Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Fox News

10,267 bytes added, 19:43, 16 March 2007
I took out the sexual reference to Bush. This is a family site. If you are going to vandalize, at least restrain your language. --[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The discussion about Hannity and Colmes doesn't belong in this article. If you feel compelled to write about this, go to their article and write it in the discussion page.--[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't see how the attack on Israel contributes to this article. I erased it. --[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I modified the last sentence. Typical liberal bias.--[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Is a citation ''from'' Fox News saying that Fox News is fair and balanced really a good idea?
I would think that it would be more appropriately said as "Fox News claims to be fair and balanced," or something along those lines.
Anyone disagree?
Yes - Fox News is obviously sympathetic to conservative views, as is all of Rupert Murdoch's empire. To suggest otherwise is absurd and makes a mockery of this whole project. How can a news network be "unbiased" yet not attack Bush as a matter of policy? It doesn't make sense. Of course they have some "liberal" views expressed, but this is not the same as "fair and balanced reporting". It is what it is, and it is very successful, but let's be honest about what it is - isn't honesty supposed to be a virtue?
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 15:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)
*I disagree. One of the ways Fox News attempts to be fair and balanced is by inviting guests from both sides of the issue. Personally I would prefer to only hear from conservatives, but Fox News has both sides. Hannity and Colmes is a great example of a Fair and Balanced show - Sean is the Conservative and Alan is the liberal (and proud of it). [[User:Crocoite|Dean]] 17:28, 7 March 2007 (EST)
**What other programs do they air that feature both sides of the political spectrum?<br>Regardless, Colmes is quite overshadowed by the rapacious Hannity. -[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:41, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I think this entire article could use an overhaul. Although I am a supporter of Fox News, the bias in this article in very apparent. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 15:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)
*I disagree. If there's any bias in this article, it's toward conservatism and the Truth, which was the whole purpose of Conservapedia in the first place! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 16:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:*Well it does have a very obvious bias. You are right in saying that Conservapedia has a point of view to impose. But the srticle goes beyond the point of view of Conservapedia.
:Take this example from the article: "Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide."
:#Even though I may think it is a fact that Fox News is the best, it is merely my opinion.
:#This sentence and others are worded as if they were written by a 1st grader - read after comma to see what I mean.
:The point is the article must be written over again to present a factual, encyclopedia-worthy article. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 16:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)
**If one news source tells you what to think (as any of the leftist mainstream media stations do) and another just reports the facts in a fair and unbiased manner, then clearly the second news source is superior, by definition! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)
***Every source has a bias. Fox News is no exception.
True. Didn't even notice the "Sean Hannity is a great American" statement at first, which I think is safe to say is an opinion. Also, the reference points to an outdated car giveaway. Doesn't seem like it belongs.
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 15:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I think the link for the first reference needs to be changed. It is used as a citation for Fox News saying it is Fair and Balanced, but the link only goes to a page with employment opportunities.
::Even as a pretty conservative person, I will admit Fox News has a definite conservative bias. I'm not faulting them for this, but the media inherently has a bias. That's why having so many different news sources is such a good thing. Nevertheless, it's not just "liberals" that think Fox News is biased. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
== Fair and Balanced? ==
Let's look at the conservative personalities on Fox
-Bill Oreilly <br>
-Neil Cavuto<br>
-John Gibson<br>
-Sean Hannity<br>
-Brit Hume<br>
-Everyone on Fox & Friends
Liberal personalities <br><br>
-Allen Colmes (and he doesn't even get his own show)<br>
-Greta Van Susteren (her show is never deals with politics so it doesn't really matter)
*Greta's liberal? Hmmm. Never really watched that, anyways. -[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== Let's complain about the show "Red Eye" on Fox News ==
Let's complain about the show "Red Eye" on Fox News. I am a conservative and I would have to say that it is the stupidest show on Fox News. Fox News if you are listening pull the show off your network. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative
== Is this why Murdoch started Fox? ==
"Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a news channel which would counteract them."
Has anyone got a source that says this ''is'' the reason he started Fox News? What does Murdoch himself say?
Isn't Fox a broadcast channel? Doesn't it compete with the other broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) rather than with the cable news channels (e.g. CNN)? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
: Fox News is the cable news channel. Fox is the broadcast channel, and it doesn't carry a news program of its own. So, Fox as a corporation competes in both areas. The only other network that splits itself like this is NBC (MSNBC, CNBC), although they have an integral news program on their broadcast channel.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== "The religion they represent" ==
That line is bat-**-crazy. You cannot say that suicide bombings need to be "put in the context of the religion they represent." It's flat-out racist. Further, it's an obvious bias, just like this entire page.
I have edited out the offensive line. I have also changed some of the wording to sound less biased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Good quick removal of my changes, which were awesome, Tim, since they put the article more in line with your *stated goal* of maintaining a non-biased site.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
The fact is that few Christians or Buddhists are blowing themselves up, and Fox News isn't afraid to say that. I find that to be quite an appropriate statement. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 15:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
So, then it would be fine to say that Jim Jones represents Christianity?
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 19:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: The fact is, ATB-uglybar-ATB, that few Muslims are blowing themselves up either. Just the crazy ones. Would it be fair to say that abortion clinic bombers are representative of Christians? See, that might make me mad, since I'm Christian, and I believe that blowing anyone up is a bad thing to do. Take your racist hate-mongering elsewhere.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 19:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I have nothing personal against Muslims except that they should convert to Christianity. However, I think it is a fair to say that Fox News is much harder on them then the other news channels (i.e., they're willing to connect their suicidal nature to their fundamentalism.) I think we can all agree that in America (with proper border controls) we have no room for racism. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 20:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
== "Dominating the ratings" ==
So, uh, if they're dominating the ratings, PROVIDE A SOURCE. Either, you know, give us a source, or leave it out. Or has somebody not looked at the commandments? --[[User:Mattybee|Mattybee]] 14:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
== Fox and CNN ==
I have been doing research on both Fox and CNN, and I have seen many occasions where both networks would be "reporting" the same event and yet both reports are completely different. After watching hours of both networks, and analyzing word usage, stories covered, and opinion pieces, I have come to the conclusion IMHO that both networks are hard at work spoon feeding America news that has been interpreted, digested, and analyzed for us. Both networks are telling us what to think about everything, the only difference is which way their messages lean. It would be nice for the news people to just give me the news without all the crap attached and let us make up our own minds. I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but I am still capable of making my own decisions about what I see.
== Another article protected to preserve its bias ==
Conservapedia continues to abdicate its goal of providing an unbiased encyclopedic source. See [[Theory of evolution]], [[Dinosaur]], and [[Young earth creationism]] for more fun.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow. Well-cited information, called vandalism, was removed. Seriously, guys, come on.
"However, some liberals claim that Hannity and Colmes is still biased toward the right. Sean Hannity joined Fox News when the network started and personally nominated Alan Colmes as his debate opponent. Colmes, a liberal-moderate entirely off the screen of liberal politics, does not receive the same treatment that Hannity receives from the station (Hannity is often brought on during the daily news, while Colmes is not). In fact, the working title was "Hannity and Liberal to be Determined".<ref></ref> Liberals tend to cite Hannity's "superiority" over Colmes in the show as proof of bias."
Why was this removed? It was cited, clearly stated as a liberal belief, but considered vandalism and removed. Do you seriously think that information like this doesn't belong on a Conservative encyclopedia? Conservatives don't deserve to even hear the liberals' arguments? I strongly suggest an unblock, this is hardly vandalism, it's censorship. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 16:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
== Content and name change ==
Shouldn't the article be called Fox News Channel, shouldn't there be some reference to News Corp and to Roger Ailes? These are all things I'd be willing to do, would have no bias, and would add to the article. Is there no middle ground for protection? In wikipedia there is a semi-protected status which blocks IP users and new users that have been on the site for less than four days. Most vandals will forget about their plan in that time. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
== Outfoxed: Rupert Mudoch's War on Journalism ==
I watched the documentary in a politics course; it includes many liberal objections to Fox News...I think it deserves some mention. [[User:Reagan youth|Reagan youth]] 15:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)