Talk:Fox News

Add most recent content up here at top?

I removed this sentence from intro: "Considered right wing in its projections and perceptions, it occasionally ventures into original news topics that are uncovered by other outlets." - likely true, but it's a) unreferenced, b) not important in the context of Fox being a partisan pump of info that's unconstrained by big-picture reality. If someone wants to come up with a quality example, and make an "original reporting not covered elsewhere" subsection for it under the Actions section, IMO that'd be the place for it. Anna Haynes 02:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's the law firm representing Fox on this "fair and balanced" thing? Who else do they work for? It's time to find the attorneys who help their clients abuse trademark for political reasons.


 * A quick online scour seems to suggest that it's Fox's own "in-house" attorneys.. -- BillGarrett

From http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/nyregion/23FRAN.html?pagewanted=print&position= the name "Dori Ann Hanswirth" finds home at Hogan & Hartson LLP http://www.hhlaw.com/site/directory/partner_template.asp?att_id=5275 -- Maynard 10:10 25 Aug 2003 (EDT)

Since it isn't really "news", this article and the subject thereof should henceforth be known as "Fox Media". There is no "Fox News". -- in my most sincere opinion ;-}

Speaking about "fair and balanced": compare entry about Fox News and CNN on this website. And then consider: is "SourceWatch.org" fair and objective?

The article does not define who "Ailes" is:

"In late 2002, Ailes confirmed.."

I saw that in a previous revision, Roger Ailes was defined, but that's been ommitted for over a year.

I just corrected the PIPA conclusions
However, somehow I got logged out. This is just to let you know that it was me.--Lawlesslaw 09:37, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

I'd say that 1) it's not your authority to "correct PIPA conclusions"; and 2) what you've done is insert opinion. Accordingly, I reverted your entry. If you'd like to edit an article which promotes ths case for WMD in Iraq, please do so, but don't bugger other articles with that objective. Thanks. --Maynard 10:06, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * Why would I want to promote the case for WMD in Iraq? I merely point out that some have been found, and that Fox viewers might well know about them, whether that is enough to be the WMD that everyone was looking for is a judgement matter, i.e., people could agree on the facts, yet answer PIPAs question differently.  On the issue of a significan al Qaeda link, if you read the PIPA article (please do so), you will see that they admit an al Qaeda link.  Additionally this poorly designed report is being used to suggest that Fox does not provide accurate information, the "study" is not designed to answer that question.  Similarly, it is also being used to suggest that Fox viewers are less informed, and it may be intended to do that but it is poorly designed to do so, because mainly what it detects is that Fox viewers has different opinions.  On the one issue the Fox viewers indisputably get wrong, world opinion, is also one that these type of viewers probably care little about.  If you ask them about certain tax, business or economic issues they might well out perform PBS viewers.   People are just better informed on what they are interested in.  You do yourself a diservice by relying upon this poorly designed, non-peer reviewed study.  Read it.--Lawlesslaw 19:08, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * You're argument that things come down to "a matter of opinion" is a dodge at best, and duplicitous at worst. WMD's either existed in the quantitites that the administration described, or they don't. Iraq either had a connection to al qaeda or didn't. While its true that it is possible that people may respond in the positive with the wording "some connection", the pollsters foresaw that and had this to say about it.


 * We were concerned that when only given the two options of saying that Iraq was involved in September 11 or not, some respondents might respond affirmatively when they only believed that there was some link, but not necessarily direct Iraqi involvement in September 11. Thus in February we offered respondents four options for describing “the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda.” Indeed, only 20% chose the option that “Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.” Another 36% chose the position that “Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks” –still a position at odds with the dominant view of the intelligence community, but less egregiously so. Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” Just 7% chose the option, “There was no connection at all.”


 * There is also the issue of the demonstrably false assertion that Iraq actually used WMD's in the current offensive, which is untrue. FACTUALLY. That is not a "matter of opinion", or a matter of degree. From these questions, the pollsters broke down the respondents down into major news network watched. On questions of FACT, Fox viewers were consistently wrong more than any other network, even if only by a decent size degree (what this report also says about CBS news is quite damning as well). I suggest YOU read the study a little more carefully and understand that these questions are not matter of "opinion", and the ones that are of degree still show a high concentration of Fox viewers who believe in demonstrably false assertions.
 * SiberioS


 * PIPA did not deal with the connection to al Qaeda issue correctly, because whether the connections even they acknowledge are "significant" or not is a matter of opinion. If Great Britain had been treating and protecting al Zachari and other terrorists, the US would definitely have considered it signicant.  Fox viewers could think the same thing about Saddam, and not have any "misperceptions", this is reason enough to consider the "study" flawed.  It has a POV and is designed more to produce rhetorical fodder and real science and would not have survived peer review.


 * I agree that WMD in the suspected quantities have not been found, and you are right that they weren't used during the invasion, but they have been used, either inadvertently or ineptly since that time. Perhaps you don't recall that chemical agents were detected in one IED attack, that was perhaps unwittingly improvised from a chemical shell.  The attackers either did not know what they had, or did not know how properly exploit it by getting the chemicals to release (it had to be properly prepared). But that came during the occupation, not during the invasion.  However, we are not talking about whether Iraq had WMD as alleged, but this study, and whether it would be factually correct for a respondent to believe that WMD had been found.  This shell, which dominated a couple days of news and a follow up  a week or so later when the detection was confirmed could easily be enough for those viewers to to correctly without any misperception, answer "yes".  How is this a "dodge" or "duplicitious"?  You should be able to look at this objectively, since we are not discussing an emotional issue like Iraq, but whether this study has a good design which can justify its conclusions and the uses it is put to, both here and elsewhere.  If the opinion you wish to express is true, then there should be someway for you to support it without missusing this study.--Lawlesslaw 01:34, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * PIPA did not deal with the connection to al Qaeda issue correctly, because whether the connections even they acknowledge are "significant" or not is a matter of opinion. 


 * You just wilfully ignored the whole section I cited where the PIPA study deals with the issue of degree as to whether a connection was significant. And again, it was found that people held a degree of connection that is DEMONSTRABLY false. That is not an issue of opinion. Thinking that Iraq was in on the planning of 9/11 is demonstrably false, by virtue of the 9/11 Commission Report.


 * Yes, but it is not the demonstratably false statement that is cited in this article, it is the demonstratably true one. Hopefully the new mod I made is acceptable to you, or perhaps you can word the article in a way that is correct.--Lawlesslaw 03:22, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)


 *  Perhaps you don't recall that chemical agents were detected in one IED attack, that was perhaps unwittingly improvised from a chemical shell.


 * Actually I do. And in fact, the bomb in question, was a pre-gulf war munition. Also, the shell was unmarked, and the people who used it, did not know what was inside of it. Presumbaly, a number of these unmarked shells containing sarin gas are mixed in with regular munitions that survived the collapse of the Iraqi Army.


 * whether it would be factually correct for a respondent to believe that WMD had been found. This shell, which dominated a couple days of news and a follow up  a week or so later when the detection was confirmed could easily be enough for those viewers to to correctly without any misperception, answer "yes". 


 * The hilarity of your assertion is within what we're talking about. WMD=Weapons of Mass Destruction. Note the plural, as well as thw adjective "Mass". One antiquated shell of sarin gas does not make a WMD, and no reasonable person would take it as such. To assert as much is to stretch things a bit far.


 * You should be able to look at this objectively, since we are not discussing an emotional issue like Iraq, but whether this study has a good design which can justify its conclusions and the uses it is put to, both here and elsewhere.


 * I AM looking at this objectively. I have cited the parts that contest you're assertion of the issue of degree, as well as pointing out that some of you're attempts at paintings questions as matter of "opinion", is not only untrue, but that many of the so called "opinions" are demonstrably false. Saying the sky is green isn't an opinion. It's a misperception.

SiberioS

I reverted back to Maynards version because someone threw in (again) the label that Steven Milloy is a "anti-junk science activist" a dubious distinction at best, and smacks more of cheerleading than a unbiased assertion.

I reverted the edit because you misconstrued the study to fit your own ends, seeing as you've been unable to reason why its of dubious value. One shell is NOT evidence of the massive stockpile of weapons that the administration claimed. BAR NONE. The 9/11 Commission Report asserted there was little to no contact between Hussein and al qaeda (the issue of degree I dealth with perviously) and the issue of world opinion is also demonstrably false.

SiberioS

Note that saying there is "little" connection does not make the question false.
Read your own article quote "a position at odds with the dominant view of the intelligence community, but less egregiously", at odds, does not mean it is "false" as this article states. This is another example of how the study is poorly constructed. If the study had asked the viewers what the intelligence community thought, they might have correctly reported that. Instead it asked whether there was "significant" connection to al Qaeda, and they are quite entitled to that opinion and it is a defensible position.

Frankly, I don't know why this site is not up in arms about PIPAs disinformation, instead of actually contributing to it.--Lawlesslaw 03:38, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)

It IS false. If I tell someone that I believe Jack slept with Jane, when in reality she only cuddled with him, THAT is false. Holding the sleeping opinion when the truth is the cuddling one is not justifiable as an issue of opinion. That's like saying I can believe its 70 outside when its closer to 50. The fact that its all under 90 degrees however, doesn't make my assertion true. Degree of difference DOES make it false.

SiberioS


 * You are confusing a qualitative difference with a quantitative difference. The word they used when they asked the question was "signficant".  If you ask George (Jane's wife) whether Jacks relationship with Jane was significant, and you may get a yes or no answer, each equally defensible.  --Lawlesslaw 07:48, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)

The Bush administration said "look at that semi-truck in the lot across the street. It's the only vehicle in the lot and it is a full size 55 ft. trailer container. It is full of marbles." Upon inspection of the entire truck, and the entire lot, no marbles were discovered; only one shred of broken glass.

The Bush administration claims proved to be false, by any standard of honesty and reason.

The PIPA study reported an direct association between FOX viewers and individuals who still believe that the truck was full of marbles. It did not report an association with people who equate one shard of glass to a truckload of marbles.

It's time to accept these facts and move on. --Maynard 07:25, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)

Yes, the Bush administration's claims proved false. But then a PIPA came along and did not ask viewers whether the truck was full of marbles, instead they asked whether any glass was found in the truck, and when they said yes, PIPA said they had a misperception. PIPA just had a poorly designed study, or perhaps not, if it is serving their disinformation purposes.--Lawlesslaw 07:48, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)

All polls and studys have inherent shortcomings and weaknesses. Is it your contention that Fox did NOT mislead and promote the deception of the public, or is it your contention here that PIPA deployed the same degree of willful deception? --Maynard 09:00, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)

Reading the document, the question asked was "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" (p.4,5) The facts are that the U.S. has NOT found anything which could reasonably be construed as affirmative to the question. The facts are that it was often reported with much ballyhooism and jingoism that WMD *were* found; but then the evidence was discredited, and the corporate media just dropped their cheerleading without hardly any retraction whatsoever. This happened repeatedly, and the result was that some significant portion of the public believed in the falsities (of which there were several) wich were intentionally promulgated as willful deception. PIPA asked questions and reported on the responses. ...

... this same audience overwhelmingly believed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."


 * You are not being careful again, the study does not report separately for Fox viewers on this poll question.--Lawlesslaw 04:37, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * Correct, which is the basis for my reversion of your last edit. And how is it I who is not being careful here? --Maynard 08:00, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)

... these are the same responders to the WMD question. It should be quite evident that they are extremely misinformed.

--Maynard 11:17, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * These are not the same responders.--Lawlesslaw 04:37, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * no, not specifically; but it's a statistical probability that they all would have had the same answers, given the fact that they weren't offered any alternative views. --Maynard 08:00, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)

My final comment on this whole issue is thusly: there is no argument as to the veracity, or lack thereof, of many of the perceptions asked about in the PIPA study. You're only argument is that believing the oppisite is not necessarily false, and a matter of opinion, for all the reasons I have already countered. But the simple fact is that any reasonable person would assert, and Maynard concurred with this as well, that the issue of degree IS a matter of fact. The one potential problem you supposedly highlighted, namely the issue of degree, was foreseen (as I cited prior) and studied through a question that quantified the degree. --SiberioS

No more cheerleading, more unbiased assertion!
Ok, you (Siberio?) want no more cheerleading and more unbiased assertion. Well, so do I, but unfortunately this is not what is available (to a large extent) in SourceWatch. The FNC article e.g., is, as a whole, cheerleading the anti-FNC guys, and can surely not be described as 'unbiased' by anyone. /Johan

So we're anti-Fox News cheerleaders because we cite a study of which you disagree with, claiming not that the conclusions of the study are false (in fact you agree that the people poll 'hold' these perceptions), but rather that somehow disagreeing with demonstrable facts is a matter of opinion. Well I'm sorry if pointing out that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is some sort of great offense.

And what of the rest of the article? Do you argue with other parts of it? What citation and basis do you have for "bias" in other parts of the article?

SiberioS

Honestly, SiberioS, do you really consider the FNC article to be unbiased and that it has no 'message' about FNC it would like to convey?

Look at things like:

- What information is selected?

- What information is omitted?

- How much room is given to various opinions?

- What are the sources for the information presented?

- Are the sources reliable and unbiased?

(Btw, why do you say I disagree with some study? What study, the so called PIPA one? I haven't read it, and have thus no opinion.)

Regards, /Johan

I enjoy you're broad assertions but can you actually point to things that you find "biased" on the page? Quote those things and then cite where its wrong. If in fact nothing is factually wrong, then your only problem is the fact that we cite facts that you dislike. That's not "bias".

SiberioS

Of course biased selection of data constitutes bias! It's like doing an opinion poll and only record the answers you like - the results would not be that reliable.

Regards, /Johan

You just proved my point. You in fact, have no counter argument towards any of the statements in the article, or assert that any of them are false, or warrenting of skepticism. You just don't like the fact that its not a puff piece for Fox News. If you want, go find instances where Fox was unjustly criticzed and add them in.

Also, unlike wikipedia, we do not maintain a stance of neutrality on SourceWatch. Most contributors try as much as possible to maintain an impartial stance, however, and avoid making subjective statements, and instead making connections and statements based on citable sources. Of course, yourself, as well as other fly by night criticizers, allege that this why we are "biased" and "untrustworthy". The problem with this assertion of course, is very few people have pointed out factual mistakes or unsubstantiated statements. Rather people simply dislike the unflattering facts we point out. Supposedly were doing a hatchet job because were pointing out things that are unflattering to whomever it is they're trying to defend.

SiberioS

"we do not maintain a stance of neutrality on SourceWatch" (SiberioS)
...which supports my point, i.e. SourceWatch is a spin and disinformation site.

Regards, /Johan


 * Siberios is wrong, the policy emphasizes accuracy and fairness, but it is up to the community to make it happen. --Lawlesslaw 10:11, 7 Jan 2005 (EST)

There's another way to look at it of course, though partisan minds, small as they can be, don't seem to see it at all; which is that (using Fox News as an example), the propaganda, disinformation, and willful deception of the public needs to be exposed. Fox apologists and Bush idolaters (clearly partisans) will regard this exposing as bias against their idols, which, frankly, is just as wrong as believing that Saddam caused 9-11 or that muslims "hate freedom", or any other of the completely ridiculous shit which folks adhere to these days. ...

... Propagandists and liars have their podium. SourceWatch serves to expose them, not to support them. In this way it is not neutral; and for that matter there is very little neutral ground available to be occupied. ...

A neutral position would be to acknolwedge that these things might be acceptable. They are not. None of them. --Maynard 09:34, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * Fox's partisan cheerleading for the Bush lies and deceptions is a well documented fact, not a fiction, and not a neutral position.
 * The lack of WMD in Iraq is a fact; there is no neutral position about it.
 * Saddam's eagerness to fly nuclear or biological chemicals into the U.S. by drone aircraft, as Bush presented it to the nation in the Cleveland speech, was a fantasy; there is no evidence to support that vision, and there is no neutral ground regarding the matter.
 * People DID stand in line over 9 hours in an attempt to vote in Ohio in 2004; and people did walk away because they didn't have that much time available. The situation was unacceptable, not 20% or 50% unacceptable, but 100% unacceptable.

At last we can agree on something, i.e. that "willful deception of the public needs to be exposed".

And with that, I think we're done (for now).

Regards, /Johan

"For now"? That has a mightily ominous and threatening tone doesn't it?

At the end of the day, like me and Maynard have been pointing out, nothing said on this site is factually untrue. If indeed we were spreading "disinformation", the assumption would be of course, that what we were saying is false. As evidenced by the lack of legit, cited countering, nothing written here IS false. You just claim were biased because we have a distinctly negative perspective of Fox News. That perspective, however, is not founded off lies, mistruths, or distortions, but off FACT. I understand how this may inconvenience your world view, but were not heart to write puff pieces.

And lest anyone think that I, or anyone else here, have a particular love of the mainstream media, the lack of articles on the other networks is mostly due to not having infinite resources when it comes to contributors around here. ABC's John Stossel for instance, is egregiously moronic, and many of their news journalism shows are patently ridiculous. CBS has almost always sided with corporations when the heats been turned on. Fox isn't the only one.

SiberioS

Consistent bias in information selection/presentation constitute disinformation, in my opinion.

("there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics")

Funny, btw, that Sheldon 'complains' about me being only negativ, while, at the same time, SourceWatch systematically covers undesirable persons/institutions in a negative manner.

Also, you don't know anything about my world view. What does that do to your argument?

But, whatever, this dialogue of ours has probably outlived its purpose.

Regards, /Johan

Consistent bias in information selection/presentation constitute disinformation, in my opinion.

We are not taking quotes out of context, nor are we just hamming things up without citation, like many pundits do.

Like I said before, if you want to write additions where Fox News was unfairly accused of something than go ahead and write it, as long as its backed up by citable articles.

Until then, you have no leg to stand up, when SourceWatch clearly allows just about anyone to edit articles.

SiberioS

Explaining the 69% reversion, it is clearly marked that "(percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)", and therefore the reference to it in the article is still correct. It's not asserted that it is solely 69% of all Fox watchers.

SiberioS


 * The article as written, implies that the propositions are those that Fox News data was based on. And it isn't, so without my extra qualifying phrase, this article is disinformation, although even with it, it poorly presents the PIPA study.  The lack of critical thinking here is surprising.--Lawlesslaw 10:11, 7 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * A valid enogh observation. Even I thought that it wasn't properly highlighted enough. But to say that we're on some grand mission of disinformation is just silly, just because we missed putting something into bold one line. And that doesn't justify the deletion of what was factual information. Either way I'm putting into bold that disclaimer line so people realize it (as evidenced by you missing it).


 * SiberioS

SiberioS, let's just agree that we disagree. I think there is a systemic bias in SourceWatch, you don't. That's ok. And when time permits, I'll certainly try to contribute.

Regards, /Johan

Fox News vs. Fox News Channel
I just made a redirect for Fox News Channel to Fox News--but would it make more sense for Fox News Channel to be the article title and Fox News be a redirect? Jim Naureckas 14:53, 21 Oct 2006 (EDT)

SW: fox
fox news portrays the fair and balanced news- is full of sensationalism. they use the upbeat theme incorporated with rethoric to keep the conservative views flowing. The news delivery thrusts into a spin type realistic ideaology. Momentum spins at a steady fast pace to circulate steady conservative views. This effect keeps the viewer in-tune to think that this is the only accurate view.

fox
sensationlize the news to keep the viewer ratings up. the rehtorical theme maintains the consistency in their ideology.--Ssaglia 11:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)