Talk:Fox v. Franken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fox v. Franken is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

Added Link Supernathan 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV due to questionable phrasing in the background section including but not exclusive to...

"...implying by omission that other news outlets were unfair, unbalanced"

"Liberals quickly began to accuse the network..."

"...on liberal Web sites and blogs..."

Supernathan 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about those sentences lacks neutrality? Are you saying that they should be more specifically attributed? I don't think that's really a problem with injecting a point of view so much as laziness in finding specific quotes. Croctotheface 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a controversial case and it is very easy to turn it into a left versus right issue. In absense of specific quotes to use of the word liberal is not acceptable, there need to be specific sources listed for the accusations/websites or the sentences need to go all together. Having said that I also feel that it is a big jump to assume that FNC's taglines intrinsically "imply" anything without any sources... if there is a verifiable source of this I would certainly suggest it be listed. Without proper sources or an edit of the phrasing the article won't be neutral. Thanks. Supernathan 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the article should have better sourcing. However, I don't really have a POV concern, since I think all lines are both true and verifiable. If you want to rephrase those sentences away from using "liberal", I don't think I'd have a problem with that. Regarding the implication of Fox's slogan, I'm pretty sure that there are sources for that. Fox News did sort of have as it's mission correcting the alleged "liberal bias" of the mainstream media. Croctotheface 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree here but I feel that the lack of sources is specifically what currently makes the article NPOV. Liberal is not a neutral word... in fact it is the specific word used in the NPOV tutorial as an example. I think we need to rephrase or cite specific sources to fix this. I still feel like the taglines are an issue but less so than the rest of the article.Supernathan 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that sourcing concerns are generally different from POV concerns. I have a sourcing concern with this article, but I don't think that a thorough examination of sources will require significant changesbecause the text itself is mostly neutral and verifiable, if not completely sourced. Croctotheface 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about this phrasing?

"The network was then accused of having a conservative bias, "fair and balanced" became widely used as an ironic euphemism for perceived right-wing media bias on Fox and other media outlets."

Supernathan 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the passive voice ("was then accused"). It really doesn't solve the problem; it actually removes a vague but accurate attribution--I remember reading liberal blogs, especially at this time, and ironic use of the slogan was common--and replaces it with no attribution. Croctotheface 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I am not trying to create animosity here but I feel that the current attribution is not accurate. I am certainly not married to the phrasing I suggested but the fact is that it does solve the problem at hand while highlighting the sourcing problem that both agree already exists.

I remember reading liberal blogs, especially at this time, and ironic use of the slogan was common--and replaces it with no attribution.

The problem with this is that from a neutral point of view there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition of a "liberal blog". I wouldn't say "Canadians quickly began to accuse the network of itself having a pervasive conservative bias." because it is too big a group of people and they do not speak with one voice. If you read blogs at the time and remember what they were we could list them (with sourcing) as the source of the accusations but not "liberal blogs" in general because it is useless and misleading the way it reads now. Supernathan 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's certainly a fair point. However, a passive voice construction is not the answer. How would you feel about "some liberals", "liberal critics", or "some liberal critics", or an attribution along those lines? Croctotheface 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That gets us a whole lot closer and I am sorry if it seems like I am splitting hairs here but with the "some liberals" it leaves out the possibility that others may have also made accusations and unfortunately "critic" is one of the weasel words that they tell us to leave out in the style manual. Unfortunately this is the kind of stuff that it going to make it hard to solve this issue without creating another problem by making the sentence too vague/passive (and thus a bit useless) or citing specific sources. Supernathan 04:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting hairs is fine, though at some point it might not be unreasonable for you to do some research and find specific critics, of which there are many, to attribute statements to. I honestly can't imagine that anyone with even a passing familiarity with modern American media politics would disagree that Fox News is criticized for being a shill for the Republican Party and conservatism. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to attribute the statements better, for several good reasons, but it does mean that I don't have a concern that this is really weaseling. I'd say there are two main reasons to avoid "critics say": first, specifics are almost always better than vagueries, and second, it's often a way to inject your own critical opinion while hiding behind the masks of unnamed "critics". In this case, the criticism is so common and widespread that I'm not concerned with the second issue becuase the criticism is so common. I think that even mitigates the first issue because the criticism is SO widespread that it would be impossible to list every person who has made that argument. Croctotheface 06:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it didn't occur to me before but I will bet you that most of our sourcing homework has already been done for us over at the Fox News Channel and the controversies subsection. I will try to grab some a little later and hopefully that will fix our problem once and for all. Supernathan 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an edit war here but we clearly have not reached consensus. Until it is actually fixed (not just identified) I am leaving the npov tag up. I am more than willing to continue talking but please don't take the tag down again until we have come to an agreement. Supernathan 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing Issues

I am going to add this as a separate issue from the issue of neutrality so once the NPOV issues are fixed we can move on. Supernathan 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The way this is stated in the Fox News Channel article is...

Fox News has been accused of promoting a conservative, right-wing, and Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality.

they then source this article. I really like this type of phrasing because while it is passive the sourcing still shows exactly who is stating the claim... we could use additional sourcing if you would like but I think this solves our problem on that sentence.

We also have to fix the sentence that refers to "liberal websites and blogs". Supernathan 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care at this point. Find a phrasing you like and change it to that. Croctotheface 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll take care of it. Supernathan 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude above, but this process is taking forever. This disagreement is over more or less inconsequential nonsense. Your only edits to the actual article are adding the tag and reverting my attempt to address your complaints. Just fix the damn problem already. Croctotheface 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, I don't take this stuff personally but it is odd to point out that you didn't mean to be rude and then tell me to fix the damn problem. I feel like I have stated my points pretty clearly and as I have said I will take care of it. You can follow up if you want or you can just trust me to do it but I will get to it when I can. In the meantime I am going to leave the tag up. Thanks. Supernathan 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I find it puzzling that you have so much time to argue here on the talk page but so little to actually devote to editing the article. I do not appreciate the fact that you just reverted my proposed solution and then made no effort, in the following three days, to actually put in a version you think is better. It would take two minutes, maybe, to translate what you're talking about on the talk page into changes to the main page. I would try to make a change, but I expect that you would just revert it. Croctotheface 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)