Talk:Fair and balanced

"Even though it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced. Just watch it for a half-hour segment and you can easily pick up on the not only pro-conservative bias, but the extremely strong and hateful anti-liberal bias. I quote one of their commentors saying "Obama is so liberal, it's unamerican." Right, when America has elected a democrat congress, liberalism is unamerican."

"most likely due to the the derision heaped upon it by those (mostly of a liberal persuasion) who claim FOX is heavily conservatively biased.

I think that derision is not the correct word to use here if we want true NPOV. criticised, or something else would be better

"a slogan which has come in for equal derision."

ditto - I took this one out to propose new language

"(and quite literally, according to Franken in a report in The Independent) laughed out of court by Judge Denny Chin, who stated that he was quite close to revoking FOX's trademark on the slogan, based on the supposedly fair and balanced channel seemingly being nothing of the sort."

We need some facts to support this laughed out loud claim (other than Franken - there were independent observers I assume in a hearing with this level of media scrutiny) as well as the "came close to revoking". Which I doubt - although he may have wanted to, a judge can not sui sponte revoke a trademark. Until there is some facts on this it probably should stay out. (all three comments by Trödel|talk 03:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I agree. That sounds like it would be a very serious case of misconduct for a judge so per BLP and general fairness, we need a reliable source to support such an accusation. Personally, I highly doubt it since if it were the case, it seems rather likely Fox News would have made a hell of a stink about it 203.109.240.93 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 4 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fair and balanced for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 16:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Use of the word "Critics say..." is pretty ambigious. I have to admit I have a personal bias against Fox News but still believe this needs to be clarifed Maybe list the critics that point it out (Jon Stewart, Chris Mathews, etc)... --ZacBowling 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal bias" is not NPOV

"implying a liberal bias in some competing news sources." is not NPOV ... the slogan "Fair and Balanced" implies the possibility of bias, but does not define it futher (ie. whether it is conservative or liberal or any other kind)

Please sign your comment. Besides, the statement quoted above was attributed to the perspective of FOX News, not the author. I think it would be difficult to expect NPOV from FOX News... LOL. The real problem is "It asserts objectivity of the network", since the slogan "Fair and Balanced" doesn't assert objectivity, but more fairness and balance, both of which FOX News lacks except to the most neo-con fanboy. --Fandyllic 6:25 AM PDT 12 Aug 2006

Well usually when people come up with slogans like that it's to be expected that their neither. It's like when a country is called the people's democractic republic you'd know it has little to do with the people or democracy. 203.109.240.93 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it not NPOV to mention that many believe that most of the other mainstream media outlets are biased left? I certainly agree that FOX is slanted right, but it is equally true that the major networks and NPR are skewed left. Of course, regardless of my viewpiont, it is held by a great many others and may be worth mentioning. Not mentioning it makes it appear that Fox is the only outlet that is skewed (as if one can only be skewed right, any other is correct) leaving a non-NPOV as a result.---66.73.52.194 20:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right-bias is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction

I edited a misspelling, it should be listed in the page history. Aufheben 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Category: Articles lacking sources"

The article seems to have sources, but the text contains only "[[Category:Advertising slogans]]" and [[Category:Fox News Channel]], i.e. no [[Category: Articles lacking sources]] to edit out. So how do you go about removing this article from that category? Andyvphil 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Category has disappeared, somehow. Andyvphil 09:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of phrase by Bush

I removed "The slogan has been used by George W. Bush on more than one occasion." because it misrepresents the usage. First, whoever added the "specify" tag was right to note that there is only one use supplied (nb:at about the 34:20 mark of the video). Secondly, the slogan was on his mind -- when he cuts off (presumably)"Wendell" to give "Michael" the opportunity to ask a question he says "Okay, was that harsh?... Like the new hall((??)), I should have been more gentle? (Laughter.) Do we ever use 'kinder and gentler'? No." and that may have triggered his mind to go down the path of "...the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision...", but he doesn't put verbal quotes around it. The phrase was used by many before Fox trademarked it as a slogan, and there is no indication in his expression or intonation that he is quoting Fox. "Wendell" then proceeds to wig him about his (apparently inadvertent) use of the slogan... There may be some way this merits mention, but not in the form it was in. Andyvphil 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that sentence.--Tom 12:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See also

I removed Media bias and instead wikified the word bias in the article. Thanks, --Tom 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Andyvphil 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

page name

"Fair and balanced" refers to an ideology. "Fair and Balanced" refers to a trademarked slogan. This is a page about the trademarked slogan, so I believe the page should have a capital B. In nearly every use of the phrase; on Fox, and on the text of the Wikipedia article, it has 2 capitals. CaseyPenk 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

i think its a technical limitation, or was when the article was created--77.99.171.94 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the technical limitation was regarding articles with a lower-case first letter. In either case, I actually think CaseyPenk has a valid point -- this article is about the trademarked phrase "Fair and Balanced". If no one objects in the next few days I'll see about moving it to the proper. Comments? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)