This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance). Conservatism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

Archives
February 2006 – July 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 July 2006 – July 2007 June 2007 – December 2007 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Normally, I expect PPP polls to show Obama doing better than Gallup and Rasmussen. However, lately both Fox News and WSJ are more in the bag for Obama than PPP. What's up? Gallup and Rasmussen continue to show little change in the race, but with News Corp changing it's numbers so dramatically, they're causing many sites to imply that Obama is making far more gains than could be implied without the help of News Corp. Is there another case of bias here, even if it's pro-dem bias? WaywardGeek (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Push polling, it is a political behavior where fake questions are worded to acquire desired answers after which the results are inflated and presented to low-information voters as legitimate polling. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I put in a controversy that made Fox critics look bad, and three different editors took it out, with the respective comments of "rubbish", no comment at all, and "unencyclopedeic trivial nonsense." So I have got to ask -- is this article supposed to be limited to controversies that make Fox look bad? William Jockusch (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it shows what kind of person Maher is, but it is not really relevant to FNC what he says. Maher making an absurd statement is more appropriate on his article. Arzel (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about critics of Fox News; it is about Fox News. You could post controversies about Wikipedia because it has a page about Fox News controversies, but that wouldn't make sense here - it would make sense on a page about Wikipedia controversies. This also isn't about making anyone look bad - it is bringing into the page issues directly relating to Fox News, or because of actions of Fox News, that have generated intense public discussion or disagreement. This is particularly relevant here because FOX portrays itself as "fair and balanced", journalistically objective- so controversy can develop fairly easily when that objectivity appears to have been breeched. Adrade (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William, I would also add that the NPOV aspects of the testable, verifiable information here does not constitute the work of "Fox critics" yet is a partial enumeration of some of the more blatant realities concerning one arena of political propaganda. A cursory critical examination of the Fox "News" channel can not help but be overwhelmingly critical of the lies, distortions, and virtually treasonous activities of the corporation. Admittedly summarizing Fox "News" while remaining NPOV requires considerable calisthenic prowess. :) Yet as two others have noted, quoting things entertainers have said about Fox "News" seems rather irrelevant. Besides, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart at the Colbert Report and The Daily Show would be better critics to reference. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't their bias against video games be mentioned? Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto... They are quite infamous with gamers... 208.96.65.201 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can research the controversy from the video game community or in a political community in which claims have been made for bias within FOX News on this issue, citing specific examples, I believe it would be relevantly placed in this article. Adrade (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lack of knowledge regarding the word "Purported". In the context being used here it is the appropriate word as it means the meaning conveyed, professed, or implied. Secondly, it is used in several other areas within this same article. I don't see why there exists an attempt to remove this word which is clearly being used properly and also works to remove the 1st person WP voice from the statement. My guess is that those that want to remove it are doing so becuase they think it implies that the statement is not true. To those editors I suggest they review the word and the meaning. Arzel (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reponse on my talk page here where the OP inquired.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel, every time the term is applied, it would benefit by having a ref/ref reference so that the source of the report can be checked for veracity and legitimacy. I agree, there is no big reason to scrub the term from the article unless said reports are not verified as true. Looking at the history of edits, it looks like some considerable effort has been applied to provide suitable, testable references, so I'd have to agree, there's no need to select any alternative terms to "purported." Damotclese (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that since User:QuackGuru is now tagteaming with User:Bullrangifer we will have to discuss this new addition. There is no evidence that the Climate study by MMfA has any WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. MMfA is constantly going after FNC, plus they have a stated objective to destroy FNC. As such, pretty much anything they is going to be extremely biased. My first basic question, however, is why is this notable? Given the pure amount of material that MMfA puts out about FNC if this is the standard than this article would be nothing but MMfA. Arzel (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text is relevant from a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is everything they say relevant? They have hundreds if not thousands of pages of stuff on FNC. What makes this special? Arzel (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters fails the basic criteria for a RS, and in fact falls neatly into the category of a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. As it says in WP:IRS, "context matters". When a source exists primarily for the purpose of undermining organizations like Fox News, as MM does, it's pronouncements cannot be taken at face value without independent corroboration. MM may be a RS for information about itself, but not much else. Roccodrift (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, MMfA has been discussed many times at WP:RSN and although opinions vary, if properly attributed it can generally be used (I say generally as there are few sources that can always be used. A personal opinion claiming that MMfA's primary purpose is to undermine Fox, or even 'like Fox' whatever that means, is irrelevant (and not claimed in Media Matters for America. In fact its 2013 "Misinformer of the Year" award went to CBS. It's true that in 2010 it increased its focus on Fox in an effort to change it, but that's doesn't disqualify it as a source, and I note that the attempt to remove its tax exempt status as an educational non-profit failed. Dislike its politics all you want, but you are wrong on the RS issue. And we certainly don't need some form of independent corroboration. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant they have a dedicated objective to destroy FNC. I continue to not be surprised by the long string of liberal editors that defend the use of sources like this. Let me ask you this. If this little piece of crap is notable and has to be included, then what is the line for what MMfA crap can or cannot be included? Arzel (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]