Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 400

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the discovery process in the Dominion vs Fox case has uncovered damning info about how Fox knew Trump's "stolen election" Big lies were bogus, yet kept pushing the company's Murdoch agenda. “The messages exposed Fox News as a propaganda network.” Rupert Murdoch and his talking heads at Fox News all knew how ridiculous Rudy Giuliani sounded, and knew how wrong the big lie was, but they helped spread it.

As we have known for a long time, this is not an occasional "bug", but a "feature" of Fox News. For them, telling the uncomfortable truth in politics and science in the Trump age is only an occasional thing that gets the offender punished by their own colleagues and management. They must toe the party line.

Rupert Murdoch told Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott that they should try not to “antagonize Trump” by reporting the truth about bogus voter fraud claims and instead should focus on helping elect Republicans in the Georgia runoff elections. Fox has no written editorial guidelines. This is what distinguishes Fox News from an actual news organizations.

Hosts on Rupert Murdoch's propaganda channel Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, & Laura Ingraham, didn't believe the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election but chose to amplify the BIG LIE, according to court filings in Dominion's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit.

Here are a few sources, all properly formatted for immediate use. Do not remove the "name" function:

It's too hard to maintain this list here, so I have created a subpage. Please look there for the growing list:

User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

Isn't it about time we actually deprecate Fox News?

1. This was not accidental, or "all networks make mistakes".
2. This is not "misinformation", but deliberate "disinformation".
3. This is, and has been for a long time, a normal "feature" of their modus operandi.
4. It's not a one-time thing, but an autopsy over long-standing behavior.
5. It reveals their "journalists" have no moral scruples. The good ones have abandoned them.

They totally fail requirements for consideration as a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To me, the most alarming thing here is that Tucker Carlson demanded that Jacqui Heinrich be fired for fact-checking him, and the fact that Kristin Fisher, who since left the company, was disciplined for fact-checking Rudy Giuliani. These are alarming because those two were supposed to be part of Fox's news side, not its talk / opinion side; and our decision to leave some parts of Fox as WP:MREL for politics rather than unreliable or fully deprecated depended entirely on the assumption that Fox maintained a divide between those two parts. These things indicate that that's not the case; if there's a general pattern of the news side being essentially run like the talk side then that's a clear reason for another RFC given that the previous one's conclusion depended on at least some editors arguing that that wasn't happening. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not clamoring for another RFC just yet, I certainly agree with Aquillion's observation and Valjean's analysis. I'd be interested to hear from some of the editors who believed that status quo was a good outcome from the prior RFC (not from the "Fox is GENREL crowd" who I assume will never change their minds no matter what happens) whether this changes their mind at all. The previous RFC found a consensus that Fox News was not reliable, but did not find a consensus to pronounce it generally unreliable. In my mind, many of the arguments hinged on the idea that many news media are also unreliable (which is not an accurate or substantive argument in my view), the closer also said that there seemed to not be a general consensus of the level of standard we hold media to (or at least, what it would take to be "generally unreliable") I'm probably paraphrasing badly, but I think any new RFC should have a close read of the prior RFC's arguments and closing, and see if any of the "status quo" crowd could be persuaded before we engage in an endeavor that will likely end in a fruitless stalemate. Andre🚐 04:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, since WP:RS is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the main thing to do is probably to wait a bit and see if these things impact Fox's. Of course, I'm already on the record as saying repeatedly that I don't think Fox as a whole meets the threshold of having that reputation; but at the very least if followup coverage shows a clear decline in its overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy among top-tier sources, then people who argue that it did meet that threshold, or came close enough to it to be WP:MREL in the case of politics, should have to explain how it continues to do so - especially if there's sustained coverage emphasizing the pressure on the news side to cover things inaccurately, coupled with evidence that the network's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has been harmed as a result. --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I like the wait and see approach. This story is fresh and will likely have a protracted impact as more info comes out and analysis. Andre🚐 04:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Another thing that comes to mind, after reading coverage a bit more: One aspect I'm seeing a lot of focus on is the idea that Fox measurably changed tactics in response to the backlash from its base after it called Arizona for Biden - that is, there was a serious, deliberate shift at the top level to reposition the news side away from straight reporting and more towards essentially backing up the things said on the opinion side, at least when it came to the election. If that proves to be a broader and longer-term shift, and coverage reflects it, it might be worth having a future RFC be for post-2020 Fox coverage of politics, since this gives us a reason to think that the aftermath of the 2020 election and the backlash to Fox's news coverage there may have lead to changes that reduced its reliability. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. That also was mentioned last RFC. The 2020 Arizona call was offered as support for Fox's supposed quality reporting, which if that is the sea change point, therefore now a sign of the opposite. Andre🚐 21:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but isn't basically all this does is confirm that the late night talk show hosts are not reliable, which is already the case? There's no question that there are serious factual errors with Hannity, The Ingraham Angle, and Tucker Carlson Tonight that render the programs unfit for citing on Wikipedia... but that's currently already what we note at WP:RSP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, most of the links provided above related to the TV talk shows (Fox News Channel), not the news website. Pertinent to for our purposes is what Aquillion lays out with the interference into the operation of the actual news portion. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

First, we should be careful about using deposition testimony where claims haven't been challenged etc to decide that the news branch isn't reliable. This is especially true if the Dominion legal team is releasing this information in order to shape the public understanding before a trial or to push for a better settlement without a trial. Second, as others have noted, this seems to fit what we have already said, Fox talk shows are not reliable. I would also ask, what problem would further moves on Fox News solve? It's rarely cited as many editors treat it as if it's not reliable already. Springee (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: I think you may have meant to say Fox talk shows aren't reliable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Corrected above! Springee (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To pile on to an already spaghetti-like thread...

If the late hosts are already deprecated then what's to fix? The dominion complaints are against them. I hope the late night hosts for CNN, MSNBC, etc are also deprecated; those "journalists" are certainly anything but, and there are plenty of examples since 2016 (eg Russian interference, Hunter's laptop, "don't say gay" vs "parental rights in education").

Fox News is a multi-media corporation, and the tone and quality they place at Fox New Channel and the written material at Foxnews.com are markedly different. That is to say, the Channel is pretty bad and shouldn't be used really for anything (which is apparently already the case), but, on the other hand, the articles at foxnews.com are no more or less reliable than other major news outlets, like NYT, CNN, MSNBC. They've all apparently picked a side at this point, and should be skeptically read. There's quite a few of these liberally sided media companies that get the kid gloves when it comes to reliability assessments here on wikipedia. This unfortunately affects the articles' NPOV, since verifiability is prioritized over truth and there being more liberally sided media outlets over conservatively sided gives impressions of undue weight when conservatively minded sources are cited. If the ethos of due weight is widely held opinions on the topic, then the number of media outlets is not really the point, but the proxy. The point would be those that hold that opinion. Like it or not, when it comes to politics, conservative political opinions are grossly under-represented in terms of number of media outlets. So in this regard, if any "sided" media should get kid gloves if should be conservative media, so that there can be due weight.

I doubt I'll find any here who'd agree with that. How's about applying reliability metrics evenly and honestly in the first place? I have trouble taking a bathwater request about foxnews while the likes of CNN are cited carte blanch. A reassessment of our existing legacy media would be more appropriate. HC (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

NYT, CNN, and MSNBC are considered generally reliable, with 0 evidence to the contrary provided, but you may start a thread on those if you wish. Currently, Fox News (the news website) for politics, is considered marginally reliable and should not be used for contentious topics. The question here was that the Dominion case has shown that Fox News is propaganda through and through, and the "not news" side exerts an influence on the "news" side. So should Fox be downgraded even further? Some say it should. Some do not. But you seem to be confusing bias or slant with reliability. Some slanted sources, like Reason magazine, or Mother Jones, are considered reliable for facts but should be attributed for opinion (WP:RSOPINION). One conservative source that is reliable is the WSJ. Fox News.com is not considered generally reliable. Andre🚐 23:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This sounds eerily familiar: "Fox News could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and boldly and knowingly lie about everything, and it wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• We already don't use Hannity or Carlson or talking heads for factual reporting, and advise caution per Fox News political reporting per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. This doesn't seem to concern Fox's straight news coverage. Are we to believe that that Kyle Jacobs is NOT dead or Bruce Willis does NOT have dementia just because Fox News reports it? Beyond jumping on the Fox News Hate Train and venting how much we despise Tucker, what more can Wikipedia do? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's neither here nor there because it concerns entertainment. The last RFC was constrained to science and politics. We should probably constrain any hypothetical or current discussion even further to just politics. Most Fox science content already fails MEDRS. Andre🚐 04:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Most Fox science content already fails MEDRS. " This is not unique to Faux News. The current standards for MEDRS in Wikipedia requires us to avoid most popular press articles on medical topics: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care." Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I meant if we had an RFC to downgrade Fox we should do so only for politics, since science probably isn't much use anyway. Andre🚐 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Are we to believe that that Kyle Jacobs is NOT dead or Bruce Willis does NOT have dementia just because Fox News reports it?

This is a meaningless comparison, as sources that we have already deprecated also produce factual content too. That doesn't change the fact that they were deprecated for a reason, which is due to actively producing disinformation that meant they couldn't be trusted as a generality, even if they might technically produce factual content as well. Silverseren^C 05:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Has Fox News been used for anything remotely controversial since the last RfC? If the answer is no, then our process already work and there is no need to expend the time and energy necessary to further split the hair.Slywriter (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• A key word in all these reports is court filings. These are unproven claims. I know its really tempting to jump on these to use to dismiss Fox News, but we cannot use such court documents as valid source to speak of something in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 14:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Masem, the commentary from RS is about the actual evidence, the internal Fox News/Murdoch communications that reveal they knew they were pushing crazy BS. We do not need to wait for any legal judgment. We have what RS say, and they say a lot, including about how this isn't just about the talking heads we already ignore, but about how the Fox News organization operates, including the news division. They literally have no written editorial policy. They just follow Murdoch's agenda, and it has always been anti-democracy and make money by any means possible. That's the history of Murdoch and his empire.
  • Fox News threatens, punishes, and fires those employees, including in the news division, who fact-check BS pushed by the news division. Complaints between each other is kept private and separate from what is revealed to the public. Open fact-checking is discouraged and punished. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

    Its evidence in a court case. We cannot assume the evidence is true until it has passed through the court, where if they are true, it will be part of the court's decision. This is a requirement of how we handle information from any ongoing court case, so we absolutely have to wait until the court decides to then take the court's decision and stance on this evidence as true. I will stress that I personally think the evidence is all true, and the court case against Fox is very much falling against them, but from being a Wikipedia editor, I have to recognize that we don't presently have the appropriate filter (the final decision) to treat it as truth.

    Besides, as Blueboar points out, even if this all proves too, this doesn't change how Fox News would be classified at RSP; we still have to use extreme caution of using Fox News non-opinion works for politics. Masem (t) 17:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any proposal to directly use court documents to write article content about Fox News in Wikivoice. We absolutely can use evidence which does not meet RS standards to evaluate a source on RSP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• No need to change anything - We already say that Fox’s coverage of politics is unreliable, and we already say that opinion journalism from the likes of Hannity and Carlson is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, we currently list Fox's coverage of politics as yellow / WP:MREL, not unreliable. Many people, including people contributing to this discussion, have used this to argue against the removal of plainly controversial things related to politics that are cited solely to Fox, or to argue for using it in situations where it is the only source saying something. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it has come up at least a handful of times since the last RFC, such as the Twitter Files and the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. There are still those who want to use Fox News for plainly controversial political topics. Andre🚐 21:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Factual items reported by Fox but few others should be what then? Discarded? MREL is a reasonable place to put it, especially since liberally sided media that's arguably just as bad is rated better. HC (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a factual item that was carried by Fox or the likes of Daily Wire, The Blaze, Breitbart, et al, but ignored by mainstream reliable source? Andre🚐 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You quote some yourself... Twitter's liberal bias has been alleged by conservative media for a decade, and is coming to a head with the twitter files, while legacy media more or less pretends it's not happening while they rail against their once loved Musk and his Teslas. The NYP was literally blocked over the laptop story. Everyone else in the legacy media seized on it as "Russian disinformation", and now like usual more or less pretend it's not happening. The lab leak theory was also heavily censored and criticized, while conservative media explored it. And again, years later, some quiet recognition that it's possible and there maybe should be some investigations... Conservative media was on these things long before the others. The trouble with labeling the handful of semi-reliable conservative media as unreliable for "controversial" topics is that wikipedia then gets filled with the much larger number of semi-reliable liberal media outlets on these topics and almost never gets the controversy actually cataloged. This becomes a due weight problem. There should be more conservatively sided media quoted on these controversial topics, since the fact that there's a second popular opinion is exactly the reason there is a controversy in the first place. A bathwater toss for fox news will not bring better NPOV to wikipedia, but more likely the opposite. HC (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are examples of using controversial, politically charged topics, where Fox should definitely not be used by consensus. This applies to pretty much all of the items you just listed. So you're basically proving my point. Fox News should not be used to justify right-wing fringe conspiracy theories like the lab leak theory, the Hunter Biden conspiracy theory, or the completely lacking in substance Twitter Files story. These are all right-wing conspiracy topics that absolutely should not be covered in Wikipedia the way they are covered in Fox News. Andre🚐 00:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

First, like it or not, they are not fringe ideas. A very large chunk of American voters and their reps, senators, and governors hold some assessment of these issues that is in stark contrast to what you see from say the NYT or CNN. These conservative assessments are underrepresented in the media, which is to say, among the list of wikipedia RS, not many of those are willing to talk about them. Conservative media however is dominant in talk radio, but citing and using talk radio as a source is very hard, in addition to the similar quick dismissals like yours here. Secondly, they aren't "conspiracy theories" like they don't exist or something. They are real things with real facts around them that are more or less ignored by the wikipedia list of RS. So, by wp:weight they absolutely should be discussed, and by Fox currently being at wp:MREL they certainly can be used when those assessments are based on facts. Further, your quick "fringe conspiracy theories" label is not only wrong, but you are using it to discard the WP:BABY with the bathwater.

You use the word "controversial" in the same way, as if the very definition of that word precludes certain kinds of opinions from validity, when in fact validity of the conflicting opinions is difficult to ascertain and easy to misrepresent. This usage is very typical of liberally sided media; conservative opinions are controversial, when actually it is the topic that is surrounded in controversy, as in, there are conflicting opinions. HC (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if there is a 30% of the United States population of eligible voter that believes crazy stuff. This is Wikipedia. Weight is proportional to prominence of RS. We are looking for academic sources, reliable books, reliable news (NOT conservative talk radio). This is NOT going to change - ever. Andre🚐 21:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

We should be very much aware that if the opinion about a topic is that fundamentally split to that great of a degree that we should cover it, but at the same time, the coverage of the counter-point (eg what the 30% believe) should be documented to RSes, if those RSes are doing a reasonable objective coverage of a topic. EG: The NYtimes still is generally good here that they explain "proponents of the bill believe X. opponents believe y", and important rarely try to judge which side is right if it is non-opinion piece. That's good, that's the type of reporting we want.

But in today's media we have both problems with accountability journalism that will belittle points that do not agree with the writer's or newspaper's stance, or that they will give almost no time to the other side, assuming their side is correct. If there is a controversy, we on WP should be aiming to coverage the basic arguments on both sides (without assigning weight or correctness) before getting into opinions about the controversy, and even then we should be avoiding the inclusion of too much opinion of more recent controversies per RECENTISM. Most of the time, we can achieve this coverage by RSes but there is the potential for cases where the media gives zero representation about the factual beliefs of the other side. In which case, using a source like Fox News to explain the conservative's side of an argument to give sufficient balance. I stress this is not going into opinion and quote-heavy responses (that starts to get into unduly self-serving territory), just enough to be able to define, neutrally and concisely, why there is this controversy in the world. But again, this is only a possibility that I can see happening with the media trending as it is, and more cautionary than anything else. I think its key to remember that we have created the RS and RSP rules to quickly limit the use the bad sourced for 99% of the cases editors seem to want to use them for, so they serve a purpose, but they are also not hard and fast rules, and even if we make Fox News fully unreliable, I would think there are still applicable IAR in hypothetical cases. Masem (t) 22:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

the factual beliefs? soibangla (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A statement of fact regarding one's beliefs. Eg "Christians believe Christ died to absolve them of their sins." In wikivoice, that doesn't give any factual weight to "Christ died to..." but it does give factual weight to this being a core tenet of Christianity. Masem (t) 22:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

We can argue about where the line exists, but using a source like Fox News to explain the conservative's side of an argument to give sufficient balance. sounds dangerously like a WP:FALSEBALANCE. If every source is ignoring a story or giving it limited weight and it's getting disproportionately covered by partisan attack sites that are marginally or barely reliable, that is a good reason not to want to cover it much or at all. Andre🚐 22:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A one sentence summary of a side's position against a one sentence summary of the other side's position in a controversial situation is the minimum I would expect. That's not a FALSEBALANCE. What would then become a false balance would be trying to justify the side that has nearly no coverage in RSes by pulls lots from non-RSes, as to try to balance out when the other side with lots of RS coverage. Once you have the one-sentence-type summaries for both sides, there's no more need to have tit-for-tat in any further additions, and otherwise DUE should be followed appropriately. But to only give explanation for one side and nothing for the other is a non-neutral stance, as it infers the one side with all the explanation must be right. Masem (t) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, this tit for tat form is far too common on wiki articles. It makes for terrible choppy reading that doesn't really explain much. That's really why I started editing only a month ago, trying to get a pretty bad article that was mostly accurate, but just awful to read. When explaining a position that is popular, but maybe quacky, and in our current media scape where most text news (the easiest to cite) is going to be liberally minded, we have to remember that the most accurate descriptions of one side of a controversy are going to be from that side itself. Unfortunately, a lot of wiki articles leave very bare explanations of the conservative side, mostly because wikipedia is very hard on those conservative sources. In other words, WP:MREL is just about right. (After that, we'd have to watch for wp:weasel words, like "X claims, without evidence, ..." Well, they do provide evidence typically, it's just disagreed what that evidence means, hence the controversy. HC (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• It's absolutely WP:FALSEBALANCE if no reliable sources cover it. The premise of your argument is that any position taken by "the conservative side" is always valid and worth reporting on for any given topic, which is simply not true. Climate change, COVID, and the 2020 election are the most obvious examples and are cases where I would strenuously oppose including any mention at all of a position that can only be cited to Fox, since they are clearly unreliable for those things. If all reliable sources say something is uncontroversially true, WP:NPOV means we are required to reflect that in our articles, and it is inappropriate to imply otherwise by shoehorning in an unreliable source. Keep in mind that in most cases, where there is an actual debate, we can cite the bare existance of a debate to secondary sources - for something to be only citable to Fox, that means that every reliable source in existence treats it as totally settled or as a nonissue. Using a low-quality source like Fox, alone, to argue otherwise would be a clear WP:NPOV violation. And I have a deeper concern about your expressed desire to boil things down to one-sentence summaries of what you personally see as the "two sides"; not everything boils cleanly down to two sides. By dividing everything into two camps, identifying Fox as the standard-bearer for one of them, and insisting that the "Fox side" be represented on every topic where Fox weighs in, you're effectively saying that every article should be structured around that two-sides worldview and framing regardless of the sources. That's a NPOV and TONE violation; we structure our articles around the preponderence of sources. When there is a clear debate, the sources will say so; when there's a minority view worth discussing, we'll be able to find WP:RSes at least covering it. But if the sources overwhelmingly do not treat something as a controversial left-right American political issue, asserting that it is and shoehorning in a single Fox piece dissenting from all other coverage would be inappropriately inserting our own worldview into articles and giving undue / WP:FALSEBALANCE weight to Fox specifically and to the viewpoints used as a framing in general. The simple reality is that on some topics, and in some fields, the left-right perspective is not relevant - and we determine when it is or when it isn't based on high-quality sources, not based on "one MREL source exists somewhere that disagrees with this." --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  "The premise of your argument is that any position taken by "the conservative side" is always valid and worth reporting on for any given topic" I did not say that... I'll rephrase and try to say it in less words. In descriptions of controversies, the opinions are going to be most accurately described by those that hold the opinions, and they certainly won't be accurately described by opponents.

  "I have a deeper concern about your expressed desire to boil things down to one-sentence summaries of what you personally see as the "two sides"". Well, first, I said the opposite about one sentence summaries. That they make bad tit-for-tat reading. Secondly, that misconception led you down a deep rabbit hole that is not sensibly relevant to anything I said. HC (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I was replying to Masem, not you (check the indents.) My objection is that, by my reading, the implication of Masem's argument is that we must always include the "conservative side" (or, to be fair, the "liberal side" or whatever) of any issue provided it exists somewhere, regardless of whether the sources support it being significant or relevant. That isn't how we write articles - we determine what aspects we cover based on the level of coverage in WP:RSes. I don't think that the bare fact that something has been covered by Fox News automatically makes it worthy of inclusion; and I certainly I object to their argument that we must automatically include it so its "side" is always represented. In reality, when something breaks down into multiple sides worth discussing, we should be able to find WP:RSes saying so. As far as your comments go, I broadly agree with you that tit-for-tat stuff is dangerous, but it's also important to point out that WP:DUE weight is relative, so in certain situations - where there is coverage for multiple divergent viewpoints of roughly equivalent weight - it is appropriate to either add it all or remove it all, but would be inappropriate to include just one (I only object to Masem's presumption that that is automatic, not to the idea that we should often write articles that way.) Removing it all can avoid the "editors arguing in the main page by proxy" problem that I think you're correct about, but sometimes for one reason or another that's not an option - in that case all we can do is weigh things according to coverage in the sources. And there are also cases where top-tier coverage is so utterly one-sided and clear about XYZ being the facts (climate change being the obvious example) that presenting it as "something with two sides" or framing the facts as opinions or the like would be a WP:NPOV violation. --Aquillion (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have long stood on the principle that if we (Wikipedia) are describing something as a "controversy" then we should have a very very brief statement of what each side in the controversy should say - here, a one sentence summary - and after that, DUE coverage takes over. We are definitely not like a debate where each side gets the same amount of time (that's a false balance), but we're also not that lobsided in coverage to not speak of a basic single sentence of what one side claims (if zero RS talk about it) and yet say is a controversy is a problem. Again, there should be enough in present RSes that we can make a single statement to the RS's majority.

  And And there are also cases where top-tier coverage is so utterly one-sided and clear about XYZ being the facts (climate change being the obvious example) ... No, we cannot do that without breaking neutrality, particularly when talking about subjective and controversial facets that are within the realm of RECENTISM. There's still a way to write that nearly all RSes all agree on a point ("X is widely considered ..." rather than "X is..." and keep our language neutral. The notion "RSes are always infallable" is simply incompatible with NPOV, while simple easy language changes make wikivoice still reflect reality nor give the fringe opinions any time maintains our respect for RSes without necessarily worshipping them as perfect sources. Masem (t) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be completely clear, are you asserting that we must include "both sides" even in the case of climate change, and that the view that it is happening must be presented as mere attributed opinion anyplace it appears simply because Fox News publishes pieces that disagree? I could be getting my wires crossed, but I was under the impression that in previous discussions you asserted that climate change was different somehow. I wouldn't usually even ask, since it's a clear-cut and extremely well-settled matter, but I noticed that you included my parenthetical about how it is a clear-cut case in the quote you said you disagreed with. If you're now saying that we must present what you consider "both sides" even for that, there's not really anything to discuss; certainly you must be aware that your argument is extremely far outside of our current Wikipedia practice and policy - there are some things worth debating when coverage is minimal but falls short of being WP:FRINGE; but at a bare minimum WP:PROFRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE clearly and unambiguously forbid us from both-sidesing anything where one perspective is unambiguously fringe, while WP:NPOV unambiguously forbids us from presenting clearly-established facts as opinions. You can argue over what's fringe, or what's clearly established fact, or the like; but if you're arguing that nothing can be presented as fact as long as anyone anywhere disagrees, then your argument has no possible basis in policy. And if you're not arguing that, then you'll have to be more clear about where you want to draw the line. Even in less clear-cut disputes - while RSes are not always infallabe, per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS it is inappropriate to try and use Wikipedia to try and "correct the record." We can include something based on the argument of "this has significant representation in the sources, even though it's a minority view"; the argument of "I think Fox is an RS and therefore we can use it for minority viewpoints", while I think it is wrong, is at least defensible under policy. But the argument you're presenting here seems to go beyond that - we are never permitted to write articles from the perspective of "yeah, the sources all clearly agree that X is true, but I personally think they might all be wrong or biased in this topic area, so we need to shoehorn in any disagreement that I can find, no matter how low-quality or obscure, and present the overwhelming consensus of sources as opinion no matter where it appears." That's simply not how we work - ultimately, our coverage is decided by sources, not personal beliefs or skepticism. --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that's not up to just you. HC (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• The current consensus is that Fox talking heads on cable TV != the Fox News website, and nothing here seems to contest that. While I believe that our policy on WP:PARTISAN sources is far too forgiving, this doesn't seem like it changes anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The site routinely posts primetime content without being disclosed as opinion, attributed to "Fox News Staff." soibangla (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the point was, what do WE need to change in the way how we treat Fox? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News threatens, punishes, and fires those employees, including in the news division, who fact-check the news division when it pushes BS, and it does. Internal complaints are kept private and separate from what is revealed to the public. Open fact-checking is discouraged and punished. Murdoch dictates that for everyone, including the news division.

What we need to change is to make it official that Wikipedia deprecates Fox News. What we do and our policies must be in sync with each other. We need to stop giving Fox a "Trump exemption" which protects high-profile right-wing BS here. Fox is no more sacred than Trump, and we finally, after far too long, acquiesced to the overwhelming weight of RS that confirmed Trump is a pathological liar and started doing what RS did, to call him a "liar" in wikivoice. We should have, without question, right from the beginning, followed what RS said, but we didn't. Our history of giving right-wing sources a longer rope than left-wing sources is a spot on our reputation.

We need to officially stop giving them a free pass. We need to be able to point to an official position, just as we do with any other source that pushes BS. Why treat Fox differently for the same crimes as New York Post, Daily Mail, The Federalist, OAN, Drudge Report, Breitbart News, Newsmax, RedState, InfoWars, The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, Conservative Tribune, and Townhall? There is no justification for treating Fox News differently. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you can say we give Fox a “free pass” when we explicitly state that Fox is considered unreliable for certain topics (politics being highlighted). Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Because we deprecate other sources guilty of knowingly and consistently pushing BS. Accidental or occasional misinformation happens to all RS, but a sustained pattern of real disinformation? No, that's where we draw the line, EXCEPT for Fox News. That's so wrong. Why make an exception for Fox News? They cannot be trusted.

Sure, they also report accurate news, while they deliberately ignore and refuse to report on topics that go against the Murdoch/GOP/Trump agenda. They sin by omission an awful lot. Unlike other networks, Fox is Murdoch's machine, not a real news organization. It's a propaganda network. His agenda is the editorial policy, which explains why they have no written editorial policy. Murdoch instructed them to not antagonize Trump.

Is there really no sin bad enough to get Fox News deprecated? Do they really have to "shoot someone on 5th Avenue" and we still won't deprecate them? That's what you're telling me. How long will we completely ignore our own requirements for a RS? Tell me where your red line is located in this matter. There seems to literally be no bottom, no red line, that will cause us to ever deprecate them. Please tell me that's not true. Where is your red line? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah… I see, you want to see the magic word “deprecated”. Meh… I don’t see the need. We already say Fox should not be used for politics… that restriction is effectively deprecation where it matters. Using a magic word is pointless. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the distinction is not simply semantic. Currently Fox News is considered not generally reliable and should not be used for controversial statements in politics. We haven't declared it generally unreliable and generally should not be used for any politics. In my view, a downgrade would move it from Option 2 to Option 3 for politics. That is not the same as deprecated - it would move from WP:MREL to WP:GUNREL for politics. Andre🚐 18:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's "deprecated" or just "Option 3", let's just move it down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh… I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the previous consensus (current statement) adequately restricts how and when to use Fox, and am content to leave it as is. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm of this opinion also. MREL is fine. Regarding about politics, I think there's an argument to up that placement before there's one to downgrade it. I posted above about it. HC (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a time when the network's mendacity was largely limited to its primetime hours, but in more recent years it has metastasized throughout the day, from Fox&Friends in the morning to Outnumbered in the afternoon to Jesse Watters leading into primetime. It's now pervasive and the sheer volume of it can be hard to keep up with. Fortunately there are several folks on Twitter who watch all of it and post video clips throughout the day. The network "went big" on mendacity to adopt the "say anything" Trump style and is now overwhelmingly propaganda sprinkled with some "real" news here and there, but there's copious examples of even that being poisoned with lies. The entire enterprise, including its website that reflects and amplifies its programming, simply cannot be trusted on anything. That it is the 800-pound gorilla of conservative media matters not. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we should trust random and likely ideologically motivated people on twitter to aid in making our choices? Isn't that like using Libs of Tiktok to define the views of those on the left? Springee (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"is now overwhelmingly propaganda sprinkled with some "real" news here and there" That much of their political content is propaganda has been rather clear for years. But I am under the impression that their crime coverage tends towards sensationalism and alarmism. I keep coming across online articles which note that the Fox news audience is convinced that there is some kind of crime epidemic. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You could say the same about other topics and other news sites. News sites that have a more generous wikipedia reliability rating. eg, I'd bet the CNN audience thinks thousands of unarmed black men are killed by cops annually. Including the armed and all races, it barely breaks 1000. . Sensationalism and alarmism are the coin of the realm, they just favor different sensations and alarms. HC (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Statista is GUNREL... JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is just court filings around talk shows which we deem unreliable already not much to see here. Again editors conflating the talk shows with the website.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it’s not just the talk shows if the talk show hosts got a news division reporter fired for fact checking their narrative. The current rating for Fox News (politics and science) is “reliability unclear”. Is it really still unclear after all the resignations, revelations, books, etc.? Also, it appears some editors believe the website is the same as the news division. But, it looks more like the talk shows with attacks against one party for years. Last time this came up, I asked for the names of the people considered in the news division and don’t think I got an answer. I can’t find this on Google as I keep getting Hanity, Carlson, etc. Who are the people that are considered green at RS/PS? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would list Bret Baier as probably the most prominent name in their news division. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blueboar, I agree. NPR wrote this:

  "On Nov. 5, 2020, just days after the election, Bret Baier, the network's chief political anchor texted a friend: "[T]here is NO evidence of fraud. None. Allegations - stories. Twitter. Bulls---."^[1]

  and we have this:

  Bret Baier and Chris Wallace Complained to Fox News Heads About Tucker Carlson Capitol Riot Special (Report)

  Good for them, but even as news anchors, they were not allowed to publicly express such views. Wallace is now at CNN. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Objective3000 asked for the name of someone in the News Division, I gave one of the more prominent ones. More to the point, Baier is someone at Fox who does not engage in the sort of crap complained about in the lawsuit. I would consider Baier’s reporting very reliable. If you think otherwise, please explain why? Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blueboar, I agree. He's good. Unfortunately, he's not the only one there, and the corporation mixes the opinion and news stuff in deceptive ways ALL THE TIME, and when good people like Baier object, they get told to keep their opinions off-air or they get in trouble.

  They can tell the truth about non-GOP, non-Trump, non-COVID, non-vaccines, non-climate change, topics ad libitum, add nauseum, so that really means we have no use for them and should tell editors and the world we can't trust them to tell the truth all the time, and can't trust them to tell the truth when it's against their fringe right-wing political agenda and their anti-science agenda. There is no justification for not downgrading their status. If we don't deprecate them, we should upgrade Daily Mail and some other deprecated sites that are better than Fox News. Fox's popularity makes it a dangerous site. I don't think we should do that, so I still think we're violating our own policies and sending a horrible message to the world by not deprecating them, especially in light of all these solid revelations.

  The world looks to Wikipedia, and our quibbling here is visible and will be compared to the internal quibblings by the Fox News people, and those who refuse to deprecate will end up looking like Hannity and Carlson, who refused to tell the truth. We know that editors end up getting named in the press. I got hung out by Breitbart as a "Russiagate truther" because I still think Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. (I'll take that as a badge of honor, considering it's from Breitbart!) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Did they actually get anyone on the news side fired or did they just talk about it between a few hosts? This is one of the big issues with internal coms like this. Things said in the context of anger/frustration can be presented as carefully laid plans by an opposing party. So far it looks like the news side did what we would want it to do. It reported the facts even though it didn't align with the talk shows. Springee (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  They attempted to get her fired calling Suzanne Scott, the network’s chief executive. Instead, the post she made factchecking Trump was deleted. That is they did not report the facts that didn't align with the talk shows. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  The top story on the site right now is Ronny Jackson, a hardcore Trump supporter, alleging a coverup in Biden's health report.] Is that news, or conspiracy theorizing? Anyone ever taken a look at Jackson's twitter feed? Whoo-boy. This is typical of the site. soibangla (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  soibangla (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a link to a previous post of yours. How is that meant to be interpreted in context of Spy-cicle's comments? Springee (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Fox News Knew It Was A Lie". Yes. And we knew they knew. That's why they're considered unreliable for politics. Nothing changed here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting how many people claim Fox News is already considered unreliable, full stop, for politics. However, the close of the last RFC found it was marginally reliable and should not be used as a high-quality source for controversial claims. Which is one notch more reliable than generally unreliable. If we think it is generally unreliable, we should write that and reflect that. Andre🚐 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Bingo! Sadly, above I asked Blueboar:

"Is there really no sin bad enough to get Fox News deprecated? ... Tell me where your red line is located in this matter. There seems to literally be no bottom, no red line, that will cause us to ever deprecate them. Please tell me that's not true. Where is your red line?"

Still no answer. Our policy on how we define a RS should be enough, but it's being ignored when it comes to Fox News. They are Teflon. Sad. I want an answer from Blueboar: "Where is your red line, since deliberate disinformation isn't enough?" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t actually HAVE a “red line”. I have never liked the concept of “deprecation”, because I strongly believe in judging sources on a citation by citation context. And even the “worst” sources can be reliable in specific contexts… Just as the “best” sources can be unreliable in specific contexts. To judge whether a source is reliable, you need to examine the specific statement we are attempting to verify with that source, and ask whether the source is reliable in that specific context. The more extraordinary the statement, the more extraordinarily reliable the source must be.

I agree that Fox does not rate as an “extraordinary” source (and even that it is a “poor” source)… and so 100% agree with saying it should not be used for verifying extraordinary claims (and the claims about election fraud in 2020 certainly qualify as extraordinary). But then, that is a criticism I think is true for ALL media outlets. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• What this comes down to is that there is a network that calls itself a “news network” watched by hundreds of millions of people worldwide that allows, and apparently pushes, outright falsehoods to be published saying that United States elections are a fraud, Covid restrictions are a fraud, etc. – and we allow it to be used as a source. Folks, drop any biases you may have and remember that this is an encyclopedia. There are so many sources that have proved their ability to correct errors, use multiple sources, gain Pulitzers for exposing problems on both sides of any aisle. Let us use them and not bother with (and give credence to) a corporation whose management allows (at the least) lies and misinformation -- misinformation that dangers democracy and health (among other problems). What do we lose by reducing the rating of a dangerous source when there exist so many that have proved their worth over a very long time? And please, let us stop this claim that all media sources do what Fox does. There is no evidence that anything this dramatic is occurring in what we call RS.. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a Fox "News" story. What's the first thing readers see? A Jesse Watters clip. And in this "news" story? Laura Ingraham. And here's another "news" story entitled "Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action kicks off for thousands of U.S. schools." Sounds reasonable, right? But what do readers see first? A Tucker Carlson clip with guest Candace Owens calling BLM a scam. And here's Paul Gigot and Kim Strassel et al. of the WSJ editorial board in a "news" story.. And Hannity with a "news" story. It just goes on and on. See how they insidiously inject their opinion programming into their "news" site? It's baked in. By contrast, at minimum MSNBC shows in their URLs that their stories are from opinion shows, and typically displays that on the page or notes it's an opinion piece. soibangla (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to consider what the website version delievers, particularly when the labeling of the video is clear it is not related to the story given by the headline. It's why when evaluating reliability we ignore everything like the headline itself, ads, etc - all that matters is the copy of the article text. They are not the only website that forces video on the reader, and while most other websites usually include video of the story that the article talks about, they have other content in that video block carosel (eg: like at CBS News ). BTW, Fox News absolutely does delineate opinion from news pieces in terms of what they present at text. There are other sources like the AP that does not do this.

Remember that every media source is fighting for viewers and drawing readers to their site. Some are more ethical about that, but every bit of trying to grab viewership draw rather than focusing on the news weakens the site's integrity. Masem (t) 03:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to consider what the website version delievers I don't understand, we're talking about links to the site that some editors want to use as references here

particularly when the labeling of the video is clear it is not related to the story given by the headline There is no video labeling. Readers click the story and are presented a video that is ostensibly "the news," but actually it's the view of a mendacious polemicist. Many people (particularly since 54% of American adults cannot read to a 6th grade level) will likely watch the 2-minute clip rather than read the article, and walk away thinking they got "the news." But they haven't, they've been fed partisan opinion. By contrast, when CNN includes a clip in a story, it's from a straight-up newscast that conforms with the more extensive text reporting beneath it.

all that matters is the copy of the article text Oftentimes on its front page CNN shows headlines with a little "play" icon, denoting a video news report with just a short caption, not a text story. If an editor were to write "CNN reported..." would it be impermissible to use that source because it's not text?

while most other websites usually include video of the story that the article talks about I can't think of another news site that uses clips other than a news clip to accompany the article text. Fox News commonly presents opinion clips, without disclosure.

AP that does not do this I'm not aware AP publishes opinion pieces that writers submit, but if they do I suspect those opeds would be clearly labeled as such.

Fox News absolutely does delineate opinion from news pieces in terms of what they present at text As text, perhaps. But not holistically, including their video content, as I've demonstrated, and CNN doesn't do what Fox does, where readers click a story to what might be legitimate news and instead get Tucker Carlson. This is not by accident, it's by design, and if legitimate news outlets also do it, I haven't seen it. It's a devious practice that Fox News uses to insinuate its editorial stance into everything their audience sees on the network, and its site. This might be imperceptible to some who are not paying close attention. soibangla (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Fox videos have a bolt title and a brief description immediately below the video, impossible to miss. That's the labeling.

See #opinion pieces published by the AP? for the recent determination that AP offers unlabeled opinion pieces.

And I stress that we do not focus on the embellishments in the web presentation of a prose story. Videos, ads, pictures, interactive features, etc. Not just for Fox News but for all media website.

Now I can fully accept the "by design" argument that Fox News wants to push certain content, that's obvious, but every news website is also playing the drawing of eyes to keep viewers on their pages. Maybe not to the same degree as Fox, and not to their opinion pieces, but they do the same thing of trying to distract you from wanting to leave their website. --Masem (t) 16:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by label was disclosure as opinion, not content summary. There is no disclosure.

Wow, AP published an oped, I'll be damned. How common is that?

we do not focus on the embellishments but does that mean the CNN scenario I described is impermissible?

There is a big difference between engagement/retention and systematically insinuating opinions into news. soibangla (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that some Fox News articles also have clips of opinion programming says nothing about the reliability of the underlying article, and as long as we are citing only article content, not the talking head video, then the only reason to complain about the source is moral panic about "what if viewers are exposed to bad opinions?" It's like wanting to deprecate Playboy (which is GREL) because people clicking a link to an interview might see nudity. Sources sources don't even need to be online to be reliable. We could cite a Fox News article without including a convenience link, or a rare undigitized academic library book that happens to be shelved next to a copy of Mein Kampf, without affecting reliability at all. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I find myself in agreement with Aquillion and Andrevan's concerns. I would not prefer an immediate RfC for total deprecation but we ought to keep a close watch at this news-cycle. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Fox News is still refusing to cover this scandal. We do need an article about it: Fox News "voter fraud" scandal. When this Dominion trial is finished, we can do this better, but there is already enough RS coverage to start the article.

The mark of a RS news agency or other news source is not that they never make mistakes, but that they immediately correct and apologize. Fox News, RIGHT NOW!!!, is refusing to do this. They would lose face too much with their Trump base. They tied their news and opinion sides together with Trump as the only guiding light, and down the rabbit hole the whole Fox News enterprise went. Now they can't admit it publicly to their viewers without it being such a major catastrophe that they fear sinking their own ship. So they are doing what they have always done, hiding the inconvenient facts from their viewers, because Trump has told them that all other sources are fake news. Those viewers will continue thinking that "all this mainstream talk about Fox News hosts thinking Trump was lying about the election" is just fake news.

In the face of all this, Wikipedia still refuses to deprecate or downgrade them, even though, on much flimsier grounds, we deprecated The Daily Mail for far less serious offenses. We should upgrade The Daily Mail (only a tiny bit) and deprecate Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Fox cover this story? They are being sued over the core of this story. One of the things any competent legal team will tell their client before a trial is make no public statements. Covering this content would be exactly that. It would totally ignore the reality of the legal issues to expect Fox to cover claims that they libeled Dominion before the trial. That is akin to saying, "if the suspect is innocent, why doesn't he take the stand and say so?" Springee (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh snap! Springee, you make a good point. What a pickle, not that they would apologize even if not being sued, but we can't know. What we know is that their listeners will continue to believe what has been reported, and even though Fox will likely not dare continue to repeat "stolen election" lies, they will not be able to correct the record. Fox viewers will continue in their delusional bubble and refuse to believe what all other sources are reporting. What a situation! That guarantees Fox News continues to remain an unreliable source that should be deprecated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The impression I had from the last RFC is that some people who actually agree Fox News is unreliable believe that it helps Wikipedia to appear as less biased to have Fox News be listed as yellow and marginally reliable. Because even though Fox News is generally unreliable for politics and most people proceed as though this is the case in almost every case, they don't want to hear the screams of the drive-by trolls lamenting Fox News' "unfairly" maligned status. Because these people are thinking with their emotions and not with logic, so we can't reason with them. So, we take the tiny tiny sliver of cases where Fox News is reporting on some information that no other source has the very same information, and they extrapolate that to the idea that the reliability of Fox News for politics is unclear, given that occasionally, Fox News does publish accurate and mundane information about politics. When in reality the reliability of Fox News for politics is listed as unclear. It's generally unreliable, a category that prohibits mundane use but there are still plenty of exceptions where use might be allowed. Andre🚐 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific examples of that? I don't recall that but I also wasn't really looking for it. Springee (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a few comments in mind but I'd rather not ping them to the discussion because I suspect it would be unwelcome. If they show up on their own later I will be happy to discuss that. Andre🚐 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

As I recall there were something like 100+ respondents. If we are talking about one or two replies I'm not sure that means much compared to the larger consensus. Springee (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

NPR wrote this:

On Jan. 5, 2021, the day before Congress was to ceremonially affirm Biden's win, and an angry pro-Trump mob sacked the U.S. Capitol to prevent it, Rupert Murdoch forwarded a suggestion to Fox News CEO Scott. He recommended that the Fox prime time stars - Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham - acknowledge Trump's loss. "Would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election was stolen," he wrote. They did not do so. "We need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers," Scott said to a colleague.^[1]

Even Murdoch can't get them to publicly admit their failure. At that time, the "stolen election" conspiracy theory was still in somewhat of its infancy (not really...) but just think of how much Fox News has added to the size of that lie since then? Wow! Now they have added to their complicity so much more. In Japan, these people would have been called into the corporate headquarters, forced to kneel in a row, been handed knives, and committed hara-kiri. Seriously.

Of course, Wikipedia still supports Fox News. We are sending a signal to the world, a really bad signal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - We should wait until either the case goes to trial and a ruling is made (in which the facts of the case will be laid out), or until this is widely verified by other RS (preferably some right-leaning ones). Until then, it could be argued that we are doing WP:SYNTH by using deposition testimony and discovery evidence (WP:PRIMARY) to make conclusions. If we let the conclusions be made for us, we're in the clear. All that said, this is bordering on WP:BLUE given that some of the evidence is verbatim text messages and emails. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No one is proposing we perform OR or use primary sources. See that long list of what we call "reliable sources" above? We are actually allowed to use them to create content here! What an amazing idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    It is 100% OR because it is only evidence in a ongoing case. No matter how much RSes write about it, it has not been validated under a court of law as being valid and/or truthful.

    Is it likely truthful? Heck yes, but we cannot jump to conclusions like this. Masem (t) 20:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    Reliable sources are what we're all about, not jury decisions. Sometimes juries convict innocent men. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    We absolutely do not rely on reliable sources for the determination of legal matters like the Dominion VS lawsuit that this evidence was submitted for. Only the courts can make that determination. Masem (t) 20:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    Is that codified in PAGs? soibangla (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    For BLPs, it is definitely codified at BLPCRIME. "Innocent until proven guilty" should obviously extend to organizations as well. Unless the court decides what guilt is there and if any Fox individuals were complicit in it, we should be very wary of treating evidence provided by one side of the case as factually true, even though we probably all agree it is actually true. That's why we have trials so that the deeper truth can be determined. Perhaps this was all machinations of one person at Fox rather than the organization as a whole. Masem (t) 16:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    This isn't about guilt, it's about evidence that has been reported by numerous solid RS. Imagine the consequences for Dominion attorneys if they filed false documents with a court. Disbarment, careers over. soibangla (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    The RSes are reporting on the evidence, they have no legal insight to whether the evidence is legit or not or appropriate for the court. Its why, at least in the more prestigious RSes, they state that all these are alleged claims. The RSes are of course coming to their own conclusions as to what it all means, but they have no legal authority here, and we absolutely cannot take their assessment as the legal truth, no matter how many RSes claim it. That's the "innocent until proven guilty" we have to abide by.

    And it is not necessarily that the evidence may be false, but it also may not paint a full picture. For example, wholly separate, when Elon released the "Twitter Files", it was all "evidence" that pointed to Democratic interference, but as has been reported later, there's a fair number of Republican cases that happened as well, so what the Twitter Files was was not the whole story. Similarly, the legal council for Dominion has likely put together a package of files that strongly backs the defamation claims, but Fox may have additional evidence that creates a different picture that may point away from defamation. That type of action by Dominion's lawyers is not a violation of any legal code. (Keep in mind, I strongly believe Fox is guilty of defamation and intentional malice here, but I can't take it as fact until the case is resolved). Masem (t) 17:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    The potential legal consequences are irrelevant. The fact the communications have been publicly released and widely reported by RS is all we should be concerned with. Others in the press can speculate on what the legal implications might be, but that's not in our purview. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Our purview is to be neutral, impartial, and dispassionate. Editing based on "innocent until proven guilty" is absolutely key to this. I know that the evidence is very damning against Fox and suggests more action on RSP should be taken, but that would be violating our neutrality policy to jump on that before the legal matters are resolved. Masem (t) 17:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Are you arguing weight for inclusion in the Fox News article or if we should use this information to judge their reliability? If you want to suggest this is DUE in the article then all the coverage basically makes this a slam dunk for inclusion. However, if you are arguing this proves the news desk can't be trusted, then we need to ask why Dominion is releasing this before trial. Ask how does it benefit them to release it if, in theory, the jurors are going to only evaluate what is shown in court? Would Dominion have motive to release things in a way that makes it look worse than it really is? Would they have motive to hold back and exculpatory messages etc? If yes, then we aren't in a hurry. We can see how this plays out. Other than the satisfaction if sticking it to a disliked source, how does this help wikipedia? Springee (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    lolwhat. Trying to apply BLPCRIME here is an incredibly unserious claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    It's perfectly reasonable. Please see my example where the Grimshaw legal team presented information that was damaging to Ford Mo Co in a way to shape public opinion. Only much later did we see that what the public was presented was misleading. Springee (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Corporations aren't living people. Andre🚐 18:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would say this tangent is embarrassing. Anything about legal cases, guilt, and results are pretty much off-topic here. Lest I be misunderstood, of course BLPCrime is important, but not here. No one is discussing (except for Masem) the case itself or questions of guilt. We are discussing what secondary independent RS say about the revelations coming out about Fox News internal discussions and views demonstrating their deliberate malfeasance and refusal to allow fact-checking their lies. THAT's the topic, so don't muddy the waters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  From a legal and logical standpoint, the RSes are only reporting on 1) past events that were visible from outside Fox News and 2) the evidence provided by Dominion's legal counsel to support Dominion's case. They do not have the full picture as they are missing the evidence Fox News will use to defend itself. As such, whatever the RSes are reporting right now is their speculation, definitely not fact that we can state in Wikivoice. It doesn't matter how reliable these sources are, they are not the judicial branch and what claims they make cannot be taken as facts.

  I realize that nearly everything from the past that's been known before this point, and with the evidence given, that there is likely no way that Fox will be found to be complicit in propagating the false narrative and will be liable for the defamation charges they face, and thus my complaint may be prolonging the inevitable facts we can state. But this type of nuance is a core part of NPOV and NOR that we must hold to, despite the weight of evidence that suggests otherwise. This is basically, like, saying that Arbcom took up a case against editor X, where dozens of editors all provide evidence that X is wrong, and pre-stating that X must be guilty before Arbcom actually issues its decision about X. Let's wait to see what the whole picture is based on the legal case, from which we then can evaluate.

  And I stress what has been pointed out before: what does this change about how Fox is already handled on RSP? it's already a highly questionable source for politics (from its news side), and its talk show content already disallowed. Masem (t) 19:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  whatever the RSes are reporting right now is their speculation is incorrect, but there is likely no way that Fox will be found to be complicit in propagating the false narrative and will be liable for the defamation charges is speculative. soibangla (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Masem, you again write "what does this change about how Fox is already handled on RSP?" It makes a big difference. Right now we have no official deprecation. Instead, we rely on an unofficial ad hoc way of dealing with it, understood only by experienced editors, each time someone wants to use Fox News. The burden is on the editors involved, without them having the recourse of pointing to an official community consensus. The individual editors have to take the full brunt of accusations here at Wikipedia, and outside, for making such decisions. I paid such a price for opposing Breitbart here by having Breitbart feature me as a "Russiagate truther" for believing that Russia did interfere in the elections. What we do here gets noticed. We just know that we cannot trust Fox News when they speak, and we can trust that when they are silent it is usually for political reasons. It is a propaganda organization, not a true news organization, so we should officially classify it as such. Knowing this, yet not acting, is negligence and tacit protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just because novice editors may get Fox News's usage wrong should not mean we need to rush any change prior to the decision of the court case (again, the statement "Fox News is a propaganda organization" is a non-legal conclusion that we can't use, we need the court's evaluation the evidence.) If anything, I would suspect the bulk of those editors are not here to start to build an encyclodedia and instead want to counter the left bias that we naturally have from the result of our known RSes. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though this is likely still a case that once the courts legally issue their ruling, we'll want the baby thrown out too.

  Here's the problem which this and the Breitbart shows - we have be reactive and follow events, not try to be proactive. If you expressed belief re Russian interference before it was proven out by other sources in order to change P&G or mainspace, that's a problem. This is not a problem limited to you or Fox News, but far too pervasive throughout WP; that editors strongly for or against certain topics too often lose the necessary perspective we expect of all editors to prevent disruption (The current ArbCom case is yet another example). It is 100% fair to peg Fox News as a developing problem in light of the provided court evidence, but until we know the conclusion of that story, acting on it is rushing matters. I've said before that I may poking on nuances here and delaying what will ultimately happen, but we need these processes more than ever to isolate us from the growing cultural war, and react instead of predict. Masem (t) 03:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  This thread is primarily about using Fox as a reliable source -- not stating in the Fox article in WikiVoice that Fox is crap. If a source is questionable, we shouldn't use it. There are plenty of other sources. If the only source for something is questionable, then what it says is questionable and we should wait instead of using a questionable source. We are an encyclopedia, not a new aggregator. Time is on our side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC).

  The thing is, while Fox’s reporting on the 2020 election and it’s aftermath is questionable, a lot of its other reporting is not questionable at all. This is why “other considerations apply”. We need to look at the specific information being verified by citing a Fox report, and ask “is Fox reliably reporting this specific information”? I am fine with saying “Don’t cite Fox for information relating to the 2020 election and its aftermath”… I am not fine with saying “Don’t cite Fox for anything”. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't that mean, in practice, that you have to check a Fox source against other, more reliable sources, and only use Fox if it agrees with them? Then, what do we need it for, if we have better sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo! Since we can't trust it, even on basic matters, we only know by checking actually RS that don't deliberately push fake news for ratings. We do not need Fox News. Period. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think we CAN trust it on basic matters… it’s specific matters where we can’t trust it. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  For those who are digging into this material, ask who released it and why? Who does the release of this material benefit? Was it released with the other side being given a chance to argue about the content? Do we know if the releases were full and complete or selective? One of the very successful strategies the plaintiffs did in the infamous Ford Pinto lawsuit (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.) was release a memo which was in reality a response to the government, using government provided numbers and framework trying to assess the cost vs benefit of new rollover protection standards. Since Ford could provide a good estimate on the vehicle cost side of things they were doing that. However, the Grimshaw legal team successfully convinced the public that the memo was proof that Ford didn't care about lives and calculated it was cheaper to pay off the dead vs pay for safety in the cars. It was a totally false narrative but thanks to Mother Jones it stuck. When one side or the other releases a bunch of evidence we need to ask, is it because it helps them make better arguments in court? No, it's because they are hoping to taint the jury pool. Even if we take the evidence at face value all it's doing is verifying what we already have concluded. Springee (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously we cannot foresee the result of a trial. So, we cannot say they are guilty of anything. We most certainly can make our own determinizations of the reliability of a source and we can use RS for that purpose without the help of the legal system. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Fox is biased in my mind, but can be used for simple fact verification; airplane xyz crashes on xyz date. Beyond this, they tend to spin a story so it suits a certain narrative. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

When Fox executives referred to their "brand" being damaged (they did it in many ways), they are saying it in the context of "Our brand is WE DELIBERATELY LIE ABOUT ELECTIONS and don't dare stop!" Seriously, read the sources and see what Fox executives said about their "brand" and especially when they said it. You can't make this stuff up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The older editors all see the trajectory FOX is on. The question for you is, and please take your time to think about it, where should this source be categorized as a result? That's what I think was missing from your original post, and that would help some of us see your intent more clearly. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

DN, as an older editor I have indeed watched this. Before Trump, Fox was just a popular purveyor of normal right-wing stuff, back when the most left-leaning members of the GOP actually straddled the center and had a lot in common with the most right-leaning Democrats. Trump came along and radicalized the whole right, and Fox with it. (see Overton window) Then Fox discovered that Trump, as a fighter, would really boost their ratings if they were loyal to him. That pushed them, and the GOP, into a far-right position and the favored position as nearly the only source trusted by Republicans. We see the consequences of that. Now there are very few Republicans between Trump and the center, and it's a huge gap. The Democrats, OTOH, haven't really moved very much toward the left, at least nothing like the move by the GOP. Many Dems still straddle the center..

In the light of all the latest revelations, that things are much worse than we realized (they actually deliberately and constantly lied, as a de facto operational policy, to everyone, and punished any employee who resisted or fact-checked), I have already expressed my wish for a formal deprecation. They are arguably worse than The Daily Mail. They fail our standards for a RS. Not only no fact-checking, but refusal to allow it. No correction when their false reporting was constantly criticized. Until they completely crucify Trump and all of his lies, especially his "stolen election" Big Lie, they won't be in the same universe as what we require of a RS. Every day we delay this deprecation is a day we signal to the world that Wikipedia sides with Trump's lies, and editors who resist, risk getting named and excoriated in mainstream articles by the journalists who watch what we are doing here. We are being super inconsistent by extending the common Trump exemption to Fox News. They should not enjoy any form of protected status here. Treat them as we'd do any other source guilty of the same things they are doing. BTW, you are now a Yeoman Editor! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Fox News are innocent. Innocent, I tell you! And there's nothing you can say or do that'll change my mind! François Robere (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Appears to be an illustration of a goodly part of the problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• No need to change anything 1. Court filings are not a matter of law and should not be treated as absolute. 2. It has already been established that specific opinions of some of their hosts such as Carlson, Hannity, etc. are not considered reliable to Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A good summary:

It is not a "legitimate news-gathering operation". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 20 February 2023‎ (UTC)

• No need to change anything and close this thread Not this again. Wasn't there a giant RSN RFC recently that already beat this dead horse? Fox News talk shows are already deprecated: WP:RSP#Fox_News_(talk_shows) and its other political reporting is WP:MREL with significant caveats and restrictions. Honestly, I think this thread should be closed per WP:NOTFORUM, since is turning out to be little more than an opportunity to gripe about a shared dislike in a pseudo-RSN-RFC format (headed with the traditional set of options, except they're all "yes"). The last RFC covered this ground and ended, lets give it a rest. GretLomborg (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I will ask this for the fourth time. Who are the Fox News non talk shows hosts that haven't resigned? Out of 24 hours a day, how much time do they take? I look at their website and it reads like a propaganda site. And reread WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  GretLomborg, this is a totally new situation. I'm going to just AGF that you are ignorant of recent events that cast Fox News in a totally new light. The RS are abundant. Look above. I have collected 47 RS now.

Fox News knew their election coverage was totally false, yet, to keep their audience from fleeing to far-right sources like OANN and NewsMax, and to keep Trump's favor and their ratings up, they chose to lie about it all. They continued to push election lies for over two years, and now it's all blown up in their face with all their internal communications telling the true story.

This is not about just the talking heads. It's also about the news division. So this thread is based on a totally new set of evidence. Literal fake news and deliberate disinformation. Internal fact-checkers were threatened into silence. They totally fail all we consider to be a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The RS are abundant. Look above. I have collected 47 RS now.... about "Fox News hosts," "Fox News stars," "Tucker Carlson," etc... - GretLomborg (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. READ them, not just the headlines. This affected the news division. They were not allowed to contradict what Carlson, Hannity, et al were saying. Fact-checkers were threatened. The top executives and CEO knew, and their decisions applied to the news division. Read the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I did read a few, and I remain unconvinced that there needs to be any change in the status quo. Those articles are almost exclusively focused on what the already deprecated opinion show hosts beleived. They also tend to be a little sloppy and not make the distinction we make (between the news and opinion divisions), sloppyness which is very unhelpful here. The little that is there about the news division, while not great, is also not grounds for depricating the news division. It's totally fine for a reliable source not cover some true news to the degree desired by some Wikipedia editor or even omit it completely, especially since there's no way to cite the absence of a story on here in an article. The line is more or less "publishes false or fabricated information," and even that can (and is) tolerated for sources where a line can be drawn in such a way to salvage reliable reporting in other areas (like the line here around the opinion hosts). Then there's the separate issues that the structure of this discussion is so flawed that there is no way for it to reach valid result, and there there was already a massive better-structured discussion about these same issues where the admin-closer clearly discouraged repeats without a clear on-wiki motivation (which this discussion also seems to lack), because of the waste of limited governance capacity they entail. Let's stop beating this dead horse. GretLomborg (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What is now plainly evident that was not previously has less to do with what Murdoch, Scott and the news division did than what they didn't do: they didn't push back against any of lies the hosts were knowingly peddling. Nary a word to report The Big Lie everyone else was reporting. Bret Baier, ostensibly the "real journalist" at the network, said privately there was no evidence of election fraud, but did he report that? The silence of the news division is just as damning as if it was actively promulgating the Big Lie and makes clear it is not a news organization and should not be treated as one here. If "sometimes Fox reports real news," then surely editors can find sources other than Fox to use here. soibangla (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what soibangla, Valjean, and O3000 have written, but I am not surprised to see some editors who aren't interested in any evidence that would show Fox doesn't report it fair and balanced, even enough to be marginally reliable. Even though this is an example of Fox blatantly falsifying information and toeing the party line. That is not enough to persuade people who already have made up their minds and don't have a red line. Andre🚐 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• All of which simply reinforces that Fox is not reliable when it comes to the 2020 Election and its aftermath. I think we all agree on that. I don’t think anyone is arguing that they are reliable on that topic. However, there is no evidence that they fabricated their news coverage of other stories. Seriously, I challenge you to look through their news coverage over the last week (or even month), and tell me where they fabricated the story.

Sure, there are other reliable outlets that cover these stories, and yes we could use them instead (I have no problem with swapping one reliable source with another)… but… that’s not what we are being asked to determine. We are not being asked what the best news source is… or even whether there are better news sources than Fox. We are being asked to determine whether Fox is generally reliable or unreliable (as opposed to being specifically unreliable on one topic). I still think Fox is, generally, on the reliable side of the line. The existence of other reliable news sources (hell, even news sources that are more reliable) does NOT equate to Fox’s coverage being unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

...not reliable when it comes to the 2020 Election and its aftermath. Or Covid, climate change, gas prices, the economy.... You can say not reliable for politics or science; but everything these days is tinged with one or both, and that includes plane or train crashes (where Trump is now and about which MTG is loudly calling for impeachment). O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This gets us back to asking “what are we verifying when we cite a source?” That the train derailed? I think Fox reliably reported this. That Trump visited the town? Same. Are you saying that Fox did not reliably report both facts? Are you saying they fabricated these stories? Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Blueboar, they lie about the really important things. We can use other RS for the small stuff. We do not forgive perpetual liars. You have clearly not read the sources, so here's the constantly updated list. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean You said that I should ping you if I found any errors. You quoted Murdoch as saying, "[what matters] is not red or blue, it is green.”

However, the article you provided as a source for that comment is titled: "Rupert Murdoch Did Not Say ‘It Is Not Red or Blue, It Is Green’"

It seems that you have somewhat contradicted yourself.

It appears that, rather than Murdoch actually producing that rather poetic and memorable quote, it was the lawyers for the Dominion Voting Systems Corporation. Murdoch voiced that he agreed with the sentiment, of course, in the sense that Fox News is a corporation that makes revenue from advertising. This is not much different from most cable-news corporations in the United States, which often make their money through advertising products during intermissions between programs.

As such, if you think Murdoch's agreement with the statement by Dominion's lawyers is proof of Fox's disreputability as a source, you must also agree that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and many other corporations are also disreputable sources, as they make money through advertising.

I am, of course, only going off of the source you provided. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

All of which simply reinforces that Fox is not reliable when it comes to the 2020 Election and its aftermath. I think we all agree on that. - do we actually agree that Fox News, as a whole, is not reliable when it comes to the 2020 election and its aftermath? And if so, can we add that to its RSP entry? Because I feel like I have absolutely seen people attempting to cite it to that and using its (currently) MREL status to argue that it is usable; if we're in agreement that Fox should never be used for things related to the 2020 election, I feel like that should be stated unambiguously. I would also push to add COVID as something Fox is strictly forbidden as a source for as well (as I recall in the last discussion, I turned up extensive coverage that the news side was pushing misinformation about that.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose both of those suggestions in principle. On the election, because Fox does report heavily on elections with unrefuted mundane facts all the time. On COVID, because of the catchall nature of the topic (how so much of everything is COVID related), and on the basis that some media and govt in RS are now catching up to other reporting FOX and others had already done, wrt vaccine and mask safety and efficacy, virus provenance, etc. Fox and others are also reporting this heavy incongruent messaging from the government and other news outlets, that is usually in the form "well, we reported this months ago and were chastised, now see they put out data that agrees and quietly changed their official stance". These facts are hard to add to wikipedia because these media and govt entities won't point it out about themselves, naturally, but the places willing to point it out are not on the RS list. We'd have to use wp:synth to get these facts into the articles. HC (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's texts, released to the public due to the Dominion lawsuit, show him calling Syndey Powell a liar, which he also did publicly, during this episode of his show:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud

How is it a sign of Tucker Carlson's dishonesty that he said the same things in public as he did in private?

Many of the anti-Fox posters here seem to be making a really very obvious error. They say that, because a Fox employee had promoted a claim of election interference, say, for example, that ballots were printed for Biden at the last minute while he was losing, but denied another claim, say, that the Venezuelan-Chinese agents hacked voting machines for Biden, that they are hypocrites. But there is no hypocrisy here, because these are two different claims.

Some personalities on Fox News seems to have vociferously attacked claims that the election was stolen for Biden by Venezuelan Chinese communists, while others on the network promoted them. This is normal.

The fact that not all employees of a news organization voice the same opinions as other employees, nor those of the organization's owner, is not convincing evidence that the organization is generally untrustworthy.

If an organization has 300 employees, and each one, including the CEO, believes that the Earth is flat, would that make it a reliable source to Wikipedia, because the source never contradicts itself?

Much of what is reported on Fox News is likely untrue, and much of it maliciously untrue, I do not doubt; but this is no less the case with the likes of The New York Times, which in 1983 declared, as the result of a lawsuit brought on by William Peter Blatty, that their list of "best-sellers" are not actually based on what books have sold well, but simply books chosen arbitrarily by the editors of The New York Times, that often have not sold well at all. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no objective way to accurately measure book sales, and the list is certainly not "arbitrary". And where did you get the idea the book list is "maliciously untrue"? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

this is no less the case with the likes of The New York Times, especially supported solely by a dubious interpretation of Blatty, is amusing. soibangla (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

O3000, The New York Times disagrees with you. "The suit was filed after the book was not included in the Times’ weekly list of best-sellers, which the paper says is based on computer-processed sales figures from 2,000 bookstores across the nation." (source)

Soibangla, this was actually not Blatty's interpretation, but the opposite: it was the defense that the lawyers representing the NYT used in their defense against Blatty.

There is also, of course, the case of Amy Robach admitting that ABC suppressed the Epstein story because of pressure from the British royal family, and because they would not be allowed to interview members of the British monarchy anymore if they were to do so.

There are a number of Wikipedia sources, considered "generally reliable", which lie intentionally. Understanding that much of what you read or see on television, regardless of political alignment, is a lie, is a part of a growing up.

Fox News is already downgraded as a source for political and science related issues. I don't know why. Why should it be further downgraded because it has platformed diverse opinions on the 2020 election, affirming and negating both claims that it was legitimate and claims that it was rigged? Particularly when it is already downgraded when it comes to political subjects, which the 2020 election is? Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Robach did not "admit" this, she asserted it, but ABC senior management said Giuffre's exclusive, explosive claims could not be corroborated, potentially exposing the network to defamation suits. Robach was confident she had the story, management disagreed and spiked it, happens all the time. Giuffre years later admitted her story about seeing Clinton on the island was untrue and years later admitted she might have made a mistake in accusing Dershowitz. Maybe Robach now feels fortunate her story was spiked. If you are confident our reliable sources intentionally lie, you should rush to RSN and make that argument. Otherwise it is a hollow allegation that deserves to be ignored. soibangla (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

"Reliable" means "you can rely on it". Not "you have to check a long list of subjects first, and if the subject in question is not on the list yet, maybe you can rely on it, or maybe it will be added to the list later, who knows?" --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Flip it… It’s actually a very short list of things they are not reliable on. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Not true. This is about their main focus, the topics they focus on and choose to deliberately ignore. American politics is their main focus. Minor stuff might add up to a long list of individual items that is longer than the list of problematic areas, but those areas are far more significant. The small stuff is always covered by other sources where we don't need to double-check whether they are deliberately lying to us. We always have to do that with Fox News. We lose nothing by deprecating Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, there’s sports (when race isn’t involved) and entertainment (when competitors aren’t involved). Looking at the first section of the NYT today, articles on immigration, Biden, NATO, McCarthy and Tucker Carlson, climate change, Ukraine/Russia, Israel, same sex couples, arms to Taiwan, train derailment (Obama made new regs and Trump removed them), Trump criminal inquiries, gun violence, Proud Boys, several election articles, Twitter law suit in the USSC, early inmate release, death penalty. These are all areas where Fox is a questionable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Good points, so striking part of my comment above. Of the areas they actually do cover, there are very few that aren't problematic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe:

Pretty damning. He makes the case for deprecation. He ticks off all the most important boxes we require for a RS. Fox News fails each one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Fox News at least should be generally unreliable if not deprecated and blacklisted altogether. They indeed have fabricated information on many occasions. It's quite clear that their top brass have created an atmosphere designed to push advocacy and propaganda. It should not be trusted for any topic but particularly not for politics. However, because we need a stronger consensus than last time to actually change the status quo, I suspect we'll have to bring this topic up again in the future. Andre🚐 04:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why only Fox News and not the whole Murdoch "press"? Trigenibinion (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Sun is deprecated. The NYPost is considered unreliable for facts. The WSJ is considered generally reliable for news, outside of the opinion articles. It has received Pulitzers. Personally, I think it has slipped; but I am a subscriber for financial news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia is also rotten by such "press" and there are still a couple other outlets in the UK. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Canada has a similar problem in that 90% of the newspapers are owned by an American conglomerate. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a source which is "only" half propaganda should be tolerated. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed the Australian Murdoch papers here previously. The Australian is a pompously serious paper and is green-rated on WP:RSP, but with caveats. Various city tabloids have been discussed and considered sources to apply with caution and not at all for opinion, e.g. Andrew Bolt columns, but not in a proper RFC as such - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If you only ban Fox News, syndicated content can come from any other property. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This really shows Wikipedia's anti-self-published stance is wrong. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It bears noting that two of the major purveyors of The Big Lie under the Fox Corporation umbrella, Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business and Fox News, and Lou Dobbs of Fox Business, are characterized in their BLPs as news anchors. This is not the case with Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham or Pirro. So we're not talking only about hosts on the opinion side. It's the news side, too. soibangla (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• a source that will deliberately and consistently lie about any topic if it benefits that source's benefactors is not a reliable source. Maintaining a list of topics that they are supposedly reliable on is inadvisable, because there is no guarantee that it will stay that way, or that the reporting won't be biased in some other way that may be harder to detect in individual cases. If we can get whatever information we need from elsewhere without that risk, that is always the better choice. I will however note that I would have said this before 2016 as well, so my opinion here doesn't really change the balance. This is just another (worse) example of a pattern that has pretty much always been there. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is why this matters Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Since Carlson's views are already considered unreliable what needs to be fixed? If RSs say this changes the understanding of events then include it. Springee (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Because its not just Carlson. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading an op-ed this morning, I was struck by the strong similarities between Tucker Carlson, who is not banned from Wikipedia, and the Daily Mail, which is. Carlson is the most watched US cable host. The Mail is the most popular British daily newspaper. Both have business models which see them not just reflect but drive the right wing news agenda. Both are widely seen as being guilty of at best, extreme bias, at worst, fake news. Both wield significant power in domestic politics, with US Republican Party Presidential candidates feeling a need to appease Carlson to secure the Trump vote, and UK Conservative Party leadership candidates feeling a need to appease the Mail to secure the Johnson vote, with both Trump and Johnson recently unexpectedly winning elections with populist extreme right platforms. It is therefore high time to place an outright ban on using Tucker Carlson as a source anywhere in Wikipedia for any purpose, just like it has done for the Daily Mail. Jango Borundia (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Fox News talk shows (including Tucker Carlson Tonight in particular) are already deemed generally unreliable. BD2412 T 10:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which is not the same as Daily Mail ("deprecated") as I understand it (from actual Wikipedia editors). Wikipedia can still include content of the form "On X date, Tucker Carlson said "Ukraine is a puppet state" (with a link to his show) for the purposes of explaining why a controversy ensued (and perhaps why a Ukraine military aid bill failed). If the Daily Mail runs the same headline causing the same controversy, it is not permissible to link to the Mail story, Wikipedia only reflects what reputable outlets said about it (universal derision, obviously).

  Furthermore, being "deprecated" means it is less likely that the Mail causing a controversy by pushing absurd far right talking points will be deemed worthy of note at all. Since as far as I can tell, Carlson is actually worse than the Mail, Britain having frankly negligible political support for far right figures in contrast to the huge popularity of Trump in the US, this is clearly unjustified. It might even suggest to readers that Carlson has defenders/sympathisers/apologists among Wikipedia editors.

  That surely cannot stand. A signal needs to be sent, in the same way the ban of the Mail was designed to send a signal to the world that Wikipedia is not in the business of aiding the business models of far right viewpoint pushing media outlets (who clearly do it because it makes them money and gives them power, rather than being their genuine opinion). Jango Borundia (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would support deprecating Carlson. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The deprecation of the Daily Mail wasn't done to "send a signal to the world". It was done to make it clear to contributors that it didn't meet our standards for reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I beg to differ. Wikipedia was already making it clear which sources it considered reliable, and in what contexts. The Mail ban was a step change, which is why it made headlines around the world and The Guardian duly wrote that it was a "highly unusual" move for Wikipedia, adding "The decision by Wikipedia comes amid widespread debate over the rise of fake news, which has widened to include concerns about misleading information in traditional publications. A recent BuzzFeed analysis claimed that there was “little appetite” for completely fabricated “fake news” in the UK because the country already had a highly partisan press." This references contemporary statements from Jimmy Wales which singled out the Mail specifically. The Mail is about as partisan as it gets in the British press, famously. If Wikipedia did not intend it to be a signal, that is definitely how it was received among the media and everyone I know. How could it not have been? The first and still the only time Wikipedia has ever singled out a source that well known (orders of magnitude more than Breitbart, which was and still is seen as a fringe outlet) for a total ban. Jango Borundia (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well I did not intend it as a signal, but (as now) rather an attempt to make sure we do not allow souces that tell outright lies to be used. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which is what Carlson does, no? He committed to print that Ukraine "a colony with a puppet regime essentially managed by the US State Department." That is an outright lie, no? And is standard fare for him appparently. Who here can seriously make the case that the Mail is worse than that, given their motives are identical. Jango Borundia (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Daily Mail RfC was in 2017. WP:RSPSS, and its various categories of "generally reliable" etc. did not exist then. The Daily Mail was special only because it was the first. (I do not know if the Daily Mail RfC created RSP in a direct cause-and-consequence manner, but it certainly came in the same zeitgeist.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia was codifying what makes a source reliable and under what contexts it can be used well before 2017, with reference to clear categories (such as tabloid journalism). The Mail ban was a step change in approach, a clear signal that reliability can also now be judged by who, not what. Carlson falls under who, and in every way that matters, is the same type of who as the Mail. Jango Borundia (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• First, deprecation does NOT mean we ban the source for “anywhere in Wikipedia for any purpose”… it means we severely limit its use. For example, a deprecated source can still be used in ABOUTSELF situations.

Second, the DM deprecation had exceptions… for example it can be used for its sports reporting. There was also a “cut off date” where reporting prior to that date was deemed reliable (don’t remember what the date is… but it was discussed at the RFC).

Finally, there is no NEED to formally deprecate Carlson, as he is already covered under the determination that Fox’s talk shows (and their opinion journalism in general) are unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty certain all uses of the Mail not about itself are banned, and as in the NY Post debate above, many rightly feel the Mail cannot be trusted about itself either. A good reason to deprecate Carlson is precisely because he is surely more likely to lie about himself than the Mail would be, and is otherwise just as unreliable about anything else. Jango Borundia (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• It wouldn't hurt to explicitly call him out "..including Tucker Carlson" due his outsize role in cable news TV. He is watched more than any other show on any channel (for cable news). That's why he is such a big deal, so many people watch him and he says woowoo. -- GreenC 14:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think there is a big difference between depricaiting the use of an entire news outlet (The Daily Mail) and depreciating the use of one guy (Tucker Carleson). Especially since the one guy in question works for a larger news outlet that you are not asking to be depreciated, despite the fact that said one guy is not the only problematic voice coming from that outlet. At this point I would be in favor of downgrading Fox News to "generally unreliable" status, although I haven't participated in the most recent discussion on the question, but I find it a little silly to debate depriating just one of their commentors, even if he is disporportiantly influential. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is remotely silly about treating two things that operate the same way for the same reasons and have the same power because of it, in the same way? I made this proposal in part because the op-ed reminded me that Carlson is essentially an outlet all of his own, and Fox certainly aren't in any positive to influence him while he is being so effective at what he (and the Mail) does. Jango Borundia (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It is permissible to point to opinions in the Daily Mail. People will say they're not due but that's not an RS issue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is definitely not true. The Mail is banned for all contexts, in large part because their opinions (editorial and columnist) are making use of fake news as their basis. If is the business model. Just the same way Carlson does. Jango Borundia (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats why we treat opinion work as WP:SPS with all the restrictions that come with it (can't use it for statements about third parties, can't use it for statements about things which the author wasn't involved in, etc). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Are Tucker Carlson's stated opinions actually his opinions? It appears he has stated they are not. If not, it's kinda like quoting something from The Onion as opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am getting strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS vibes here. Again, Carlson and his ilk are already covered… there is no need to “send a signal” or highlight someone specifically. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you agree or disagree that the Mail is Carlson's "ilk"? What in your eyes makes Carlson more trustworthy (such that linking to him from Wikipedia is acceptable)? Jango Borundia (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• The point of this noticeboard is to address ongoing issues with sourcing on wikipedia. Unless Tucker Carlson is currently being used as a source you lack grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• While I understand the community's previous reluctance to deprecate Carlson, I sympathize deeply with the OP. They are not wrong. Public commentators who are caught deliberately and consciously falsifying should be deprecated, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)