Talk:Fox News

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)

• by many^[who?] 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, 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 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: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} --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 .

  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. 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 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 (, , , 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.

• 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)

Support Well, the text in the Introduction says "It has been identified as engaging in biased and false reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes,[23][24][25] while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light." ... I am not going to quote the entire thing. It is essentially saying that it is a Propaganda channel. It seems pretty obvious to me. Who are we trying to fool by not including the word "Propaganda"? Vmelkon (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support There are enough reliable sources of researchers for example to mention Fox News has been described as a a propaganda channel. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not how they are commonly described. We would need tons of reliable sources describing them as that, and it would have to be exactly that, not only "have shared propaganda" FMSky (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Adding the template

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.

on the top of this article because the article may be needed to WP:COPYEDIT for consistent spelling, grammar, style, tone, and cohesion. Thanks. ~2025-34009-90 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. NotJamestack (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:trim|1=

Remove the claim from NewsGuard in online news rally claiming news is fake and remove Butler Carl's author link Butler, Daniel M.; for citation 3.

{{}} ~2026-28388-2 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done, a reference to a reliable source supports that claim. If you want it removed, please establish consensus with other editors before making another edit request. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 03:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 January 2026 and 18 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Willschmidt11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Arixuna (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Fox News, a cable network, does not hold a specific "news license," as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not license cable channels or websites, only broadcast stations. Fox Corporation owns the channel, which operates under general business and media regulations, not a specialized license to broadcast news. Mobiledan (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)