This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Radio C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. New York City This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics 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 is small change but for what it's worth: a. While a host "own's" his show, the phrase "Fox News host" rather sounds as if he's hosting a newscast which he most certainly isn't. A "commentator" may or may not "own" his own show, but, regardless, Beck's role on the show is to commentate. That's why I said "in this context" it may be the better word. b. Beck probably still does hold the same position and may continue to hold it throughout his lifetime but we don't know that from the source. What we know from the source is that on this occasion he equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split the difference... How about "broadcaster", as it's listed in the citation? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me, and inplies he is more than just the host of the program, if I understand the definition of Broadcaster correctly. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change made by Arzel ("Fox News Channel host") is fine with me. I still prefer the past tense on "equates/equated". Badmintonhist (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with either tense after BH's explanation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary Outfoxed be mentioned somewhere in the "Criticism and Controversies" section as well? It is only mentioned once in the article under the "Slogan" section, but is a key player in the criticism of the Fox News Corporation.

Perhaps a subsection titled "Slogan controversy" should be created under "Criticism and Controversies" to incorporate both the well-known slogan controversy and Outfoxed documentary, or perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the "Accusations of conservative bias" subsection.

This may be relevant to the separate Fox News Channel controversies article, as the Slogan controversy is not mentioned at all in that article, and the documentary is only mentioned for a single reference amid the many controversies it covers regarding Fox News.

71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no citation for the content of the second paragraph of the "Ratings and Reception" section of the article. The text of the paragraph states:

In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.

I have not been able to find an adequate reference for these statistics. I, therefore, request a "citation needed" note for this paragraph.

71.198.169.120 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source [1] Feel free to add it if you wish. I don't think it is a very contencious issue. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section on Glenn Beck and social justice mentions that Jim Wallis said that what Beck said attacks the Christian faith and Christians shouldn't listen to Glenn Beck. The reader is led to believe that the criticism by Wallis is based solely upon his faith and that politics has nothing to do with the criticism. The fact is, Wallis is a well-known liberal/progressive/left-winger. Even the liberal New York Times refers to him as "left" and "religious left." I contend that the reader needs to know the political background of the person making such a broad statement on behalf of all Christians. The use of "liberal" would be sourced to the NYT article.--Drrll (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps using a properly sourced description of Wallis as a social justice advocate would solve the problem. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Drrll (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Applying labels to critics ("well known liberal", etc.) is subjective, generally a violation of WP:NPOV, and usually discouraged in encyclopedic articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The label that I suggested here, "social justice advocate" or something like that (and only provided that it can be legitimately referenced) relates directly to the point of contention between Beck and Wallis. It makes perfect sense that someone who is a staunch fan of "social justice" in a religious context would criticize someone who despises the concept, thus it helps the reader understand where the criticism is coming from. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can dig it with sourcing; the context you provided is informative and appropriate. My reply was more intended towards the original impetus, seemingly a political "left-winger" style labeling. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters is being used as a reliable source for derogatory content in this article. Just like the Media Research Center/Newsbusters, Media Matters is not a news organization, but instead fits under the category of a self-published source. From Wikipedia policy on reliable sources: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". The burden of establishing that Media Matters is an exception to this rule falls on the editors wanting to keep that content in.--Drrll (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can be used as a reliable source for their own opinion. They are not reliable as a source of factual information because of their bias. So long as there is not undue weight given to their opinion, and that that opinion is also expressed within other sources they can be used. It will not be possible to have them removed as a non-reliable source, it is best to impart that their view follows NPOV and Weight criteria. The best approach is to use the primary source from which MMfA uses instead of MMfA itself. I notice that at least one reference to MMfA is a blog within MMfA, which should be right out. Arzel (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the contested section, I see it is Research by MMfA which is self-published. For this to be acceptable it would have to have been reported in a secondary source. The same type of research from MRC would not be acceptable within MSNBC or other liberal people and/or organizations. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reasoning. Could you describe the exact language in WP:V to which you refer? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I look to the RSnoticeboard for guidance I believe that I see a general consensus[2][3] that MMfA is considered a RS for use in criticism of media organizations.SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS policy on self-published sources overrides noticeboards, and besides, the consensus in neither example is decisive (there are other examples of MMfA on the WP:RSN as well). Would you argue that the Media Research Center/Newsbusters.org are reliable sources?--Drrll (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific instance, the comments of the MMfA seem reliable source per WP:Policy for use as criticism of FNC. Have any problem with the asking of that question at the RS/noticeboard? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all--go ahead and ask. Perhaps you could ask if it makes any difference whether the article is a BLP or not. Hopefully a more decisive answer will result this go around.--Drrll (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask all you want -- Media Matters is an accepted reliable source for their own criticism when it is directly related to their mission. You can pretend not to hear it all you want, but this has been covered at least two-dozen times at WP:RSN. Sounds like what you mean is "Hopefully I'll get an answer I want to hear this go around". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretend not to hear"--what pretend not to hear Blaxthos the oracle? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been much of a decisive determination in all those previous requests, especially considering that they usually attract mostly editors who have a stake in the outcome. No, that's not what I meant, but I have to wonder if you'd respect the decision if it was decisively against your position by a bunch of uninvolved editors. I guess that since you believe that MMfA is a reliable source that you also feel that the Media Research Center/Newsbusters is also a reliable source. Or is it different since they have that evil conservative slant instead of a liberal slant?--Drrll (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and posted the question for you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed this specific case, but I want to respond specifically to the statement, "Policy on self-published sources overrides noticeboards." We need to be precise here--no one editor has complete and utter understanding of how to apply policy. The point of a noticeboard discussion is to have a number of editors get together, talk, and figure out how best to apply a policy. What that statement is really saying is more like, "My own interpretation of policy should override the consensus interpretation reached by editors at the noticeboard." Croctotheface (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the criticism in question is mentioned in the Fox News Channel controversies article, which includes MMfA as a source. So perhaps the main article's subsection just needs updating. And the falsified report on a Tea Party rally (with stock footage) was covered by The Daily Show so I'm sure other (more acceptable) coverage wouldn't be hard to find. PrBeacon (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, MMfA is not a news organization, an academic source, or an established book publisher, so it qualifies as a self-published source. Noticeboards can't override WP policy. There is only a small window for MMfA to qualify--the "largely not acceptable" qualification.--Drrll (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet did you apply the same standard to the Gerth book as a source over at the MMfA talkpage? PrBeacon (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PrBeacon, don't bypass the huge leap of logic Drrll just made, specifically his assertion that anything that isn't a "news organization, academic source or established book publisher qualifies as a self-published source." Drrll, I am not sure if you're just ignorant of policy or intentionally trying to misstate policy, but in either case your statement is just flat out wrong. At this point it's clear that he doesn't actually read the policies he asserts. From the general overview (the intent) of WP:RS:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

From the self-published sources section of the reliable source policy:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Drrll, please explain how your statements are supported by policy. Please point us to the actual language in policy you believe supports your position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, my brief comment may have been unclear: the skewed logic was my point. PrBeacon (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gerth book is hardly self-published--it is published by an established book publisher and authored by a Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT journalist--a far cry from MMfA.--Drrll (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was self-published? The author's bias is well-known, yet you apply a double-standard when the source supports what you want it to. And winning a pulitzer isn't as big a deal as you seem to think. PrBeacon (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book is clearly a reliable source, while it is hardly clear with MMfA. If the author's bias is well-known, you must then have reliable sources that say that. Name one.--Drrll (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so clearly to an objective eye -- he's been criticized as venomously anti-Clinton. I mentioned it to draw a parallel, not rehash the argument you've had with three others at the MMfA article. PrBeacon (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you and those on your side are able to have an objective eye, but not those on the other side of an issue. "He's been criticized as venomously anti-Clinton": apparently not by a reliable source; criticized as such by people on a place like the Democratic Underground forums?--Drrll (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources (Eric Alterman and others at The Nation newsmagazine, Gene Lyons' books, salon.com, even mediamatters.org itself), but what's reliable to you is only what you agree with, it seems. As I said this isn't the place to argue about Gerth, and I note how you're deflecting the point of faulty logic and double standards. PrBeacon (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos, under what category of non-self-publilshed sources listed in the reliable sources policy does MMfA fit?

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: it is not a published source--it's a self-published source; who has established besides MMfA that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications: who says that MMfA is an established expert on the topic of the article, Fox News?; when has their work "been published by reliable third-party publications" (note I did not say when has their work been referenced by third-party publications, as is also the case for The Media Research Center)?

I believe that my statements are supported by the policy I quoted at the beginning of this section, by the policy that you quoted, and by the policy that delineates exactly what is a non-self-published source.--Drrll (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When confronted with policy language, you try and make a stand on the definition of the word "published". That may be the most inelegant attempt at Wikilawyering I've ever seen... where in the hell do you get this stuff? Drrll, you're not really helping convince anyone you're here in good faith, nor that you have any experience or familiarity with policy and its application. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between being "published" and not being published is not trivial--it distinguishes between a solidly reliable source and a questionable at best self-published source. I noticed that you conveniently avoided mention of the source of MMfA's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", MMfA's status as an "established expert on the topic of the article" (Fox News), and whether MMfA has been "published by reliable third-party publications". Once again, you impugn someone's good faith.--Drrll (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your assertions regarding the definition of "published" are not supported by policy or Wikipedia practice.
2. MMFA is an established source as a media watchdog. Your attempts to say that they have to be an established expert on "Fox News" shows that you're both ignorant of policy and doing everything you can to wikilawyer.
3. MMFA opinions have been widely published by other sources.

You still haven't given any actual policy that supports your assertions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:V#Reliable Sources talks about "published" sources; shortly thereafter WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) talks about "self-published" sources in contrast
2. Even if policy only requires that MMfA be an "established expert on the topic" of the news media, what reliable source backs up that claim? MMfA?
3. "MMfA opinions have been widely published by other sources"--what WP policy allows a self-published source to be used if referenced by other sources? If it is backed up by policy, that would mean that the Media Research Center qualifies as a reliable source.
4. As I already said before, the policy I quoted at the beginning of this section, the policy that you quoted, and the policy contrasting "published" and "self-published" sources all support my assertions.--Drrll (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this was archived soon after I wrote it on WP:RSN, so I'll include it here as well. Given the fact that we are supposed to be putting forth an effort to make the articles in Wikipedia as neutral as possible as per WP:NPOV, and Media Matters on its own website calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", I can't see any way that MMfA could possibly qualify as "Reliable", as per WP:RS. The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV (edit: and WP:COI, upon further reflection), how can it be considered reliable? Rapier (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps the compromise here is to use secondary sources that describe MMfA's criticism of Fox. There is a book published by Simon and Schuster, ISBN 9781416560104 and a article in the New York Times Nov 1, 2008 that solidly are "secondary publishers" that are describing MMfA criticism of Fox. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Allow MMfA criticisms in the Fox News Channel article if those criticisms are reported in reliable sources and attributed to those sources instead of to MMfA. I believe that a reference to that book would need an attribution like "according to Media Matters' Eric Boehlert" since at the time he wrote the book he worked for MMfA, as opposed to being a journalist or an independent academic.--Drrll (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To keep some peace, that could work. Though, we must note that over at WP:RSN a well respected neutral editor recently expressed opinion[4] that MMfA could be used as a reliable source here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to distract from the compromise that looks like it might be coming through, but I want to respond to Rapier/Sean's original point. WP:RS does not said that our sources must themselves pass WP:NPOV. In fact, given some of the stuff that this article discusses, if they did, we'd have to have a serious conversation about whether we could ever cite Fox News itself. (To be clear, I think that we can and should be able to cite Fox News.) Croctotheface (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croc, you can pick one name, either the real one or the nickname. Once you do that, go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources and you can read WikiPolicy on questionable sources. For the record, I don't think The National Center for Public Policy Research should be used at a reliable source either, for the same reason. Rapier (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the guideline makes no mention of sources being questionable because they have an editorial opinion. Your argument was, in essence, that sources had to follow NPOV. That is not true at all. It would arguably mean we could not cite Fox News. Croctotheface (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed it completely, you simply don't like it because you don't agree. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." This describes MMfA perfectly. Your bias is that somehow Fox News Channel equates with Media Matters for America, when the proper end of the political extreme would be, as I stated earlier, the National Center for Public Research - an organization the self-identifies as conservative. If you want to open up the argument (again) that somehow Fox isn't a reliable source, be my guest. I'm sure you'll enjoy as much success as every other left-leaning editor that has tried, but that has nothing to do with MMfA Rapier (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those descriptors describe Media Matters. "Poor reputation for checking the facts"? I'd imagine you'll provide a long list of factual errors they've made to back that up. "No editorial oversight"? They have a clear editorial structure. "Extremist" and "promotional" do not apply. "Relying heavily on rumors"? What evidence do you have to support that notion? And finally, "rely heavily on personal opinions"? It's true that they have a point of view, but that doesn't mean that they only publish opinion--most of what they publish is not opinionated at all. The ratio of news to opinion is basically like a newspaper. You can find a comparable level of opinion in tons of reliable sources.

The only assertion you've made that's you've actually supported with fact is that MM does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Sources don't have to do that. Regarding my Fox News comparison, I said clearly and unambiguously that I believe we can and should be able to cite Fox News. But they do have a point of view. If your issue is that they are not avowedly conservative (which should not matter if they are in fact conservative, just as it should not matter if MM suddenly deleted "progressive" from their self-description), then what about something like the National Review? Should we be prohibited from ever citing them? That seems like an awful idea to me; we should certainly be able to use the National Review if it makes sense, but they are avowedly conservative. Croctotheface (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A consideration of "Media Matters" and other "partisan media-watchdog organizations" as RS was extensively discussed in a recent RS/N. Blaxthos has commenced another RS/N directly re-addressing this question. Other interested editors are encouraged to participate there as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, any reason you're re-posting this announcement after I already gave notice at the top of this section? The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that they qualify as a reliable source (and that hasn't changed in this most recent posting). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, any reason you're re-posting this announcement after I already gave notice at the top of this section?

Yes. Given the direction of this discussion, it directly relates to the RS/N you opened, would enhance that discussion and, considering the current length of this discussion, might easily be (and may have been) overlooked.

"The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that they qualify as a reliable source (and that hasn't changed in this most recent posting)."

As one can read in the most recently concluded RS/N on the subject, opinion is considerably mixed as to an unqualified RS status for Media Matters and I simply disagree with your characterization. However, I'll defer further comment here pending completion of the current RS/N. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, let's be really clear here -- the RSN discussion you continually reference is not about evaluating MMFA against WP:RS... the RFC is actually about treating MRC and MMFA as equal sources (speifically, the title is "Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?"). FAIR, MRC, Newsbusters et al have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus from experienced, uninvolved editors has consistently been that MMfA qualify as a reliable source. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall editing this article or participating in any discussions here (if I did, it was a long time ago), so I think I qualify as uninvolved. I've got enough edits to qualify as experienced. MM is a partisan org that has a stated bias against what they consider conservative news outlets. They're not always right or wrong. Each of their statements needs to be assessed on an individual basis. The idea of considering a liberal organization (yes, they are liberal. Even the NYT calls them liberal), who is a self-appointed "watchdog" of conservative news, to be "reliable" without question is ridiculous. They have a bias and the neutrality of statements beeds looked at each time. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New poll released by 60 Minutes / Vanity Fair [5] lists FoxNews in 2nd place with 29% behind CNN with 32%. I think this should be included in the final paragraph of the Ratings and reception section, along with shortening the PPP info already there, so I'm putting the idea here for reworking that paragraph. PrBeacon (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the poll currently on there has a margin of error of 2.8 and Fox led by 10, and the poll you are citing has CNN up by 3 with a margin of error of nearly 4% (3.89%, when 3% is generally accepted in statistics), I don't know if we should put this up without some qualifiers regarding its accuracy.Rapier (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the section under Controversy about Glenn Beck's comments about social justice not really notable. It's just a comment he made that was criticized by two other Christians and received barely any media attention. To be frank, Beck has made much more controversial claims before that. But most importantly, I don't see what it has to do with Fox News as a channel. All of the other criticisms seem to focus on Fox in general, and the one section on Beck sticks out like a sore thumb. Joker1189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]