Talk:Fox News Channel
Question: Is it the job of a news channel such as Fox, CNN, etc. to present the news and allow the viewer to decide or to take it upon itself to criticize the policies of the President? It seemed like during the reign of GWB, Fox chose to limit its criticism of the President, and instead leveled it at the President's critics. During Obama's Presidency, they criticize the President, while painting Obama's critics as Patriots, those people who embody the spirit of this nation. You simply cannot be an intelligent, responsible American and not see whats going on at Fox. They aim their "negativity cannon" at opponents of the GOP. Plain and Simple
Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.
This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --Truth is bipartisan 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!
Thanks. :-) --TK 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) Myk 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)
- 1 Morons/Vandals
- 2 Introductory paragraph needs work
- 3 Pic to add
- 4 FOX NOISE CHANNEL
- 5 Requested edits
- 6 It's okay....
- 7 Independent?
- 8 bias.
- 9 Internal Links
- 10 Edit for Fair and Balanced section
- 11 By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style
- 12 Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda.
- 13 Fox's ratings take another dive
- 14 Category change
- 15 Unencyclopedic
- 16 Sorry (re: Fox entertainment)
- 17 "is a conservative ... channel"
- 18 Conservative
- 19 Wschact creating Ophan pages
- 20 Pretends to Be Conservative?
- 21 Incredible Demographic -- No Citation of Support for it
Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time. --TK 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?
Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? Messpm 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, it is something else, it is the Conserv-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[TK|TerryK<sup>([[User talk:TK|contact me]])</sup>]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.
- That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. Messpm 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ Terry Talk2Me! 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Introductory paragraph needs work
The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--Nomine Cervus 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Pic to add
FOX NOISE CHANNEL
Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.
The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.USER:Smithson9999
- Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. Jinxmchue 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --9820 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
- You think I watch Fox News? I don't have cable TV at all. Not even rabbit ears anymore. Jinxmchue 19:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Eh, who needs TV when you have the internet? :P--ITSAMEMARIO 20:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
- can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network Eljawa 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. RobS 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
There is an error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Founding" section. "quit" instead of "quite"--Joe 15:34, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
A lot of the statements in the article are not sourced and some are simply pure conjecture, also there is an obvious pro-Fox bias.--NeoCon4Life 16:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)
- NeoCon/Liberal, please be specific! This isn't WP and trolling will be dealt with harshly! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)
- Do we have a citation for "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."?
--Cowbell14 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)
- Please tag that the sentence "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."? needs to be cited. Recent information shows that CNN has slightly pulled ahead in overall ratings but can most likely be explained because of the major advertising campaigns they've been using. Regardless it needs a source cited to be an accurate statement and not just an opinion. --TheRockstar 20:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)
- Please help ensure accuracy by removing opinion or conjecture and citing sources. Example: "Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the crime-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for sex offenders.". This statement does not cite a source. While I may know from viewing that Rivera has been more liberal then others on the network people who are trying to get an educated factual statement don't know where it came from --TheRockstar 20:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I would think it would be a good idea to have an article about the criticism fox news has gotten (I myself DO think it is a right wing station though) But some of the criticism it has gotten is a little bit absurd, and it would be somthing interesting to talk about.--ITSAMEMARIO 20:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
- This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. RobS 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. SirJim 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
- That is in fact more deceit. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but he WAS a registered rebulican, and he supossed was one when he was saying he is "independent" user:thegovernator
this article reads like fox news, please consider moving to conserva-
owait, its already here.
facts < politics
EXCUSE ME!!! is this an article or an advertisment for fox news channel????? how about some facts. eg, when did it start broadcasting, where does it broadcast besides the united states, who are its directors, what are its main topics and programmes??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plqgnmv (talk)
- Okay, I excuse you. Now, how about you doing what editors are supposed to do, and suggest specifics here, or ask that it be unlocked for you to add them? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Edit for Fair and Balanced section
In the interest of full disclosure, should the fact that Fox News is the biggest backer of Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson be mentioned?
I'm not sure of the accuracy of the claim, but it is on the front page of Conservapedia right now, and a backing of a presidential candidate by a news source is something of enough import to warrant its inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stitch (talk)-- 00:54, 7 November 2007
- Well, news items are news items, articles in encyclopedia's are not the same, yes? What have one to do with the other? The source given was hard to find, but seems to be from someone's blog, and part of the citation there comes from one of those tabloid-like newspapers in the United Kingdom. Sort of a circuitous way to bring election coverage to the United States in my opinion, wouldn't you agree? So one should imagine whoever placed that item was just trying to use this silly sourced item for provoking discussion. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 04:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)
By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style
To demonstrate the impact liberal bias has on the media, this article should note some instances where the "liberal" style of news commentary remains on Fox, for example:
- "preference for obscenity and profanity" http://foxnewsporn.com/
- "over-reliance on mockery" - Fox commentary shows do a lot of this, it's not very Christian
- "believing that conservatives will fail" Fox's election coverage sometimes portrays Hillary as inevitable because of the overwhelming media consensus
- "pretending to know more than he does" Fox's commentators, especially O'Reilly, sometimes presume to know things they don't know
In this way the criticisms liberals lodge at Fox can be turned back at them as examples of typical liberal style. Shii 23:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Wow, way to turn Classic Conservative actions into "liberal ones"
- "over-reliance on mockery" and "pretending to know more than he does" You say yourself these are actions of O'Reilly and yet you somehow claim they are liberal actions. When faced with the ugly truth that Fox News is actually a tool of conservative propaganda....deny deny deny, eh? -Lono
Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda.
Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False Paul Begala complains about the lies told about him on air.
- Fox dutifully fulfills New Media Are Evil: here and here Then you've got Fox News editing footage to make a dem look worse Fox ignoring Ron Paul, Fox attacking "non-existant" veterans, and pretty much everything from Fox Attacks.
- MSM is garbage. Barikada 16:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)
- No? Fox Noise Channel's lies and attacks don't even warrant a "BUT THOSE ARE LOCAL CHANNELS" response? Barikada 16:49, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- If you wish to continue to call it "Fox Noise Channel," please feel free to go back to DK or DU or wherever you came from (after I request that you be permanently blocked as a troll for it). Jinxmchue 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- Stop trolling, Barakada. Maybe the reason you've been ignored is that nobody can take you seriously. How about you actually write something and say "this is what I think should go into the article" instead of posting a bunch of links strung together with nonesense and opinion? HelpJazz 19:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- Al...right... How about "The above links are proof that Fox News Channel does, indeed, have an agenda, and devotes parts of it's airtime to attacking forms of new media for no apparent reason, snubbing legit candidates, and attacking America's most patriotic citizens-- it's veterans."? Seriously, though, I thought I was allowed to show opinion on talk pages. Barikada 23:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- You are allowed to have an opinion. I've already said it's not what you said but how you said it. Nobody's going to do the work for you, so if you want something placed into the article, write it up, including wikimarkup, and ask someone (I think it has to be a sysop) to either unlock the page or put the text in. None of your above posts are written in good encyclopedic form, so if indeed you were suggesting material for addition, the value of what you said got lost in the noise. HelpJazz 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- I didn't expect anyone to put my exact comments in the article. Even if I were to put the links above in in an encyclopedic form in a criticism section, I would surely be banned. Barikada 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- I do intend to be taken seriously. However, I fully realise that any attempt to include those links in the article will come off as liberal bias, because it is. Barikada 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)
- Don't you start it now too, Feebas. There's nothing wrong with his links by themselves, but instead the problem is the manner in which he presented them. HelpJazz 19:37, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- I'm sorry... :) Admittedly, Barikada could have been a bit less grating and sardonic in his presentation. And perhaps - if it were kept relatively neutral/objective - a reasonable section on "criticisms of Fox News" section could even be written (not sure how well it'd go over, but regardless). Feebasfactor 23:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)
- Criticism, yes. Hate-fueled smearing, no. Jinxmchue 00:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)
- The links above are hate-filled, I agree. Barikada 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)
This clear retraction by Cooper Lawrence, the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."
Also, despite having a commentator who had actually played the game available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".
Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. Reasonableperson 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I believe that, at the very least, the Begala bit should at least get some mention-- there's no way to spin that. Barikada 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Fox's ratings take another dive
 Fox's ratings are dropping. If the decline of newspaper circulation is proof that society is becoming more liberal (As seen on the main page's talk page, courtesy of Andy) what does this mean? Barikada 19:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)
- Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. Wow. Great sources, Barikada. What's next? The Weekly World News? Don't bother clicking the link, folks. It's just mindless, biased liberal propaganda. Jinxmchue 15:02, 4 February 2008 (EST)
The Category:Broadcasting should be removed now that it is a supercategory of Category:Cable TV Networks. -Foxtrot 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
"There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."
The preceding reads as an opinion. I am not arguing that the statement is untrue but I don't think a statement like that belongs in an encyclopedia. Please remove or rephrase. --Wikidan81 11:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
- Why do you ask this to be removed? Only liberals remove the truth from encyclopedias. You aren't a liberal are you? RightPatriot
Sorry (re: Fox entertainment)
I was just trying to clarify criticism of Fox by conservatives. Should I make another article and link it?AlexanderM 19:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
- That's one alternative....check and make sure we don't already have an article about "Big Fox". They are all different corporate entities, the different networks, News, Sports, TV, etc. Thanks! --₮K/Talk! 19:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
"is a conservative ... channel"
I'd think Fox News is pretty unbiased, especially compared to other news channels. I was going to remove the word conservative but wanted to see what everyone here thinks. SaltLake 19:38, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Mr. TK sir, isn't it a conservative channel?--TaroMasuki 23:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)
- No. Even the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, says it is one of the, or the most unbiased and balanced among all networks. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
- That is very strange sir because on this thing "john+f+kennedy+school+of+government"+"fox+news+channel"+conservative&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp from them it says that 74% of the people who like it are conservative or very conservative, which sir would ordinarily lead me to believe that its coverage tends to be conservative.--TaroMasuki 23:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Try watching Fox News for ten minutes and tell me where you see any conservative bias around. SaltLake 16:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)
- I am truly amazed at the 'head in the sand' mentality you display. Everything about Fox News screams conservative bias. Their constant criticism of everything
- the Democrats do and their hippocricical switching from "support the president, no matter what" during Bush Jr.'s terms to "Obama is unAmerican and destroying this
- country" is obvious. You know, I think most Americans would respect the Conservative movement more if they would just ADMIT that yes, Fox is a biased tool
- of the Republican/Conservative party rather than attempting to deny it. Its laughable in its obvious-ness. Lono 15:40, 10 August 2010
Wschact creating Ophan pages
Dear User:Wschact, By dogmatically deleting the See Also's here (as part of your unilateral Anti-See Also crusade) that are appropriate, you are orphaning pages that appropriately go under Fox News. Please stop it. TheAmericanRedoubt 02:05, 9 January 2015 (EST)
Pretends to Be Conservative?
Are you sure that is correct? I think that it pretends (or is) "fair & balanced," except that I don't know any major new outlet that doesn't kiss up to sodomists. Aside from that latter issue, I think that FoxNews is middle of the road, having persons both on the left & the right, for example Sean Hannity is definitely conservative (aside from kissing up as I already said.) At any rate, I think "pretends to be conservative" should be changed to "presents itself with the claim of "fair and balanced . . . we report; you decide." I think that liberals tend to pretend that it is conservative. (Thunkful2 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (EST))
- It started out conservative, but the founder (his name escapes me at this time of the morning) was turned by his liberal wife, and Fox news has taken the same turn. It is still better than the others, but not much. Meanwhile, as you said, liberals point to Fox as "far-right" and "extremely conservative." What once was fairly reliable has now moved to a "middle of the road" or slightly leftist position. They still don't openly slant things as much and as often as the rest, but they still pick their reports and coverage to give the wrong idea. --David B (TALK) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Incredible Demographic -- No Citation of Support for it
"The average age of its viewership is 74 years old, and even 79 years old for its O'Reilly Factor." There is no citation given to support that claim. I find it incredible, which is not to say it is definitely untrue. Also the use of the present tense for such statements is not advisable, as they can change over time. I suggest that the statement read something like, "For 2016, Neilson claims that the average age of viewership is 74 years old." But I wonder how anyone could know that. A cable subscriber might be 74 years old, but Fox News is watched in his home by his 20 year old wife. (Thunkful2 (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2016 (EST))
- I was surprised by that statistic when I read it too, but never did the research. I just did a quick search, and found this which seems to contradict that claim. --David B (TALK) 16:37, 22 November 2016 (EST)