Talk:Fox News

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1741762870}}

Should the first sentence of the third lead paragraph read:

Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization.

Here is a previous discussion. Also see: Fox News#Political alignment in the body. soibangla (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• {{tq|by many}}{{fake fix|text=who?|link=MOS:WEASEL}} This is textbook Weasel wording. Even though it is supported in body... in the political alignment section? I think the third paragraph is good enough already. If this sentence belongs anywhere, it's not the lede's summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I guess it's not weasel wording. But something about extending a summary beyond what we already have in the 3rd paragraph just feels wrong. I can't support what I'm thinking, though, so count me neutral. I would strongly prefer InvadingInvader's wording incorporated into the "is damaging to the integrity of news overall" sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• No - for the reasons already stated in this and previous talk posts. It's weasel wording, not the primary classification of Fox, and is only mentioned a single time in the body. Not leadworthy. Just10A (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm against it -- better to leave the characterizations in the body of the article. CVDX (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, although slightly more detailed attribution (eg. "researchers" - or "critics, commentators, and researchers" to match the body, although the researchers are the important part) wouldn't be amiss. Per WP:WEASEL, {{tq|They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.}} This reflects a section of the body with very high-quality sourcing and is a major aspect of high-quality academic coverage on the topic, sufficient to justify a sentence in the lead; if people feel that that section isn't large enough, or doesn't cite enough sources, we can just expand it in the body as well. And the lead, of course, isn't limited to the "primary classification" (we're not discussing the first sentence of the lead, where that would apply); the purpose of the lead is to {{tq|summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies}}. This is, obviously, an important point and a prominent controversy. Some relevant sources to indicate that it's an important point and a prominent controversy, which can be used to expand the body as well if necessary, include: {{cite journal|title=Interactive Propaganda : How Fox News and Donald Trump Co-produced False Narratives about the COVID-19 Crisis|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003170051-8/interactive-propaganda-yunkang-yang-lance-bennett|journal=Taylor & Francis|date=13 September 2021|doi=10.4324/9781003170051-8/interactive-propaganda-yunkang-yang-lance-bennett}}{{cite journal|first1=Mitchell T.|last1=Bard|title=Propaganda, Persuasion, or Journalism?: Fox News’ Prime-Time Coverage of Health-Care Reform in 2009 and 2014|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1931243117710278|journal=Electronic News|date=1 June 2017|issn=1931-2431|pages=100–118|volume=11|issue=2|doi=10.1177/1931243117710278}}{{cite book|first1=David|last1=Brock|first2=Ari|last2=Rabin-Havt|title=The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P4a5YF6jRZsC|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group|date=21 February 2012|isbn=978-0-307-94768-0|via=Google Books}}{{cite journal|first1=A.J.|last1=Bauer|first2=Anthony|last2=Nadler|first3=Jacob L.|last3=Nelson|title=What is Fox News? Partisan Journalism, Misinformation, and the Problem of Classification|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19312431211060426|journal=Electronic News|date=1 March 2022|issn=1931-2431|pages=18–29|volume=16|issue=1|doi=10.1177/19312431211060426}}{{cite book|first1=Brian|last1=Stelter|title=Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PKv5DwAAQBAJ|publisher=Simon and Schuster|date=25 August 2020|isbn=978-1-9821-4244-5|via=Google Books}}{{cite book|title=Fixing American Politics|chapter=Challenge Fox News|first=Jeffrey P.|last=Jones|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003212515-36/challenge-fox-news-jeffrey-jones|publisher=Taylor & Francis|date=29 November 2021|doi=10.4324/9781003212515-36/challenge-fox-news-jeffrey-jones}}{{cite book|first1=Tobin|last1=Smith|title=Foxocracy: Inside the Network's Playbook of Tribal Warfare|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0nPDDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Diversion Books|date=29 October 2019|isbn=978-1-63576-662-2|via=Google Books}} --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Most of these cites don't properly support the statement though? Even worse are all of the books, which, for instance, are next to useless for such a claim. They are written by 1.) The heads of Media Matters, a source not considered generally reliable by Wikipedia (and actually particularly biased towards Fox), and not scholars. 2.) Brian Stelter, a random CNN news anchor, also not a scholar, and; 3.) Literally just a random dude who wrote a book lol. The best I could find was his LinkedIn, where he's just a run-of-the mill Wealth Management Director [https://www.linkedin.com/in/tobinsmith/].
• :I guess you could say they technically count as "commentators," but that seems like an extreme stretch in WP:DUE and relevance to the point where we have no business including such "commentators" in the first place. It would be silly to cite Kevin Roberts or Bret Baier for books about CNN, for instance. Just10A (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Brian Stelter would fall into the accurately-described without any stretch and very Due "commentator" category. Same for the "random dude', a "14-year Fox News contributor, guest anchor, and two-time New York Times bestselling author". We rely on news publications.
  The non-books are all studies published by Taylor & Francis that call Fox News propaganda, and I do not get what you mean by "don't properly support the statement". Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, but as Aquillion says, make sure to be more precise than "many". In this case, be as precise as you can with its wording while staying concise and remaining neutral. My suggestion would be that "Many researchers and commentators have criticized Fox News as being a propaganda organization" or some phrasing pattern of the like. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - "Many" is a problem in the body as per WEASEL. But then we don't like lots of cites in the lead and if the cites are in the body.... This may be a case where the cites may be included in the lead to avoid this type of constant complaint. I'd prefer that the text remain in the lead without the extra cites. If readers want to know the details, let them read more than a paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• :when I added the sentence last July, I was aware that "many" was problematic if unsourced, so I included a bundle of many references[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&diff=prev&oldid=1234234020]. though I try to avoid lead cites, I think an exception can/should be made here for such a contentious matter. I suppose some readers seeing that lead sentence might think "whoa! prove that right here and now," rather than look for the many sources in the body. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Change to by critics, commentators, and researchers while literally true that it was criticized by "many," this is more specific and less weaselly. Andre🚐 01:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, with appropriate sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• No, the lead already has material that a bunch of people dislike Fox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I dislike pro wrestling, soap operas, and brussel sprouts. This is not about disliking Fox. It is about what Fox is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I believe he's just speaking colloquially. Not really an issue. Just10A (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I originated this lead sentence last July, and after considerable Talk discussion, I remain unpersuaded that stated objections of undue, original research and weasel are substantiated, especially considering the inclusion of many sources adjoining the original edit to demonstrate who many are, and as I have again proposed for lead inclusion in this discussion. Moreover, I find the content adequately supported not only in subsequent sentences in the lead, but also in the body. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Changing to oppose: Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead was recently closed with consensus against, citing how the characterization had little prominence in the article body compared to the would-be sentence in lede (MOS:LeadRel), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels, which says such labels {{tq|are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject}}. Characterizations of Elon Musk as an oligarch seen as prominent as characterizations of Fox News as propaganda, so if the conditions around Elon Musk are enough for a consensus against, then the "propaganda" claim also doesn't have wide enough prominence in the article and in sources to add to the lede here. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Probably not suitable for the lead given how complex the subject is and how recent the label has been applied to them. PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not the best term, given the subject and discussion regarding Fox News, even on WP:RSP is very complex. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :It really isn't that complex: just don't use it, unless there's some brilliant non-science and non-political fact that has to be sourced there the act of which you may justify in a 150-word essay due in a week at the National Wikipolitan Seminar. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::The fact you had to say "unless there's some brilliant non-science and non-political fact that has to be sourced" is complex enough for me to keep my oppose. Sorry. Per WP:RSP, Fox News is reliable for non-science and non-political articles, which means a "propaganda" categorization would be improper for anything not-science and not-political. I.e., complex. My oppose will remain and you sort of just proved why. For reference, if it was fully classified as a "generally unreliable source" on RSP, with consensus, then I would not be opposed. But, there is too much complexity with it (and lack of a full "generally unreliable" consensus on RSP) for a straight "propaganda" categorization. I'm not opposing the idea in principle, I'm opposed to it due to the complexity of the source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::RSP does not determine whether or not it's propaganda. Propaganda organizations are often reliable for uncontroversial facts; see things like China Daily. Also, I !voted oppose; I just thought you were having trouble parsing the RSP entry. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:*Oppose with the argument that characterizing FOX as a propaganda organization in any way, shape, or form, is undue weight in the lead. Not to mention the fact that FOX is at least somewhat reliable for non science/political things, according to RSP.

:Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Could potentially Support an inclusion in the controversies section. Wording must be chosen VERY carefully to avoid defamation/libel though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::the article does not say in wikivoice that Fox News is a propaganda organization, rather it says many cited sources characterize it as such soibangla (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Wildfire's not saying anything about wikivoice. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Support cant believe how much this is covered by sources after a search .....do we even have sources that say otherwise?Moxy🍁 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "propaganda" as WP:LOADED but Support "advocacy media" or some variation thereof as supported by RS ([https://books.google.com/books?id=bCYcB_JrM3QC], [https://books.google.com/books?id=UwXHEAAAQBAJ], [https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-776?p=emailA6xrNUKWT3MdY&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-776], etc.) -- and if incorporated into body -- as a somewhat more sober alternative. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and because it's not clear who "many" refers to. Alternatively we can add "by many leftists", that would also be accurate. -77.22.155.18 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.155.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

• Oppose, calling it a "propaganda organization" is a very clumsy attempt to impose the point of view and original research of a minority group. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :While I also oppose, that is not the finding of a minority group. The viewpoint has no substantial opposition. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support I've added some additional scholarly sources and content on this topic. Note, nobody is saying that it is a propaganda organization, just that it is widely described as one. There are lots of high-quality sources, former employees, and scholars who describe it as a propaganda source. We have dozens listed here. Interestingly, the page for One America News also describes the discussion around it as a propaganda organization. If a bunch of much stronger sources, including scholarly sources, describe Fox News as a propaganda source, why can this not be mentioned on this page and not the other? BootsED (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Was just looking get this closed. I was gonna post to the closing thread, but looking at it now, was the correct RFC tag ever put on this? I don't usually make RFC's so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, this has been untouched for a little while now though, so it should probably be closed and/or decidedly left to disappear. Just10A (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think the correct RfC tag was ever added here. I was never alerted to it and didn't notice it until after I made my edit, otherwise I would have voted.
• :On a related note, per your comments on this topic previously in Talk:Fox News/Archive 40#Weasel Words, we will probably need either a new, properly formatted RfC or an uninvolved closer to close this out. BootsED (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Should the lead and body be amended thusly:

:Lead: The Fox News Channel (FNC), commonly known as Fox News, is an American multinational conservative advocacy news outlet based in New York City.

:Body: Fox News is an advocacy news outlet.{{cite news |last1=Sulzberger |first1=A.G. |title=Journalism’s Essential Value|quote=But this advocacy model is dangerous when treated as independent journalism’s replacement rather than its supplement. The revelations from the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News underscore the dangers of the advocacy model when fully unchecked. |url=https://www.cjr.org/special_report/ag-sulzberger-new-york-times-journalisms-essential-value-objectivity-independence.php |access-date=February 16, 2025 |work=Columbia Journalism Review |date=May 15, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Liz |title=Fox & Friends‘ Advocacy Journalism |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/even_for_fox_news_even_for_a_m.php |access-date=February 15, 2025 |work=Columbia Journalism Review |date=June 23, 2008}}{{cite web |last1=Patterson |first1=Thomas E. |title=A Tale of Two Elections: CBS and Fox News’ Portrayal of the 2020 Presidential Campaign |url=https://shorensteincenter.org/patterson-2020-election-coverage/ |website=Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy |publisher=Harvard University |access-date=February 15, 2025|quote=Economic considerations could push some national news outlets in the direction of advocacy journalism. America’s conservative media system – rooted in Fox, right-wing talk shows, and alt-right web outlets – now has an audience that exceeds 50 million Americans, the great majority of whom are Repubicans.}}{{cite news |last1=Atkins |first1=Larry |title=Advocacy Journalism Is Polarizing Our Country |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/advocacy-journalism-is-po_b_5526745 |access-date=February 15, 2025 |work=Huffington Post |date=June 24, 2014|quote=TV networks like MSNBC and FOX News and talk radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have a clearly biased agenda. Yet, many people rely on advocacy journalism as their main source of news.}}{{cite book |last1=Luengo |first1=Marîa |title=The Crisis of Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future |date=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=1316589234 |page=253 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LXFNDAAAQBAJ|quote=Fox News in the United States is a form of advocacy journalism...}}{{cite book |last1=Schudson |first1=Michael |title=The News Media: What Everyone Needs to Know |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0190206217 |page=113 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dyzKDAAAQBAJ|quote=...Fox News on politics and Univision on immigration reform— are engaged in advocacy journalism...}}{{cite book |last1=Elder|first1=Linda|title=Fact over Fake: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Media Bias and Political Propaganda |date=2020 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=153814395X |page=13 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xZ76DwAAQBAJ|quote=Fox News is an advocacy political news organization ...}}{{cite news |last1=Atkins|work=WHYY-TV |first1=Larry |title=The importance of being a savvy media consumer |url=https://whyy.org/articles/essay-the-importance-of-being-a-savvy-media-consumer/|quote=Mainstream media organizations are even more essential today with the recent explosion of advocacy journalism outlets that have a clear bias in their reporting. These media outlets, such as Fox News... |access-date=February 16, 2025 |date=December 2, 2016}}{{cite book |last1=Kumkar |first1=Nils C. |title=The Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and the Great Recession |date=2018 |publisher=Springer |isbn=3319736884 |page=199|quote=Although some have suggested that MSNBC de facto functions as a kind of left-wing advocacy news network counterpart to Fox News, in the case of ... |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UK9SDwAAQBAJ}}{{cite book |last1=Milani |first1=Ali |title=The Unlikely Candidate: What Losing an Election Taught Me about How to Change Politics |date=2022 |publisher=Policy Press |isbn=144736161X |page=87 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LdZ2EAAAQBAJ|quote=... much of our media institutions today have begun to more closely resemble the advocacy journalism of Fox News and MSNBC.}}{{cite journal |page=102 |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.5210/bsi.v24i0.5004.pdf|title=Mass News Media and American Culture|work=Behavior and Social Issues|volume=24|date=2015|quote=Despite both agencies being founded in 1996, FNC adopted the advocacy-frame style of journalism long before MSNBC.}}{{cite news |last1=Schumacher-Matos |first1=Edward |title=Last Thoughts: NPR And The Balance Between Ethics And The Nation |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2015/02/06/382170260/last-thoughts-npr-and-the-balance-between-ethics-and-the-nation |access-date=February 16, 2025 |work=NPR|quote=The digital revolution prizes specialization, not mass appeal. And so we see the rise of advocacy journalism, such as talk radio, Fox News, MSNBC, Huffington Post and a plethora of web sites. |date=February 6, 2015}}{{cite news |last1=Purvis |first1=Hoyt |title=Advocacy vs. objectivity |url=https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/apr/21/hoyt-purvis-advocacy-vs-objectivity/ |access-date=February 16, 2025 |work=Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette |date=April 21, 2021|quote=Fox News has been a major generator of advocacy journalism, propounded by Trump's seemingly endless supply of invective consistently aimed at the media.}}{{cite news |last1=Atkins |first1=Larry |title=Join the Fight Against Fake News |url=https://progressive.org/op-eds/join-the-fight-against-fake-news-180712/ |access-date=February 16, 2025 |work=The Progressive |date=July 12, 2018|quote=Advocacy journalism outlets including Fox News and MSNBC, ideological talk radio, and conspiracy websites like InfoWars make this difficult.}} It has been identified ...

Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, it should. "Advocacy news" is a precise and encyclopedic term that is used by scholarly observers. Using "propaganda" will expose us to ridicule as the sources supporting it are a combination of commercial competitors, books from very small publishing houses (e.g. Diversion Books), and academic sources invoking the term in a glancing and indirect manner. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The Diversion book is not significant because of its publisher; it's significant because of its author. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Tobin Smith had an hour-per-week show on FBN and now has a 7,000-follower X feed where he gives stock picking advice. He also has a B.A. degree in marketing from a state college. I wouldn't really describe him as a media studies scholar.Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Fair. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Abolutely not: Are you serious, "Advocacy news"?? Call it a fucking news site, which it is, instead of slandering everything you don't agree with politically.77.22.155.18 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.155.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}
• :Please read WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I also personally agree that they're advocacy news, this needs way more sources and prominence to be in the lede, let alone the freaking first sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Fair enough. I bumped it up to nine sources. Let me know if you think that's sufficient or we need a few more and I can drop them in. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::9 vs thousands of sources calling them a news site 77.22.43.200 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.43.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}
• :::You'll need to provide references. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Troll 77.22.43.200 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — 77.22.43.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}
• :::None of them have said it's not advocacy journalism. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I wouldn't oppose putting it as something like "Fox news has been identified as advocacy journalism practicing..." under the political alignment section. Very unsure if it's distinct enough to add to the existing summary of that section and others in the third paragraph of the lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::That'd probably be fine. Stylistically, it's a bit clunky, but not incorrect. Ultimately, by putting "conservative" in the lead we're already calling them advocacy jourrnalism anyway (i.e. there's no such thing as "conservative" straight news or "progressive" straight news) we're just doing it in an oblique way. Chetsford (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Would Support in criticism section. Ridiculously undue weight if first sentence, so Oppose that. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :To be clear, I would oppose in the absolute strongest possible terms putting it in the criticism section as that would recolor "advocacy journalism" to be something inherently bad. Advocacy journalism is a legitimate theoretical construct used to operationalize news reporting, not unlike peace journalism, gonzo journalism, or any of numerous other alternative approaches to journalism. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Still, there's definitely not enough sources for being in the very first sentence. You'd need nearly every mention to mention for something in there, save for the LeadRel exemptions like birthday. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It's a typological term so does not need to be mentioned in the body relative to its mention in the lead. LEADREL excludes taxonomic names, by inference that also includes typological names such as genres. But you're correct that this is represented in LEADREL in a less than ideal manner. I've initiated a discussion here to generate input about clarifying it in the text. Chetsford (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – this (dubious) definition needs the support of many, many reliable sources, and not a carefully selected handful. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I kind of agree. Looking at the sources again, I'm hoping for more examples of such characterization from mainstream media. (That excludes HuffPost.) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You may not find much as advocacy journalism is a scholarly term, not one WXYZ-TV is likely to invoke during the 5:00 news. That's why all the sources are like the Columbia Journalism Review, papers from the Harvard Shorenstein Center, books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, media scholars such as Linda Elder and Larry Atkins, etc. But if the threshold for our encyclopedia is that we need the El Paso Times to write about it or it's not a thing, you're probably correct that this is DOA. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - If it's advocacy, it's not news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Have you read the linked article? The Nation is certainly news. Even Mother Jones is certainly news. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::They are news with a bias. They are green at RSP; but I don't think I've ever used them. Hard to think of Fox as news at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::That they're reliable doesn't mean they're not advocacy journalism. And I have no difficulty thinking Fox News as news with all their packaging; they're just terribly unreliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Hmm, like The Onion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::terribly unreliable due to sloppy incompetence, or maybe something else? soibangla (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::It's not for us to analyze their content and determine what descriptions to apply to them, only to analyze what descriptions RS give them. And specialty RS -- that is, media scholars and analysts -- universally describe it as "advocacy journalism." This is the actual, real term used.

  This RfC won't pass, though, because editors like the IP editor (above) think it's unfair to Fox that we would apply the same genre to it we apply to Mother Jones, while other editors think it's unfair to Mother Jones we would apply the same genre to it we would apply to Fox. This RfC has cathartically got the Left and Right to unite in a moment of shared rage. They may not agree as to why they're angry at the RfC, but they have at least agreed to be angry at it. So that's something. Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• ::::::The RfC is about Fox and how the preponderance of RS characterize it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Yes. As advocacy journalism. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::propaganda is distinctly different from advocacy. as the article now includes:
• ::::::{{tq2|Writing for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in February 2021, senior media writer Tom Jones argued that the primary distinction between Fox News and MSNBC is not right bias vs. left bias, but rather that much of the content on Fox News, especially during its primetime programs, "is not based in truth".}}
• ::::::the problem is not bias, as bias exists everywhere; the problem is lying. soibangla (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Did you copy the correct passage? I'm not seeing the word "propaganda" in what you pasted. In any matter, this is a case you'll have to take up with the numerous RS that describe Fox as "advocacy journalism", not me. I'm not here to argue whether Fox is or is not advocacy journalism. I'm only here to argue whether or not RS describe it that way. Which they do. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not in the first sentence. When mentioned in other news sources, it is primarily referred to as a news source, not as advocacy news. Looking at the sources, a decent number of them also mention MSNBC. Should MSNBC also be described in the first sentence as advocacy news? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{xt|"Should MSNBC also be described in the first sentence as advocacy news?"}} Probably, yes. Chetsford (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

{{edit semi-protected|Fox News|answered=yes}}

Under "Ratings and Reception", the final sentence is

> "Fox News is considered a generally unreliable source for its scientific and political coverage and its talk shows.[122][123]"

The two references (122 and 123) do not refer to Fox News at all, they are both about the ADL. I would think the sentence should be removed until it has valid citations.

I will leave it up to expreienced editors to fix this in the proper manner. Thanks. 75.101.40.5 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} I fixed it, thanks for noticing it!

Why is fox and friends allowed to lie,to viewers. We already have to listen to republicans lie. The least a so called news program can do is to be honest.nothing but a bunch of cult members,not reporters. 65.131.236.212 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Fox News|answered=yes}}

Please add that this is Trump's propaganda media 107.179.245.154 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: Please scroll up to see a discussion on the use of propaganda and many others in the archives: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Talk%3AFox+News&search=propaganda&ns0=1]

O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)