo Neonate – 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black lives matter

There are independent sources reporting about misleading coverage including using altered pictures and strategic image montages, —Paleo Neonate – 18:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

Other than failing to acknowledge that it's a human problem that has always existed and that in societies where abortion is illegal or medical support unavailable it is still practiced at home or by unqualified clinics using dangerous means, there also are sources reporting about pushing a conspiracy theory that the liberals plot to legalize the killing of already born babies... —Paleo Neonate – 18:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]