Talk:Fox News/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

NPOV

A large chunk of the Bias section earns a discussion on weather or not it is NPOV. While the defense of Fox and supporters is argued in the beginning, it loses that in the middle and end. The defense should be there, or people will think it is undeniable fact. I realize it's about the bias FOX gets, but their defense should be at least mentioned.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Also, I've removed your NPOV notice - while you may have a complaint, the neutrality of the section is not actively disputed (i.e. there is no discussion going on yet). Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV notice back on Nov 2nd (under an anonymous IP address-didn't realize I hadn't logged in) and gave notice that I had done so - see Archive 4 talk page to this. I agree that the allegations of bias are reported in a pretty biased manner - but that doesn't change the NPOV of the entire article IMHO Trodel

Allegations of Bias

Because the length of this Talk Page I have moved all of the discussions related to Allegations of Bias to a topic specific archive as agreement seems to be reached. The following are included there: moving to a seperate article, discussion of length of the bias section; and Archive of the proposed changes as they got settled. If you archive this talk page - please be sure to include this section to retain quick access to the history of this carefully crafted section of the FOX News article.

Alai - I edited this section at the same time as you, but I wanted to let you know why I didn't keep your language. I think that the link to the section plus a brief description to be more positive about views that are not popular in the mainstream press is a better NPOV description of the way I read the memos - I notice also that we ahve been linking to media matters - but I would prefer to link to the originals if you (or anyone) knows where they might be. Thanks - Jim Trödel|talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, me too: saved the edits accidentally, then went to complete them, and got two edit clashes in a row: pesky software. So I've ended up losing your text, not so much in an 're-reversion', as to get a suggested draft at least in the page history. I can't really agree with "positive language" (though I prefer it to "spin", certainly) as several of the memos seem to be doing much more than that; they're suggesting topics be played up, or played down, beyond simply how to characterise them given the fact of their coverage. I take your point about not wanting to over-editorialise here, however. (Don't have a better link, sorry.) Now, for my money we'd be fine going back to 'right-wing', but I suppose that's begging the question of what's "centre" (a target that's being moved even as we speak). Alai 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alai - I reviewed your change - tried to incorporate what I could but I don't see how an observation (paraphrasing) that John Kerry is feeling the heat is properly summarized as "instruction reporters to include viewpoints ...unfavorable to John Kerry", can we discuss here? I agree - it was simpler as right-wing - though a good point was made that not all the memos are right wing Trödel|talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought that characterised that rather well. And note the several other Kerry-isms too. I wasn't trying to be strictly comprehensive, though I confess I was rather irked by the selectivity in SB's list. There's certainly more than "language" going on in many of the instances -- most, I'd suggest. Rather than the list of topics, perhaps "White House agenda", "right of centre", "centre-Right", or some such phrase is less problematic than "right-wing". (The objection to "pro-Republican" seemed especially slight: if we take 'most Rightist Democrat' as the watershed, what 'Repulican issues' would that actually leave?) Perhaps we can eliminate the need for 'covering' the whole list with a judicious "broadly" or "predominantly", as necessary. Alai 05:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If one believes that the media is generally left, then I can see a reasonable interpretation that the memos were generally exhorting the left-leaning reporters to report right-wing viewpoints with comparable levels of attention and from a sympathetic POV - similar to how we try to do here - so I tried to get that in with as few words as possible. As to the list of items - I feel reluctant to quote from only media matters the contents of the memos since they have a known agenda as well. What additional items are you looking to include in the list. Trödel|talk 15:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's another link to the memos: at first glance these look (more) complete. Perhaps this would be a better place to link to. [1] I'm still unhappy about the current wording: it's "toned down" beyond any reasonable representation of the contents. If they were merely suggesting 'language' on three particular issues that can't be described as having a political agenda, why would anyone even suspect a story, much less a controversy? Alai 01:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony - I took out the "falsly claimed" wording because by describing the wording (with less charged words than Gibson did - we are guilty of doing the same thing. I see the description of "herorically defending against" as poetic license to describe what he actually did say, "I'm in the center of Baghdad," said a very dubious Gilligan, "and I don't see anything… But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." Gilligan was referring to the American TRUE claim that they had taken control of most of Baghdad’s airport. NOTE also that Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren't. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying. An hour or two later, a different BBC correspondent pointed out that Gilligan wasn't at the airport, actually. He was "nearby". I think we should avoid any description of the claim especially here. Trödel|talk 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you're quoting directly from unverified claims published in the National Review by Denis Boyles. Those claims are beyond the scope of this piece, so I won't argue about them here except to say that they're no more than claims. OfCom's finding on what Gibson claimed about Gilligan is, however, relevant and so I've rephrased. I hope it's acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - I didn't get that from National Review - but found a story about it on some local news site and on a blog or two - thought I had it right. Is there a reliable source for what he actually reported in 2003? My memory is that I grew to dislike Gilligan while watching some things on BBC during the Iraq War because he seemed clearly to be anti-American to me. Trödel|talk 15:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I have reverted Silverback's removal of the PIPA bullet points, I sort of agree with Silverback's reason for removing it. There are explanations other than FOX News bias. However, I think that it should be included on this page. The report is widely known. Whatever the significance of the report is, it is relevant to FOX News. It's the kind of thing that readers might reasonably hope to find here. Many people believe that the findings are the result of FOX News bias (or error or dishonesty). In case some do not realise that it could be that people who choose to watch FOX News already believe those "misperceptions," or are predisposed to, we might want to say something to that effect. Tim Ivorson 12:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the PIPA report being included elsewhere in the article, since it was an important news event, however, the report and the survey were not designed to measure bias in Fox News itself. The survey was even poorly designed to measure what it purports to measure, and I doubt it could have survived peer review in a reputable journal. The most glaring example was having a question which used the word "significant", that required a value judgement that can hardly be rigorously labeled a misperception.--Silverback 12:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

General "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" sub-article

(moved this from above section) crazyeddie 07:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I'm opposed to removing material appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia, I agree, in principle, that the section is too long. If TDC had proposed moving the bulk of the material to a sub-article on aesthetic reasons, rather than prunning the section on the basis of NPOV, and if the material was a bit less controversial, I would've agreed. But a previous conversation, further up the page, has wisely ruled this out. So, as an alternative, in case we decide not to use your rewrite, how about this: Incorporate this section as part of a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Ethics" article (or something similar), along with similar sections from other major news sources' articles. Hopefully, the combination of several different edit wars into a single article will lead to there being some non-committed voices in each individual edit war. This might avoid the problem of a "debate" article, which tends to attract only POV warriors. We would still be left with the task of creating a 1-3 paragraph summary for this article. crazyeddie 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am ok with this alternative - if concensus can not be reached on whether the rewrite works.

Or we could do it both ways. We could use your bullet point version as the summary. Moving a detailed discussion of this topic to a different article would certainly quiet my inclusionist objections. And if later POV balancing does lead to the section becoming bloated again, it would serve as a prepared fallback position. We could simply remove the bullet point version and replace it with a shorter summary.

But before we do this:

First: Is this a good idea? Since I have a tendency to use too much shorthand when explaining a new idea, I'll try to spell it out. I think the presence of moderates is needed for the successful completion of edit wars, and preventing them in the first place. Moderates may have POVs which they would like an article to reflect, but they are willing to compromise and will defend the consensus version against extremists of any stripe.

It was previously suggested that the Allegations of Bias section be moved to a seperate sub-article, leaving behind only a short summary. However, it was decided that this would create a "debate" article. Moderates tend to avoid these, which means that only full-fledged POV warriors participate. Which means non-stop edit wars.

What I'm proposing is that we move the Allegations of Bias section to a general "Alleged Violations of Journalistic Intergerity" article, alongside copies of similar sections or passages from the articles regarding other major news sources.

While an article of this nature may attract POV warriors, I hope it will at least attract POV veterans from several different edit wars. A pro-CBS warrior might be a moderate when it comes to Fox, for example. Plus, the general nature of the article would hopefully attract some people who are curious about AVoJIs in general, but don't have any particular axe to grind.

Would some experienced Wikipedians care to comment?

Secondly: Could somebody please come up with a better name for the proposed article? crazyeddie 09:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An earlier attempt was made to split off the Allegations of Bias section into another article. This was nominated for deletion and the motion was carried by the "rough consensus" standards of VfD, and the split-off article was deleted. I infer from this that consensus is that the Allegations of Bias section is fine where it is. It has no grown significantly since then; indeed I believe that other parts of the Fox News article have grown greatly since then while it has not. Let's leave it as it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was aware that it was decided not to spin this off into a seperate article. I wasn't aware that it had been done and been deleted. Do you have a link the VfD page? It's possible that a general Allegations page might not run into the same problems as a Fox-only one. Also, the deletion of the spin-off page doesn't really say anything about the problem of the section being too long, just that it shouldn't be in an article by itself. crazyeddie 19:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The VfD discussion is here.

While an appropriate-sized section on Fox News might be included in a more article on bias in news reporting, the kind of coverage provided on Fox News should either be presented in the Fox News article or in an article on Fox News bias; the VfD effectively closed off the latter avenue. You would still have to find a home for the main section on Fox News allegations of bias. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Damn. Well, good thing the rewrite is going well. So far anyway. crazyeddie 07:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

An NPOV notice was added on 7 January by an anonymous user but no NPOV discussions seem to be taking place at present. I have removed it for now. Please restore if you disagree. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The anon was probably TDC. He was objecting to the length of the Allegations of Bias section on NPOV grounds. crazyeddie 18:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dead links

WP style guidelines suggest that a link per line is probably excessive. The article currently has large sections with more than one dead link per line. If someone's actively engaged in filling out these articles, fair enough, but if not, I propose to de-link the text until they show signs of going somewhere. Alai 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The propaganda model

This section:

FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide", a claim which disagrees with the Propaganda model which states that any commercial media organisation must inevitably be biased in order to remain competitive. In addition, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is far more slanted to the right than its peers and often tailors its news to support the Republican Party.

The reason I want to get rid of the addition in italics above is that it's an opinion. In the opinion of X, Y, or a number of people, the slogan disagrees with some theory of news dissemination. This is POV pushing. It is not an agreed fact that the asserted disagreement exists, nor that it is relevant, since Fox News exists in the real world and not the world of the academic theorist (even when that theorist is of the caliber of Noam Chomsky). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for giving your reasons for you earlier deletion. Is the propaganda model an "opinion"? I wouldn't think it correct to say that the propaganda model is any more an opinion than saying the theory of evolution is an opinion. Is it a model, perhaps some might say a theory, although I think it has been fairly well proven, hasn't it? It even seems to me to be fairly common sense. I do agree that if the propaganda model were only an opinion then a relatively unqualified source then there might be cause for it being removed, but as you said youself, Noam Chomsky is a well respected authority on such matters, so I believe it qualifies for a mention in the current context. - Plus it was in the article for quite some time before that paragraph was recently rephrased. --Rebroad 01:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky is an authority, but the field isn't a hard science. What's happening here is that you're introducing Chomsky's ideas about the way the media work into a description of the Fox News slogan. Wikipedia is not a Chomskyist endeavor, it's neutral. We have no opinion on whether the Fox News slogan contradicts the Propaganda Model, but if somebody famous expressed such an opinion widely, then we might report his opinion. If we ourselves did have an opinion and we did report it (as you want us to do here) then that would be original research, which we don't do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this reference should be included at all I think it should be near the end of this section. The notable part of this reference is that provides one explaination of why FOX would be biased not that it is a response to their slogans. Trödel|talk 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have put the mention of the propaganda model back to the proximity of the claim of being "unbiased", as it is more relevant there. It doesn't flow if mentioned out of context, at the end of the section. The field might not be a hard science but I don't see how that is relevant - does wikipedia only report things that are hard science? No. Is Wikipedia a Chomskyist endeavor? No, of course not. Is it a Fox Newist endevour? No also - therefore both sides must be included. I'm not stating any opinions here, I'm merely stating facts that disagree with one another. It is a fact that the Fox New's slogan claims they are "unbiased". It is also a fact that the propaganda theory exists, and claims that they must be biased. I am not suggesting to the reader which to believe, I am merely presenting the known facts. If you prefer, you could swap the order of the facts over so that the propaganda model is mentioned just prior to Fox New's slogan. I would have no objection to this if you feel that the order in which the facts are presented in is biased. But to suggest that only the facts that shine favourably on Fox News are presented would be to suggest that the article should be biased. That's not Wikipedia policy. --Rebroad 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it is out of context since it is in the section on Bias - I see the section as an allegations of bias section - the propaganda model is not facts for or against such bias but a theory that purports to explain why such a bias must exist, and thus it makes more sense at the end - if included at all. I removed it all together pending the outcome of this discussion. Trödel|talk 13:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, (you forgot to sign you above text by the way). Please re-read my above explanation again. The two facts belong together as they are short, sweet, to the point, yet opposing. As the discussion is ongoing, I do not suggest that anything is deleted at this time - so that other people can read the section and contribute the the debate. --Rebroad 13:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what is a fact here - there is a theory that purports to explain the reason for the Bias - and I may add - also could explain why they want to market themselves as unbiased. The only possible fact I see is that Chomsky proposed this theory - I still don't see how it is a fact that supports or opposes the allegation of bias, but instead is a theory that could explain the reason why such a bias exists. In other words - the propoganda model is a construct that seeks to explain why the alleged bias (the facts) is there and what are the motivations and capitolistic rewards for such a bias. It does not, of itself provide a basis for the allegation. Since you feel it is important to leave the language in I moved it to the bottom where it more logically fits, and I think it is a compromise because I am not sure it should be included at all. Trödel|talk 14:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) (thanks for reminding me about my signature)

The theory is conditional, note the condition in the wiki article which may or may not be true: "if to maximize profit means sacrificing news objectivity". So, if a statement is to be added to the article, perhaps it should contain or acknowledge this condition. It is hard to see how the Fox News slogan can be said to contradict the propoganda model when the model itself is itself conditional. --Silverback 14:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's original research here even to mention the Propaganda Model; it's a bit like incorporating a Marxist critique of Darwin in the article on Darwin. While it may be appropriate sometimes to mention the view of Marx or of prominent Marxists in the context of Darwin's theory, it's wrong to compose an artificial essay on the implications of Darwin's theory for Marxism.

This is why I draw the line between on one hand quoting what person X or Y has said (if anything) about the Propaganda Model and Fox News, and making it up as we go along (as the article does here). If there is a generally recognised, or widely supposed, implication of the Propaganda Model for the slogans of Fox News, then it should be possible to identify a significant person who has said as much.

Jimbo has put it like this:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents [ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides].
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not [ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk page or "votes for deletion" is probably the way to settle this].

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note however that this only applies to left-wing politics. It would be considered laughable to operate with the same strictness in the domain of linguistics, say. Chamaeleon 17:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I could find no justification for the Propaganda model - i.e. no references or prominent adherents other than reporting on the model by news organizations. But I am not sure I am searching using the best terms. However, if no one else can come up with support I will remove later today. Trödel|talk 13:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony, what if we don't point out that the Model contradicts FOX's claim (a rather elementary sort of statement that would not be labelled "original research" if found in a scientific article, but if you insist we will omit it)? What if we instead simply put FOX's slogan next to a brief mention of the Propaganda Model and let people make their own minds up? Or would you like to censor all mention of the Model? That would be a bit of an extreme pro-FOX position. Chamaeleon 13:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we can't find any notable expressed opinions on the relationship between the Propaganda Model and Fox News' slogans, then there is no justification for mentioning the Propaganda Model (or any other theory of mass media) at all. See the Jimbo quote above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We really need to have more than just Chomsky probalby said that in order for it to be encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. I could mostly find bloggers using Chomsky to try to prove FOX News is biased see google search. However, the proposer really should provide some evidence that the proposed language is NPOV and accepted per the standards for deterimining whether something is original reaserach quoted above BEFORE it is pur in the article. Trödel|talk 15:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But we are not saying that the PM specifically mentioned Fox, so that is a straw man. We are just making a reference to a crucially relevant and published theory, and then letting people make up their own minds. Juxtaposition is not research. In all articles on Wikipedia, we juxtapose information that has never been side-by-side before. Only here is it called original research. It makes one question the motives of those so creatively interpreting the policy.

Furthermore, my comment that Chomsky probably did discuss Fox is not the basis of my argument, but an "In any case..." tagged onto it. Chamaeleon 15:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That the theory is published is a fact. That it's crucial to understanding Fox News is an opinion. You can say you're just "letting people make up their minds", but then why raise the propaganda model at all? Suppose I wrote an article about the rise of Ford Motor Company and injected a bit of Marx into it, unlinked to Ford in any way. Wouldn't you agree that this would be pushing the point of view that a Marxist analysis of labor was crucial to the understanding of Ford's history? It may well be true, but it's still an opinion and not a fact. If on the other hand a Marxist historian has written a widely read history of Ford, it is appropriate to quote his opinions on Ford. The same applies to Fox News. Find Chomsky or someone saying that the success of Fox News illustrates the validity of the Propaganda Model, and we can--nay should--publish it as his opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why raise it? Because it might not have occurred to people. For your analogy on Ford to be accurate, there would have to be a paragraph reporting that Ford had claimed "we make cars because we like driving, not to make money". In that case, it might well be sensible to juxtapose that with a link to some article that discusses how companies work. Whether that article should have a Marxist, anarchist or liberal bent is another matter. You are also implying that I am injecting my opinions into the article. If it said "...which is essential to understanding FOX" that might be true. It is true that that opinion of mine is why I want it in there, but that again is another matter. We are not banned from having opinions and motivations on Wikipedia. I want this and every article to contain all useful information and not be misleading. Anyone without this desire should not be here. Chamaeleon 17:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just watched (well listened to) a documentary on this issue (I found as a result of my google searches above. The claims of Chomsky/Herman are more basic than as a comparison to the FOX News slogan, and IMHO would be much more suitable for the articles on Liberal bias or Media bias. The claim really is that by having conservative ownership (i.e. the power to hire and fire) there is a (usually) subtle system where more conservative ideas are in the media as a whole - and seeks to debunk the idea that because the reporters are overwelmingly liberal the media is liberal. Arguing that because they depend for their job on non-liberal sources, the real control is not with them. I could not find any real support for including it here. Of course that Chomsky said, "The Social Security Crisis is totatally concocted," challenges my ability to trust his analysis. I work in the private pension industry and with quite a few very well respected actuaries from all sides of the political spectrum - and while they disagree on solutions, timing and actuarial assumptions, the demographics drive the ineveitable conclusion: longer lifespan and lower birthrates will affect social security solvency. Of course it was fun to hear Clinton described as conservative (especially because I think he was in some respect and people are much more complicated than the simple conservative/liberal dichotomy). Trödel|talk 17:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bias

Silverback, I think your edit is okay. I could make a good case that all broadcast news organisations in the USA are strongly biased to the right, but I am not sure such a view would gain consensus. There does seem to be a strong perception in the USA that the media organisations are usually left wing in some way, although I don't personally understand why this perception exists. You edit bypasses that and so I think it is better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked for opinions that the US Media is biased to the right (which in my country is regarded as something of a truism) here are a couple:

• The US media is disciplined by corporate America into promoting the Republican cause -George Monbiot
• Corporations have Chokehold on U.S. Media -Rep Bernie Sanders

These really aren't unusual opinions. I'm always amazed at how many Americans believe that their media is biased, of all things, to the left. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe this at all, in my opinion, but it seems to have gained currency by dint of repetition by the extreme right. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do critics call other media outlets rightist as well?

I maintain that they do:

• [2]--Kos, of Daily Kos, heads off a post entitled "What liberal media?" with "The corporate media strikes again.

This article is not making a classification of the media on the political spectrum, it is just ranting about the lack of coverage of the the rather obscure "Guckert" issue. The "critic" seems to be a fringe rather than signficant voice.--Silverback 07:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• [3]--Kos again, referring to "those fantasies we have about Judith Miller [NY Times reporter] rotting in jail".

This rant doesn't seem relevant to a political spectrum discussion at all. It appears to be criticising reports for protecting sources, because the author of the rant doesn't like who they are protecting.--Silverback 07:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• [4]--Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo. Money quote: "ut if it turned out that any other president -- doesn't even have to be Clinton -- had a ringer 'reporter' stationed in the press pool to serve up soft-serve questions, and the same folks had already been caught paying off or buying or otherwise subborning other 'journalists' several times in recent months, AND evidence mounted that the ringer 'reporter' turned out to be a ringer 'reporter'/GI Joe-style male prostitute with what Sid Blumenthal rightly calls "enormous potential for blackmail", don't we figure that this would have ginned up a bit more big time press razzle-dazzle and gasps and awwws by now?"
• [5]--A post from Chris Myers of MyDD, titled "The SCLM [So-Called Liberal Media] is worse than Limbaugh".

I think all of these show my point that critics of FOX News tend to consider much or most media slanted to the right. I've reverted to my version. Best, Meelar (talk) 04:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

They don't seem to illustrate any point at all. Perhaps there is a pro-establishment overtone, but that is hardly left wing in this day and age.--Silverback 07:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, what one considers to be 'biased to the right' depends not just on what's demonstrably biased by intent, but where one thinks the centre is (something of a hazard in editting this article, where some some contributers would like us to take GW Bush as the baseline for Moderate). And we should bear in mind that though this is a mainly American subject, the 'pedia is internation in scope and we ought not to unqualifiedly insert American political assumptions into such definitions.

However, it strikes me that there's a broad constituency that that would see Fox as being "rightist" and/or "biased" (in whatever sense) that wouldn't necessarily share these critiques of most other media outlets, so I think the two are worth separating out more than's being done at present. And a detailed discussion would be better at media bias or its various tributary articles. Can't we say something to the effect of it being accused of being a) further to the right of other networks, and b) systematically biased, without bundling that up with "all are biased to the right"? Alai 05:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are objective ways to classify bias, but to employ them requires unbiased sampling. Notice that FOX will always call republican presidents "The president" instead of by their name. This is a subtle appeal to authority. There are a lot of other things like that. But to really look into it, you have to actively get informed of news by reading lots of different news sources, and then look at what FOX does or does not cover, and for the stories that they do cover, what they leave in and out. But the 2004 election was rather revealing. When the exit polls predicted kerry winning ohio, the reporters asked their expert why the exit polls were polling more women than men, and she responded "most likely, that would be indication that more women than men are voting at this time." Camera back to reporters - each with an unmistakable look of chagrin.

Regarding the rest of the mainstream media...I would say there's too things, 1) all the circumstantial evidence points in one direction: the vast majority of msm is owned by 5 companies (clear-channel being one of the biggest), an economic model (centralization) favored by rightists and criticized by leftist, they like it that way, and they lobby their congressmen, primarily their repub. congressmen because they are the most "receptive". And there's a lot more of that kind of stuff wich is all factual. 2) when left unchecked, the human mind, when it comes to sources of information and the like, tend to drift towards rightist, - hierarchical, etc. it tends to drift towards appeal to authority, ad hominem abusive, and other logical fallacies, which tend to favor the right wing. If you want balance, watch comedy as well as news. It's like the editorial section. Kevin Baas^talk 16:39, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Oh, and then the coverage of the Iraq war, esp. leading up to the Iraq war: the media's been called a 4th branch of the government, but many percieve it as acting, during that time, at least, as a mere copy or extension of the executive branch of the government, rather than a check on it. For instance, they avoided POVs contrary to George Bush's and Donald Rumsfield. When Bush said "we have evidence that saddam hussien possesses weaposn of mass destruction" and the CIA said, in effect, "no we don't". You saw bush's statement on every news channel (understandable), but you didn't see any coverage of what the CIA had to say about what evidence they did or did not have. Many people feel that this was very very irresponsible and are quite upset about it. Undoubtedly, it favored the republican president and secretary of defence's agenda in ways that a "fair and balanced" presentation of the truth would not. Kevin Baas^talk 17:03, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

The fact that you brought up the Iraq war in this context would seem to imply that you think it is a right wing or conservative policy. In fact it is the left that has generally be internationalist, while the right has tended to be either isolationist or at least focused on the western hemisphere. You are also wrong about the right favoring centralization of business, the right knows that small businesses create the most jobs and has focused on flattening the progressive tax curve since it knows that much small business income is taxed at personal income rates and not corporate rates. The right has also been the most vocal about eliminating the double taxation of dividends because it creates a tax bias towards keeping profits in the business instead of distributing it to investors so it can seek the highest return. It is the left that has sought centralization of power in the government by proposing coecive government solutions to problems. On these issues Fox is probably to the right of the main stream media, but it is not clear that it is to the right of center.--Silverback 08:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've brought up you're "left is internationalist" argument before - I say that there is a clear difference between Kennedy-style internationalism and Bush-style unilateralism; they are mutually exclusive. To think that there are simply two categories: isolationism and internationalism is vastly oversimplifying foreign policy. Kennedy's foreign policies worked together with other nations and through the U.N. to help to bring an end to the spread of communism, by respecting each nation's right to self-determiniation, and that includes choosing their own method of government. Bush's foreign policies have been the exact opposite (anti-thetical). Furthermore, regarding is it right wing or left wing: Who opposes it, who supports it? One has only to look at the world. ("Go away from all dogma and authority - look at the world." - Francis Bacon -Now that's a liberal statement if you ask me - Francis Bacon was a great scientists and scientific philosopher. That quote refers to the philosophical school of empiricism.) anywho... Kevin Baas^talk 05:43, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Kennedy did not come to mind, I was thinking of Wilson and the two Roosevelts as the internationalists.--Silverback 07:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed your self-determination comment, Bush is a champion of self determination, how else is a nation to "choose" except democratically. Iraq "chose" Saddam about as much as it "chose" the US invasion. The reason I was so opposed to the first gulf war is that Bush I's "new world order" seemed to imply that Saddam had no right to oppress the Kuwaitis, but did have a right to oppress the Iraqis. I think he had every bit as much a right to oppress Kuwaitis as he did Iraqis, which was none at all. I suppose you think that because we had the power to impose ourselves on Iraq, that the Iraqis chose us too!--Silverback 07:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can throw FDR into the category of the type of internationalism I'm speaking of. Perhaps one can call it "pragmatic" internationalism, as it's in line with John Dewey's principles of foreign policy. To me, self determination means not using military force to affect political change in a different country. Kind of like the federation regulations in Star Trek.

Regarding Kuwait, I think a little research will reveal that the United States played a hand in changing who controlled the region, before the first Iraq fiasco, and that that, in fact, has a lot to do with the first Iraq fiasco.

I think there are more serious issues involved here than human rights violations, such as international security and geopolitical precedent, but in any case, that just shows, to those that it is not blatently obvious, that powerfull countries like the U.S. shouldn't go around giving tons of military equipment to people they know to be insane and dangerous, esp. in support of a short-term goal - they just might rise to power and oppress people. Kevin Baas^talk 16:45, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

PIPA Counter-arguments

I don't think these are necessary and warranted:

"that the US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"

However, in the same document PIPA admits that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials”

That a few Al-Qaeda indivduals visited Iraq or contacted Iraqi officials does not mean that that Saddam was working closely with Al-Qaeda. To work closely with someone means to engage in deep collaboration of some kind. It is important to note that the original PIPA question (as stated in this article) was "found clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with", not "had contacts with", in which case the counterpoint would be valid.

"That weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq"

Arguably this is not strictly a misperception, since chemical shells have been discovered and have been used in an IED (apparently inadvertently or without much knowledge of how to use them).

Finding WMD here is not defined as finding a few chemical shells (as you put it, "without much knowledge of how to use them"). Weapons of mass destruction are weapons which can inflict mass damage and rain death upon those whom it targets. Clearly a few chemical shells do not constitute evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

"That the U.S. had received wide international support in its decision to go to war."

This misperception is not necessarily evidence of bias by Fox News, but has possible alternative explanations, such as Fox viewers not caring about world opinion, therefore paying less attention to stories about it.

This counter-argument is clearly invalid. The poll merely measures whether Fox viewers had a greater or lesser propensity to hold a miscontrued view of actual events. Taken literally, the poll question was simply whether the viewers believed the US received widespread internation support or not. Clearly the answer is no. The possible alternative explanation is clearly irrelevant because it is up to the reader himself to determine whether the poll results show (by way of this question) that FOX was misleading its viewers on international support for the Iraq war. Ethereal 03:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

This article is being put in the "allegations of bias" section. I agree that bias is NOT what was studied, but then why was it in this section? Still it wasn't a good study that could pass peer review. The counter argument about "working closely" only points out the possibly conflicting evidence even within the PIPA article itself, i.e., what the authors conceded. Fox viewers were probably well aware that Zachari (sp?), who had been wounded in Afghanistan was being treated and harbored in Iraq, with no intention of turning him over to US forces. It may well be that, which Fox viewer considered "working closely", which is after all a value judgement and IMO a fatal flaw in the study.

On the second counter argument, perhaps Fox Viewers are a bit black and white in their thinking, but you have to admit, that a chemical weapon that Saddam had not turned over is still a weapon of mass destruction. I admitted that the widely broadcast report of the use of the weapon, noted that the users were evidently unaware of its non-conventional component. The real point however, is not whether or not weapons of mass destruction were found, but whether the question was clear and of the quality that should be referenced here, after all the surveyer probably did not get into an argument with the Fox Viewer, and if he did, he might well have lost.

The third counter argument is not really a counter to the PIPA labeling it a misperception, it is a counter argument to this article AND the PIPA organizations use of the question as evidence of "bias", which it wasn't. If Fox Viewers had less misperceptions about stock prices than PBS viewers, it would more likely be a reflection of their relative interests and attention than any bias on the part of PBS.

I don't think the PIPA "survey" should be in this article, especially not as something to do with bias, but if it is, I suggest the counter arguments are both needed for NPOV and factual.--Silverback 12:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you say it is not a good study, but where is the evidence that the PIPA study is fundamentally flawed? I could say that FOX News is not a good news channel without any evidence to back myself up. Secondly, your first rejoinder completely fails to note that FOX viewers make up the highest percentage of respondents who actually think the US found "found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". If the question were improperly asked (too open to interpretation), and FOX were more or less fair and balanced, we should not find that FOX viewers consistently are more likely than those watching other news channels to hold such views. Unless of course you want to counter that it is mostly conservatives who watch FOX, but I should say that the inclusion of the PIPA report in this article does not draw the conclusion FOX is biased. Note that the section is titled "allegations of bias", not "evidence of bias" in which case your removal would be justified. One can merely conclude that those who watch FOX are more likely to hold such misconceptions. Furthermore, you say that there is conflicting evidence within the PIPA report. Please quote out explicitly where exactly you say the contradiction is.

You are not reading the arguments carefully. "working closely" is a value judgement, while the PIPAs own conclusion is that there were contacts and visits, make the point arguable for some. The fact that you think a higher standard is required to qualify as "working closely", merely shows that the question and survey were poorly designed. This isn't rocket science, better questions and more sophisticated phraseology can be produced. However, PIPA, in asking for a value judgement, without specifying particular facts in a situation as complex as real world Iraq, is asking the responder to do what we at wikipedia call "original research". PIPA should have inquired about facts rather than opinions if it wanted to assess misperceptions, and if it wanted to study News bias, it should have focused on the content of Fox broadcasts, not its viewers.--Silverback 10:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not think I am in error here. You have missed the argument whereby I stated that we should not expect FOX viewers to be consistently more likely than others to hold such mistaken views if the question were ambiguous, thus affecting just about anyone who answered the question. Rather, we should find that the results from the poll be inconsistent. You seem to think "working closely" is ambiguous. I argue that no survey is perfect. No one would participate in a survey which perfectly and unambiguously states very clearly and exhaustively what exactly "working closely" means. By your same reasoning, all polls, surveys which rate President Bush's approval ratings are also meaningless, because "approval" and "disapproval" are also very very ambiguous, arguably more so than "working closely". You realise your arguments would instantly invalidate just about any poll in existence. As for PIPA's method, clearly their method is theirs to choose, not for you. Bear in mind that the PIPA survey did more than just assess specifically FOX media bias, it also studied what it called misperceptions by the American public. Ethereal 02:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate again: Finding chemical shells which "Saddam had not turn over" does not constitute evidence of WMD. Your counterpoint is clearly invalid because no WMD has been found at all. Even the Bush administration did not emphasise the discovery of the chemical shells, and we all know the US Govt is clearly far from being non-partisan. And as for your rejoinder that FOX viewers were a little "black and white" in their thinking, you have not answered why this should be the case as compared to those who watch other news channels.

I repeat myself again, you can include the argument which says that it is up to the reader to determine whether the third finding has shown whether FOX News was misleading its viewers on international support for the US war on Iraq.

If you demand that your counter-points be included, I should also demand that my rejoinders be included as well for NPOV. You shouldn't assume by default that FOX is neutral until proven otherwise, as you seem to be doing. By including your PIPA counterpoints in it, you are attempting to show that FOX is not biased, which is what FOX wants is viewers to believe. This itself is POV. Ethereal 03:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon (sp?) misses the mark with his latest attempt too. The PIPA does also cannot be used to state that Fox encourages or causes misperception in anyway. The audience may well be self selected, and if you don't think it could be that and not bias or erroneous coverage that explains the results, read the study, you will find that the CBS audience is very close to the FOX audience in its "misperceptions", although one would not pick their coverage as being similar among all the networks. The PIPA survey is poorly designed to demonstrate that the viewers have these misperceptions. It wasn't designed to measure the bias or the tendency to cause "misperceptions".--Silverback 16:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree - there is a causal relationship problem here - and the more I research about this PIPA report the more that I think it should be excluded altogether - the survey does not follow norms and is poorly constructed. Trödel|talk 16:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. This is a study, therefore, by definition, it can at most show correlations or associative relations. Only an experiment can show causative relationships. Therefore PIPA shows, at best, that FOX News viewers are associated with a lower "world awareness", not that FOX News CAUSES lower "world awareness". Therefore, PIPA is unacceptable, as it is a completely unfair criticism of FOX News. For example, I could show you a study that shows Ice Cream sales and reports of the Flu are inversely related, but it would obviously not be appropriate for me to put that studies suggest that Ice Cream prevents the Flu. (Flu tends to occur in the Winter and Ice Cream sales are highest in the summer, the hidden variable being the time of year).

Since no one has addressed this inherent failure of ANY Study, I am going to Remove the PIPA link right now.

What WOULD be acceptable: If someone had done an experiment, where they showed people (all in an appropriate experimental environment, with other restrictions of course) various news broadcast from the different networks and compared their perceptions with the reality of the situation (only from what they had seen). Of course, I can already see an exptremely large room for bias here, but it would at least be starting from an acceptable starting point. A Study is NOT acceptable for allegations of BIAS. Glaucus 03:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct when you say that PIPA by itself does not prove that FOX News is responsible for the demonstrated "lack of world awareness". But if you ever tried consulting a dictionary on the meaning of the word "allegation", you would see that one of its meanings is "to assert without or before proof". Which means even if I accept what you have said above (I do not), PIPA is still acceptable within the article.

This in fact argues for removal of all this section - which I don't think we should do - since this is an encyclopedia about facts not "assertions without...proof" There are plenty of allegations of bias based on facts that could reasonably be interpretted to show bias of the network. The real problem with the study is that we self select what we watch. It is more likely that people who choose to watch FOX already hold the "alleged misperceptions" and choose FOX because either they view it as giving their views fair representation. This PIPA report is not useful. Trödel|talk 14:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all I should admit I find this frustrating. I simply fail to see why the PIPA study should not be included. All the reasons I have given above (and below) seems to have been ignored by all who have responded. You say that the section ought to be removed. However, I should say it is significant because other entries on CNN, ABC's Peter Jennings have sections or have within their articles accusations of bias (be they conservative or liberal). Note that I have conceded neither to Silverback nor to Glaucus that the PIPA study was flawed and have also given my argument for why I think it should be included within the article on FOX. Your response above ignores the remainder of my original response to Glaucus below. You say "we select what we watch", and that it is "more likely" that FOX viewers chose to watch FOX because they already hold the misperceptions. The question then arises: Why is it that those who harbour right-wing misperceptions choose to watch FOX? Why not CNN, CBS etc. ? More specifically, within the parameters of your argument that "they view it as giving their views fair representation", already shows that FOX is biased towards right-wing ideology. Of course anyone can argue that FOX is indeed truly fair and balanced and that all other US media are liberal-biased in nature, but you can include that as a general response to all the "allegations of bias" which are present within the article, instead of it being a specific counter-point to the PIPA report which would justify (according to your standards which I disagree with) its removal. Ethereal 16:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Do you really not understand how to create accurate surveys or are you just using my laziness in spelling it out to try to prove your point. As pointed out by Silverback below - the questions are purposefully ambiguous. The "Polls" on presidential elections are a good indicator - with the question carefully worded "IF the election were held today who would you vote for:..." Your reasons seem to me to be - viewers hold these misperceptions - that is evidence of bias (the title of the list). Which is simply not true - the two may correlate because of a fluke, because of an external factor, or it could be evidence that all other news sources are biased left, etc. It really is so poorly constructed that nothing can be concluded from their study Trödel|talk 02:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The questions I argue are not ambiguous. The inclusion of a little ambiguity is a boon rather than a bane because then the study could be use to ascertain the political leaning of the respondents, as I have explained to Silverback below. You offer the alternative explanation that all other news sources are biased left, which I should consider as more of a joke since you are completely ignoring all the other allegations of right-wing bias on the FOX article itself. And as for the presidential polls, I should say I was referring to the countless polls on the President's approval rating (before and after the election). The questions go something like "Overall do you approve of the president's performance"? This itself is more vague and ambiguous than what the PIPA study has offered to study misperceptions, yet they are taken seriously by political pundits. The study is a survey, and I admit it cannot show definitively a causative relation between watching FOX News and holding the rightist misperceptions, since an equally plausible explanation would be that those who watch FOX already hold such misperceptions. But why should they watch FOX as compared to other news channels? This is the question I have posed a long time ago and neither you nor Silberback have even bothered to address it. You also completely ignore my argument on consilience regarding taking the PIPA poll along with all the other allegations of right-wing bias on FOX written in the article. Ethereal 02:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

That you would take a remark in jest as my "offer [of an] alternative eplanation" shows you can't tell fact from fiction so I understand why you would find the questions unambiguous because they support your world view. I know you were referring to the approval ratings polls which are notoriously bad at predicting who will be the next president, thus the point that true polls on the election are worded carefully. That question is usually used to judge how "sure" someone is of their vote rather than what their vote will be - a very differnt purpose - and again shows why a poorly constructed poll without internal controls and checks that validate prior answers such as PIPA's can't be trusted. There are enough clear items in the list - this one if it is included will be point - counter point crap (and not concise to boot) that really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a argumentative essay - that is why I think it should be left out - this very discussion shows that there is an honest disagreement on the validity of the "study"; thus it should be out. Trödel|talk 03:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly I should note you have given no evidence that the mainstream US media is generally liberal. They are more liberal as compared to FOX, this I accept, but you have absolutely no evidence (no poll, no study, nothing at all) to prove that all other news networks other than FOX are unfairly biased left while FOX is "fair and balanced". At least I have the PIPA poll (and the long list of allegations in the article) as a basis for accusation yet you reject it outright and postulate a baseless claim that all other news sources are liberal in nature. The fact that you can't even treat the PIPA report as an "allegation" at all (dictionary-wise) shows that as far I am concerned, it is YOUR world view which is twisted. I reiterate yet again: I do not find the questions completely unambiguous. In fact I went so far as to suggest that the slight lack of ambiguity is an advantage (as I have explained to Silverback) because then it could be used to ascertain the political beliefs and leanings of the poll's respondents. Ethereal 02:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think most news organizations try to be fair - including FOX - however, I think that FOX tries to give time to republican viewpoints (not conservative ones by the way), but that is besides the point. Plus to even have this discussion about liberal vs conservative would require that we define the terms since in the US some views commonly viewed here as liberal are clearly identified as conservative views elsewhere. The PIPA methodology does not include checks on itself - and its conclusions are not to be trusted in this case. Ambigous questions have there uses but to draw specific conclusions from them - i.e. that the results show bias at FOX News is not adovcated by PIPA nor supported. Trödel|talk 03:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I take it as common knowledge (by US standards) what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" means. A rudimentary distinction would be the two main political parties in the US itself and that should suffice for the purpose of this discussion. I fail to see the relevance of the PIPA report not "includ[ing] checks on itself", since I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "checks on itself". What exactly would satisfy your requirement for inclusion under "allegations"? I do not know if PIPA specifically claims that their results show FOX is biased, but I should note (as I have many times before) that your argument against the inclusion of PIPA would make sense if the section was titled "Evidence of bias" rather than merely "Allegations of bias". I consider the PIPA study sufficiently relevant and rigid for inclusion. And furthermore, you have not specifically addressed my argument for the advantages of a little ambiguity (I did not concede that PIPA's questions were ambiguous) Ethereal 14:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Now, on to the argument you gave. You say that the PIPA poll can only show at best an associative relationship between the responses of the viewers and the news channel they watch. I argue that that itself is already significant. Note that on all three questions (included in original article), FOX viewers made up the highest percentage of those who believed those mistruths. Imagine if I do a poll on those people who have read a certain book, and found that those who read the book are more likely to hold a certain belief as compared to those who did not read the book. Am I to draw the conclusion that this survey I have done does not even point to a possible causative link between reading the book and acquiring the belief? Of course the survey did nothing, it could be flawed and some other unimportant factors could be responsible. But would that be worthy of consideration? If you were right then just about all surveys on public misperception and the media would be entirely invalid, not to mention those surveys which show that there might exist an associative link between factor X and consequence Y (this makes up a lot of polls).

But so far as I'm concerned I believe I have demonstrated above that all the claims of possible alternative explanations (offered by Silverback) do not prove that some other (non-factors) were responsible for the increased likelihood of misperception of FOX viewers. The PIPA poll does not do what you claim it supposedly purports to do, namely to demonstrate and prove that FOX News is responsible for the bias, but I repeat again, it is a possibility, and that itself is good enough for inclusion under the section "Allegations of bias". Your argument would make complete sense if the section were titled "Evidence of bias". Furthermore, you have completely missed the importance of consilience here. It is not just PIPA which claims FOX is biased, the long list under "Allegations" also do, and this taken together with the rest, constitute a strong claim (I didn't say "proof") that FOX is indeed biased. Ethereal 05:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

The PIPA report is a chicken-and-the egg problem. Corelation is not neccessarily causation, but corelation is generally a sign that there is some sort of caustive link. Maybe Fox News tends to make people have those views. Maybe people who have those beliefs tend to watch Fox News. Or maybe some third agent causes people to both have those views and to watch Fox News. Any three of these theories, or some combination of them, would make a strong argument that Fox is biased towards the right (since the right tends to have those views, apparently). I'd say that the PIPA report belongs in this section. crazyeddie 23:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, since CBS had similar levels of "misperceptions", in its case, I think it may be more about the education level of the viewers, while in the Fox case, I think the viewers are more proWar and more likely to build a case in their minds that justify it. I don't support the PIPA survey in this section because the section is about Fox News bias, and the study isn't. In answer to Ethereal, if PIPA wanted to design a survey to measure misperceptions, they should have stuck to facts rather than opinions. If they had asked viewers about whether chemical shells had been found, or which equipment was used to move the marines, or whether Condaleeza Rice could play the piano, Fox viewers might well have scored as well as anybody. But two groups of viewers can be in total agreement about ALL the facts, i.e., have ZERO misperceptions, yet differ on whether al Quada and Iraq were "working closely" or not. I suspect PIPA did not really want to know if there were misperceptions, otherwise they would have prepared better questions. For instance, why didn't PIPA ask "Have MASSIVE amounts of weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq?", since the answer to this question is less arguable, I suspect that "wrong answers" to it would be a better case for a misperception. However, PIPA would probably be best to stick to straight forward questions of fact.--Silverback 00:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The study by PIPA was not done specifically to address FOX bias, otherwise I'm sure PIPA would be more careful and precise. Nevertheless, their discovery that FOX viewers were most likely to harbour right-wing misconceptions is noteworthy and should be included. You say that CBS viewers shouldn't be right-wing biased, hence it must be a non-factor which is responsible. But over here, you are already implicitly assuming CBS is either liberal-biased, or at least neutral in your argument. I argue for the inclusion of the PIPA report because I do not make either assumption. As for your claim that PIPA should have designed a better survey to measure misperception, I think you miss point of the PIPA study.

To take an example, suppose I wanted to know if the newspaper I read every morning is biased. What should I do? Should I, as you say, poll some people and ask them whether they are aware of facts which are politically diametrically opposed of the bias which the newspaper purportedly displays? And suppose I were to obtain a result which shows that those who read the newspaper frequently are less aware of these politically damaging facts. Could I accuse the paper of being biased? Of course I could, but the argument would be more shaky, since a possible response could be that fewer people read the papper that day, the paper did not publish those stories on the front page (but that does not mean the paper is biased etc.) The argument would be weaker if I were to follow your advice on this.

Instead, why not ask more loaded questions? A bias isn't just about failing to report facts. It could exist in the form whereby politically damaging facts are given a more positive spin, reported only briefly upon, downplaying the case, or accentuating politically positve minor facts etc. All of these qualify as biases. By asking ambiguous questions, the PIPA study has the additional advantage of ascertaining possible political biases of FOX viewers as well. This is an advantage you have not considered. Furthermore I take specific issue with your claim that "Iraqi WMD" is ambiguous. Perhaps different people have different ideas of what WMDs actually mean, but that does not explain why FOX viewers consistently outnumber those who think (suppose I accept your argument) a few (unusable) chemical shells constitute evidence of WMD. If the bias wasn't indoctrinated in those viewers, but were already inherently present within them, then why is it that those who harbour this bias choose to watch FOX in greater numbers as compared to other news channels? This is the point I raised in my first reply to you, but you never answered it at all, choosing to repeat your argument about other factors which I rebutted earlier. Ethereal 02:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the shells were not unusable, those who did use them either thought they were conventional shells or did not know how to use them. Fox Viewers and others have been told that chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, perhaps that is why they thought these shells were WMD. The chemical agents of one shell in a subway station is still probably worth preventing to Fox viewers.--Silverback 02:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the shells were presented as evidence that George W. Bush spoke the truth when he said Iraq possesed WMD, when in fact they were not. This is called distortion, and it is wrong. Kevin Baas^talk 05:46, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I we are discussing separate issues. I put the shells in as evidence that the PIPA misperception was wrong, because the shells meant that WMD had been found. I researched it further however, although it is true that the the statement is not a misperception, the shells were not found until the summer AFTER the PIPA report, so it is not FAIR to use it the to criticise the report, which is why I have been calling that default version wrong and oppose its continued use, even though it is technically correct. I suspect that so many who followed the news closely thought WMD had been found at the time of the PIPA report was because initial reports of possible "finds" are widely publicized, but days or weeks later they turned out to be wrong, that is unexciting non-news that does not get the same play. Two incidents that I recall were the detecting of chemical agents in the Euphrates river with field tests during the invasion, which was reported as evidence that Iraq was dumping its weapons to avoid being caught with them, and the finding of the mobile biolabs that eventually had other purposes. The PIPA report tried to blame it on a Bush statement about having found "banned weapons", which was of course true. However, as I recall that statement it came shortly have they captured more missles that exceeded the allowed range, and it was clear from the context that was what Bush was referring to, and not WMD.--Silverback 07:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A shell is not a WMD. Kevin Baas^talk 16:49, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Do you really doubt that if the United States had used one, that it wouldn't have been accused of using WMD?--Silverback 17:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how one uses a shell. And in any case, the issue here is not being accused of using or even being accused of having WMD, but having or not having WMD, irrespective of any accusation or lack thereof. Kevin Baas^talk 18:30, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

PIPA edit without commenting

A recent edit was made to the PIPA report without regard to any of the above. The report is totally useless to show bias at FOX News. However, I have edited it to be as short as possible (I think). Please comemnt if you restore this section on why a flawed report whose conclusions are not supported by its own evidence should be included anywhere on wikipedia. Trödel|talk 02:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to include the PIPA report within the article but also sincerely believe that the crucial part whereby it is shown that FOX viewers are more likely to hold such misperceptions should be included compared to viewers of other news networks. Ethereal 02:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits - I will leave for now and see what others have to say Trödel|talk 03:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether you personally think the report is useless to show bias is utterly irrelevant. Chamaeleon 10:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The same could be said of you personally thinking that it is worthwile. However, the PIPA report does not draw the conclusion for which it is quoted here. Trödel|talk 11:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. Only the opinion that something is useless are irrelevant. I think all the articles on Pokémon characters are useless; but some people find them useful, so they stay. You, for ideological reasons that one can guess, want to suppress certain information; but the rest of us find it useful, so it stays.

It must take considerable mental effort to convince oneself that the PIPA data doesn't make Fox look like a bunch of lie-spreading scum. I don't know how certain people do it. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The PIPA report is staying in, no matter what you do. Chamaeleon 12:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I think that articles should be succinct. I share your opinion on Pokemon; however, as you can see from my edits on FOX News, I have consistently compromised with regard to language (such as the current version of the PIPA language). In contrast, your dogmatic approach to editing and your threat that "the PIPA report is staying in, no matter what you do," suggest that your zealous view should stay put regardless of any facts or consensus that is reached here. I also find it interesting that instead of explaining why the PIPA report is relevant, you instead respond with borderline personal attacks and incorrect suppositions about my ideology. Trödel|talk 15:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that the PIPA report, while not proof of bias at FOX, is strong contributing evidence. If we take it out, it is very likely somebody else will put it back in. For the love of all that is holy, leave the friggin' thing in. The point isn't whether or not the views are correct or not (I personally believe "not", but that's neither here nor there), the point is that FOX viewers tend to hold those views relative to other groups. Is there some other flaw in the report I'm missing? crazyeddie 00:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You mean other than two of the three misperceptions, not being misperceptions?--Silverback 01:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, other than that. crazyeddie 01:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can you consdier it contributing evidence, if right behind Fox on each of the same "misperceptions" is CBS? What form of bias is it contributing evidence for?--Silverback 01:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe CBS is biased to the right also. Or for some reason, conservatives tend to watch CBS. (Doesn't CBS appeal to the elderly demographic, relative to other news sources? Don't the elderly tend to be conservative?) Or the mysterious third factor is working on the audiences of both networks. I certainly don't watch either channel, so how would I know? For that matter, I haven't read the report, and don't plan on doing so, so I'm relying on y'all to tell me if it has any flaws. So far, I don't see any dealbreakers. The results of the report seem to be valid, how to interpret those results is a matter of opinion.

How about just laying out the meat of the report and let the readers figure it out. Start with taking out that stupid "misperception" sentence. That just leaves the report open to endless ad hominem attacks. Call them views, even if PIPA didn't, and let the readers sort it out. crazyeddie 02:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It has been discussed here. Perhaps you didn't look at the previous counter-arguments section. That was the original compromise language, which I just restored.--Silverback 08:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the item has enough detail of the report. I would be ok with getting rid of the "PIPA labled these 'misperceptions.' " Trödel|talk 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this might be a good compromise, but I'm OK with the third one being labeled a misperception. So how about "two correct perceptions and one misperception"?--Silverback 08:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow. We've actually come full circle and back to just where we started. Just as before, I don't think the counterpoints are justified, but then again I am okay with removing the bit about holding these beliefs being a misperception. Ethereal 08:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned about whether the counterpoints are justified per se, as firstly, the horribleness of the format: point-counterpoint leads us down the road to madness that is the the Creationism article food-group. And secondly: it's not clear whose view is being represented here: Fox's defence? Some notable commentator's rebuttal? Alai 09:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Silverback is apparently practising double standards here; he/she rejected the inclusion of the PIPA report because he/she feels it is not up to standard, but apparantly does not take into account that the counter-points are solely his/her own and not the words of any noted conservative political commentator or counter-study. Ethereal 10:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree point-counterpoint is not appropriate for an encyclopedia - I think we should keep the shortened version without the sub-bullets. Just make it a running paragraph. In addition, I don't think the counterpoints add anything to the item.

I'm comfortable with shortening the PIPA report within the article (ie. without sub-bullets), but if the bullets are included, it would be best to quote the poll questions directly from the report, because otherwise Silverback could claim that the questions are ambiguous. I am also willing to exclude the part on the three beliefs labelled as "misperceptions"; let the reader decide for himself/herself whether they are. Ethereal 14:48, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think misperceptions are central to the conclusions of the PIPA report, they purposely were surveying for things they considered misperceptions. I've put forward new "counterpoints", which like the "points" merely deal with what is or is not in the report.--Silverback 20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<it would be best to quote the poll questions directly from the report>>

I'm in favor of this. I wasn't aware that the subpoints differed from the poll questions. The questions should be quoted directly. Would somebody be willing to dive into the report and get them? crazyeddie 21:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed compromise language

Here's my proposed compromise. Comments? crazyeddie 21:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to give an affirmative answer to three questions. [6] (PDF):
  • "Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?" (67% of Fox News viewers answered "has".)
  • "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" (33% of Fox News viewers answered "has".)
  • "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think: The majority of people favor the US having gone to war." (35% of Fox News viewers answered "yes".)

Here are the original questions:

• Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
• Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
• Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think: The majority of people favor the US having gone to war.

For the last time, Silverback. I am not in favour of inclusion of your counter-points, especially when they are not the words of any notable commentator nor the findings of another study. Please don't engage in personal research for political purposes. Ethereal 01:10, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The first counterpoint is from the PIPA report. Note the quote marks.--Silverback 01:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal to include the original questions. Any suggestions on how to do it more elegantly? crazyeddie 02:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've done further research, and have discovered that the chemical shells were not discovered until after the PIPA report. So I withdraw that counterpoint. If they had been found before the report, I suspect that much more than 33% would have had this "misperception".

I now propose that only the first counterpoint be included, and that the actual percentages of Fox viewers alleged to have the "misperceptions" be included. The figures would be 67, 33, and 35% for the respective "misperceptions". This now makes more sense, since the first misperception is the one that is the most a matter of opinion.--Silverback 02:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal to take those percentages into account. Still think it reads a bit funny. crazyeddie 02:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even so there is no need to create a separate sub-bullet for the first counter-point. The PIPA report merely states that

• the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.”

So PIPA did not explicitly state that it acknowledges that a few terrorists visted Iraq or had Iraqi contacts, only that there is "some evidence". It turns out the original counterpoints were unjustified (surprise surprise). If you want to include this point, I suggest you quote directly from the report instead of inserting yet more bias within this article. I would allow including a brief statement within the same bullet as the first misperception (include the fact that PIPA labelled it a misperception) instead of writing out a separate bullet. Ethereal 05:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The 1st and third counterpoints were still justified.--Silverback 14:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus in favor of counterpoints, either from the pro-Fox or anti-Fox POVs. Does anybody besides Silverback want counterpoints? Let's put this question to rest.

Other than that, any comments on the proposed language? crazyeddie 07:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a little long I think. Ethereal 07:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I like your proposed compromise, but I think that FNC's percentages should only be included if those of its competitors are too. Tim Ivorson 18:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I could go either way on that one. Ethereal, would removing the percentages make it short enough for you? If so, whose in favor of putting in the percentages of the competitors also? I'm slightly in favor of it. I was a bit surprised by how low the percentages were in the last two cases, and surprised by how high the first one was. Putting up the percentages for the other networks might reveal some surprises also. crazyeddie 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also think that we should include the date of the report (2 october 2003) and that it would read better like this:

• ...viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to answer
  • "US has" to "...
  • "US has" to "...
  • That "the majority of people [in the world] favor the US having gone to war."

Tim Ivorson 09:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I think the percentages are important, is this PIPA report is being proposed as evidence of bias, presumably bias to the right based on the "misperceptions". If it is evidence of bias (I dispute this), then while it might suggest that Fox news (and CBS) is to the right of the other networks, since the percentages of two of the three are well less than 50%, perhaps this is evidence that Fox is to the left of center. Frankly I don't think it computes.--Silverback 14:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the percentages are higher than other networks, then that is contributing evidence (not proof!) of bias. If the difference is extremely high, say FOX is up above 50% and everybody else is down around 10%, then that wouldn't be so much a sign of bias as a sign of actual mind control. Not everybody who watches FOX is a conservative. Not everybody who is a conservative has the same views. But it does appear that people who watch FOX tend to have certain views, relative to the rest of the population. Maybe it's because people who have those views tend to watch FOX. Maybe it's because watching FOX causes people to have those views (relative to the rest of the population). Or maybe some third factor causes people to both watch FOX and to have those views (relative to the rest of the population).

I think (and I could be wrong), in the case of CBS, the third option is what is operating. Elderly people tend to watch CBS, relative to other networks, and elderly people tend to have conservative views, relative to the rest of the population. So CBS viewers tend to hold the listed views (relative to the rest of the population), regardless of bias in either direction on the part of CBS. Maybe CBS is biased left, maybe it's biased right, maybe it's perfectly neutral.

In the case of FOX, I think it's a combination of the first two options. Conservatives tend to watch FOX because they like a news source that confirms their previously held beliefs. Once they start watching, they tend to become more conservative because of the biased reporting. Of course, all of this presupposes that FOX is, in fact, biased. :-)

I'm actually very surprised at the high percentage on the Al Qaeda question, since that is the one with the least actual evidence supporting it (IMHO). I'm curious about how viewers of other networks answered it.

Finally, it doesn't matter if you think the evidence is compelling, it only matters if the detractors of FOX think it is compelling. We are trying to report their views, hopefully in a way that doesn't require counterpoints. The way to do that is to just state the raw data, and let the reader interpret the results themselves.

I'm agreeable to Tim's proposed changes. I'm also agreeable to including the percentages of other networks. crazyeddie 17:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CBS was also over 50%, I think 57% on the "working closely" with al Qaeda. Perhaps you think it doesn't have much evidence in support of it, but in addition to the PIPA assessment of based on intelligence reports, you should consider that after the war in Afghanistan, al-Zarqari made his way to Iraq, was harbored and given medical care in one of the hospitals reserved for the elite. This was broadly reported even before the Iraqi operations began. For some reason, a majority of both FOX and CBS viewers considered Iraq to be "working closely" with al Qaeda. There is certainly enough evidence to allow one to defend such a position, and PIPA undermines their own credibility by labeling such a statement a "misperception". The PIPA report was not about bias it was about perceptions, but evidently they had a misperception about how much "working closely" was a matter of opinion.--Silverback 23:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should remind all of you that Wikipedia is not the place for original research . It doesn't matter what exactly the real reasons are for the percentages. There is to be no insertion of explanatory text or refutation unless they are the results of a counter-study or the words of any noted political commentator. In my opinion, there is no need to insert the percentages into the article unless you want to insert the percentages for all of the other networks. Ethereal 00:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I should remind you that wikipedia is not a place for original research. There is no evidence that the PIPA study has anything to do with bias. If you want to put it in, put it in a different section. I've no problem with the percentages for all the other networks going in, either here or on their own pages as well.--Silverback 03:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is YOU who are inserting political bias into the articles, not me. The PIPA report is evidence that FOX is biased, and somehow you feel the need to include (personal) counterpoints, saying the questions here are too ambiguous...etc. What a load of nonsense. I am entirely in favour of quoting the PIPA questions itself, so you can't pretend that they require non-sensical counterpoints simply because they appear to be ambiguous. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of original research. The Wikipedia project page on No original research clearly states that:

• it purports to refute another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article

unless

• the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
• the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news Ethereal 05:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

You are purporting the novel theory that misperceptions among a minority of viewers is evidence of biased coverage, in an attempt to refute the Fox's claim to be fair and balanced. The PIPA report is not about bias, it is not peer reviewed.--Silverback 07:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there consensus for inserting percentages for all other networks? How many other networks were involved in the study? crazyeddie 00:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is nothing novel about the claim that FOX is biased. FAIR did it in 2001. FOX even apologised for gaff it made on proclaiming Bush won the 2000 election before results could be determined. Plenty of others have accused FOX of bias. Nothing novel here. What is "novel" is your reluctance to accept this well-known fact. Ethereal 07:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of PIPA report in the news and journal

PIPA is a well-known organisation. It has been quoted by well-known and prestigious news sources such as the BBC: [7] [8] [9] [10]. To suppose PIPA is a fringe organisation which is virtually unknown is hilarious. Silverback is intent on decorating just about every Wikipedia article with his right-wing bias. He did it in the article on Depleted uranium (check article history), and that's just what I've come across casually. A quick search through his contributions should reveal just about all the right-wing misinformation he has managed to smear Wikipedia with. Apart from that, deleting valid studies and quotations from news sources detrimental to the right is also another hobby.

The PIPA study was quoted by IPS: [11], which means that it is good enough for inclusion within this article. Silverback's charge falls flat because the PIPA report is newsworthy. Ethereal 07:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

*<whistles>* Do we have to send you two to sit in the corner? Silverback, the overwhelming consensus is to leave in the bulletpoint. That's not negotiable. If you want to have input in final compromise version of that bulletpoint, behave. Don't make large scale changes to the section until we have worked out a consensus-backed compromise. Or does one of us have to go out and find a moderator?

I have explained, two times now, why I, a person who is inclined to believe FOX is biased, but is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, believe that the PIPA report is contributing evidence - but not proof - of possible bias at FOX. Your attempt to refute my logic shows a such a poor grasp of statistics that I'm left wondering at the "semi-degree-ed philosopher scientist" bit on your userpage. The PIPA report did not set out to examine possible bias - but surely you are familar with the principle of serendipity? Furthermore, my logic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the views in question are valid. Maybe FOX and CBS are islands of truth in a sea of liberally biased media. Maybe my answer to those questions is wrong. Maybe the moon really *is* made of green cheese. I don't care!

I believe that my logic is self-evident enough to the average Wikipedia reader - if not you Silverback - that I'm willing to let the data speak for itself, without any interpretation on our part, to the furthest extent possible.

Ethereal, I believe that showing the percentages for the other networks involved in the study would be helpful. It would let the reader judge for themselves how significant the effect is. My sole concern is space. I was involved, along with Trodel and Tim Ivorson, in creating the present workably sized version of this section. I would hate to see it become bloated again.

It is because of that concern for space that I'm flat against any sort of point/counter-point monkey business. Let the data speak for itself, and let the best viewpoint win.

Ethereal, while Silverback is apparently quite capable of being difficult, let's give him some space and see if he is also capable of acting like a civilized being. crazyeddie 07:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have discovered more evidence for inclusion of the PIPA report. Contrary to what Silverback says, the PIPA report was published by a journal, namely the Political Science Quarterly [12] which has been in existence since 1886. Silverback doesn't even bother with the research. Here's the publication in the journal: [13]. In short, PIPA ought to be included because it was both reported in the news and covered in a journal. Silverback's argument that it is not worthy of inclusion is backed neither the news nor the journals. It is his counter-points, which are backed by none which he so insists in including to suit his twisted far-right ideology. Ethereal 07:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

eddie, I am willing to compromise. I have decided to accept only the first counterpoint of Silverback, namely that PIPA said that there was some evidence al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had Iraqi contacts. The problem with including the percentages, I believe, is that it would be too long, something Trodel is against. This isn't a right/left political issue here. It is about readability I am talking about. I have also proposed quoting the PIPA report questions themselves. Clearly this is proof I am willing to work with individuals who do not let their political beliefs interfere with the work of editing a nonpartisan online encyclopaedia. I am not sure if I can say the same of Silverback. Ethereal 08:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then let's forget about Silverback for now. If he can negotiate like a human, we'll let him in. If he can't, we'll call in a moderator and take it from there. Let's concentrate on Silverback's proposed changes instead. I'm against his proposed counterpoints. His counterpoints seem to be aimed at the "misperceptions" label. Drop the label, and you drop the need for the counterpoints.

However, he does have a point about the percentages. Let's see if we can come up with a compromise that lends some scale to the effect the report is talking about, while not causing the bulletpoint to be overly bloated. I was surprised by the actual percentages involved. I was also surprised by CBS's results. I imagine other readers would be also. How many networks were involved in the report? If we can't list all of them, how about a sample? Say, three or five networks, counting FOX and CBS? crazyeddie 08:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, skimmed the report. (@#$% PDF) Looks like there is only 7 sources. For that matter, only three questions. Looks like it might be doable. Should also give the overall percentage "Respondants with one or more "misperceptions"". Did I mention I get my news from PBS/NPR? Also, for the record, I'm pretty much perfectly balanced between liberal and conservative. Anyway, I'll try to put together a proposal tomorrow. crazyeddie 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, why don't we just give the overall percentages for "Respondants with one or more "misperceptions""? That would be quite doable I think. crazyeddie 08:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't actually mind including percentages. If Trodel doesn't mind, I suppose we can include it. I think his opposition lies in the fact that he thought that the PIPA report wasn't good enough. But now that I have come up with the evidence, he might change his mind. Why not post a draft of what you intend to write in the article here? Ethereal 14:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that PIPA had attempted to publish it in a peer reviewed journal. The peer reviewed version is different from the one that has been referenced in the article, it shows some signs of peer review. For instance, it is no longer about "Fox News", but about "Fox", since they did not record data that could distinguish Fox News as a source from the local affiliates. Note also that they don't report NPR separately from PBS anymore since they did not have enough statistical strength to do so. Note also they report that the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11", and that this was held be 33% with CBS as a source and only 24% with Fox as a source. Note, they did not label this a misperception because it was not demonstratably false, while the finding evidence of a direct link was labled a misperception, because there have been no reports of such a find. If Ethereal was using the peer reviewed version as a source, then she was being selective in what she chose to include.

I never said the report should not be included because it was "not notable", but that it shouldn't be included in the alleged bias section because that would be "original research". There is no evidence tying the alleged viewer misperceptions to biased coverage.

I was originally receptive to having the report in the article under some other heading unrelated to bias, but since now it is clear they were not careful to distinguish Fox News from local Fox affiliates or to distinguish national coverage from local coverage, it does not belong in this article at all. The published version makes these distinctions clear while the report available at the PIPA site retains the original errors and should no longer be cited.--Silverback 18:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've now reviewed the peer reviewed version more thoroughly, looking for references to political bias, all references are to the bias of the viewers based on their political affiliation and none to biased coverage.--Silverback 19:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the third time: While biased coverage is not the only possible explanation for the established fact that, relative to the audiences of other news sources, the viewers of FOX tend to hold the cited views, it is a possible explanation.

Not that it really matters, but what explanation do you propose for "conservatives" (or rather people who hold the cited views) tending to watch FOX? Or rather, how do you explain the strong correlation between view-holding and network viewership?

Also, are you suggesting that the result of the survey is the product of some sort of widespread conservative bias at local FOX affiliates, but not FNC itself? If so, then why?

Would it matter if we based the bulletpoint on the published version of the article (assuming that the results are the same, of course)?

I'll get busy writing a new proposal as soon as I get Adobe Reader installed. crazyeddie 23:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The strongest predictor of holding one of these "misperceptions" was intention to vote for President Bush. The study does not go into detail on how much Fox in general explains the results after that is taken into account. However, the peer reviewed study does not have results specific to Fox News, and so is not applicable to this article, unlike the apparently erroneous version cited in the article and available at the PIPA site.--Silverback 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to look at Tables 4 through 8, inclusive, in the PSQ version of the article. This peer-reviewed version clearly contains the data that this bulletpoint is based on.

While I believe you that the intention to vote for President Bush was the strongest predictor of holding one of these "misperceptions" (not having read the report that closely), 80% of FOX viewers surveyed held at least one of those views, compared to 47% of "print media" readers. Why do you suppose that was? crazyeddie 00:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it is because of the type of viewers attracted to the reality shows on Fox and CBS affiliates.--Silverback 02:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, you make several factual errors with regard to your above response. The two reports were very similar to one another, and several of your charges are erroneous in nature. The point about the difference between Fox and Fox news is trivial, unless you can come up with evidence that the findings were due mainly to the difference between local affilates and national news coverage. I strongly suspect you cannot. In fact, Silverback seems to have omitted a footnote at the bottom of the page:

• 9. Numbers for those naming a network as their primary news source were as follows: Fox,520;CBS,258; CNN,466; ABC,315; NBC,420; NPR/PBS,91. All findings in this section were statistically significant at the p<0.05 level, except where noted. (Page 14)

In other words, the results themselves were statistically significant and suggestive even if some FOX viewers got their news from local affilates rather then the national news network. The report notes that the conclusion stands regardless of whether there were those who obtain their news from local affilates or national sources. Silverback's reasoning on this matter is flawed.

Also deliberatedly omitted (or overlooked) by Silverback was that:

• In the case of ABC, CBS, and NBC,we do not know how many people primarily got their news from local affiliates and how many from national news shows. (Page 14)

In other words, a total of 4 networks (including FOX) were affected, and the results still indicate that FOX viewers were the most likely to hold right-wing misperceptions. If the difference between local affilates and national news networks were that significant, they why is it that FOX viewers were consistently more likely to hold such misperceptions, as compared to others?

Secondly, the combination of PBS-NPR was nothing new. It was already present within the original report referenced within the FOX news article. As for the other case of Iraqi involvement in Sept 11, I should say that it was not counted as a misperception. So PIPA did not label it as a misperception, and in any case they did admit it was a little ambiguous, hence this should not be included. In fact this seems to mean CBS is more biased to the right than previously believed, contradicting assertions by conservatives that CBS is liberally biased.

As for your claim that there is "no evidence tying the alleged viewer misperceptions to biased coverage", again you have omitted (or overlooked) the following crucial conclusion which refutes your argument from the report:

• Of course, the presence or absence of misperceptions in viewers does not necessarily prove that they were caused by the presence or absence of reliable reporting by a news source. Variations in the level of misperceptions according to news source may be related to variations in the political orientations of the audience. However, when political attitudes were controlled for the variations between the networks and the same attitudes still obtained, it suggests that differences in reporting by media sources were playing a role. (Page 25)

In other words, Silverback, yet again your reasoning is flawed. Furthemore, I remind you that I have addressed this point a long time ago. The current revision which includes the PIPA report does not allege that watching FOX news makes one more likely to harbour misperceptions in the long run, but this itself may suggest that FOX News itself was a factor:

• viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to hold three views (quote from eddie's latest version)

Nowhere in this statement is there a claim that FOX was responsible indoctrinating bias in their viewers. For heaven's sake, the title of the section is "Allegations of bias", not "Evidence of bias". Also, as I have pointed out earlier, the PIPA study should be included because it was reported by a media outlet and is therefore newsworthy. Eddie, I think both you and I are sick of these same old arguments. Call in a moderator, I have a feeling we'll need him/her soon. Ethereal 03:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed PIPA bulletpoint

• A 2 october, 2003, study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reports that, even after adjusting for viewership and political preference, viewers of FOX News were more likely than the viewers of any other network to hold three views: [14] (PDF):
  • That the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization".
  • That the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".
  • That "the majority of people" from all over the world "favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.

80% of FOX viewers surveyed held at least one of these views. By comparison, 71% of CBS viewers, 61% of ABC viewers, 55% of both CNN and NBC viewers, 47% of print media readers, and 23% of NPR/PBS viewers/listeners surveyed held at least one of these views. The survey did not distinguish between FNC and Fox local affiliate viewers.

Comments? crazyeddie 00:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, you did not look closely at the peer reviewed version and compare it with the original. Note: "Likewise, we do not know if all of those who said that they got their news from Fox News primarily got their news from the national cable news network and how many from local Fox affiliates." This is why instead of "Fox News" that was repeatedly referenced in the original, once it got to peer review, this was changed to just "Fox". Their methodology was not designed to be able to distinguish Fox affiliates from Fox News and so the results do not pertain to Fox News, and should not be cited here.--Silverback 02:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is still flawed. See my response above. Ethereal 03:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I saw some name calling (incorrect by the way) but not the reasoning you mention. The PIPA article does not make an allegation of bias either, so the evidence vs allegation distinction is not relevant. You are not editing in good faith by wanting the results of the report in, but not wanting the percentages for each "misperception", that show that two of them we held by well less than a majority. Now perhaps you can make this into an allegation of bias by finding a citation alleged bias while referencing the report. But in fairness to whatever citation you find, they may not have been aware of the corrections that were made in the peer reviewed version, so may have read only the easily accessible version at the PIPA cite that mistakenly refers to Fox News.--Silverback 03:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like to quote myself, but I said the following earlier:

• Come to think of it, I don't actually mind including percentages. If Trodel doesn't mind, I suppose we can include it. I think his opposition lies in the fact that he thought that the PIPA report wasn't good enough. But now that I have come up with the evidence, he might change his mind. Why not post a draft of what you intend to write in the article here? Ethereal 14:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Even if your point about the difference between local FOX affilates and the national cable news network is correct (which I do not agree), we'll just be more precise and include that point. No need to remove it entirely. Ethereal 03:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

New working version

• The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) published a report in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than the viewers of other networks to hold these three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[15] (PDF),
  • 67% believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". However, the more specific misperception that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of the viewers of the various Fox sources.
  • 33% believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".
  • 35% believed that "the majority of people" from all over the world "favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.

I still think there needs to be further qualification to the first "misperception", it is such a poor question. The US had good evidence of of al Zarqari being harbored and rendered aid in Iraq, before the invasion, so hanging a question on whether the evidence was "clear" or "found ... in Iraq" is a red herring.--Silverback 04:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are the actual questions asked in the questionaire. What more do you want? Ethereal 04:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I want to balance the alleged misperceptions with facts.--Silverback 05:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But you're wanting to equate "Al Qaeda" with "Ansar al-Islam", and "Saddam Hussein" with "Iraq" (including portions not under Ba'athist control at the time)... Alai 05:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, though it may be a fact that the US had evidence that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq at that time (I haven't seen the evidence yet), it has not been proven that FOX viewers had this in mind when they were answering the PIPA poll. You need to prove both cases, not just one, failing which it should not be included. Ethereal 06:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Who knows what the Fox viewers had in mind. It is enough to show facts that cast doubt on the PIPA categorization of "working closely" as a misperception. Here are a couple of links that predate the PIPA study, I believe al-Zarqari was among the "contacts" referred to by the intelligence community and the administration. It is a matter of opinion whether this is working closely or not. [16] [17]. There are a lot more possibilities, if you search google on "al-Zarqawi hospital afghanistan 2003"--Silverback 08:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you can't prove that FOX viewers were aware of Zarqawi in Iraq in that time, you can't prove that it was responsible for causing them to think Al-Qaeda and Iraq were working closely at that time. Otherwise other factors could have been possible. The reason for not including that news report is that in any given time period, there would always be news reports which are both detrimental and supportive for the case for war with Iraq. Further proof is needed to demonstrate that FOX viewers were somehow aware of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq at that time. This is what needs to be proven. Hence you need to find a survey or poll which shows that they were aware at that time. EDIT: Furthermore your reasoning fails to take into account the fact that given that it was CNN which reported the news about the terrorist capture, it was FOX viewers who had the highest no. of misperceptions. All of the above notwithstanding, you still haven't explained why, if we assume all news network reported the terrorist capture, FOX viewers still rank the highest for most misperceptions. Ethereal 09:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I like crazyeddie's version, but I think that it should mention only the Political Science Quarterly report. Perhaps we should use Silverback's version up to the external link and crazyeddie's from there. I also have some nitpicks. I dislike "people from all over the world". I would prefer "people in the world", which is the wording used in the first part of the question and is used in the Political Science Quarterly report. PIPA spells "favour" as "favor". Tim Ivorson 09:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I find this suggestion acceptable. Anyone else in favour? Ethereal 11:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Crazyeddie's version, based on Tim's suggestion

• A 2 october, 2003, study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported that people who depended either on FOX News Channel or Fox-affiliated news shows as their primary news source were more likely than others who depended primarily on other news sources to hold three views: [18] (PDF):
  • That the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization".
  • That the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".
  • That "the majority of people" "in the world" "favor the US having gone to war" with Iraq.

80% of FOX viewers surveyed held at least one of these views. By comparison, 71% of CBS viewers, 61% of ABC viewers, 55% of both CNN and NBC viewers, 47% of print media readers, and 23% of NPR/PBS viewers/listeners surveyed held at least one of these views.

I agreed that giving percentages isn't useful unless we give the percentages for the other news sources. That being the case, I think we should just give the percentages for the "overall score". Otherwise, it will take up too much space and adversely affect the readability of the article. The point isn't that a majority of Fox viewers hold those opinions, it's that they tend to hold them more often than the users of other news sources do. If anybody besides Silverback thinks we should throw in the percentages for each question, along with the percentages for the other news sources as a comparision, I might be talked around. Until then, no.

The percentages are very important, if we were talking about 2% of Fox affiliate viewers having these misperceptions, vs say 1.5% on other networks, it probably would not be significant enough to be worth mentioning. However, the percentages are larger and they readers should be given them so they can make their own decisions. Giving the individual percentages is also more informative to the reader, since the quality of the figures being combined varies, so the individual figures allows the reader to make more specific assessments.--Silverback 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am, of course, against any counter-points or additional interpertation, for much the same reasons. People can ask "what did they know and when did they know it" questions in their own time - we gave them the date of the report, and the article should have information on when the surveys where held.

Furthermore, I don't think it really matters right at the moment if the views in question are misperceptions or not, for reasons I refuse to give for a freakin' fourth time.

The external link points to the PSQ version of the article. I also made it a bit more precise about what exactly a "Fox viewer" means.

I'd also like to say this: Could PIPA have made that last question any more awkward? If you aren't paying attention, you might not notice the first bit about "people in the world". And since Americans tend to only think of Americans when they hear the word people... crazyeddie 09:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The last sentence: "The survey did not distinguish between FNC and Fox local affiliate viewers." is now redundant, but I'll leave it in for emphasis, unless there are any objections. crazyeddie 10:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Change the first sentence to:

• A 2 october, 2003, study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported that people who depended either on FOX News Channel or Fox-affiliated news shows as their primary news source were more likely than others who depended primarily on other news sources to hold three views which PIPA labeled as misperceptions:

Just a few changes to the English and the acknowledgement tha PIPA considered them misperceptions. And also, drop the repetition of the last sentence because it has already been mentioned. Note that FOX isn't the only one who is affected. As the report noted above, ABC, CBS and NBC were all affected as well. As for the ambiguity of the last question, note that it stated [19]:

• Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think: The majority of people favor the US having gone to war.

Options were:

• The majority of people favor the US having gone to war
• The majority of people oppose the US having gone to war
• Views are evenly balanced
• (no answer) Ethereal 12:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

'kay. Still leaving off the misperceptions label unless there is a consensus in favor of keeping it. I personally would have phrased the last question like this: "Internationally, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?" I'm not saying that it's phrased ambiguiously, just awkwardly. crazyeddie 17:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact that PIPA labeled these misperceptions should still be on there since that is what the report was about, and making it clear that it was just PIPAs opinion, should stimulate the reader to make their own assessment.--Silverback 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave it in on one condition - that you stop trying to prove that these views aren't misperceptions!. crazyeddie 19:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what PIPA's interpertation is. I only care about their hard, factual, results. I see this insistance on the "misperceptions" label as an ad hominem attack. It implies that PIPA was biased against proponents of the Iraq War. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But unless this alledged bias expressed itself as a systemic flaw in their experimental methods, it shouldn't affect their hard results. Whether or not such systemic errors exist is an entirely different issue. The fact that the report was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal argues that there were no major flaws, but doesn't rule it out. However, somebody attempting to prove that the study has systemic flaws would have a high burden of proof.

Making note of the misperceptions label will not "stimulate the reader to make their own assessment". Instead, it will stimulate the reader to have knee-jerk reactions based on their existing views about the Iraq War. Opponents of the War will certainly agree that all three views are, indeed, misperceptions. Proponents of the War will scramble to prove that these views are not misperceptions, leading to a morass of counterpoint and counter-counter point.

Maintaining an agnostic view regarding the validity of these views will actually bolster the pro-Fox argument. If the views are invalid, then that would mean that Fox viewers are woefully uninformed. If, on the other hand, we do not assume that views are necessarily invalid, then this leaves the option of all other news sources being liberally biased. IIRC, one of the major arguments of the pro-Fox POV is that Fox is uniquely fair, balanced, and objective, that all other news sources have a varying degree of liberal bias.

Might I suggest that people who use print media as their primary news source is the closest thing the study has to a control? Print media readers are arguably well-informed, so why do 47% of them hold incorrect views? Furthermore, "print media" is a very generic term, and it is unlikely that the sample group all read a single biased source. Seen from this point of view, FOX and NPR/PBS are almost equal and opposite ends of the spectrum, as opposed to NPR/PBSers being vastly better informed than FOXers.

Silverback, you seem to favor the pro-FOX POV. So why are you insisting on an interpertation that maximizes the anti-FOX argument? crazyeddie 19:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm for NPOV. This quote from the peer reviewed version shows the point PIPA was trying to make: "What is worrisome is that it appears that the President has the capacity to lead members of the public to assume false beliefs in support of his position." They are focused on misperceptions, which they openly declare to be false beliefs in this conclusion. When a reader sees something that has been labeled a misperception and yet has 67% of a population beleiving it, if they are a critical thinker, they will ask why. If a critical thinker sees evidence of misperceptions cited as evidence of media outlet bias (as is done in this article), when less than 40% of the viewers have the misperception, he wonders why, if it was due to biased coverage, the other viewers or at least a majority don't have the misperception.--Silverback 04:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here you are already speculating what readers might think when they come across the study. Our business is not to care about how they choose to interpret the results, but only to present it as it is. Ethereal 13:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can assume everybody here is in favor of articles that have netural POV. However, it is probably impossible for anybody here to truly have a neutral POV themselves. If we were neutral over this issue, we wouldn't be spending such a large chunk of our lifespan working on this section. I freely admit to having an anti-Fox POV, but I am willing to compromise with somebody who has an pro-Fox POV. Creating an article with NPOV requires compromising with people with other points of view. So far, you have shown little tendency towards that.

Secondly, the thesis of the PIPA report is not relevant to the current discussion. The thesis that this section is trying to present - that Fox is biased (while allowing the defense to have their say, of course), is relying on the PIPA report for their data, not their thesis.

This, AFAICT, is the thesis of the PIPA report: They noticed that there were many "misperceptions" floating around regarding the Iraq War. They hypothesized that these "misperceptions" were causing people to support Bush, relative to people who didn't have these "misperceptions". The results of the survey support this hypothesis. They also hypothesized that the tendency to have these "misperceptions" was being heavily influenced by what primary news source people were using. This hypothesis is also supported by the data.

The hypothesis that these "misperceptions" were, in reality, not true, was not tested in this study. The researchers took it as axiomatic. I personally believe that the views are in question are, in fact, false. You seem to believe that they are true, or that there is some reasonable doubt that they are false. Then again, I rely on PBS, NPR, and the New York Times as my primary news sources. Perhaps my views are tainted by the liberal bias in these news sources.

But whether or not these views are false is not relevant to the current discussion.

The point that the anti-Fox side is trying to make with this bulletpoint is that Fox viewers tend to hold certain views relative to other news sources, and that the Fox viewers are at one end of the spectrum of beliefs. Of course, corelation is not causation, but corelation is a sign of some sort of causal relationship. This corelation of view and viewership is all that the anti-Fox position is trying to prove with this bulletpoint.

If the views are, in fact, misperceptions, then this would not be a sign of bias, but of the actual massive failure of the journalistic mission of Fox. If all of these views are invalid, then 80% of Fox's audience is holding at least one incorrect view. If any one of these views are invalid, than a full third of Fox's audience is holding an incorrect view. This would go far beyond what the anti-Fox stance is trying to prove in this section. We're only trying to prove that Fox favors the conservative viewpoint, not that it is outright engaging in actual disinformation.

Neither is it relevant if any one of these views is in the majority in the Fox audience or not. That strong of a corelation between view and viewship would lend credence to the running joke among extreme anti-Foxers that government mind control rays are piggybacking on the Fox feed. The point is only that Fox viewers are more likely to have "conservative" (or at least pro-Bush) views relative to the rest of the population.

Does any of this satisify your objections, or are you implying that the alledged bias of the researchers against proponents of the Iraq War expressed itself in the form of flaws in their experimental technique? crazyeddie 19:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is very post-modern of you to think that nobody can have a neutral point of view. While some statements may be too ambiguous or imprecise to determine their truth value, intellectually honest folk should be able to figure out which ones those are. Since I don't think the study sheds any light on bias, I don't think any of it is relevant. However, if one is going to include it, I don't see how the percentages are irrelevant or on what wikipedia basis one could exclude them. If a statement is a misperception, there is a big difference between 67% and 33% holding it. However, you seem to be focusing on the amalagamated figures, which as a secondary conclusion another step removed from the facts, compounds the problem of using an already questionable study for a purpose outside its scope.--Silverback 06:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one is excluding the figures. Critically-minded readers, as you put it, can study the report in-depth simply by downloading and viewing the PDF file linked within the article. No one is stopping them from doing so. But since this is an encyclopaedia I don't favour placing so much emphasis on a single item within the article. It's readability I'm talking about here, not political bias. Ethereal 14:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is being fairly summarized, for those who don't do their own investigation. What do you think is wrong with the shorter version I proposed? Note, that the inclusion of the CBS figure, properly suggests the possibility that something other than neo-conservative (centrist) bias may be involved.--Silverback 21:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The limitations of the study has already been included. Those who don't do their own research would not even bother reading through a longer version of the item. Again, please keep your hands off the interpretation. It is not our place here to suggest to others how they should think. Let them decide for themselves after reading through the report. Ethereal 04:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

What limitations have been included? If you don't want so much emphasis on a single item, why not just put a link in the external links section? Note, that my version is not any longer, but is more informative and a more fair summary than the one Crazy proposed.--Silverback 14:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The part about the distinction between the FOX news channel and fox-affilated shows. Also, please stop removing the PIPA report. You are the only one who is against its inclusion. Ethereal 17:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You know, you actually had a point there Silverback. Perhaps we should include that one statistic. I'm sure that you actually having a valid point is just an accident - even a busted clock is right twice a day. It's because you occasionally have a valid (if not necessarily correct) point that I'm willing to listen to you at all. But then you go and unilaterally remove the entire bulletpoint when it is clear that there is overwhelming consensus for its inclusion. I'm trying very hard to be accommodating, but you aren't willing to compromise on a single point. Unfortunately, removing you from this discussion (assuming that the policies of this wiki allow it) would leave us without a pro-Fox advocate (even though you bizzarely deny that you are a pro-Fox advocate). I've contacted Trodel, a pro-Foxer who I've worked with in the past, but he is on a hopefully short wikivacation. Maybe we can just work on an interim compromise, which will just have to do until he can help us create a more balanced version. Until then, what options do we have for removing Silverback's disruptive presence from this discussion? crazyeddie 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can you say I'm not willing to compromise, when the PIPA entry was in the article for months with my knowledge until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise. I've even proposed a compromise above, the one with the percentages and the CBS reference. Yes, I have opposed misrepresentation of the study, and would definitely prefer that it be included in some other section than the allegation of bias section, because that is not what it does, it misrepresents the study, but if you look at the history I have even compromised to the point of allowing it in that section. I wouldn't want that original compromise now, because I have learned, as I reported here, that it was erroneous.--Silverback 17:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating this, Silverback but the reason why your "compromise" is invalid is simply because it is against Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Even without the policy I could see you were simply against the idea of not turning just about every article related to American politics into a point/counterpoint format just because it casts the Right in a bad light. This happened to the article on Creationism, and I'm thinking of helping to edit some of their sections just so I could clear up the very un-encyclopaedic format. I'm simply not in favour of the original "compromise" you were working on for the above. Eddie, is there anyway we can seek some kind of mediation? Ethereal 03:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

You evidently are not aware of my contributions to Intelligent Design. No one has raised a no original research objection to my compromise with the percentages. You evidently missed it, I will post it below.--Silverback 09:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) published a report in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than the viewers of other networks to hold these three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[20] (PDF),
  • 67% believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". However, the more specific misperception that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of the viewers of the various Fox sources.
  • 33% believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".
  • 35% believed that "the majority of people" from all over the world "favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.

There is nothing in this one which is not in the peer reviewed study, so how can a no original research objection be raised to it? It is closer to the raw data than the proposal by Crazie, since it doesn't bind already questionable basic data into a meta-analysis, but just lets the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps you object to the CBS datum being interjected into the first "misperception", but if you read the paper that is exactly the section in which it is discussed, I don't recall it in the non-peer reviewed version, so it looks like the peer reviewers got to see the raw data, and did not allow the seletive publishing of only those results where the Fox percentages were the highest. --Silverback 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the original version which was in place before I came in. I still prefer eddie's version, though. I would also prefer to see the part on the more "specific misperception" left out simply because PIPA did not label it a misperception (we're discussing PIPA's label of misperception here). If you want to insert the specific percentages for FOX, I suggest you add in the percentages for the other networks as well. Ethereal 14:18, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the other percentages are needed if one is concerned about length, because the intro line states that Fox was the highest, although if others are put it, it should be complete, so that Fox is not just contrasted with NPR/PBS. BTW, PIPA did label the more specific misperception a misperception, and they also did not label it one, or at least that it wasn't a "demonstratable" one. I cite the apropo lines here: "As discussed, the view that Iraq was directly involved in September 11 is not a demonstrable misperception, but it is widely regarded as fallacious by the intelligence community. In this case, the highest level of misperceptions was in the CBS audience (33 percent) followed by Fox (24 percent), ABC (23 percent), NBC (22 percent), and CNN (21 percent)."--Silverback 20:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compromising

<<How can you say I'm not willing to compromise, when the PIPA entry was in the article for months with my knowledge until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>

That is like saying that the Palestinians are willing to compromise with the Israelis because their representatives didn't wap the Israeli representatives upside the head during the peace conferences. You can't take credit for such restraint because it is demanded by the most basic requirements of decency. And you didn't even do that! Two times now you have unilaterally removed the bulletpoint from the article, despite it being clear that there was overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping it - at least in some form. Do we really have to wait for a third incident before taking action?

<<until someone came along and decided to alter the compromise.>>

As one of the three people involved in the creation of the original compromise, I can testify that we weren't entirely happy with the final form of this particular bulletpoint. We basically accepted this version as "good enough" because we were getting tired and loosing perspective. We agreed to review it after some time had passed and create a more acceptable version. Now is a good of a time as any - but only if all parties involved are willing to compromise and negotiate.

Your unilateral removal of the bulletpoint is only the most extreme example of your failure to compromise. The secret to compromising is to pick your battles. You have to be willing to give up certain points and fight only the battles you stand a chance of winning. Yet you insist on fighting battles already lost. You continue to fight against these consensus decisions:

No my removal was not an example of my failure to compromise. The version I removed was one none of us favors, why are you reverting back to it when you don't favor it? That is disenginuous. Furthermore, by your own definition, I am compromising, because I have picked my battles, and this is it. Do you really think there are not other entries in this allegations of bias section which would wither under scrutiny? I haven't even looked at them. I picked this PIPA entry because I was already familiar with it and knew that the original study was poor, and even that was being misused in this article. You haven't been able to defend your version, you just engage in ad hominem attacks on me, and try to rally support for your version. I have stuck to the merits of how well the language represents the study. I am surprised that you were involved in the original compromise, because you apparently didn't even read the report until a few days ago when you installed a reader. I don't support the original compromise anymore BTW, because I was the one that demonstrated that it was incorrect. Perhaps if you would engage your intellect a bit instead of your transparent, ad hominem political rallying, we could reach a compromise.--Silverback 07:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the bulletpoint in this section.
• The removal of the "misperception" label.

I'm "post-modern" enough to admit that you may be right on these issues, and the consensus (as well as I!) may be wrong. But for now, the decision of the consensus stands. After some time has passed, after the current round of negotiations has finished, you may take the opportunity to swing the consensus your way. Until then, accept the decision and move on.

<<Eddie, is there anyway we can seek some kind of mediation?>>

That is exactly what I'm proposing. I would like to give Silverback a chance to change his spots, but if that proves to not be practical, I would like to have him banned from editing this article or participating in this discussion for a month. That will give us a chance to work out a compromise without Silverback wasting our time and his on issues that have already been decided. I'm hoping that the mediator might have some suggestions. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Wikipedia to know how to initiate such a procedure. Any ideas?

Unfortunately, removing Silverback will leave us without a pro-Fox advocate in this discussion. It is in the interest of the anti-Fox side to create a NPOV version of this bulletpoint, and we need an effective pro-Fox voice involved in the negotation to do that. If the bulletpoint is slanted towards the anti-fox side, that will alienate anybody who is still on the fence and might lead to the bulletpoint being removed. I would like to avoid that scenario.

I'm hoping that by the time we have completed the mediation process, Trodel will have returned from his wikivacation or another acceptable pro-Fox advocate will have been found. So I'm proposing tabling this discussion until the completion of the mediation process.

I have just said that I'd like to table the discussion. But before we do, I'd like to point out for the record certain issues that I believe are negotiable:

• The ban on interpertation is a local one, not the result of a Wikipedia policy. The consensus would like to avoid a return to the previous bloated form of this section, which was a maze of point and counterpoint. We think that the way to avoid that is to avoid interpertation if possible. If it is required, we will go ahead and do it, but we would like to avoid that. We really want to avoid counterpoints.

• I am willing to accept, in principle, the "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" statistic. However, I am only willing to do so as a seperate subpoint, not as a counterpoint to an existing subpoint. I'm am still against even that, but I am willing to concede to the consensus - if and when a consensus forms on this issue.

• The consensus has stated that percentages of Fox viewers who hold the given views should not be given unless the percentages of all other newsources are also given, for purposes of comparision. Given this, I am willing to accept, in principle, the inclusion of percentages in all the subpoints, but I believe that doing so will add too much bulk to the bulletpoint.

There is room here for negotiation. But I am not willing to negotiate with Silverback at the present time. crazyeddie 20:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Critics and some observers" in the INTRO?

Why is there mention of the 'controversy' in the intro? The articles of every other media corps that have been accused of bias (MSNBC, NYT, BBC, etc.) make no mention of this until their "criticism" or "controversy" section. Can't imagine an reputable encyclopedia jumping in to these claims so early on in an article.—DMCer™ 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FNC's article mention it in the lead because the allegations of bias from tha network are so extreme (there is even a sub article about them, there are so many). Contrast with the other media corps you referenced, which do not have so many allegations of bias against them. TheNobleSith (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when is that a unique thing? Maybe you should see CNN controversies (which have more sections than the corresponding FNC article), Criticism of The New York Times, BBC controversies, and Criticism of the BBC. All of these deal with bias on the part of the organizations. It seems a bit bias of Wikipedia that FNC is the only article that mentions these allegations in its intro; though it unfortunately seems these things are becoming increasingly common here.—DMCer™ 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, the allegations are "so extreme" by whom? By foes and critics of the station? The "allegations" should not be "so extreme" that they cause Wikipedia to bend its own standards.

All of these deal with bias on the part of the organizations. That is true, however FNC is the only news source where all of it's supposed bias is on one side(conservative, in this case). As such, it's controversy is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a statement in the lead for CNN. If you check the archives you will see I suggested that this statement not be in the lead, it was supported and the statement removed, and has been gone since. The same cannot be said here. Is there a double standard? You tell me. The rational usually given is that you can't compare articles. Arzel (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for using the statement in the intro here included the fact that the perception of Fox's conservative advocacy was incredibly widespread. CNN and the BBC, etc., simply do not compare. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually we didn't use public perception because there were no reliable sources that discussed public perception. The primary sources were members of the DMC, liberal web sites like MMfA, and a PEW research study report on Journalists opinions. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Arzel... there is no "double standard" that you imply exists. The controversy itself is what is so widespread that it warrants inclusion in the lead here; controversies regarding allegations of bias involving the other news sources mentioned are not nearly as massive as the one that surrounds Fox. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am hearing is a lot of opinion, but the real story is that the DNC buckled under to MoveOn.org. Interestingly, FNC has been viewed as the least biased network on the 2008 presidential election. You want bias, how about MSNBC, I suprised they don't have a ticker listing the number of days until Obama is elected president. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about MSNBC or it's supposed support of Obama. Even if you want to make the case about MSNBC being biased, you could easily say FNC is even more biased in the other direction. Everyone surely saw their coverage of the Reverend Wright controversy, when all they did was run a loop of Obama's pastor 24/7, despite other important events going on. MSNBC is only seen as liberal by conservatives who are upset it doesn't bash Obama 24/7 as FNC does. Once again though, this is all beside the point. The article is not talking about actual bias, it's referring to FNC's widely perceived bias. Two different things. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead mentions the criticism because WP:LEAD suggests notable controversies should be mentioned, and because consensus determined it should be mentioned. The FAQ at the top of this page outlines the basic points, and links to the archives that contain previous discussion. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a "reputable encyclopedia" that didn't mention that controversy in the lead... it's so prevalent that one of the two major political parties in the U.S. refuse to participate in debates hosted by FNC. The presence is firmly grounded in policy and consensus, as AuburnPilot referenced. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

From the FNC Controversies page. "A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush".[33]". Does the CBS page have controversies listed in the lead....I think not. Your ground is mud. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, unless you have a new point to make that hasn't already been addressed, the intro will remain as it is. Arzel, you were a witness and participate in the discussion, so you are aware of how we reached the point where we are. Any new editor to this discussion should read the FAQ and the archives, and if they have something new to add, we'll address it. However, the tired argument that CNN or MSNBC doesn't mention bias isn't persuasive and has zero validity. - auburnpilot talk 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to point out a little of the hypocrisy here. FNC is obviously the most biased new source, everyone says it is. If you can't see that it is then you are a naive rube, hence this is why it only presents here. However if anyone presents any evidence that FNC is not regarded the most biased source then we must fall back on the rule that you can't use other articles as a guide for this article. So which is it? FNC is obviously the most biased so it is apt to include in the lead? Or you can't compare articles? Because the argument above seems to be the former. AuburnPilot I have no beef with you, but if the former is the reason (which Gamaliel, Blaxthos, and The Noble Sith seem to be arguing) then that reason is not valid. Personally I don't see why it should be included in any, unless there is a major specific instance that is a topic within the article. Bias is hugely subjective, one person's bias is anothers unbiased reporting, and to say that FNC is significantly more biased than the others is purely opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The FNC bias controversy is more significant than any related controversy with any other news organization. This has nothing to do with what happens on other articles. Also, Wikipedia is not adjudicating fact, we're simply noting the fact that the controversy is widespread. The policy is clear, the consensus is clear -- three RFC's and the wording has changed maybe two or three words over the last two years. I, for one, grow tired of having to explain this to you every month, Arzel, most especially since you were here for at least half of the consensus-building. Whether you fail to comprehend the logic, or you fail to respect consensus, I really don't think we should have to explain it over and over ad infinitum. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, my opinion is this: The controversy about FNC's supposed bias is far more widespread and controversial than any other news source. That has nothing to do with whether I think it's biased, whether you think it's biased, whether Howard Dean thinks it's biased. The controversy needs to be mentioned because that is a significant portion of what FNC is notable for (not the majority of what it's known for of course; it is the highest rated cable program). Notice that the article does not make a stand on whether the claims of bias are true, it merely mentions them. It also mentions that FNC and others deny the allegations. It mentions the cotroversy without taking a side. I see no problem with that. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that it has nothing to do with whether you or I think it is, but then state that it is. Isn't that your opinion? See this is the problem I see. Everyone here assumes that it is, yet I just pointed out above that CBS is viewed in a Rasmussen poll as being the most biased. So which is it? And if you are going to use that as a reason, then the previous concensus is based off the opinions of editors and not the facts. Blaxthos, I am not the one that brings this up on a regular basis. I will state that I don't think your argument is a strong one. And I find it ironic that the Rasmussen poll which finds that CBS was the most biased networked is not even mentioned there, yet it is used here to prove that FNC is biased.  :) Now you can all talk your way out of that if you wish, but until you or others can prove to me that FNC is the most biased, this argument that you are presenting holds no weight. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. The article isn't saying the FNC is the most biased and no one wishes it to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, Arzel... this is about the controversy, not the bias. And regarding "you don't think the argument is a strong one": How many RFC's do you need to consider the argument a "strong one"? Wikipedia has spoken at least three times in the last two years, and it's always been in line with what I've pointed out to you every time you try this. I don't think we can get much stronger than that... Best of luck! ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading what The Noble Sith said in the second paragraph of this section. Try also reading what the lead says. It doesn't say controversy, it says Bias, well at least it had, now it uses the politically correct term of conservative political positions. I'll say it again, the reasoning is based purely on opinion with no solid factual evidence to back up the comparison to other major networks. You should have just stayed with that logic like you did when I first brought this issue up, because this sudden switch by several editors only confirms what the real reason is. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arzel, I thought you had a firmer grasp of the fundamental difference between the controversy and the bias. WP:LEAD says that "notable controversies" should be detailed in the lead. The controversy surrounding FNC's alleged bias is enormous... many believe that it is the single most defining issue surrounding the organization. As we all know, the lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. As such, Wikipedia must address the controversy in the lead of the article -- this is without question. Wikipedia must, of course, address the issue neutrally and take no position regarding the correctness of the allegation... however we could no more ignore it than we could omit the fact that the White House is White. Please stop trying to confuse the issue, or argue it's not germane. Clearly its presence is grounded in policy and in the largest and longest running consensus I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Time to accept it and move on. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that many people feel that way, I don't deny that. I'm just saying that it appears to be based largely on opinion. The few sources that do talk about it are mostly inconclusive where the perception of bias and thus the controversy around it, are not much different than the perception of bias and the controversy surrounding most of the other major news networks. The reflection here is that FNC is so far over the line that there is no comparison. This, I believe, is a reflection of what WP is. Dominated by younger, college educated individuals who tend to shift Democratic. So much that I (whom most people consider me to be quite liberal in real life) appear to be ardently conservative. Maybe the real question we should ask is why it is such an issue in this article. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You still miss the point, Arzel. You keep addressing it as an "opinion". The opinion is irrelevant, we're talking about the controversy. To put it another way, the content of the controversy is inconsequential, it's the controversy itself that we're obligated to discuss. That some don't feel it's correct, or that you feel that the content similar to other news organizations, has no relevance here. I feel like I have a better understanding of your viewpoint, and I hope I'm being more clear about the difference between controversy and content ("opinion"). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, is your beef with this article itself or with WP as a whole, because I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement This, I believe, is a reflection of what WP is. Dominated by younger, college educated individuals who tend to shift Democratic.. Try to decide what you're problem is before you just start causing arguments please. I feel like I'm playing a game of ring-around-the-rosy. And I apologize fpr that rude edit summary, I was tired and not feeling very patient. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've tried to stay out of this particular discussion, but Arzel you're out of line and just plain wrong on your assertions. Maybe you should try reading the archives, and the FAQ. Since the initial RfC, the consensus has always had the lead stating "conservative political position" (perhaps during one of the dustups someone changed it to bias, but it was changed right back). Also your position that anyone has changed their position is likewise without merit. It has never been about stating FNC has any actual bias. If it had, AP, myself and others would never have consented to its inclusion. You lose credibility when you make up stuff that just doesn't exist. There is a difference between "allegations of bias" (the term Noble Sith used) and "actual bias". No one is taking the position of "actual bias" (in the article at least). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, You are correct, it only mentioned bias as FNC response to the intitial statement. However, taking conservative political positions is implicitly stating that FNC is biased. You even commented on it in the Archives. Let me just add this. To all of you who feel that the bias opinion should not be in the introduction: I agree. But, what I or you feel is unimportant. It is what the consensus determined. As stated numerous times. The concensus is a) to not mention it in the introduction, since it is one of the factors of Foxnews's notability, Note, that you were making a distinction between a statement of fact that FNC was biased and simply the allegation that FNC is biased. Pretty much all of the discussion talked about the way to make the bias statement.

My statement that I struck is out of line, I reviewed the history and I confused this with something else, sorry Blaxthos.

That said, the first poster questioned the lead statement. The Noble Sith stated that FNC's bias was so extreme that you could not compare it with any other network. However, according to the Rasmussen Poll, CBS is (was at least then) percieved as the most biased network. Gamaliel and Blaxthos then stated that FNC's controversies were such that you could not compare FNC with any other network (though I think the CBS false military report on Bush was a pretty big story). All I am saying is that if this logic is going to be used to back up the reason for inclusion here but not in the other major network articles, then it is a weak arguement. Arzel (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I'm telling you. I did not say their bias was more extreme, I said the controversy about their supposed bias is. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to remember what you wrote. You said the allegation that they are biased is so extreme.... Just what allegations of bias do you feel are extreme controversies? Arzel (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that it's not about actual bias but the perception of bias. The lead does not imply anything (at least it's not meant to imply anything). It takes no position on whether FNC is biased. As to your other point, at FNC the perception of bias is so extreme that a major U.S. political party boycotted debates there. The perception is real and extreme, whether or not the actual bias is. When CBS, ABC, or CNN are boycotted for a similar reason, we could then discuss how to handle it here and or at the other articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that if you believe the CNN page or MSNBC page needs to have information in them about their notable controversies in their leads, then the thing to do is to go to those pages and edit them. That really is not a valid argument for changing this page, because it could just as easily be said that those pages need to be more like this one. Therefore, I would have to say that that is a nonstarter. At the same time, contrary to what some editors would have you believe, it IS appropriate to raise the issue again if you believe that a NEW CONSENSUS is possible. The page-ownership "we" language and "It's not changing" language used on this discussion page over and over needs to stop. Bottom line, it's good that you raised the issue again, but I do not believe you've demonstrated that this article needs to change. Urzatron (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Give us a break. Who are you to tell AuburnPilot how to frame his response? Walk a mile in his shoes first. Taking his quote out of context to make a point about an argument no one is making is really bad form. Very disappointing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't name any names and have no plans to do so. Urzatron (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I commend the lOP for bringing this topic up. It needed to be said. I'm personally ashamed at the responders for their obviously liberal biased claims. "Widespread and most well known bias"? How can you even begin to prove that? There is enough EVIDENCE to the contrary claiming that Fox News is anything but biased. The fact is, they SHOW both sides to an issue, something the major networks rarely if ever do.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy here isn't one at all. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats will always decry Fox News for being biased. End of story. The fact is, they don't want "risky" uestions asked of them by conservatives. That's why they don't debate on FNC. They should though, considering FNC beats the three main news broadcasts in ratings every year...PokeHomsar (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read section 4 of the FAQ. There is no attempt to "prove" anything. It only states that there is a widespread perception (not just Democrats) that FNC promotes conservative talking points. You have not raised any reason for the lede to change, so I suggest you move on. There are over 2 million other articles here and many of them need work. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But you don't qualify that "widespread perception". And a perception is subjective, I find it hard to believe that Wiki standards are compromised just for a liberal grudge against Fox News. This is very liberal and childish. If the perception is "not just democrats" than who is doing the perceiving?

166.217.62.192 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)