Talk:Fox News/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just looked at this article and I have to say I am disappointed at the state it is in. A continuous stream of NPOV edits like "It can be noted that most of these countries have ties with the U.S. military or U.S. military involvement." A list of personalities and why they suck "Bias among on-air personalities". That may (or may not) be true but the allegations of bias shouldn't be 1/2 the size of the article. No quoting of resources on any of the additions, have all the old editors (

No one has described anyone as "sucking," and sources have been included. Your reverts are an example of attempting POV via ommission. I encourage users to note 205.188.117.8's contributions. [1] 206.255.13.8 20:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can't defend your edits as NPOV - do the only thing you can - try to shift the focus to the person challenging you - This is an AOL proxy - my edits are all clean. 205.188.117.8 20:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits were defended above, which you ignored. No one has used any bashing, nor has anyone referring to FOX anchors as "sucking." I fail to see how objectively presenting FOX anchors' views - often with direct links to their work published on FOXNews.com itself - is POV. Your edits are not clean; persistent reverting in an attempt to remove accurate information on controversial persons, often from their own mouths, is blatant POV-pushing. The discussion on Allegations of Bias is there for a reason; there is a similar section at CNN, and both networks' sections are expanded regularly. You are correct in calling them a "stream of NPOV edits," in fact - they are written in neutral language, despite their being allegations, from a neutral point of view. POV editing is what Wikipedia discourages, and your constant deletion of entire sections is a fine example of just that. The "anchor" content has always existed in this article, but was recently moved and given its own section. 206.255.13.8 02:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've personally been busy with applying for college, shutting down a business and switching jobs. I have a few spare moments, so I'll see what I can do... crazyeddie 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Changed this:

Fox claims the channel is now the "most watched cable news channel" in the United States according to

Nielsen Ratings

which is true, if misleading, since this measures viewing duration, while CNN actually has a greater number of individual viewers (CUME rating).

To this:

Fox claims the channel is now the "most watched cable news channel" in the United States according to

CUME rating

).)

Couldn't find an article on CUME rating, it's currently a broken link. Might be a good thing if we could get a source for this tidbit. crazyeddie 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the "CUME rating" at all notable? This would be the first time I've ever heard of it. Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First I've heard of it too, but I'm hardly an expert on media studies. The whole "unique viewers" vs. "average viewership" sounds plasible, but I would be more comfortable if we had sources for these statements. Who made these edits? Let's leave a message on their talk page asking them where they got their information. If we can't find sources with, say, a week, let's delete these statements. Hopefully, we'll get lucky and somebody will provide sources. crazyeddie 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like paragraph was removed from the Personalities section. An equivalent passage was added to the Bias section, which is a better place for it anyway.

That was the intention I had when I made that change - to confine the various allegations of bias to the pre-existing section on bias. When those items are strewn throughout the article, it makes it look far more POV. Would have commented here earlier if I'd known it would get reverted and re-reverted a bunch of times. --Dachannien 19:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That content standing alone as an introduction to FOX News' anchors was a POV problem, and I support Dachannien's new section. Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anywhere else in this wiki, you wouldn't have had a problem, Dachannien. But this article is powderkeg. With this article, it's generally a good idea to consult with the people on the talk page before making any changes of greater magnitude than spelling or grammar fixes. Not that that's a policy or anything, it's just that getting a consensus first might slow down the edit and revert wars a might.

As for that change itself, I agree that a discussion of the POVs of the on-air talent belongs in the Bias section. However, it also is part of a bigger problem in the Bias section - what exactly is the anti-Fox attempting to demonstrate? Right now, it appears to be just generallized "bias". I think we ought to break down the Bias section into the following subsections: "Allegations of Editorial Bias", "Allegations of Bias in Straight Reporting", and "Alledged Violations of Journalistic Ethics". (In otherwords, is Fox just biased (IMO, this approaches certainty), highly misleading but truthful (probably), or outright liars (probably not, or at least not more than any other news network - mistakes do happen)?) I think this approach would also give the pro-Fox POV a better chance of coming up with rebuttals.

If we follow that approach, then I think the alleged bias among the on-air talent would belong under the "Allegations of Editorial Bias" section. crazyeddie 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• However according to CNN, by April Fox viewership had dropped for the sixth straight month, a total drop of over 58%, with no signs of stopping.

I'll try to clean up this sentence a bit, could use a source link.

Later: I've done my best, but my editing makes a source link more important. crazyeddie 08:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section named "Bias among on-air personalities" should be renamed to "Allegations of Bias among On-air Personalities". Otherwise, this is a bit of a toughy. I'm planning on opening a discussion soonish about how to organize the Bias section. I agree with Shem that it needs to be subdivided, but I'm not in complete agreement with how it's currently arranged. I was hoping to hold off on that until we could review the FAIR report bulletpoint - I think the FAIR report might shed some light on how to go about organizing this section. But I'm going to have to hold off on that until my real-world schedule settles down a bit. I haven't even had a chance to completely read through the FAIR report quite yet, but what I have read suggests that we need to rewrite the bulletpoint.

Does anybody have any urgent problems with the "Allegations of Bias among On-air Personalities", or can it wait until we bang out the subdivision organization problem? That discussion also should take care of the "Bias bloat" issue.

I fully support this being its own header in the "Controversies and allegations of bias" section. It removes POV sniping from the station's roster, and is (obviously) a fundamental element in the allegations against FOX News. I strongly object to any attempts at completely deleting the section. Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ailes' statements were contradictory, given FOX News has always stressed that affiliates are separate entities from FOX News Channel, and FOX News has no editorial oversight of any FOX affiliate. [2]

Ironically, this focus on the distinction between Fox affiliate stations and FNC itself seems to stem from Silverback's pro-Fox rampage over the PIPA bulletpoint - he was making a big deal about how the PIPA report didn't distinquish between people who primarily got their news from FNC and those who got it primarily from Fox affiliates. It could be that Silverback was parroting the FNC party line, or it could have been something he came up with himself. Since I don't often watch FNC (having a strange liking for real news), I really couldn't tell you. A short time later, somebody added an edit that said that the story Ailes was referring to was actually broken by an affilate station. I personally kinda chuckled over that and moved on. But this sentence may be taking the joke a bit too far...

The original reason for adding on the "Ailes responds" paragraph was to end the Bias section on some semblance of an up note. Hopefully that might keep the pro-Fox POV from breaking the china over a rather harsh (but quite objectively true and NPOV) report.

I agree that pointing out the distinction between Fox affiliate stations and FNC itself is important. But can we do it in a way that doesn't rub the pro-Foxers' collective nose in it?

That Ailes used arguments contradictory to official FOX News policy in his defense of FOX News itself is noteworthy; if those with a "Pro-FOX" POV would like a "happy note" somewhere, this (rather weak) defense from Ailes isn't what I'd use. Aside from his contradiction with official FOX News policy, he seems to ignore the actual grievances of FOX News critics, instead accusing them of being "confused." Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

During the Feb rewrite, the Ailes rebuttal was about the only pro-Fox statement we had to work with. I'd welcome any additional material. (Well, within reason anyway.) I've changed my mind, I think I agree that we need to make note of this contradiction. I think we also need to move it to a different place. If we used my proposed organizational approach, I would suggest either using this bulletpoint as the last one in the Editorial Bias section, or more likely, the first one in the Reporting Bias section. crazyeddie 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It can be noted that most of these countries have ties with the U.S. military or U.S. military involvement.

While this is true, it isn't all that important. It also makes use of the dreaded "It can be noted..." We have more than enough evidence of Fox's bias and general all-around baby seal clubbing. Do we really need to sink to this?

I'm not sure who added that, and see no reason for its being added. As Tim said: "some countries have US military ties and some of those receive FNC. Others don't have US military ties and some of those receive FNC." Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gah, that's what I get for hitting the talk page at 3 AM. You're right of course. Does anybody really want to include this line? Speak now or temporarily hold your peace! crazyeddie 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody have any comments on my comments? Especially you Trodel (our resident - er, not exactly tame, but defintely non-rabid - pro-Foxer). Bending over backwards isn't exactly the most comfortable posture. :-) crazyeddie 08:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have someone else around again, on the talk page. I await future suggestions, though by his userpage, it seems as though Trodel might be on hiatus? I propose we harass him into coming back on his talk page, if that's actually true. Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Trodel seems to have a lot on his plate in the Real World. IIRC, he's a chief scientist at some undisclosed company. Also, if he is actively contributing, he probably has other things he wants to work on than this article. I'd hate to harrass him unless there really is a crisis going down. The current situation doesn't qualify, IMO. I'd much rather recruit a new Fox advocate, rather than having to rely on Trodel all the time. Wanted: somebody who doesn't think that Fox is a pack of lying scumbags, but is willing to negotiate and compromise with those who do. crazyeddie 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We also need to find a better place to stash this:

More recently, in a Wall Street Journal Europe op-ed published on May 20, 2005, London bureau chief Scott Norvell wrote: "Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly." [3], [4]

I think we need to keep it, but, like I said, let's end the friggin' section on as happy of a note as possible? Leave the poor misguided sods some measure of diginity? The pro-Foxers could probably make a good case for Norvell being sarcastic or ironic. We have enough meat available that we don't really need to be throwing cream pies. crazyeddie 08:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone's misguided; I care about presenting the FOX News situation fairly, in its entirety. If it belongs in the current section, it should be placed in chronological order. Ailes' "defense" is near two years old now, whereas Norvell's comments were only a month ago. Perhaps Norvell's comments (as a manager) could be moved in with the "Ownership and management" section instead, though, if it's not good for the "happy note" effect at the end? Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we follow my proposed approach, I think I would use it to open up the Editorial Bias section, following the intro material. crazyeddie 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I don't consider myself "leftist". I'm just about exactly in the middle of the road, relative to the spectrum of USA politics. I've historically, aside from the 2004 election, voted for Repubs and Dems almost exactly equal numbers. I voted for Bush in 2000. But I am most certainly against Fox! As is just about every other independent observer! crazyeddie 08:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a libertarian, of that god-awful Southern U.S. "fiscal conservative, social liberal" streak. Goldwater conservative, that is, not to be confused with the

neoconservatism. Have lived abroad for quite some time, and hate the U.S. media scene in general. Shem^(talk)

12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

crazyeddie, I think that I agree with your comments. Norvell's "confession" seems like a joke, albeit close to the bone. The bit about getting "lefties" on the air was the literal bit. I think that the claim about military involvement went over my head. Perhaps I'd have removed it, if I understood it. It said "most", presumably also meaning not all. So some countries have US military ties and some of those receive FNC. Others don't have US military ties and some of those receive FNC. What was the claim really about? Which governments cooperate with the US government is not a suitable topic for this article. Did it really mean to say that military ties determine the availability of FNC, or perhaps the reverse? Hopefully, any correlation is best explained by the demands of the people. Tim Ivorson 13:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually think Norvell was being candid, given he was comparing FOX News to the media situation in the UK. His repeatedly stating that FOX News viewers "know what they are getting" with regard to bias there and elsewhere is telling. Shem^(talk) 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stupid

I agree with the NPOV header - much of the Allegations of Bias section is original research. Rather than reporting what people's opinions are of FOX and then quoting sources, the entire section is devoted to discrediting fox using news reports directly. The PIPA report and the others are good material. The rest is like saying Wikipedia finds that FOX has bias becaue of these proofs. When what it should say is that X claims FOX is biased because of blah blah.

Additionally, the length of the material completely overwelms the articles. It is over half the article and over 2/3 if you take out any lists. This also says Wikipedia finds bias at FOX. 205.188.117.8 13:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the NPOV header myself for different reasons; I fully support the Allegations of Bias section. Shem^(talk) 23:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given the amount of discussion the alledged bias of Fox receives, the proportion of article space is appropriate, IMO. The intro paragraphs end with "Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:", so we are saying that "X claims FOX is biased because of blah blah." However, this is currently being diluted by breaking the lists of allegations into sections. I'm proposing reorgainizing the Bias section into the following sub-divisions: "Allegations of Editoral Bias", "Allegations of Bias in Reporting", "Alledged Violations of Journalistic Ethics". In otherwords, rank the allegations according to severity, make it clear what thesis the anti-Fox POV is trying to demonstrate, and hopefullly give the anti-Fox POV a greater chance to respond to these allegations. crazyeddie 18:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Eddie, I just now measured the article in terms of screen-length units (on an 800px vertical monitor, the article is approximately 7200px long). The anonymous user here is incorrect; the "Allegations of Bias" section is just less than one third -- not 2/3 or half -- of the article. Not even close. Shem^(talk) 02:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should focus on FOX News as a business entity, and there should be a separate article discussing issues of journalism ethics. Peter Grey 04:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That issue has been settled for a long time - and the answer is no. Spliting off the Bias section would essentially create a POV fork, which is expressly against Wikipedia policy, and for a very good reason. No moderate editors would visit it, and it would be left to the POV warriors. The resulting disputes would make the present discussion look like a tea party. crazyeddie 06:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Silverback is being a pain again. Y'all know how I feel about him. So, Tim, et al, is this anything we can ding him for? Please say yes! crazyeddie 06:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My google-fu is extremely weak, but this is what came up first on google for "kerry pen depate': http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php It's dated October 03, 2004, two days before the Tuesday, October 05, 2004 dateline on Silverback's link. Would somebody like to confirm? At any rate, does this story truly qualify as "major"? I understand that it is a story, true enough - it appears that Kerry did violate debate rules (although it doesn't look like it affected the outcome of the debate). But does this really qualify as major? crazyeddie 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The site you cite, credits Fox News for breaking this important story as well. You appear to fail to get the significance. The Fox News story was actually viewed as an exhoneration of Kerry, not proof he broke the rules, because the pen did not violate the spirit of the rules. They were allowed to take notes during the debate after all. This is an example of Fox objectivity. They broke this story even though it helped Kerry. Please restore the story. Substitute your site if you like, because it has an earlier date. This is far more important than Cavuto blaming lack of support for Social security reform on the Michael Jackson story, which you do not seem to have any objection to.--Silverback 07:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. What you say is true. I told you my google-fu is weak. Does anybody else have evidence of someone else breaking the story first? But it still doesn't qualify as "major", at least in my book. And it does appear that Kerry did violate the rules of the debate. According to the site I linked to:

John Kerry brought prohibited material into last Thursday's Presidential Debate. From section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" (pdf file) that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns:

(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.

...

(d) Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each side prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.

So FNC cleared Kerry of not violating the spirit of the debate, but not the actual letter of the rules. Never mind that the violation was not one that would get most Americans worked up anyway - unless Kerry was actually using the pen to smuggle in notes. It may be an example of Fox "objectivity", but it is not a "major story". I have no problems with starting a section on major news stories that Fox has broken, but the emphasis has to be on major - we don't have room in this article to list every single story Fox has broken. Does anybody here besides Silverback think this story is at all notable? Shem, at least, agrees that the story isn't notable. It seems to be right up there with the "Bush hump" - a story that's only of interest to highly partisan viewers. I'm actually tempted to leave it up, because the whole affair shows how truly asinine FNC can be.

As for the Cavuto-Social Security-Michael Jackson story, I'm not really in favor of keeping it or of removing it. It does seem odd that a self-labelled "liberal" would 1) harbor any liking for Bush's Social Security reform proposal, which is widely understood on the left to be little more than a stealth dismantling of the highly popular program and 2) be so out of touch as to think that the Michael Jackson story is responsible for the public's... I'm going to be kind here and say "lukewarm" ... support for the whole concept. At any rate, the two issues - the Cavuto story and the Kerry Pen story - have nothing in common, really. If you wish to challenge the Cavuto story, say so. As I said, I, for one, haven't made up my mind one way or another. And even if I did, you might get a consensus to agree with you. crazyeddie 07:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who orginally broke the story about Kerry possibly breaking debate rules? crazyeddie 07:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

INDC Journal. [5] Shem^(talk) 09:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, got my personallites mixed up. Cavuto isn't the "liberal". So, opinions about the Cavuto story? crazyeddie 08:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, Neil Cavuto, not Alan Colmes. Cavuto has served in the business/finanace realm of journalism for near two decades now, and is a former syndicated conservative columnist for both

NewsMax.com [http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/Cavuto.shtml. He's made his ideological stance quite clear, where domestic/economic policy is concerned, and trends hawkish on foreign policy as well. The story in question (an interview with President Bush) is of note because, well, it's an interview with a President. I'd planned on making note of his tenure on Townhall.com et al as well, actually. Shem^(talk)

10:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't rightly document something that will not be included in the article itself, and you have not once gone to talk before making your deletions this last week. Your snarky responses in edit summaries, marked abstention from the Talk page, and misrepresentation of criticisms (ie criticism of Colmes only coming from "the anti-globalism anarcho-progressives" [7]) is not conducive to consensus-building or assumption of good faith. Shem^(talk) 10:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have criticized O'Reilly for his populist positions. He is no conservative. He is to the left of Bush in his statist instincts. No conservative would support using the military domestically, as he suggests for the "border problem". During the power blackout, he was all over federal regulators who had no operational role, for what were "they" going to do about the problem. His knee jerk reaction is to turn to government and pass a law to solve problems. He has little appreciation for limiting central government power.

On the other topic, how can you call these Fox anchors, commentators and personalities "right-wing"? Most are middle of the road, toe-the-line republicans. They support the ADMINISTRATION for gosh sakes! The administration got over 50% of the vote, so they aren't right-wing, that is just the lefts rhetoric to try to paint them as extremists or fringe. Bush did not hide who he was, he couldn't, he'd been in office for four years, and he didn't hide his intent to tamper with Social Security or to continue his tax or energy policies and proposals. What you are allowing to be called "right wing" is the center. It is OK to note that people are engaged in such name calling, but it shouldn't be anonymously attributed to "critics", as if it were some rationally considered assessment. It is partisan name calling, and disclosing and documenting who is doing it and whether or not there is a supporting analysis is the way to put it in an encyclopedia article.

"They support the ADMINISTRATION for gosh sakes"? Seems a clear antithesis to "We report, you decide". What if I decide the administration is not for me? --kizzle 23:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Then you are not currently a "centrist", don't go killing yourself, things might change. I don't see it as the antithesis of "we report you decide", because their biases are known, and they make a good faith effort to separate them from news, or fess up, when they are expressing opinion, which is what those who don't admit their biases also claim to do. O'Reilly and Hannity, don't claim to be reporters, they are commentators. I don't know what Gibson, claims, but he has commentary where he makes his opinions clear at the end of every show, and he is obviously confrontational with guests he disagrees with, and expresses that disagreement, so there is certainly no deceit. Britt just appears to be a good journalist/anchor honestly trying to see that both sides to an issue are represented, he appears to be a conservative with journalistic integrity on the only "real" news program on the channel, besides Cavuto. Cavuto is a business anchor/personality, who doesn't hide his biases. It is hard to tell what Greta's personal opinions are, she is a darn good interviewer, but seldom deals with real news. The Fox News Channel has the mainstream centrist audience all to itself and it is not hard to see why. Colmes and the "all-star" liberals that Brit has on his show, are probably the best representatives for educating this audience on liberal opinion, because this audience will just ignore the usual liberal "I'm a victim, they are trying to destroy the world and social security" rhetoric.--Silverback 23:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You've criticized me for not discussing my changes here in talk. Well, now I've done it, the ball is in your court. If you go ahead just as you have been and don't change your ways, what will the point have been? Are you just trying to waste my time?--Silverback 11:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, Fox especially processed the video to improve the resolution. This made it apparent to everyone that it was a pen. Even if some blogger, made a lucky guess that it was a pen, it was Fox that cinched the case and put its credibility behind the conclusion. If the public had thought that Kerry cheated on the debates, his chances of getting elected would have been seriously impacted, so it was a very important story. If Kerry had not been still competitive at the general election, there would have been even less turnout, and other democratic candidates would have been hurt. Imagine what the difference a couple less Democratic senators would mean.--Silverback 11:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? It's a pen. --kizzle 16:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

That is totally the point, if was Fox investigative and technical work that showed it was "just a pen". If it hadn't been just a pen, the Democrats might have had to change candidates midstream, or would have had to go to such rhetorical gymnastics in their apologia, that they would have lost all moral credibility. Yes, it was just a pen!!.--Silverback 22:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bravo, Fox, on your journalist integrity to extensively cover a minor infraction which had nothing to do with cheating the debate, only that Kerry broke a rule, while ignoring the fact that Bush had a box the size of my iPod taped to his back. --kizzle 23:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Silverback, for that masterful attempt to steer this conversation into a stagnant wetland of unproductive shouting. A pleasure dealing with you, as always. I particularly found your concept of the politcal center to be... fascinating. I have a certain morbid curiosity regarding what you would consider right-wing. But I suppose we should probably move on to real business.

We currently have two issues on the table. One, does this Kerry's Pen story qualify as "major"? In my book, it does not. Apparently Shem doesn't think so either. Does anybody besides Silverback think it does? Does anybody else want to jump on the "not" bandwagon?

Secondly, does anybody besides Silverback wish to remove the Cavuto-Social Security-Michael Jackson account? Would anybody like to speak out in favor of keeping it? I abstain, I can't make up my mind one way or the other.

Looks like Shem is in favor of keeping it. crazyeddie 05:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New order of business - I'd like to set up a precedent for this new "Major Stories that Fox has Broken" section. I think that proposed additions for this section need to be vetted for two things - firstly, that the story, is, in fact, major. Secondly, that Fox did, indeed, break it. It makes sense to vet a story for majoristy first - confirming that Fox was first on the scene takes a fair amount of research, so we ought weed out the minor stories before hand. Normally, I would say that it takes a consensus to remove a passage from an article. But, in this case, I think there should be a consensus to add material - the emphasis of this section must be on the "major". Does anybody have differing opinions on this approach, or does anybody wish to give me a "hell yeah"?

So, does the Oil-for-food scandal qualify as major? It does in my book. Does anybody wish to agree or disagree? Would somebody like to confirm that Fox did, in fact, break this story? It might be well to mention the dateline of the stories involved in the text of the article. crazyeddie 05:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BigDaveDiode here -- regarding the pen issue, it would not generally be considered to be a major news story. Regarding the "Oil-For-Food" scandal, it would be worth covering, not because Fox News broke the story; they did not. The story was probably broken by the Daily Telegraph on January 24, 1999. The reason that it would be worth discussing is that UN Under-Secretary Shashi Tharoor had to write Fox directly, not once, but twice in an unsuccessful attempt to get Fox to correct factual errors in their stories.

You can see the UN Undersecretary's letters here: [8] In the letter you can see that with respect to Fox, the Undersecretary uses the word "distorted" "inaccuracies" and "exaggerations" which is, to say the least, very strong for the UN. The fact that a UN undersecretary felt the need to write a letter to a media outlet is itself impressively unusual. (Fox had stated "secret weapons [were] financed with U.N. blood money" without correction or apparent evidence, for example.) Fox did eventually post a correction of one item on its website. Finally, Volcker's report did uncover problems, but nowhere near the supposed billions of dollars that Fox had stated occurred within the Oil for Food program. He concluded that the majority of the illicit funds to Iraq were from sanction violations 'outside' the UN Oil for Food Program and even stated that "We have not, I emphasize, we have NOT FOUND systematic misuse of funds dedicated to the administration of the Oil for Food Program." This Oil for Food scandal makes for an excellent study on Fox's news reporting. Volcker's report is here: [9]. It should be recognized that Fox was writing even up until April "that billions of dollars disappeared." and previously wrote bylines like "Did Saddam Hussein use any of his ill-gotten billions filched from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program to help fund Al Qaeda?" as you can see here [10] and here [11] respectively without retraction. --Bigdavediode 00:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying, in short, that FOX News pays more attention to "anti-U.N." stories than its competitors? Shem^(talk) 00:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am stating that there were some factual errors in the reporting by Fox as included in the list here [12] and that there was one retraction on one item by Fox News. Therefore the "Oil For Food" scandal would make an interesting topic for the entry, not due to Fox News "breaking" the story, since they did not, but due to their methods of reporting on this topic. --Bigdavediode 05:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did Fox actually break the specific substories that Silverback mentions?

• Fox obtained several documents which implicate Kofi Annan in the awarding to a contract to the company which employed his son, Kojo.[13] [14]

• Fox News broke the story about a potential conflict of interest for Paul Volcher in his investigation of the scandal.[15]

• Fox News broke a second father-son conflict of interests story centering on Alexander Yakovlev.[16]

If not, then we have an ironclad case for the removal of this paragraph. If Fox did break these substories, then we should at the very least mention that the overall Oil-for-Food scandal was broken by the Daily Telegraph. What was the retraction, and did it directly affect any of the above stories? I'm hesitant about making this paragraph an investigation into Fox's reporting habits as it could lead to a rehash of the entire Oil-for-Food controversy on a page already overrun with controversy. We should link to the existing article on the scandal. crazyeddie 09:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect in a story as big as Oil-for-food there have been several retractions, and probably several stories that turned out to be bunny trails. Although the Volcker conflict of interest story turned out to be big, it hasn't had much practical consequence for instance. On the other hand, the Fox revelation about the new father/son scandal has just lead to the resignation of the UN official. Fox did not break the story about the resignation, just the story that lead to it for instance. Fox dedicates a lot of resources to covering Iraq, and so breaks stories there almost daily. I don't recall any as big as the Kerry/pen story, but there probably have been some.--Silverback 09:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding CUME ratings, I'm BigDaveDiode, and I'm the one who originally modified the statements regarding "most watched." Fox has a tendency to release statements such as "most watched", which are technically true, but misleading. The ratings that are generally released are, if I remember correctly, AQH which is "average quarter hour" viewers. This means that if someone watches an hour show on Fox, such as O'Reilly, they will be counted four times. Because Fox is made up primarily of these hour long opinion and talk format shows rather than the shorter news segments of CNN, they have a much higher AQH. CUME ratings are cumulative unique individual non-duplicate listeners/viewers. Despite the higher AQH from Fox, CNN is understood to command higher ad rates than Fox due to it's higher CUME.

Should you wish to review an article at the Hollywood Reporter, you can see this here for example: [17]

An article from FAIR also sums it up: "CNN regularly claims a cume about 20 percent higher than Fox 's (Deseret Morning News , 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, CNN 's cume was significantly higher than Fox 's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox (Cablefax , 4/30/03). But in the same period, the ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN 's 2.2 million." [18]

I would strongly encourage you to mention if it hasn't been brought up already, the Fox vs. Akre/Wilson court case in Florida where lawyers for Fox went to court to defend their right to force their reporters to broadcast knowingly false information. This should probably be mentioned, as the appeals court ruled in Fox's favor that yes, Fox has the right to knowingly broadcast false information.

The Fox vs. Akre/Wilson case has a bulletpoint:

• A ruling in a
  PDF
  )

Repeat - the case was against a Fox affiliate, not FNC itself. FNC has repeatedly made the point that they have no editoral control over affiliates. Also, the courts ruled that Fox affiliates (and therefore FNC, and any other news agency, for that matter), has the right to knowingly broadcast false information. But the case has not been made in the Fox vs. Akre/Wilson case that FNC has done so - only an affiliate station. During the Feb rewrite (which was chaired by Trodel), it was decided to retain this allegation, since it is often used by Fox critics. However, we have done our best to debunk it.

Yes, but FOX News cannot claim the actions of affiliates as their own only when it benefits them (as with "breaking the G.W. Bush drunk driving case") all the while denouncing everything else. Statements from FOX executives like Roger Ailes are contradictory to those on FOXNews.com where affiliates are concerned. Shem^(talk) 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they can and do. Sure, it's contradictory, but... Whenever the affiliate system is a factor, I think we ought to point it out. Let the reader decide how much coverage the firewalling effect gives FNC. crazyeddie 08:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bigdavediode here - regarding the above point about the Akre/Wilson case. Yes, the case was brought against the local affiliate, however this case impugned Fox in a major way, since the original letter from Monsanto was sent to Roger Ailes. Roger Ailes in the CEO of Fox News. "On February 21 of that year, a lawyer hired by Monsanto wrote to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, complaining that Akre and Wilson had made "reckless" accusations about BGH and questioning their objectivity." As well Fox Corporate lawyer Carolyn Forrest in Atlanta was listed as counsel for the defendant in the court papers (as you can see here: [19])

So frankly, Fox News, Roger Ailes, and Carolyn Forrest, esq. were involved with this. Any other position is contrary to the facts. When I state that Fox went to court, I am referring to counsel for the defense Carolyn Forrest who is based in Atlanta. If you're still not sure you can see her letterhead stating Atlanta here: [20]

Fox has attempted to shield itself from blame by stating that they aren't responsible, and don't participate in their affiliate's business. As you can see from the above that appears to be clearly false, holding and shell companies notwithstanding.

Could you rewrite the bulletpoint so that it makes clear what FNC's role in the case was, while still taking into account whatever firewalls the affiliation system provides? Please put it on the talk page for review first. crazyeddie 08:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bigdavediode here -- I would suggest the following addition to flesh out the defense versus the facts. 'Fox News contends that because this case was against a local affiliate station, not FOX News, it was not involved. However counsel for the defense listed in the court papers [21], Carolyn Forrest works from Atlanta, not Florida, while the original documents were sent from Monsanto to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Pat Anderson, attorney for WTVT in Florida contends that Ailes, in Atlanta, never read them. Appeal Decision (

PDF

)

Thank you for allowing the correction regarding Fox's statement of "most watched news channel." I have added a short CUME entry into Wikipedia with a reference to Neilsen Media.

I have been meaning to review the FAIR report - all I know is that our current bulletpoint is woefully inaccurate. But it looks like we need to reorg the Bias section first. As for the CUME stuff, I'll look it over tonight, try to do something with it tomorrow. You might want to work something out also - we really need to cite the source at the very least... Thanks for providing it. crazyeddie 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the relevant passage from the link:

"How do you define success? It's the three R's," Walton says. "They have the ratings, but we have the reach and the revenue. Sure, we'd like to have their ratings, but I'm sure they'd like to have our reach and revenue."

According to CNN and Nielsen, CNN's "cume" -- the number of people who tune in daily -- has averaged 30.4 million for the past year, compared with Fox News' 27.3 million. Including CNN Headline News, CNN's cume bumps up to 32.2 million.

Kagan Research puts CNN's 2004 profits at $337.2 million and Fox News' at $274.3 million. In 2003, Kagan says, the networks' profits were $299.2 million and $186.5 million, respectively.

This section currently reads as follows:

Fox News investigative reporting has broken several stories in the

oil-for-food scandal. Fox obtained several documents which implicate Kofi Annan in the awarding to a contract to the company which employed his son, Kojo.[22] [23] Fox News broke the story about a potential conflict of interest for Paul Volcher in his investigation of the scandal.[24] Fox News broke a second father-son conflict of interests story centering on Alexander Yakovlev.[25]

I don't know on what basis the June 15 story about the Cotecna memo is claimed to be a Fox exclusive, but it's wrong. The documentary evidence was disclosed to the UN panel investigating oil-for-food allegations on Tuesday, 14th June and reports on this appear in other publications datelined 15th June. The two potential conflict of interest stories are relatively small beer and could well have been investigated only by Fox News. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Without sourcing soon, the "broke" language used in regard to these stories should be removed. I can't find anything via Google, and suspect factual inaccuracy. Shem^(talk) 18:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fox story is date June 14, and fox turned the documents over to the UN panel.--Silverback 22:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Between inserting POV language and adding lengthy biographical listings to the allegations of bias section, I'm not only interested in seeing his/her sources for a few statements, but his/her idea of "relevance" in general. Shem^(talk) 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that does it. I'm not sure where all this nuttiness is coming from, but I'm getting tired of it. I say we ought to revert back to the 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 edit by 193.109.116.7. Then we find an administrator and get this page protected until we can work out all of these wrinkles that have cropped up. We've got quite a list started here. crazyeddie 04:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of protection, but since I am somewhat biased here I posted a notice on the Village Pump and Administrator's Noticeboard. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The actual problem is that we're having fairly minor disputes cropping up faster than we can deal with them on the talk page. This last anon edit is just the straw that broke the camel's back. What I'd like to do is come up with a list of these disputes and other to-dos, work them out on the talk page while the article is under protection, and then make sure that nobody else has any outstanding problems before lifting the protection. So the administrator who does the protecting is going to need to hang around to update the article as consensus is reached on these issues. It might be a good thing for them to bang the gavel during the discussions also.

Ilyanep, we also seem to have a lack of effective advocates for Fox. It seems that, with a few exceptions (Trodel being a major one - and he seems to be on hiatus), people who don't think Fox is biased are apt to be insane in other ways as well. Ha ha... only serious :-( This tends to have negative effect on their ability to be effective. If this bias of which you speak is of the pro-Fox variety, I'd like for you to hang around in a non-administrative capacity. I would hope that somebody who is of administrator rank is at least marginally sane! crazyeddie 17:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am (was before I got tired of listening to 100% Michael Jackson) pro-Fox. I'll wait another day for an admin to comment on this page. If there's no comment, I'll go ahead and protect it and stick around. I suppose we might archive the talk and start a new to-do list with a process for resolving stuff, etc. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Appreciated, Ilyanep. Shem^(talk) 21:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about FOX News, but it's not clear to me all of these edits are nutty or biased. In particular, the group "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting" has an obviously positively biased name that really needs a little more explanation. Can you leave/fix up some of the acceptable edits and revert the rest? If the anon ignores your requests for explanation and repeatedly makes the same changes, a temporary protection is certainly warranted. Deco 03:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll comb through the past edits as per your request, sure. Also: their name is biased? Shem^(talk) 03:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will protect it tomorrow morning (so be quick and revert to a good version) if no other admins post here. After that, I will archive this talk page and start a to-do list, etc. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Going through the history now, I'll only be 10 minutes. Shem^(talk) 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Make an edit comment that says "keep this version for tommorow". Thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done, no worries. Shem^(talk) 04:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As editors have now pointed out, there is strong (I would say undeniable) evidence that FNC is doctoring photos in their broadcasts in a retaliatory manner. Despite the usual suspects' attempts to whitewash negative information, an ethical breach this serious must be mentioned in this article. References:

• "Unhappy with story, Fox News alters photos of writers". (MSNBC)
• "FOX News Doctors NY Times Photos". (
  AOL News
  )
• "Fox News Airs Revised Photos of 'NYT' Staffers -- Sifton Calls It 'Disgusting'". (Editor & Publisher)
• "Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters". (MMFA)
• "Fox News Airs Doctored Photos". (Drudge Retort)
• "Media Outlets Slam Fox For Doctored NY Times Photos". (
  Huffington Post
  , reprinted from MMFA)

Anyone feel up to dealing with the howler monkeys?  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulletpoint 5 is actually the "Drudge Retort". Drudge isn't covering this, at least not yet. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, thanks Ramsquire.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This has not only been a very active topic of discussion on the blogosphere, but had received a fair share of notice from other media outlets. I think it's becoming enough of a scandal to warrant mention in the article.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)