Comments:FOX News fares poorly in investigation of media edits to Wikipedia
Objective information about FOX News' reporting
I like this article. I have been trying to find out more about FOX News, to investigate the allegations by critics that it has a strong conservative bias and its supporters allegations that it is, indeed, "fair and balanced." I suppose I cannot simply trust my own gut reaction when I watch the channel myself, since that will reflect my own personal bias. However, finding objective information relating to the quality of the network's reporting and its bias or lack thereof has been quite difficult. It seems to me at least that almost everyone who criticizes FOX news has a more liberal perspective, whereas those who support its validity have a much more American-conservative stance. I would really like it if there were some body out there that is generally accepted as objective in investigating allegations of bias or of poor quality reporting, because I would want to know what their findings would be on FOX News. "Outfoxed" is an example of the frustration I feel in my search, because, while the arguments and anecdotal examples may be compelling to some, it is obviously edited with an agenda of "exposing" bias, and it was produced by a liberal political activist and a liberal political action committee. I am trying to find a source that cannot be so easily attacked on the basis of bias. I don't want left-wing criticisms or right-wing defenses, I want something that cannot be so easily ignored as biased itself to really independently examine quality and fairness in reporting. Does anyone know whether or not something exists out there that objectively reports the quality of news agencies? Is there anything out there that can defend itself from accusations of bias while addressing said accusations aimed at other news agencies? Where else should I look to find objective information on FOX News and other news sources?
Comment on the article regarding Fox News
How about you spend more time finding out who originally added hostile information about Fox News?
I just don't think the aritcle has the justification to condemn Fox for protecting themselves from Wiki-Terrorism! Are you now going to find Fox guilty for being a victim? Do they have no right to protect/defend themselves? -- 184.108.40.206 20:52, 20 August 2007
- Protect and defend? they intentionally removed factual information from their articles that make them look bad. Where is the protection in that? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- This user must be joking when they say 'Wiki-Terrorism'. If the information in the article was well sourced it belonged, if it wasn't then it didn't. The hostility of the information is irrelevant. Organizations shouldn't make edits about themselves.. --YoYoDa1 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is Fox News singled out???
I don't understand why the headline lists Fox news (700 edits) but glosses over the biggest culprit, BBC news (8000 edits). For example, BBC tried to write things about a competitor, yet someone tries in this article to brush it off by simply listing it behind "Fuzzy animals" and Janet Jackson. It should be pointed out that it is a COMPETITOR they were attempting to edit. And the things Fox was changing merely seem to be to correct misleading/POV information. This story makes no sense. 220.127.116.11 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Which competitor did they talk about? Dave420 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- They talk about Freeview, but they helped found it.. I think the user may be confused.. --YoYoDa1 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The article stated that the vast majority of edits emitted from BBC IPs were of a contributory or constructive nature. The edits from Fox were cited for removing entries critical of their practices and personnel, even going as far as replacing critical links with ones that advance Fox news' hard right-wing neo-con political ideology. (preceding unsigned comment made by EthanADMN)
- Careful; comments like that diminish your otherwise objective response. irid:t 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't dish it until you try it
Define rubbish. I think this is the most NPOV something like this can get. We did our research, we are probably the only agency to wait to publish instead of going right out and saying so and so did this and that.
As said in the mailing lists. It cannot be denied that the edits were made with computers that are property of FOX News Channel and News Corp. That cannot be denied and the proof is there at the tool. By the looks of the edits, none were "authorized" to make any of them. But regardless of that fact, they, all of them, are employees working for FOX News and News corp.
If this were an intentional smear campaign then we would be doing just that. We cannot smear what is already undeniable proof. The edits are fact (fact in the sense that they are there, they happened, and regardless of false edits or not the fact is they did this).
Wikinews is not responsible for who made bad edits or good edits. The fact, and proof is, using WikiScanner, is that CNN was clean with NO edits period. So was MSNBC, and BBC admitted to on bad edit. We cannot make edits appear. The NPOV part is we did not target specifically FOX News or News Corp. This is what the edits show, and Wikinews or anyone else cannot change that.
So for anyone to call it rubbish, because its a smear campaign or whatever is false. Do me a favor. Use the tool if you have not. Understand what it does and shows. Do not criticize ligit research, thats is undeniable, if you have not understood the tool etc etc. This is all fact. And if you like we can source every edit, but that would be a thousand or more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- You clearly have a vested interest in the topic, which diminishes the likelihood of neutral point of view. -- Messedrocker 01:35, 23 August 2007
- My vested interest is getting it published. I am vested in the FACT of what I see and have researched. I have seen thousands of edits in the past days, so of course I have a "vested interest". If had no interest, I would not have done the research or even cared to write an article in the first place. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)